JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of lymphedema in women under treatment for breast cancer in
a referral center in southeastern brazil
Version: 3Date:13 September 2012
Reviewer: Electra Paskett
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions -
This revised application has addressed many of the comments from the prior
submission. I have two remaining comments.
1. Page 5 - Line 13 - "AWS" has not been defined as yet in the manuscript.
2. Page 6 - Time since diagnosis is an interesting variable. It makes perfect
sense to include time since diagnosis, but at the same time, the longer time since
diagnosis, the greater the chance for lymphedema to develop. Thus, time since
diagnosis should be a confounder and adjusted for in the analysis, not examined
as a predictor variable, especially in light of the cross-sectional design of the
study.
3. Page 7 - The signs and symptoms are a result of lymphedema, not a predictor.
Thus, caution needs to be taken when making interpretations about these
findings.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of lymphedema in women under treatment for breast cancer in
a referral center in southeastern brazil
Version: 4Date:25 October 2012
Reviewer: Aase S, A Sagen
Reviewer's report:
Title: Prevalence of lymphedema in women under treatment for breast cancer in
a referral center in southeastern Brazil
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The previous revised version addressed the comments satisfactory.
2. Please check the English writing; the hypothesis is unclear. And page 6;
dominant harm. Arm?
No further comments
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Unmarried women's ways of facing single motherhood in Sri Lanka - A
qualitative interview study
Version: 1Date:20 November 2012
Reviewer: ephrat huss
Reviewer's report:
No major compulsory revisions
minor essential revsions- the voices of the women are very few and slight in the
data presentation, i would be happy to see more quotes, -
I would also like to see more conceptual frameworks for the subject quoted in the
literatur survey
The paper is clear and well written, it has a good conceptual framework
the literatur esurvey is well written
i reccomend accepting the paper
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Unmarried women's ways of facing single motherhood in Sri Lanka - A
qualitative interview study
Version: 1Date:16 January 2013
Reviewer: Dorit Segal-Engelchin
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents findings from a qualitative study, which investigates
how unmarried women facing single motherhood in Sri Lanka cope with the
challenges they encounter. Overall, this is a valuable manuscript that addresses
an important and under-studied area. The study's goals are clearly stated and the
methods used to address its goals are appropriate. However, I have several
comments, listed below.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors write that premarital sex appears to be increasing in Sri Lanka.
Are there any data to support this statement? Is this trend evident across all
socioeconomic groups in Sri Lanka?
2. On page 4 the authors note that participants were recruited from the lower
levels of the socio-economic strata. Yet, on page 13 they note that participants
were recruited from different backgrounds. The authors need to clarify this issue.
The authors should also outline the steps taken to recruit participants from
different age groups, as mentioned on page 13.
3. The authors state that they asked the participants about the support they
received from their partner. However, this data was not reported in the findings.
Also, it would be interesting to know more about participants' relationship with
their partner/ex-partner.
4. It seems that the women who had become pregnant after consensual sex and
the women who had been raped were studied as a unitary group. It would be
valuable to address the distinctive challenges and coping experiences of the two
groups.
5. The authors do not adequately address the limitations of their study.
Discretionary Revisions
1. I would suggest the authors to provide background information on the current
societal attitudes toward other types of single motherhood in Sri Lank. For
example, is single motherhood as a result of divorce also considered shameful in
Sri Lanka?
2. The authors may want to consider changing the title of the manuscript.
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:Unmarried women's ways of facing single motherhood in Sri Lanka - A
qualitative interview study
Version: 2Date:31 January 2013
Reviewer: Dorit Segal-Engelchin
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of my previous comments in a satisfactory
manner. I now find their manuscript suitable for publication.
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:Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast
pathology: Practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and
Agreement Studies (GRRAS)
Version: 2Date:7 November 2012
Reviewer: Anna Sapino
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is a good example for the development of diagnostic test sets to
assess agreement in breast pathology. I think it can be used by others as a
model for this type of studies. I just suggest to spell out HIPAA
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast
pathology: Practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and
Agreement Studies (GRRAS)
Version: 3Date:14 January 2013
Reviewer: antonio rizzo
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript can be a reasonable example for the development of diagnostic
test sets to assess agreement in breast pathology.
I completely agree with authors response.
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:Knowledge, perception, access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and
prevention of mother-to-child-transmission (PMTCT) among HIV positive women
in the Ashanti Region, Ghana: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date:30 October 2012
Reviewer: Maria Lahuerta
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions are needed to better understand the study population and the
methodology. The authors present results that are not sustained by the numbers
in the tables (not significant) and it's hard to see where the results of the
qualitative study are presented. A section highlighting the limitations in the
discussion section is also needed. See full list of comments in the document
attached
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Knowledge, perception, access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and
prevention of mother-to-child-transmission (PMTCT) among HIV positive women
in the Ashanti Region, Ghana: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date:2 November 2012
Reviewer: Silvia Nozza
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
Methods: 206 women were randomly selected. How many women came in the
centres? What were selection criteria?
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Knowledge, perception, access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and
prevention of mother-to-child-transmission (PMTCT) among HIV positive women
in the Ashanti Region, Ghana: A cross-sectional study
Version: 2Date:15 January 2013
Reviewer: Maria Lahuerta
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all the comments in the previous revision. I advise
to accept without further 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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Care-seeking behavior of Japanese gynecological cancer survivors
suffering from adverse effects
Version: 1Date:18 February 2012
Reviewer: Antonio Maccio'
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
-----------------
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript is methodologically very scarce. The authros did not describe the
methods of the research, the planned sample size, the questionnaire used to
assess the incidence and impact of symptoms, how they contected the patients,
how the interview was structured, etc.....
Moreover, the sample size seems to scarce and heterogneous to lead to
significant conclusion. Therefore, in my opinion the conclusions are not
supported by a well designed study.
- Minor Essential Revisions
The patient population studied, patient characteristic as well as results should be
reported clearly, possibly through a table or a graphic. The final flow chart is not
clear and wrong.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Care-seeking behavior of Japanese gynecological cancer survivors
suffering from adverse effects
Version: 1Date:20 February 2012
Reviewer: sarah P blagden
Reviewer's report:
minor essential revisions:
A major limitation the authors have not acknowledged is whether the patients
within the focus groups are more likely to have unresolved survivorship concerns,
unlike those who have “put their cancers behind them” and moved on and are
therefore not part of a focus group. The very fact that these patients volunteer to
describe their after-care up to 10 years after their treatment implies they have
had memorably unsatisfactory episodes. This should be acknowledged by the
authors, alongside the acknowledgement that patients may not be accurately
recalling significant events (and their outcomes) from the past.
Another point is that, although the patients completed treatment between 1 and
10 years previously, there is no indication as to where within that time-frame the
participants of the focus groups sit. Also, the length of time between the
recognition of a symptom (such as neuropathy) and the development of “care
seeking behaviours” is unclear. Finally, have doctors’ improved in their ability to
recognize these symptoms in recent years? This information would strengthen
the manuscript and give readers an insight into the current relevance of these
attitudes.
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:Care-seeking behavior of Japanese gynecological cancer survivors
suffering from adverse effects
Version: 2Date:28 May 2012
Reviewer: sarah P blagden
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed the points raised previously. They have
highlighted and justified the qualitative nature of this work and the potential
biases associated. I feel it is now suitable for publication.
Discretionary Revisions
As a minor amendment before re-submission and considering the readership is
international, I would like the authors to clarify in the "Background" section what
comprises their standard follow-up. How often are the patients seen once they
complete treatment, by whom and for how long? What is the difference between
"regular post treatment follow-up" and the "specialty clinic visits" they mention.
The authors write that Japan has a "universal insurance system that allows
patients with various clinical opportunities" . I find this sentence meaningless.
Could they please clarify.
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:Vaginal douching a traditional habit and a cause of reproductive health
hazards: a cross sectional study
Version: 1Date:28 October 2012
Reviewer: Nülüfer Erbil
Reviewer's report:
REVIEWER'S REPORT
Title: Vaginal douching a traditional habit and a cause of reproductive health
hazards: cross sectional study
The findings from this study have potential to make a contribution to knowledge
about women and health. Minor essential revisions must be made. After revision,
re-read the paper. Revisions were specified following.
Page 1
Suggested revised title: Vaginal douching among women with vulvo-vaginitis and
reproductive health hazards
Omar M. “Shaaban” first author's surname must start with a capital letter.
“Key wards” misspelling, should be corrected as key words.
Introduction :
Page 2, line 17- when the first to be used PID must be the long spelling, the
abbreviation (PID) be indicated in parentheses
Only women with vulvo-vaginitis were selected to sampling of this study.
Objectives and the title of this study should be revised according to this
statement. Also, aim of abstract should be revised.
Page 3, line 10- “of” was repeated two times, one of them must deleted
When parentheses are used, a space should be left between the parentheses
with the word and in the article should be considered.
Material and methods:
In material and method section must be specified the number of women admitted
to the hospital between the dates of study, the number of women who do not
agree to participate in the study and the number of women taken in sampling of
the study.
Results:
Page 5, line 20- when the first to be used PTL must be the long spelling, the
abbreviation (PTL) be indicated in parentheses.
Page 5, line 22-after “trichomanis vaginalis” , a comma should be.
Discussion:
The result of Egypt studies are lack. Results about vaginal douching and
reproductive health hazards of women from Egypt should be used in the
discussion .Thus, part of the discussion will become the richer.
Page 6- In the last line of the first paragraph was written twice “%”, one of them
the deleted.
Page 7, line1- What is the RCT? Randomized controlled trial ? When the first to
be used RCT must be the long spelling, the abbreviation (RCT) be indicated in
parentheses.
Page 7, line 3- PID should be written instead of pelvic inflammatory disease.
Page 7, line 12- What is the CDC? When the first to be used CDC must be the
long spelling, the abbreviation (CDC) be indicated in parentheses.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:Vaginal douching a traditional habit and a cause of reproductive health
hazards: a cross sectional study
Version: 1Date:6 January 2013
Reviewer: Ali Irfan Guzel
Reviewer's report:
This is a common problem in middle east countries specially women who are
muslim. After some corrections this manuscript can be accepted for publication.
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: 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:Vaginal douching by women with vulvo-vaginitis and relation to
reproductive health hazards
Version: 2Date:14 March 2013
Reviewer: N&uuml;l&uuml;fer Erbil
Reviewer's report:
The data is useful.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Vaginal douching by women with vulvo-vaginitis and relation to
reproductive health hazards
Version: 2Date:11 April 2013
Reviewer: Ali Irfan Guzel
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript can be accepted for publication
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in patterns of high-risk human papillomavirus infection between
urban and rural low-resource settings: cross-sectional findings from Mali
Version: 2Date:8 November 2012
Reviewer: Julia Gage
Reviewer's report:
Authors are commended for undertaking and successfully conducting such
difficult field work with both rural and urban populations.
The research question of age-specific prevalence of carcinogenic HPV is
important because unique trends have been observed in various locations in
Africa. While typically, the prevalence of HPV is highest in young women, during
the first years after starting sexual activity and then declines with age. This study
shows a fairly constant prevalence trend across ages through age 54. This is an
important finding.
Minor essential revisions
1. The authors should show the prevalence of HR HPV infection by age group for
rural and urban cohorts - perhaps two overlapping prevalence curves by age.
This is by far the most important novel finding of their research.
2. Can the authors hypothesize whether the rural/urban populations are at risk of
HIV infection? How about other immune-compromising comorbidities such as
malaria infection?
3. This analysis merges findings from two separate studies. The urban
component was a population-based age-stratified sampling of women while the
rural study involved recruiting women through word-of-mouth. Therefore, findings
form the rural study are less extrapolative. I would caution the findings that rural
women had twice the prevalence as urban women since women in the rural
cohort self-selected into the study.
4. Although the mean ages between rural and urban women were similar, the
age distributions were quite different. While 30% of rural women were between
35-44, only 18% were of the same age group in the urban cohort. Can the
authors comment on this difference?
Discretionary Revision:
The specimens from rural women were tested with 3 HPV assays vs. the urban
specimens which had just 1. Is it possible to indicate how many more HPV+
women were detected by PCR and Linear Array?
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:Differences in patterns of high-risk human papillomavirus infection between
urban and rural low-resource settings: cross-sectional findings from Mali
Version: 2Date:9 November 2012
Reviewer: Kate Soldan
Reviewer's report:
This paper aims to describe differences in HR HPV prevalence and risk factors
between an urban and a rural sample, in Mali.
Major:
1. There are differences in the methods used between the samples that may be
having substantial effects on the findings. Probably of most importance is the
different testing systems used for the urban and the rural samples. No data are
shown to evaluate the potential importance of this difference and I disagree with
the view that the testing approaches were “meaningfully equivalent”. The
Amplicor and LA assay should be expected to be more sensitive that HCII.
Indeed, the abstract of the reference cited in support of equivalence (Gage et al,
2011) actually states ”…fewer women tested positive by HC2 than by LA or
Amplicor (P < 0.01 for all comparisons)...”.
The higher prevalence in the Amplicor and LA tested group of women may
therefore be partly or wholly due to the different testing approach. Unfortunately,
this undermines the rest of the analysis and interpretation.
2. In addition, the participant recruitment was quite different which may have led
to unknown participation biases causing differences in HR HPV prevalence. The
similarity in measured vaiables is insufficient basis for the claim "prevalence
disparity must reflect a real underlying phenomenon."
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in patterns of high-risk human papillomavirus infection between
urban and rural low-resource settings: cross-sectional findings from Mali
Version: 3Date:30 December 2012
Reviewer: Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Reviewer's report:
the paper has been improved. All the main points are now resolved.
I only have a doubt about the multivariate model: two stratified model (rural and
urban) could be informative for excluding some trivial confounding.
This a minor point.
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:Differences in patterns of high-risk human papillomavirus infection between
urban and rural low-resource settings: cross-sectional findings from Mali
Version: 3Date:4 January 2013
Reviewer: Julia Gage
Reviewer's report:
All revisions have been made to my satisfaction.
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.