JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Medically unexplained illness and the diagnosis of hysterical conversion
reaction (HCR) in women's medicine wards of Bangladeshi hospitals: a record
review and qualitative study
Version: 3Date:7 September 2012
Reviewer: Jon Stone
Reviewer's report:
This is a much improved version of this paper.
Some minor comments only which are minor/discretionary revisions:
Minor
the 4% rate of misdiagnosis in studies of conversion/hysteria actually dates back
to the early 70s and so appears not to be dependent on technology or tests
which may not be available in Bangladesh. In addition 4% is roughly the
misdiagnosis rate of most neurological and psychiatric conditions.
the authors also seem to still be confused about how conversion disorder should
be diagnosed. It is not a diagnosis of exclusion. It should be based on positive
features of the symptom as it presents. Therefore it may be possible to positively
identify it in A&E, although investigations and looking for comorbid pathology are
often sensible. They are right that it should not be a dustbin diagnosis just
because tests are normal. Im not sure that has come across in their paper.
Discretionary
My own reading of the data on inpatient rates of somatoform disorder (and my
own experience covering a busy district general hospital in the UK) is that
somatoform disorders of all kinds are very common. I dont really see much
difference between their description of things in Bangladesh and my local
hospital, except for the HCR label. I also see lots of premature labelling of things
as functional which are not. Last week I diagnosed MS in a patient who had been
told her symptoms were functional because they seemed to follow on from
stress.
the main point of the study is to point out that the HCR label is at variance to
international practice and appears to be used prematurely by some doctors
based on the gender and psychosocial status of the patient. I agree this is bad
medicine and this paper makes that point well.
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:Medically unexplained illness and the diagnosis of hysterical conversion
reaction (HCR) in women's medicine wards of Bangladeshi hospitals: a record
review and qualitative study
Version: 3Date:17 September 2012
Reviewer: Laurence Kirmayer
Reviewer's report:
The revisions respond well to the reviewers' comments.
There is additional material on the influence of gender and social circumstances
on medically unexplained symptoms (and the use of the label 'hysteria' which
may be of interest to the authors but is not essential for this paper:
Winstead, B. A. (1984). Hysteria. In C. S. Widom (Ed.), Sex Roles and
Psychopathology (pp. 73-100). New York: Plenum Press.
Kirmayer, L. J., Groleau, D., Looper, K. J., & Dao, M. D. (2004). Explaining
medically unexplained symptoms. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(10),
663-672.
Stone, J., Hewett, R., Carson, A., Warlow, C., & Sharpe, M. (2008). The
'disappearance' of hysteria: historical mystery or illusion? [Historical Article]. J R
Soc Med, 101(1), 12-18. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2007.070129
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 Experience of Disclosure as Perceived by French Canadian Women
Living with HIV: A phenomenological study.
Version: 1Date:8 May 2012
Reviewer: Julie M Serovich
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article titled “The experience of
disclosure as perceived by French Canadian women living with HIV: A
phenomenological study.” This is a well written and interesting paper. The topic –
Canadian women’s experience with HIV disclosure – would of interest to readers
of BMC Women's Health. In its present form, however, the manuscript has a
number of serious limitations that diminishes enthusiasm for publication. These
are outlined below.
Minor Essential Revisions
First, there are some redundancy and editorial errors in the literature review and
other parts of the paper. For example, on the bottom of the first page the authors
talk about paradoxes in two sentences – back to back. Thus, the paper could use
a good review aimed at clarity of writing.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Second, the study would be enhanced if the authors drilled down to specific
research questions or hypotheses to be tested. While it is clear that the authors
want to cast a wide net with this study, the field is too far along for that to be
appropriate. We know much more about women’s disclosure experiences and
this literature is not reflected here. A more comprehensive review might point to
specific areas needing attention. If the authors believe that existing data are not
relevant for Canadian women, a more convincing argument would need to be
made. The background would also be enhanced by the inclusion of theory. There
are many different theoretical perspectives that could be applied and would add
significant value to the work.
Third, it would be helpful to see more information on validity. It is shocking that –
given the vast range of topics/areas covered in the research – saturation
occurred with seven participants. It might also be helpful if the general questions
and probes were presented to give the reader some perspective on the topics
covered. Without these questions it is not clear if the themes are simply
responses to specific questions.
Fourth, the results are not presented in such as way that engenders confidence
in the interpretation of the data. For example, the first theme is self-respect, but a
much stronger argument could be made that women were talking about choice. It
would also have been helpful – and perhaps offered more insight - if
demographics of the participants (e.g., age, length of diagnosis) were linked to
quotes.
Overall, it was not clear what new information was garnered from this study.
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:
No competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:The Experience of Disclosure as Perceived by French Canadian Women
Living with HIV: A phenomenological study.
Version: 1Date:19 May 2012
Reviewer: Ken Phillips
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
On the first page at the bottom, there is a sentence that is repeated.
Compulsory Revisions
Please discuss each of your themes in the context of what is already known.
How do your findings extend, support, or refute what is already known.
Discretionary Revisions
I would like to suggest that the authors change the word "fragmented" on page 2
in the first full paragraph. This sounds too judgmental of previous research that
provides a basis forr your research.
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 delcare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Patient understanding of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram
guidelines: Need for development of patient decision aids
Version: 3Date:17 April 2012
Reviewer: Stephen Taplin
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions.
1. Last sentence first paragraph of page 5. “The revised USPSTF
recommendations received the support of etc.” As noted in the original review
this is not accurate. All the USPSTF did was publicize the second sentence in
their original recommendations. They did not change their recommendations,
they changed their communication.
As noted in the original review this is not accurate. All the USPSTF did was focus
upon the second sentence in their original recommendations. They did not
change their recommendations.
2. You restate this misperception in the last paragraph of page 11 where you say,
“It should be noted that the USPSTF later updated their recommendation”. What
they did was update their communication.
Minor essential revisions.
3. Abstract first line: “examines patients’ education and understanding” is
awkward. Did you examine their education or the relationship between their
education and perceptions of the guidelines?
4. Abstract last sentence of methods: “regarding their awareness and
understanding”. There are no USPSTF guidelines addressing awareness. This
segment should follow "survey" and precede the segment that starts with "within".
5. Page 5: “Of additional concern was the attempt to categorize all women etc.”
This simply restates a mischaracterization of their work. They recommend
against routine screening precisely to avoid characterizing all women the same
way.
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 work for a US Government Agency, the National Cancer Institute. I have no
personal financial interest at stake.
Reviewer's report
Title:Patient understanding of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram
guidelines: Need for development of patient decision aids
Version: 4Date:25 July 2012
Reviewer: Stephen Taplin
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory revisions:
1. There is persistent language that suggests the change in guidelines is the
source of the confusion, but you also acknowledge that 92% of the women got
their information from a negative media portrayal. Attributing the confusion to the
guidelines is a potential misattribution. You don’t really know whether it was the
guidelines or the media presentation that got women confused. A review of the
media will show that they misrepresented and misstated the guidelines. Some
discussion of this issue is needed. It provides further motivation for your bottom
line, that decision support/aids are needed.
2. The issue of decision aids brings up the second major concern. You jump to
the conclusion that effective shared-decision making tools are needed. How
would you measure the effectiveness of such a tool? The choice to be screened?
The choice not to be screened? Lack of confusion? This reviewer thinks you do
not have information from this study that guides readers regarding the nature of
the tools that are needed. It would seem to me that a much stronger conclusion
is that we need tools to aid women achieve an understanding of the issues that
meets their individual needs, but we also need to understand the appropriate
endpoints of such tools. The abstract and the final conclusion should be revised
accordingly. Something like, “Study findings highlight the need for improved
communication. Development of shared decision-making tools and outcomes
should be considered to address the communication challenge.”
Minor essential revisions
Page 4 second paragraph
…”suggesting that routine screening mammography begin at age 50 and…”
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 work for the National Cancer Institute. To the extent that government money
goes to support the USPSTF, some may perceive a conflict. NCI has not
changed its recommendation since agreeing with the 2002 recommendation of
the USPSTF.
Reviewer's report
Title:Patient understanding of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram
guidelines: Need for development of patient decision aids
Version: 5Date:23 September 2012
Reviewer: Stephen Taplin
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The authors have made the major revisions suggested in my July 2012 review
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.
Minor Essential Revisions:
There are no further revisions suggested
The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures,
the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.
Discretionary Revisions
There are no further revisions suggested.
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 am employed by the US Federal Government at the National Cancer Institute.
Because thework of the USPSTF is supported by money from the Federal
Government paid through AHRQ, some may perceive this a conflict. I do not
perceive this as a conflict since the USPSTF is not restricted in any way
regarding its analysis or conclusions, and I had no role in their deliberations.
I have no other potential conflicts.
Reviewer's report
Title:Triple negative breast cancer in Moroccan women: clinicopathological and
therapeutic study at the National Institute of Oncology
Version: 1Date:14 June 2012
Reviewer: Maria Luisa Gasparri
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I read the research article “Triple negative breast cancer in Moroccan women:
clinicopathological and therapeutic study at the National Institute of Oncology” in
which the authors determine the clinicopathological, therapeutic features and
outcomes associated with triple negative breast cancer in Moroccan women.
The scope of the article is of limited interest, furtheremore the findings are in
agreement with worldwide population.
Tables are clear.
I suggest to enrich discussion with critical issues and correnspondig references
such as:
• The emerging pivotal role of the immune system on tumorogenesis and tumor
progression in this neoplasms (Bellati F, Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2009);
• The relationship between cancer, cancer treatments and the immune system,
with focus on oncological procedures able to activate or modulate an immune
response (Napoletano C, Int J Oncol. 2008; Bellati F. JCO 2010).
In my opinion, it could be accepted after minor revision.
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:Triple negative breast cancer in Moroccan women: clinicopathological and
therapeutic study at the National Institute of Oncology
Version: 1Date:15 August 2012
Reviewer: Vincenzo Adamo
Reviewer's report:
After having reviewed the manuscript, I believe it can be accepted after major
and minor essential revisions (which the authors can be trusted to make). In
assessing the work I have considered the following points:
1) The question posed by the authors is well-defined
2) Methods are not appropriate and should be better understood and analyzed in
detail.
3) The manuscript meets the requirements for communication and data storage
but should be thorough
4) Are the data sound ? in my opinion this article is not sound
5) The discussion and the conclusion are not adequately supported by literature
date.
6) There are many limitations in work and in particular the heterogeneity.
7) The authors do not clearly recognize any published work.
8) In the title and in the abstract convey what has been found
9) The writing is acceptable
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) should be specified the definition of triple negative breast cancer, this is
imperative and inserted the metastatic sites involved.
2) In the Background correctly define the different subtypes of breast cancer
3) Define the difference between triple negative and basal-like
4) In the discussion and in the conclusion should be revised to better work the
Liedtke and correct the following assertion “Liedtke and al demonstrates in a
previous report that patients with TNBC have increased pathologic complete
response (pCR) rates compared with non-TNBC, and also have excellent
survival” because in this subtype is not correct to speak of excellent survival;
should be specified better the role of the anti-angiogenic therapy and in particular
of bevacizumab in this subtype correlating it with the literature data both in the
neoadjuvant, adjuvant and in the metastatic setting; when referring to PARP
inhibitors, but would speak only dell'Olaparib also mentioned the studies with
Iniparib and Veliparib ; also should be mentioned also other studies that have
evaluated the addition of cetuximab in this subtypes.
5) In the results clarify the following sentence “Overall survival at 5 years for all
patients was 76,5%” since in the previous section it is emphasized that Patients
with stage IV disease at diagnosis were excluded from the statistical evaluation
of DFS and OS
6) Being a retrospective study would be interesting to perform the determination
of CK5-6 in order to understand if the study population was TN or basal-like.
Minor Essential Revisions
1) In the results specify the different histological types
2) add to the TNM classification, the number of patients in stage IV.
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:Factors associated with unintended pregnancy, poor birth outcomes and
post-partum contraceptive use among HIV-positive female adolescents in Kenya
Version: 1Date:7 April 2012
Reviewer: Henry Doctor
Reviewer's report:
Minor necessary comments:
1. Provide more information on who conducted the study apart from informing the
reader that it was conducted as “part of a diagnostic study…”. Even if further
details of the study are provided in Birungi et al. and Obare et al., we need a
synopsis of the study in the paper.
2. Provide examples of the unobserved characteristics of pregnancies to justify
the use of random-effects logit models.
3. The titles of tables should add a phrase to show that the study comes from
Kenya.
4. There is a need to reflect more on the model covariates with one significant
variable only. Does its effect remains strong if the other variables are removed
from the model?
What is the key variable in each of the models which is considered to significantly
influence each of the outcome variables.
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:Factors associated with unintended pregnancy, poor birth outcomes and
post-partum contraceptive use among HIV-positive female adolescents in Kenya
Version: 2Date:28 September 2012
Reviewer: Riitta Luoto
Reviewer's report:
after reading the revised version and the responses by the authors, I am ready to
accept this manuscript to publication. Thus, my final decision is to accept in this
form.
Reviewer's report
Title:Socioeconomic disparities in human papillomavirus vaccine communication
with health care providers
Version: 1Date:9 April 2012
Reviewer: Li Ping Wong
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is best presented as empirical and theoretical paper that applies
sociological concepts to the understanding of the HPV vaccine communication
with HCPs. The main drawback is that the manuscript is purely methodological in
purpose.
The paper is not grounded in important theoretical issues in HPV vaccine and
HCP communication. It merely described the socioeconomic disparities using a
statistical model. It is best to investigate the medical sociology and must advance
our theoretical understanding of the processes by which social factors and HPV
vaccine communication with HPCs are interrelated. Further the data used in the
analyses were drawn from the national Cancer Institute’s 2007 HINTS (5 years
ago and further at that point of time the HPV vaccine was not known by many). It
may be of little implication for the current empirical evidence, where HPV
vaccination is now widely known.
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 have no competing interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Socioeconomic disparities in human papillomavirus vaccine communication
with health care providers
Version: 1Date:23 May 2012
Reviewer: Spring Chenoa Cooper Robbins
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The question posed by the authors was not well defined. Although I
understand the paper, the introduction and purpose needs to be more clearly
presented and situated.
2. The discussion and conclusions are not adequately supported by the data.
You make statements about the implications of the results, but I don’t think that
they are able to be made. For example, you talk about the percentage of women
who have had discussions, but you don’t know who initiated the discussion… it
could actually be that health care workers are targeting these women for the
discussion. You’ve made the assumption that it was the woman initiating the
conversation.
3. Limitations of the work are not clearly accounted for in the discussion.
Although you begin to address these, I don’t think that you have adequately
described the limitations and the impact these limitations have on the research
and interpretation.
4. Writing needs work. There are several instances where words are missing,
punctuation is incorrect, or there are incorrect word choices made. I recommend
having a professional copy editor review before re-submission.
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, 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:Are there socioeconomic disparities in women having discussions on
human papillomavirus vaccine with health care providers?
Version: 2Date:8 August 2012
Reviewer: Spring Chenoa Cooper Robbins
Reviewer's report:
I'm impressed with the amount of detail paid to the revision process and think
that all of the needed areas were addressed.
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 have received travel support and compensation for lecturing from CSL Australia
(distributors of Gardasil). I have also received unrestricted research funds from
CSL Australia.