JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:A qualitative investigation of the impact of peer to peer online support for
women living with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Version: 1Date:6 August 2013
Reviewer: Jeong Yeob Han
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
One of the major drawbacks of this paper is that it does not utilize any theory or
theorizing – the purpose seems purely descriptive. The front section of the study
would benefit from provision of the overall theoretical framework of the study and
more literature reviews on both online forums and computer-mediated
communication. Some allusion to theory and background research would
significantly enhance the credibility and value of this piece.
The literature review seems to be outdated since much relevant research is
available even in early 2010. This is especially true for the health-related online
support group and its potential benefits. Please expand it and include more
recent literature around the topic discussed in the manuscript.
P. 6. Analysis section. It would be helpful for authors to provide more information
regarding the thematic analysis (how it is conducted, how it is different from
quantitative content analysis, including the advantage and disadvantage etc.)
and also the initial result of an inductive analysis, which eventually leads to your
selection of final themes. That way, readers could see what themes have been
emerged (and not emerged) and also what themes are more (vs. less) popular.
The result section is overall poorly written compared to other section of the
manuscript. I think the major issue is that it is not tied to previous literature even
though all five themes have been well studied and established from past studies.
Another issue is that it focuses too much on describing example texts but the
authors’ interpretation and analysis is minimally conducted.
Minor Essential Revisions:
P. 5. The authors argue that “it was not possible to randomly select which users
the emails would be sent to,” but it can be done easily as long as the authors
have a list of email addresses (for example, simple random sampling). Additional
clarification is needed to justify your approach.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Agreement of Self-Reported Physician Diagnosis of Migraine with
International Classification of Headache Disorders-II Migraine Diagnostic Criteria
in a Cross-sectional Study of Pregnant Women
Version: 1Date:16 September 2013
Reviewer: ferdinando maggioni
Reviewer's report:
Dear Sir,
The article plays considerable interest.
Authors should highlight possible differences between nulliparous and pluripara.
Second should be reported among the possible limitations of the study the fact
that a diagnosis in this period can be misleading since during pregnancy there
may be transient changes in the characters of primitive headaches (see Maggioni
et al. Headache during pregnancy, Cephalalgia 17: 765-69; 1997).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Agreement of Self-Reported Physician Diagnosis of Migraine with
International Classification of Headache Disorders-II Migraine Diagnostic Criteria
in a Cross-sectional Study of Pregnant Women
Version:2Date:1 November 2013
Reviewer: Paola Torelli
Reviewer's report:
no more revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Beliefs and attitudes about breast cancer and screening practices among
Arab Women living in Qatar: A cross sectional study
Version: 1Date:6 August 2013
Reviewer: Mark Lazenby
Reviewer's report:
This is a strong paper that focuses on secondary prevention of breast cancer, an
important aspect of cancer care among Arab women living in West Asia and the
Arabian Peninsula. The findings help to dispel a myth that Arab Muslim women
do not screen for breast cancer because of religious beliefs. Recommendation
from a health care provider, the study shows, is far more important to Arab,
Muslim women than religious beliefs, including that cancer is God's punishment,
cancer fatalism, and modesty. The authors point the way to increasing secondary
prevention of breast cancer among Arab women living in West Asia and the
Arabian Peninsula. This excellent paper--it's well written, it's methods are good,
and it's conclusions compelling--merits publishing.
Level of interest: An exceptional article
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa.
Version: 1Date:2 July 2013
Reviewer: Rogers Ayiko
Reviewer's report:
Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa
Maram Mane¹,², Ane B Fisker3, Henrik Ravn3, Peter Aaby¹,3, Amabelia
Rodrigues¹
Discretionary Revisions
Introduction
1. A review of demographic characteristics, behaviors, beliefs, and health care
practices as determinants of mortality in this section as well as reference to the
current maternal mortality rates (the more obvious indicator) would help tune the
readers of this paper for what they should expect in the later sections.
Minor Essential Revisions
Study site and population
2. Making reference to the proportion of the country’s population that lives in rural
areas (since this is the population of focus) would bolster this section.
Registration and follow up
3. While describing the regions of the country in Para 1, regions in the south are
well stated while those in the north and east are mixed. The authors could
attempt to clarify this by stating exactly which regions are in the East and which
ones are in the north. Regionalization is very important consideration in such
studies.
4. I presume the last paragraph which addresses the main background
information is attempting to pick out the variables that were considered. If this is
so, stating the other variables considered would be helpful. Reasons for not
considering other known determinants of adult female mortality should also be
discussed, especially if not picked up by the HDSS tools.
Data management and analysis
5. I notice differences in the width of age groups used for analysis (some 5,
others 10). The authors may have to explain why this is so or else consider using
classes of the same width.
Results
6. Para 2: The last sentence on the youngest woman included being 12 years is
a bit unclear since the study sought to register women from 10 years. Is it that
none of the 10 or 11 year olds registered died during follow up?
Discussion
7. Para 1: Were the number of deaths from the meningitis epidemic significantly
high so as to contribute considerably to the trends in mortality, even as a partial
attribution?
8. Para 4: The discussion about age and mortality though seemingly obvious
(such as changes in susceptibility to various determinants) needs to be
discussed further in this paragraph.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa.
Version: 1Date:7 July 2013
Reviewer: mesganaw fantahun
Reviewer's report:
Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa
Maram Mane¹,², Ane B Fisker3, Henrik Ravn3, Peter Aaby¹,3, Amabelia
Rodrigues¹
Major Compulsory Revisions
• None
Minor Essential Revisions
• Figures : Axes not labeled
Discretionary Revisions
While the paper can be published because it provides information on an
important area where there is general lack of knowledge, it could have benefited
a lot from further analysis.
1. Causes of WRA mortality. The authors could have attempted to provide results
on gross categories of causes of death (Eg: pregnancy related vs others). This
would have given better idea on what has been going on in terms of achievement
of the MDGs in which the authors seem to show interest. HDSS data often
provide such opportunities. Another approach would have been to compare with
adult male mortality. That would have given better idea of the burden on
women’s health in the study area. This is important because the authors attribute
high mortality during the second period to effects of an epidemic.
2. As the authors rightly mentioned, data from HDSS are usually questionable
about their representativeness of the country or region of study. Could findings
be compared to DHS results if any, although they use different methods and
some may question comparability?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa.
Version: 1Date:12 July 2013
Reviewer: Alain Labrique
Reviewer's report:
The paper is largely a reasonable piece of work - I don't quite agree with, nor
understand the arbitrary selection of "3" periods of mortality without a clear
methodology being ascribed. It would also be helpful to understand how robust
the data collection was during a period of war, when often these systems are
destabilized.
Reviewer's report
Title:Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa - a cohort study.
Version: 2Date:3 October 2013
Reviewer: mesganaw fantahun Afework
Reviewer's report:
Authors have tried to accommodate most comments which were minor or
discretionary.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa - a cohort study.
Version: 2Date:7 October 2013
Reviewer: Alain Labrique
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the comments posed by previous reviews and the
manuscript is now significantly improved.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Trends and determinants of mortality in women of reproductive age in rural
Guinea-Bissau, West Africa - a cohort study.
Version: 2Date:8 October 2013
Reviewer: Rogers Ayiko
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Non
Minor Essential Revisions
1. I find the first statement in the conclusion section of the abstract “for at least a
decade, mortality in WRA did not decline” a bit confusing. It does not rhyme with
that in the conclusion section of the main body of the paper which talks of 12
years! You may need to refine this snap shot conclusion further taking into
account statements in the results section of the abstract that between 1996 and
2000 mortality was stable, followed by increase between 2001 and 2003 and
increased between 2004 and 2007, as well as the facts presented in the
conclusion section of the main body of the write up.
Discretionary Revisions
None
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The biology of malignant breast tumors has an impact on the presentation
in ultrasound: An analysis of 315 cases
Version: 1Date:1 August 2013
Reviewer: Min-Ying Su
Reviewer's report:
see attached file
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The biology of malignant breast tumors has an impact on the presentation
in ultrasound: An analysis of 315 cases
Version: 1Date:4 August 2013
Reviewer: Yeun-Chung Chang
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors focused on the relationship of ultrasound morphology with the
biological features (tumor type, tumor grade, HER2, hormone receptors, tumor
size, node, etc). The manuscript is well written and constructed.
2. Using BI-RADS criteria is useful to standardize the morphology of each breast
tumor. The authors presented the difference of ultrasound features between
different biological markers. The data might be helpful in the understanding the
relationship between morphology and biology of different subtype breast cancers.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:The biology of malignant breast tumors has an impact on the presentation
in ultrasound: An analysis of 315 cases
Version: 1Date:6 August 2013
Reviewer: ALI SEVER
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed your paper, which is well written with clear English and mostly easy to
understand. It is obvious that you have spent a lot of time assessing several
sonographic features and producing many stats which at times became
exhausting to follow. Number of studied cases are large enough (n=315) to argue
healthy conclusions. The availability of histology in 100% is very persuasive.
As mentioned in the discussion section the main limitation of this study is that the
assessments occurred in retrospect on the hand of previously taken images
while we all know that ultrasound is a real-time examination. Authors’ blindness
to final tumor demographics was fine which might have minimized errors.
I have a few comments:
1. In the methods section, you wrote that the image database was prospectively
analyzed. This is a retrospective analysis.
2. You only describe ductal and lobular carcinoma. Have you excluded other
specific groups such as mucinous, medullary or papillary cancers, or you didn't
have any?
3. Posterior enhancement is a feature which sometimes causes confusion.
Anechoic lesions such as simple cysts produce back enhancement as the
sonographic beam passes through with no deterioration. Whereas in vast
majority of solid lesions, beam deterioration –to some degree-occurs. It is also
my experience that in high grade tumors this happens less hence shadowing is
less encountered. However I am not sure if enhancement you describe is as
common. Can you please make sure that you don’t use posterior enhancement
and “no posterior acoustic features” in the same concept? None of the images
you provided showed posterior enhancement.
4. I presume you have not studied vascularity, which is also a BI-RADS criteria.
You may perhaps mention that.
The table looks very crowded and may be difficult to follow for readers. I am not
sure if you can cluster some. Patient age is studied in three columns and grading
in two. I wonder if such detail is necessary and I hope the table can be printed
adequately, not to force readers to use magnify glass.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:The biology of malignant breast tumors has an impact on the presentation
in ultrasound: An analysis of 315 cases
Version:3Date:23 October 2013
Reviewer: Tibor Tot
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been substantially improved and it is now acceptable for
publication. Two suggestions only:
1. Replace the term "crucial consequences" with "serious consequences" in the
conclusions of the abstract.
2. At the end of the paper, the Conclusions: Modify the statement regarding the
round/oval shape of the tumors. As it is clearly demonstrated in the additional file
I attached to this review, the round/oval shape is not an exclusive feature of the
small tumors in young patients.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:The biology of malignant breast tumors has an impact on the presentation
in ultrasound: An analysis of 315 cases
Version:3Date:24 October 2013
Reviewer: Min-Ying Su
Reviewer's report:
none
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Excess weight and abdominal obesity in postmenopausal Brazilian women:
a population-based study
Version: 2Date:6 May 2013
Reviewer: Placido Llaneza
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) In the menopausal world, the present tendency is to change the term
“Hormonal Replacement Therapy” for “Menopausal Hormonal Therapy” or only
“Hormonal Therapy”, so I would suggest to changing that in text.
2) In my opinion it is redundant to show the same data in the table and in the
text. That is happening in table 1 and figure 1
3)I am not an English native speaker but I found several spelling mistakes in the
text.
Discretionary Revisions:
1) In the page 8, first paragraph the authors are using an uncommon criteria for
obesity classification, which could make difficult to explain the result. I would
suggest to use the last WHO definition for overweight and obesity, which is
widely accepted (New WHO criteria:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/)
2) Why the authors did not consider the different HT administration route? In my
opinion, the authors had to refer this limitation in that section.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Excess weight and abdominal obesity in postmenopausal Brazilian women:
a population-based study
Version: 2Date:8 May 2013
Reviewer: Benoit Arsenault
Reviewer's report:
This paper sought to establish the prevalence of obesity and abdominal obesity
among postmenopausal women living in Brazilian urban areas and to identify the
main the main determinants f obesity and abdominal obesity. It was shown that
the prevalence of obesity was 72.6% of women were overweight/obese
according to BMI and that 81.4% had a waist circumference equal or above 80
cm. Having three or more children and not using hormone replacement therapy
(HRT) were among the best predictor of excess body weight in this population
sample. Overall, the conclusions are supported by the results, which seem to
come from an adequate methodology. The methods are well described.
The most important limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature of the
survey. Therefore, whether or not the identified risk factors actually cause obesity
is not certain. Also whether or not these risk factors are associated with obesity
independently of one another is not established. For instance, both unpaid
women and those not using HRT are more prone to obesity. But do women not
using HRT do so because they have no revenue? The interaction among such
risk factors should be presented. Similarly, does the relationship between having
many children and risk of obesity could be explained by the fact that women with
children exercise less?
Also given that the study is cross-sectional, the authors should not use the term
incidence, which refers to studies with a prospective design. Similarly, the
authors should not mention weight gain in the conclusion and remain with
obesity.
The abdominal obesity threshold of 80 cm appears to be lower than what is
suggested in the US (88 cm). Can the authors justify that?
The authors should better described what parameters were adjusted for in the
table 4.
It seems odd to suggest at the beginning of the discussion that this is the first
investigation of its kind performed in Brazil and then later mention a study
confirming there results in a study of Sao Paulo (reference 10).
Did the authors have information on parental history of obesity?
The design of figure 1 is odd. It could be transformed into a more informative
table.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Excess weight and abdominal obesity in postmenopausal Brazilian women:
a population-based study
Version: 3Date:7 August 2013
Reviewer: Placido Llaneza
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion, the manuscript has been greatly improved by these revisions and
could be considered for publishing in BMC Women´s Health.
Regards
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Excess weight and abdominal obesity in postmenopausal Brazilian women:
a population-based study
Version: 3Date:21 August 2013
Reviewer: Imke Janssen
Reviewer's report:
The authors have been very responsive to the first round of reviews. I have no
major compulsory revisions to request.
I appreciate that the authors are trying to find a term describing the
overweight/obese classes in one word.
However, in my opinion, "nutritional status" does not quite capture it.
Would the authors consider "weight class"?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.