JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Contraceptive use and associated factors among postpartum women in
Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:20 April 2014
Reviewer: Zeleke Alebachew A Wagaw
Reviewer's report:
I think it is an interesting report of post partum contraceptive utilization practice in
Gondar town, with good sample size and high participation rate. However this
survey has several weaknesses.
Major comments (Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. The proportion of mothers who initiated post partum contraceptive use at the
right time shall be described on both the result and discussion part.
2. This study did not address behavioral aspects of health service providers at
health facility and accessibility of contraceptives. Contraceptive counseling and
accessibility of contraceptive at health facility can affect the utilization of
contraceptives.
3. The method section did not clearly show how variables selected for logistic
regression model, which model is used, is it enter method or other
4. The report did not indicate pregnancy status of mother (contraceptive user vs
non user) at survey time. This information is important to show the proportion of
mothers who get pregnant during one year time after birth.
Minor Comment (Minor Essential Revisions)
1. Table 4. Author advised to include the type of analysis made on the title of the
table. I think it is OR estimates for logistic regression analysis
2. In table 4, under variable age, the order of age category (>35,<24, 25-34 )has
no proper order. It shall be written as increasing order (<24, 24-35, >35).
Regardless of the order author can choose the reference either the last or the
first alternative from the logistic regression analysis model.
3. One the result section the third title< Contraceptive use in the post partum
period) correct the underlined word as postpartum.
4. Citation and reference listing needs major revision and shall be written using a
standard citation style (for articles in journal, reports, etc).
5. Figure1. If there is no additional figure there is no need to give figure number.
6. Why adjusted OR missed for most variable in table 4. There is a need to
include adjusted OR for all variables.
7. Authors advised to explain including un expected results . Example number of
live children greater than 4 vs 1 has OR less than 1.
8. Why beverage analysis was not performed before logistic regression analysis
performed, which will be also useful to select variables for logistic regression
analysis.
9. Why verbal consent taken in urban area? It needs justification.
Discretionary Revisions
1. If the result is available it will be good to compare contraceptive utilization
practice among mother whose index child died and those whose index child
alive.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Postpartum contraceptive use in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia: a
community based cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:2 June 2014
Reviewer: Zeleke Alebachew A Wagaw
Reviewer's report:
Author revised the manuscript based on the comment given and states some of
the comments under limitation of the study. I think the manuscript had been
revised properly and this can be accepted 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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Postpartum contraceptive use in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia: a
community based cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:8 July 2014
Reviewer: Alex Bottle
Reviewer's report:
I was asked to assess the statistics for this manuscript.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1 Methods: “Since there is no study in Ethiopia, the proportion of women using
contraceptives in the postpartum period was assumed to be 50%, 95%
confidence interval, 5% margin of error, design effect of 1.5, and 10%
non-response rate making the sample size 634.” Do you mean alpha (type I error
rate)=5%? What does the design effect of 1.5 relate to? With a binary outcome,
the usual approach for sample size calculations is to specify, for example, the
outcome rate in each of the two categories in a categorical variable of interest
(e.g. treatment group).
2 Methods: “Variables having p value # 0.2 in the bivariate analyses were fitted
into a multiple logistic regression model to control the effects of confounding.”
This is a common and reasonable approach, though there remains the possibility
of biased coefficients due to correlation between a retained and an excluded
variable. I suspect that some of your variables will be correlated. Did you check
for this by comparing your coefficients with those from a full model? It would be
worth doing.
3 Methods: Why was age put into categories and why these categories? Is the
relation with the odds of contraception linear?
4 Table 3: Several statistically significant crude ORs become non-significant in
the final model but their adjusted ORs are not shown. These should be shown.
There is potentially quite a bit to learn from working out which factors confound
crude associations. It surprises me that fertility desire was not a predictor – I’d
have said that was the most important one.
Also, please give actual P values rather than just “p<0.05”.
Minor Essential Revisions
5 Table 3: Fertility desire proportions – these look the wrong way round, as it
appears that more “no” women are not taking contraception whereas more “yes”
women are – I’ve assumed that “yes” means that the woman wants more
children.
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:Postpartum contraceptive use in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia: a
community based cross-sectional study
Version:6Date:10 August 2014
Reviewer: Yohannes Adama Melaku
Reviewer's report:
I don't have any more comments on 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:Postpartum contraceptive use in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia: a
community based cross-sectional study
Version:7Date:5 September 2014
Reviewer: Alex Bottle
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
I have only one point to make, which relates to the sample size section. My
queries on how this was done have not been answered. Please explain what you
mean by a “design effect of 1.5”.
Also, you now say in the cover letter that “With this regard, 5% was taken for
degree of absolute precision. Type 1 error is not recommended to be considered
during sample size calculation.” I don’t understand the first sentence and
disagree with the second. I’ve never heard of the type 1 error being not
recommended – it’s a standard consideration.
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:Relationship between Type-D Personality, Physical Activity Behaviour and
Climacteric Symptoms
Version:1Date:24 November 2014
Reviewer: Paulina Villaseca
Reviewer's report:
Attached
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:Relationship between Type-D Personality, Physical Activity Behaviour and
Climacteric Symptoms
Version:1Date:1 December 2014
Reviewer: Deborah Legorreta
Reviewer's report:
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS.
1. In the participants section, although Mean & SD are given, the actual age
range of simple participants is not clear.
2. Including women that had undergone hysterectomy and oophorectomy in the
sample and classified as peri or post menopausal without objective hormonal
levels results leads to less accurate and valid results. I would strongly advice the
authors to simply remove the cases.
Page 10, line 15. "Only two of the demographic...related to climacteric
symptomatology" Do they mean to general climacteric symptomatology?
Page 14 requires proof-reading.
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:Marital status and abortion among young women in Rupandehi, Nepal
Version:2Date:26 September 2014
Reviewer: Anne Kjersti Daltveit
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
This is a cross-sectional survey on 600 women aged 16-24 years in Nepal, of
which 54% were ever-married and 45% were never-married. Methodology,
presentation and interpretation of results seem sound and appropriate, and the
paper has a clear conclusion with possible implications for the health care
system. Given the thematics of the survey it is interesting that only 2 women out
of more than 600, declined to be interviewed. Although this gives less selection
bias, the authors are aware of possible information bias and mention “social
desirability bias” as a likely example of bias.
Overall assessment:
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
Specific comments (minor essential revisions):
Abstract: ..and fewer ever-married women aware of abortion legality...incomplete
sentence.
Introduction line 27 states that “Abortion accounted for an estimated 14% of
deaths at health care facilities in 2008-2009”. Which denominator is used in this
estimate – women of reproductive age (ex. 15-45), or other? And, how many
deaths occur at health care facilities out of overall deaths in the population?
Analysis line 98: When adjusting for age, is this done with age as a linear term
year by year?
Results line 143: The text says that “…married women were less likely to report
receiving information on abortion costs…”. I think that the text and Table 2 do not
match here.
Results regarding abortion knowledge and attitudes: The text (pages 157-164)
explains the results well, but to me it is difficult to understand figure 3. Figure 3
should be improved.
Discretionary.Revisions: Interestingly, this section and figure 3 shows that
ever-married women were less informed about the legal status of abortion than
never-married women, this in spite of ever-married being older (median age 21
vs 19). Does this indicate that women who marry early come from other strata of
the population than women who marry at a later age? I cannot find any
discussion of this finding in the discussion.
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 HAVE NO COMPETING INTERESTS
Reviewer's report
Title:Marital status and abortion among young women in Rupandehi, Nepal
Version:2Date:2 November 2014
Reviewer: sudhamshu Dahal
Reviewer's report:
1. Major Compulsory Revisions
None.
2. Minor Essential Revisions
None.
3. Discretionary Revisions
This is a comprehensive study for those interested on issues of women health
within a broader realm of public health intervention in developing country take
Nepal as a case study.
However the study would have been more robust if the authors would look more
into the qualitative data they have gathered through the interviews. Withholding
the confidentiality of the interviewees even by the marital status, the interview
data may contain valuable information about the effectiveness of the public
health communication campaigns conducted by the service providers.
Although the study is limited to one particular district, I recommend this study for
publication because publishing the beneficiaries understanding on the health
care intervention would in turn promote (with effect) more robust future
intervention approaches.
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:Risk factors for high-risk and multi-type Human Papillomavirus infections
among women in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: a cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:25 August 2014
Reviewer: Akin-Tunde ODUKOGBE
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Line 105. Specimens were collected for Pap tests.
The results of these are not included in the analysis. Why?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Line 78. 'was also not observed'. Considering the high level of protection from
STIs and pregnancies by condoms, this statement needs to be clarified. Does
'not observed' mean not checked for or not found or not significant? For any of
these three alternatives chosen (or any other proposed), comments ought to be
made concerning the methodology of the study giving rise to it.
2. Line 196. 'is slightly lower'. 4.5% is 2.4 times 1.9% (almost two and a half
times). In epidemiology of diseases, this is not just slightly lower.
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:Risk factors for high-risk and multi-type Human Papillomavirus infections
among women in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: a cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:31 August 2014
Reviewer: Dionne Dames-Rahming
Reviewer's report:
The question posed by the authors was well defined which was to determine the
prevalence of high-risk HPV and multiple type of HPV infections.
The methodology was sound but the selection process of the candidates did
have some limitations namely only selecting from only ten of twenty-four districts
and only two communes out of sixteen communes per district. Without further
explanation it leads me to think that the selection is not a true representation of
HCMC as was the intention and thus could be a limitation in obtaining an
accurate prevalence. Additionally a group of women who should have been
excluded from this study would have been women who were previously treated
for HPV infections within the last year which could alter/change the findings of
HPV in this subset of women.
Both HPV testing and pap smear were completed. Although cervical
abnormalities were not part of this aspect of the study, a comment should be
made about what will happen with women who had abnormal pap smear results.
This could simply be a statement to say they will be referred to the appropriate
centre/or physician etc. to receive definitive management.
The manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition. Review of the tables also where within the accepted standard.
The discussion and conclusions and treatment of the data obtained were
balanced. However, it is my humble opinion that the participants relaying
information related to their partners sexual history will be filled with inaccurate
information. It has been established that patients often underreport their number
of sexual partners and a person's partner does not always give full disclosure
about their sexual history. It is for this reason that the part of analysis involving
the patient's partner should not be included. It is indeed a limitation.
The limitations are otherwise clearly stated and I agreed with listed limitations.
The abstract stated objective (lines 32 and 33) does not completely correlate with
stated objective (lines 83-85) of the actual study. The study objective primary
question seemed to be the prevalence of high-risk HPV and infections with
multiple HPV. The secondary part of the study seem to suggest that the authors
will attempt to see if any risk factors for the aforementioned exist.
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:Risk factors for high-risk and multi-type Human Papillomavirus infections
among women in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: a cross-sectional study
Version:3Date:21 October 2014
Reviewer: Akin-Tunde ODUKOGBE
Reviewer's report:
Satisfactory report of the Pap smear results have been included. Other
suggestions have been implemented.
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:Risk factors for high-risk and multi-type Human Papillomavirus infections
among women in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: a cross-sectional study
Version:3Date:21 October 2014
Reviewer: Dionne Dames-Rahming
Reviewer's report:
The responses made by the authors were noted.
The author is correct and the sampling method is tried and true and not
dependent on a population size. The randomization ensured that it is
representative.
The author missed the point about recent treatment for patients with HPV
associated lesions which can be treated with cyrotherapy or LEEP. Although
there is no specific treatment for HPV, the previously noted treatments can and
does alter their presents in cervical samples. The astute reader will not assume
that theses things do not factor in. As the reader pool for this article will be
international, the assumption should not be made by the author that they would
be aware of the limited availability of these treatments in the study population.
That being said, I have 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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Symptomatic presentation with cervical cancer in Uganda: a qualitative
study assessing the pathways to diagnosis in a low-income country
Version:3Date:10 November 2014
Reviewer: Deepak Gyenwali
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript seems to be good and findings are important to develop
appropriate programs to reduce the diagnostic interval of cervical cancer
specially in underdeveloped countries where its prevalence is high.
I do not see any major compulsory revisions but I would like the following points
to be considered.
- In background section: information from low income countries like sub Saharan
and Asian countries would be more relevant. Similar things may apply in
discussion section.
- In method section: line no. 142- " patient diagnosed through screening"- the
word "diagnosed" is not appropriate. you can use " suspected of Ca cervix"
instead.
-In discussion section: The finding of time interval 140 months ( - P1, 36 years)
(nearly 12 years) from first symptom to diagnosis is an interesting and an
extreme case. So, It would be better to discuss it thoroughly. There is confusing
interpretation in this case. This seems that she first experienced the symptoms of
diseases which now is diagnosed as cervical cancer when she was 24 years.
Finally, I would suggest to revise the citations.
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:Surgical margins in conization by Large Loop (LLETZ) and Straight Wire
Excision of the Transformation Zone (SWETZ): a randomized study.
Version:3Date:27 September 2014
Reviewer: Christoph Grimm
Reviewer's report:
The present study investigates the value of SWETZ to LLETZ with the primary
endpoint being incomplete endocervical resection at the time of conisation.
Although the topic is of interest the study has severe flaws making it unsuitable
for publication:
1. study enrollment was from January 2008 - February 2012, only thereafter, in
June 2013the trial was registered at clinical trials.gov - thus making registration
senseless.....
2. essential facts are missing in the paper (authors should adhere to CONSORT
guidelines for publishing an RCT)
mention time of enrollment
who performed the surgery (were the authors involved in the surgical
procedures=major bias!)?
discuss the extremely poor incomplete resection rate in the LLETZ group (nearly
50%; in the literature you would find appr. 20%)
provide more details about ethics approval, what year?
3. check the tables for flaws: two times "ectocervical" and never "endocervical"
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Breast cancer risk and genetic ancestry: a case-control study in Uruguay
Version:2Date:24 September 2014
Reviewer: Benjamin A Rybicki
Reviewer's report:
see attached
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'