JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Excess weight and abdominal obesity in postmenopausal Brazilian women:
a population-based study
Version: 3Date:29 August 2013
Reviewer: Benoit Arsenault
Reviewer's report:
No further comments.
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:Measuring the nature and duration of symptoms of cervical cancer in
young women: developing an interview-based approach
Version: 1Date:5 July 2013
Reviewer: Viola Verhoef
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Abstract:
p3/line 2: I don't think you can call the proportion significant, because no
statistically significant difference are shown in the results section.
Introduction:
p5/alinea 3 'The special changes...circumstances'
I don't think this alinea is appropriate at this location (i.e. written after the aim of
this study). Suggestion is to replace it to another part of the introduction or in
discussion.
p7/al2/line8: Add 'of' between 'to identify reproducibility... the key'.
Analysis:
p10/lfinal alinea: Is it possible to give some p-values in the results sections?
Discussion:
p16/al3: For me it is a bit odd to end the discussion with an example, is it
possible to move this example to somewhere else in the Discussion or to add a
few sentences after this example, before starting with the Conclusion.
Figure 1:
I think there is too much text in Figure 1.
Is it possible to explain 'Initial symptom'/'Trigger Symptom'/'1st attendance ' just
one time (i.e. in a legend under the figure), because at this moment in most of
the boxes is written the same text, that makes the figure complicated to read.
Discretionary Revisions
Sup 3:
In supplement 3 there a many questions that are not processed in the manuscript
(e.g. Knowledge and perception of cancer and cervical screening history.) It
would be interesting to descibe it in short in your manuscript, add this information
in a table or refer in the manuscript that there are other items as well in the
interview.
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:Measuring the nature and duration of symptoms of cervical cancer in
young women: developing an interview-based approach
Version: 1Date:22 August 2013
Reviewer: Dinos Mavromoustakis
Reviewer's report:
1.Major Compulsory Revisions
In my opinion, the methodology, the data, as well as the relevant standards of
reporting and data deposition were appropriate and well described.
As far as the interpretation of the results is concerned, I think that in final
“Conclusion”, the authors should be more specific, especially in the sense of
being more practical, by giving health providers guidelines about the risk factors
for delayed diagnosis to be taken into consideration, and to the public, about
concerns they should have on certain symptoms, to achieve early diagnosis of
the disease.
In the same sense, I believe that “identification of risk factors for delayed
diagnosis”, should be part of the title, as it is mentioned only, in the “methods”
part of the “Abstract” chapter, and, again, in the 4th paragraph of the
“Introduction” chapter. Risk factors for delayed diagnosis didn’t take the same
merit of significance as the “nature and duration of symptoms” in the “Discussion”
chapter did, and they only appear, in the “Results” one.
Finally I am happy, that limitations of the work were clearly stated as well as the
acknowledgements. The symptoms are very well determined, defined and
analysed! The structured interview is detailed and well established as well as the
interview manual.
2. Minor Essential Revisions
The writing is acceptable and it’s my belief that the title and abstract accurately
convey what has been found.
Minor issues not for publication:
a) Methods – Pathways to diagnosis – the second point, at the end of paragraph,
in the parenthesis: “(including women who attended screening because (?) and
reported symptoms). Is something missing there? Or, the right word should be
“of”, instead of “and”?
b) Last paragraph of “Discussion”: “We found some suggestion that….who
presented symptomatically that provider delays were longer than patients
delays”.
I think that the correct word should be “the”.
c) In “Conclusion”, the closing of the brackets is missing. It should be after the
words”… Presentation Schedule), for use….”
d) I wonder whether in “Figure 1”, numbers of months should be mentioned on
the blue coloured arrow, to indicate the duration in months.
e) In many occasions, the use of commas, would help the reader to better
understand the text.
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:An Examination of Domestic Partner Violence and its Justification in the
Republic of Georgia
Version: 3Date:7 September 2013
Reviewer: Stephen Lawoko
Reviewer's report:
No more revision required
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasound mapping of pelvic endometriosis: does the location and number
of lesions affect the diagnostic accuracy?
Version: 1Date:1 August 2013
Reviewer: nicola fratelli
Reviewer's report:
1.Is the question posed by the authors well defined? YES
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?YES
3. Are the data sound? YES
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? YES
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? YES
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? YES
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? YES
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? YES
9. Is the writing acceptable?YES
Discretionary revisions
In my opinion the manuscript would be more penetrating if shorter. I suggest to
merge tables 7 and 8. The column reporting the mean number of lesions
diagnosed on scan is not of paramount importance and in my opinion could be
deleted without significant changes in the manuscript's message.
discussion: the following paragraph is not necessary and could be deleted
"Hudelist et al. [20] compared pelvic examination alone with pelvic examination
combined with TVS for the preoperative assessment of women with suspected
pelvic endometriosis. They found that by combining these two procedures it is
possible to detect features of pelvic endometriosis with sensitivities ranging 67%
and 100%. Specificities were also high between 86% and 100%. In view of these
findings it is
possible that sensitivities in our study could have been higher should we have
performed a thorough pelvic examination in conjunction with TVS."
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:Ultrasound mapping of pelvic endometriosis: does the location and number
of lesions affect the diagnostic accuracy?
Version: 1Date:8 August 2013
Reviewer: Liselotte Mettler
Reviewer's report:
The paper is of secondary level of interest.
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:"Would a man smell a rose then throw it away?" Men's individual and
contextual perspectives on women's breast cancer and breast health: a
qualitative study from Jordan
Version: 3Date:15 June 2013
Reviewer: Maggi Banning
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Consider removing the 4 data sets for the younger men as this adds a
negligible impact on the data as a whole.
2 The ethics of particpation needs to be disscussed in the samole recruitment
strategy.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:"Would a man smell a rose then throw it away?" Men's individual and
contextual perspectives on women's breast cancer and breast health: a
qualitative study from Jordan
Version: 3Date:18 June 2013
Reviewer: Khlood Faik Salman
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Maternal hair selenium levels and recurrent pregnancy loss.
Version: 1Date:29 November 2012
Reviewer: Josip Culig
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The question posed by authors is well defined : the hair selenium as indicator of
long-term nutritional status and the effect of long-term nutritional status on the
pregnancy outcome.
There are some questions that should be resolved before accepting this paper.
First; The authors have documented that hair selenium is low in South African
women. The conclusion was that nutritional status is not connected with
pregnancy loss. There are some published studies that show different selenium
absorption rates during pregnancy. The blood selenium was higher than hair
selenium. Please comment . Second; the study group is relatively small with
significantly different dietary habits. Possibility of interaction during pregnancy in
past ? Do we need prospective study during pregnancy period with blood
samples included ?
Third, would you consider the title change ? Maternal hair selenium levels as
long term nutritional indicator and pregnancy outcome ?
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:
The reviewer has no conflict of interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Maternal hair selenium levels and recurrent pregnancy loss.
Version: 3Date:27 March 2013
Reviewer: Josip Culig
Reviewer's report:
Did miscarrigies happend because of low selenium absorption during pregnancy
in RPL group of patients ? The hair selenium are not sensitive on this issue. The
dietary selenium might be low but with increased absorption during pregnancy.
The authors did not comment this issue particularly concerning the specific group
of patients with history of RPL.
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:Maternal hair selenium levels and recurrent pregnancy loss.
Version: 3Date:1 April 2013
Reviewer: Hiten Mistry
Reviewer's report:
I am happy with the changes and responses to the reviewers' comments. It is a
shame that serum samples were also not measured, but I am happy to
recommend this manuscript for publication.
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:Maternal hair selenium levels and recurrent pregnancy loss.
Version: 3Date:6 April 2013
Reviewer: Uchenna Nwagha
Reviewer's report:
THE PAPER HAS IMPROVED ,BUT STILL, I DID NOT OBTAIN THE ANSWERS
TO SOME OF THE ISSUES I RAISED. I EXPECTED THE AUTHORS TO
RESPOND POINT BY POINT TO THE ISSUES RAISED. IF HE MAKE A
SUPERIOR ARGUMENT OR PROVIDES REASONABLE EXPLANATION,
THEN, WE MAY RECONSIDER OUR POSITION.
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 have no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Maternal hair selenium levels as a possible long-term nutritional indicator
of recurrent pregnancy loss.
Version: 4Date:30 July 2013
Reviewer: Josip Culig
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded adequately to the questions raised by reviewers.
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:Maternal hair selenium levels as a possible long-term nutritional indicator
of recurrent pregnancy loss.
Version: 4Date:30 July 2013
Reviewer: Uchenna Nwagha
Reviewer's report:
High
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:Associations between oral contraceptive use and the risk of hypertension
in a cross-sectional study of Korean women
Version: 1Date:22 August 2013
Reviewer: Trevor Ferguson
Reviewer's report:
The submitted manuscript is a useful addition to the literature on the association
between oral contraceptive use and hypertension. The following suggested
revisions should improve the manuscript:
Minor Essential Revision
1. The authors use the terms "risk" and "correlation" rather loosely in describing
the associations found. Given that a cross-sectional study cannot be said to
predict "risks" due to the lack of temporal relationships I suggest that the authors
use the term "association" instead.
2. Given that this study uses a complex survey design with multi-stage sampling,
the authors should provide more details on the sampling procedures so that the
reader can get an impression as to the extent to which the survey is
representative of the target population.
3. Please cite the appropriate reference for the BMI cut-off points for Asians
mentioned on page 6
4. The authors should clarify whether persons on medication for hypertension but
whose blood pressures were <140/90 were classified as hypertensives (page 7)
5. The word 'mean' appears to be missing from the first sentence on page 9
where the mean SBP and DBP are given.
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:Associations between oral contraceptive use and the risk of hypertension
in a cross-sectional study of Korean women
Version: 1Date:27 August 2013
Reviewer: Flavio Fuchs
Reviewer's report:
The authors examined the relationship between OCs use and blood pressure
and hypertension in a Korean population-based sample. The subject is still
relevant, since both conditions (high blood pressure and use of OC) are quite
common in the population. The manuscript is overall OK, the database is
representative of the country, the potential for measurement biases always exist
in studies like this but are of lower potential impact in the analyses of the
associations, and were rightly addressed in discussion. Analyses are OK and the
presentation of findings and discussion are straightforward. I don’t know why the
tables were not embedded in the text and a figure with risk ratios and confidence
intervals instead of table 4 would communicate better the findings.
I suggest to highlighting the novelty of this study (to my knowledge), the
association with prehypertension as well, including it in the title (and the risks of
hypertension and prehypertension…). I fully agree with the authors that
prehypertension is a serious problem and will disappear as a separate
classification in the future (hypertension will start at 120/80 mmHg).
Minor points: the discussion of mechanisms of blood pressure increasing by OC
in introduction could be better placed in discussion.
In limitations; strengths the writer stated “To my knowledge”, I suppose that the
other author doesn’t know anything more as well! Please, correct.
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:Evaluation and factors associated with noncompliance in users of
combined hormonal contraceptive methods: a cross-sectional study. Results
from the MIA study.
Version: 2Date:15 August 2013
Reviewer: Isabel Serrano
Reviewer's report:
I have looked the revised manuscript and authors answer. In my view the
submitted corrections are perfect and they have included my suggestions
adequately.
Reviewer's report
Title:A high prevalence of violence against women, particularly psychological
violence, in Erbil city of Kurdistan region, Iraq
Version: 2Date:29 May 2013
Reviewer: Belen Zorrilla
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revision: There is confusion in the study as to the way
psychological violence is measured and the definition of this type of violence.
Although it is not clear how psychological is defined it seems that they consider
acts of emotional abuse and not psychological violence, as it is defined in the
WHO questionnaire and that is a pitfall of the study. Consider using emotional
abuse behaviour.
Define emotional distress and the way it is measured. Compare its prevalence
with women not suffering IPV
Cpmpere the demographic structure with the general population of women in
Erbil.
English and writing should be revised
The discussion is confusing in structure. It should be reordered and differences
discussed more deeply.
Cange the Title
Minor: Use the same terms for types and timing of violence through all the text.
Modify table 4
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I heve no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:A high prevalence of intimate partner violence against women in Erbil city
of Kurdistan region, Iraq
Version: 3Date:4 August 2013
Reviewer: joaquim soares
Reviewer's report:
General comments
The authors have improved the manuscript and I am in general satisfied.
However, I have some additional suggestions.
Titel
A high prevalence of intimate partner violence against women in Erbil city of
Kurdistan region, Iraq
Perhaps it would be better with: Intimate partner violence against women in the
Erbil city of the Kurdistan region, Iraq
Abstract
This study assessed the prevalence of the three main forms of intimate partner
violence against women and the impact of physical violence in Erbil city, the
capital of Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Perhaps it would be better with: This study assessed the prevalence of
emotional, physical and sexual intimate partner violence against women and the
impact of physical violence in Erbil, the main city of the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
NOTICE that it is important from the start to know what violence is assessed.
Additionally, using Capital imply that the Kurdistan is a country which is not the
case. Please change Capital to main city in all parts of the manuscript.
Physical violence seems to be a greater problem in terms of consequences.
This may be unwarranted as it seems that the effects of emotional and sexual
violence were not addressed. This should be changed whenever mentioned.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Preference for wine is associated with lower hip fracture incidence in
post-menopausal women
Version: 1Date:19 July 2013
Reviewer: Shinya Ishii
Reviewer's report:
This study confirms and extends previous studies that have found association
between preference for wine and lower risk of hip fracture risk in postmenopausal
women. The findings are of some interest and may lead to further research to
determine the underlying biological mechanisms of the protective effect of wine.
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 PRCI study: Design of a Randomized Clinical Trial to evaluate a
coping intervention for medical waiting periods used by women undergoing a
fertility treatment
Version: 2Date:14 July 2013
Reviewer: Agneta Skoog Svanberg
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revision
Very interesting design and an important issue for developing care focused on
self helping. Very well written. I just have a few points of my concern:
Abstract: please clarify the four arms more specific. You write three-armed
however in the manuscript you have added one more group= four armed.
There are a lot of instruments to choose between regarding anxiety. If anxiety is
the primary outcome, why do you not use a more specific instrument for anxiety
(STAI for example)?
Method: Please refer to Table I. It is good that you can follow the reasons for
having four group however it is a little confusing to understand the differencies
without having Table I in front of you.
Sample size: To test the difference in psychological wellbeing..........You should
may be calculate on your primary outcome= anxiety / HAD.
Randomization: What happen if the patients do contact you/staff during the
waiting period?
Figure 1 flow chart: Add in the chart the assessments T1, T2 and T3 as well to
make the points for assessments clear.
Figure 3 not important
Best regards
Agneta Skoog Svanberg
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