JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Female social and sexual interest across the menstrual cycle: the roles of
pain, sleep and hormones
Version: 3Date:18 November 2009
Reviewer: Cesare Battaglia
Reviewer's report:
In the present paper 'Female social and sexual interest across the menstrual
cycle: the roles of pain, sleep and hormones' by CJ Guillermo et al, the Authors
investigated the relationship between hormonal variations and physical and
behavioural patterns in young healthy women.
The study is interesting, is well written and presents an adequate scientific and
clinical soundness. I suggest its acceptance after that few minor observations
have been meeting:
1. The abstract is not adequately informative
2. It would be interesting to know the social and cultural status of the studied
subjects.
3. Please describe the type of OC they used. Significant differences in term of
physical discomfort and socio-sexual behaviour are related with the used
progestin.
4. The discussion section is too long.
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:Female social and sexual interest across the menstrual cycle: the roles of
pain, sleep and hormones
Version: 3Date:13 December 2009
Reviewer: Andrea Salonia
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript reports data from a study aimed at investigating the role of
hormonal fluctuations toward self-reported physical discomfort, sleep, exercise
and socio-sexual interest throughout the menstrual cycle in young,
healthy-women either taking or not taking oral contraceptives.
Major comments
1) Introduction
a) Hormonal fluctuation throughout the menstrual cycle. Present Reviewer would
suggest also quoting: Salonia A, et al. Horm Behav 2005;47:164-9; Salonia A, et
al. J Sex Med 2008;5:854-63; Battaglia C, et al. J Sex Med 2008;5:2853-61.
2) Materials & Methods.
a) Entry criteria: normally cycling women. How many cycles have been
considered for defining women as normally cycling?
b) Was women’s BMI considered during the recruitment phase?
c) Did the Authors apply any comorbidity index to establish a healthy condition
prior to the recruitment phase? If not, this has to be commented. Likewise, did
they exclude any DSM-IV axis I disorder?
d) Did the Authors consider sexual functioning as entry criteria? In this context,
did they only enroll women with a normal sexual function? If so, which
psychometric tool has been used to address this issue? Which cut-off for
normality was chosen?
e) Were all the women enrolled heterosexual? If not, this must be commented in
the Discussion section of the manuscript.
f) It is not completely clear to the current Reviewer whether the assessment for
the different phases of the menstrual cycle was done during the very same cycle
or, in contrast, data were collected from different cycles. This has to be
commented into the Discussion section of the manuscript.
3) Discussion.
a) Discrepancies between subjective and objective (namely, genital) sexual
interest. Present Reviewer would suggest also quoting and commenting
Suschinsky KD, et al. Arch Sex Behav 2009;38:559-73, and the other manuscript
from Meredith’s group.
b) Androgens and women’s sexuality. Present Reviewer would suggest also
quoting Salonia A, et al. J Sex Med 2008;5:854-63.
c) Lack of fluctuations in OC-treated women. Present Reviewer would suggest
also quoting Salonia A, et al. Horm Behav 2005;47:164-9;;
d) Limitations. The Authors comment on the lack of older women as a potential
limitation of the current study. The current Reviewer feels that this is – in contrast
– a strength of the study which should be better highlighted, in order to specify
what actually happens in normally cycling women concerning sexual functioning.
However, since the study completely lacks validated psychometric tools
dedicated to the real assessment of sexual functioning, the Authors have to
comment on the eventual modest contribution of their current results to the field.
4) References.
a) See previous comments throughout this revision.
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:Female social and sexual interest across the menstrual cycle: the roles of
pain, sleep and hormones
Version: 6Date:3 March 2010
Reviewer: Andrea Salonia
Reviewer's report:
This revised version of the manuscript keep reporting data from a study aimed at
investigating the role of hormonal fluctuations toward self-reported physical
discomfort, sleep, exercise and socio-sexual interest throughout the menstrual
cycle in young, healthy-women either taking or not taking oral contraceptives.
Minor comments
1) Materials & Methods.
a) Current Reviewer would agree with the reply of the Authors concerning the
concept of not elongating the Discussion section of the whole manuscript. Still,
highlighting sexual preferences (heterosexual vs. homosexual) of included
participants would be of major importance.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:'A hidden disorder until the pieces fall into place' - a qualitative study of
vaginal prolapse
Version: 1Date:23 March 2010
Reviewer: Sushma Srikrishna
Reviewer's report:
1.The question posed by the authors is well defined
2.The methods are appropriate appropriate and well described, however, the
major omission appears to be lack of written informed consent, which is an
intergral part of any study.
3.The sample size is very small, at only 14 and this is a source of potential bias
and limitation to conclusions drawn.
4. The manuscript does not adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and
data deposition in so far as lack of written informed consent. Please clarify.
5. The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported
by the data.
6. The limitations of the work, particularly in terms of small sample size and the
revision to the interview guide made mid study are not clearly explained
7.The authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both
published and unpublished
8.The title and abstract accurately conveys what has been found
9.The writing is acceptable
•Major Compulsory Revisions required:
Clarify consent procedure
Acknowledge limitations in terms of small sample size and revisions to interview
guide mid study
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:'A hidden disorder until the pieces fall into place' - a qualitative study of
vaginal prolapse
Version: 1Date:15 April 2010
Reviewer: John E Jelovsek
Reviewer's report:
1. The title is confusing. I would suggest the title be more specific to the content
of the manuscript. Maybe a title such as, “A qualitative study of health care
seeking behavior among women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.”
2. The term “process of comprehension and action” although explained in the text
is confusing and I am not sure whether using it contributes to additional
understanding. I would consider removing it altogether.
3. For the inclusion criteria on page 5, please clarify how symptomatic women
were determined to be symptomatic.
4. On page 5, please explain the term purposive sampling for the readers.
5. Please state whether patients underwent informed consent for the study?
6. Please clarify whether saturation was or was not achieved rather than
“probably achieved” and what method and/or criteria was used to determine this?
7. Please describe the background, training, and preconceptions of the
investigators? Since the investigators are being relied on for analysis of the data,
we must know their training and biases. Knowing these characteristics, we can
use them to evaluate their conclusions.
8. Following on 7, did the researchers' original preconceptions change or are
they surprised by the study results as they emerged?
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
Reviewer's report
Title:'A hidden disorder until the pieces fall into place' - a qualitative study of
vaginal prolapse
Version: 2Date:29 April 2010
Reviewer: Sushma Srikrishna
Reviewer's report:
No further revisions required
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 have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Glucose Intolerance and Gestational Diabetes Risk in Relation to Sleep
Duration and Snoring During Pregnancy: A Pilot Study
Version: 1Date:24 February 2010
Reviewer: Audrey Saftlas
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. A central weakness of the study is its failure to administer validated
self-administered sleep instruments to assess sleep disturbances. The question
on snoring is particularly vague with categorized responses that lack context or
points of reference. What does snoring “all of the time” mean as opposed to
snoring “some of the time” or “a little of the time”? Does refer to snoring all night
long or for some period on every night? How can women know the answer to this
question if unless they are told they snore? What is the authors’ rationale to
define non-snorers as those who snore some of the time or a little of the time?
Given the lack of rigor with which this habit was assessed, I recommend limiting
the paper to the data on self-reported average number of hours of sleep.
2. What is the rationale for grouping subject reporting 5-8 hours of sleep per
average night? This is a large group of subjects with a wide range of sleeping
hours. A priori, is 5-6 hours of sleep qualitatively different from 7-8 hours of
sleep?
3. Is the current analysis that of a pilot study designed to address this research
question or a secondary data analysis of a cohort study designed to address
other research questions? This should be specified in the methods.
4. What mechanisms might explain the association of GDM with 10 and more
hours of sleep?
5. Data were also collected on sleep duration prior to conception: how do these
data compare with the pregnancy data on sleep duration and risk of GDM?
6. Did the authors consider gestational age at interview as a potentially
confounding variable?
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:Glucose Intolerance and Gestational Diabetes Risk in Relation to Sleep
Duration and Snoring During Pregnancy: A Pilot Study
Version: 2Date:2 April 2010
Reviewer: Edwina Yeung
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my comments sufficiently.
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:Postmenopausal hormones and sleep quality in the elderly: a population
based study
Version: 1Date:24 August 2009
Reviewer: Nathaniel Marshall
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Y
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Y
3. Are the data sound? Y
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Y
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Y
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Y
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? See below
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Y
9. Is the writing acceptable? Y
This is an excellent study, thoroughly analysed and appropriately interpreted.
I have only two minor suggestions with regard to interpretation that the authors
may want to incorporate?
- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Do the authors want to comment on the potential confounding effects of sleep
apnea and the findings of Bixler et al AJRCCM 2001, Young et al 2003, Shahar
et al AJRCCM 2003 and perhaps Woodward &Freedman SLEEP 1994? The last
reference may not be relevant for hot flashes as you state in the discussion.
However, the possibility of an HT effect on sleep apnea coupled with the
potential problems of interpreting actigraphy when substantial OSA is present
(Wang et al J Clin Sleep Med 2008) might be worth a mention?
2. One of the key issues that waas raised by the differences between the clinical
cohorts and the clinical trials of HRT was that of uncontrolled confounding by
socioeconomic status. When I read that former use of HRT was associated with
better sleep this was the first thing I thought of. HRT is associated with higher
SES and higher SES people have better sleep and SES is not completely
captured by the available education and race measures (particularly for women
of this generation education may not have been a measure of SES). Do you want
to briefly discuss this potential reason for your findings in the paper?
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:A Multicentre Matched Case Control Study of Risk Factors for
Preeclampsia in Nulliparous and Parous Women in Pakistan
Version: 1Date:29 January 2010
Reviewer: Jukka Uotila
Reviewer's report:
The authors compared risk factors for preeclampsia in 131 PE cases and 262
matched controls in Pakistan. After logistic regression analysis, gestational
diabetes, pregestational diabetes, family history of hypertension and perceived
stress remained as significant risk factors.
The results are not surprising and are in accordance with earlier studies.
Perceived stress somewhat increased the risk of PE (OR 1.32). In the table there
must be a false percentage counted (6.2%)?? The clinical significance of this
minor risk factor may be limited.
Although the message of the study was trivial and perhaps not very interesting
generally, the study in itself appeared logical, the statistical performance was
adequate and conclusions sound. In the statistical table it is unnecessary to
count the results for both "yes" and "no".
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:A Multicentre Matched Case Control Study of Risk Factors for
Preeclampsia in Healthy Women in Pakistan
Version: 2Date:12 March 2010
Reviewer: Chunfang Qiu
Reviewer's report:
Thanks the authors for responding to all the comments from the reviewer nicely.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:"I will not let my HIV status stand in the way." Decisions on motherhood
among women on ART in a slum in Kenya- a qualitative study.
Version: 1Date:12 January 2010
Reviewer: Fred Nuwaha
Reviewer's report:
1. An interesting article to understand why women who are HIV+ may become
pregnant.
The following suggestions may improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. A lot of emphasis is put on CD4 count and pregnancy. It is probably better that
the manuscript remains general regarding HIV status rather than categorizing
women's intentions according to CD4 counts. What is central is that women who
know their HIV status still get pregnant and plan pregnancies and that this
decision making is not necessarily in consonance with medical/health advice.
2. Did all women who were included in the study had intentional pregnancies.
What proportion of pregnancies among HIV+ are intentional? In the background it
may be important to give information about intentional/unintentional pregnancies.
This issue may also be important in the discussion and on implications for
policy/practice.
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:"I will not let my HIV status stand in the way." Decisions on motherhood
among women on ART in a slum in Kenya- a qualitative study.
Version: 2Date:16 March 2010
Reviewer: Fred Nuwaha
Reviewer's report:
All previous concerns/comments have been addressed.
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:Quantitative ultrasound measurements and association with physical
activity and dietary calcium intake
Version: 1Date:12 November 2009
Reviewer: José Luis NEYRO
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
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:
The figure 3 is mentioned in page 7; also the figure 4 is mentioned in page 8 but
these figures 3 and 4 are not shown in the manuscript. Only the figures 1 and 2
and the tebles 1, 2 and 3 are shown.
The manuscrpit text allows to understand the sense of these figures but they are
not present there.
I conclude, as reviewer, that this is a mistake by the authors and it should be
modified.
Sincerelly yours
J.L. Neyro
Reviewer's report
Title:Quantitative ultrasound measurements and association with physical
activity and dietary calcium intake
Version: 1Date:26 November 2009
Reviewer: Ana P Barbosa
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The author must respond to these before a decision on publication can be
reached. For example, additional necessary experiments or controls, statistical
mistakes, errors in interpretation.
1-The authors do not define what is and how they do calculate the quantitative
ultrasound (QUS) of the heel T-score
2-I think it was important to have the T-score of the greek population (I do not
know if the authors have it) and compare the results with it and include that in the
discussion.
3-The height and the dimensions of the foot can influence the results and that
should be included in the discussion.
4-I think the authors must not compare DXA and QUS because they are totally
different methods and the discussion should include only the QUS.
- Minor Essential Revisions
The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures,
the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.
I think the english of the paper must have some corrections, although I have
done some, it should be revised in terms of language.
Reviewer's report
Title:Are treatments for cervical precancerous lesions in less-developed
countries safe enough to promote scaling-up of cervical screening programs? A
systematic review
Version: 1Date:4 January 2010
Reviewer: Joseph Jordan
Reviewer's report:
Because both Cryocautery and LEEP are being offered with increasing frequency
in under-resourced countries, it is useful to have an analysis of the complication
rates of these 2 procedures. This article does that. (The efficacy of these 2
pocedures in preventing cervical cancer is another issue and is outwith the remit
of this study).
I would be happy to recommend this article for publication as being important to
those with closely related research interests but first would ask for the following
minor revisions.
1 - Bleeding. In the paragraph headed BLEEDING the authors quote 2 reports
which mention that following LEEP, hysterectomy had been required in 2-3% of
women. This seems high. Would the authors state the reason for the
hysterectomy. I presume that it was because of bleeding but could this be
clarified.
2 - Cervical stenosis. In the paragraph headed CERVICAL STENOSIS AND
REPRODUCTIVE OUTCOMES would the authors define twhat they mean by
cervical stenosis? Cervical stsnosis can either be partial or complete. It is
important to clarify this, because complete stenosis potentially is very serious: in
the pre menopausal woman, because it will result in haematometra, and in the
post menopausal woman it will result in any uterine bleeding, especially that due
to endometrial cancer, remaining undetected!
3 - In the section headed LEEP SAFETY, the authors use the term
ASYMPTOMATIC CERVICAL STENOSIS. Can asymptomatic cervical stenosis
be defined? How can they be sure that the stenosis is not complete, and therefoe
likely to cause problems in the future - see 2 above.
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 daclare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Are treatments for cervical precancerous lesions in less-developed
countries safe enough to promote scaling-up of cervical screening programs? A
systematic review
Version: 1Date:18 January 2010
Reviewer: Hugo De Vuyst
Reviewer's report:
This timely systematic review about safety of current treatments of cervical
pre-cancerous lesions in limited-resource countries is very clearly written with
careful use of the appropriate terminology.
Minor essential revisions:
- The mention of hysterectomy in 2-3 % of women after LEEP in 2 studies. This
percentage is difficult to understand. Why were these hysterectomies performed?
Are these hysterectomies to be considered as adverse events of LEEP
treatment, or were they rather performed to treat persistent/recurrent lesion? In
the former case it deserves more attention as a serious safety concern, in the
latter case it should not be considered as a safety issue.
- Table 4: General: besides n (number of reporting studies), it would also be
informative to mention the number of women that were included in those studies.
Also check the range of offensive vaginal discharge in cryotherapy.
Few discretionary revisions:
- What was your definition of a low- or middle-income country? Please specify in
the methods section.
- Please define the term “secondary pain”.
- Conclusions: please specify what you include in “non-surgical therapies for
CIN”.
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.