JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Secular trends in age at menarche and time to establish regular menstrual
cycling in Japanese women born between 1930 and 1985
Version: 2Date:13 February 2012
Reviewer: Ken K Ong
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
To follow-up on my original comments:
Point 1: Estradiol levels by regular / irregular cycles. The authors mis-interpret
the findings of ref 24 (PMID 10770172). Table 3 in that paper shows similar
estradiol levels in regular / irregular cycle groups, and even higher levels in the
oligomenorrhea group.
Point 2: OK - I am happy that the age at onset of regular cycles cannot be
directly calculated.
Point 3: Relatively small numbers in 1930’s and 1980’s. It should only be fair then
to report the numbers by decade in the abstract and main text results sections.
Point 4: “Previous study has stated that early menarche and rapid
establishment of cycles (within one year) had an almost fourfold increased risk of
breast cancer compared with women with later menarche and longer duration of
irregular cycles (8 of reference of original paper).” Please include this argument
then to justify the selection of the high risk group “high risk group needs to be
defined by menarche by 10 years and regular cycles within one year”.
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:Secular trends in age at menarche and time to establish regular menstrual
cycling in Japanese women born between 1930 and 1985
Version: 3Date:14 June 2012
Reviewer: Ken K Ong
Reviewer's report:
I am happy that the authors have addressed my remaining comments
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 of dietary intake of lactating women in China and its potential
impact on the health of mothers and infants
Version: 1Date:29 March 2012
Reviewer: Simin Liu
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:N/A
Minor Essential Revisions:
Please see the attached file for more details.
Discretionary Revisions: N/A
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:Evaluation of dietary intake of lactating women in China and its potential
impact on the health of mothers and infants
Version: 1Date:3 April 2012
Reviewer: Bright Nwaru
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Abstract:
1. The primary aim of the study was to compare dietary intake of lactating
mothers to a control group and not mainly on comparing the intakes of the two
groups to the RNI recommendation. I would expect the authors to pay more
attention on this aim both in the Results section and Conclusion of the Abstract
by firstly comparing the two groups to each. They only compared the intakes to
the RNI recommendations
Introduction:
1. There should a reference supporting the statements in lines 50-53.
2. The last parts of the Introduction (lines 88-91) should be moved to the
conclusion or discussion.
Methods:
1. Lines 113-116: There is no information on whether the lactating and control
group women were matched in anyway, and I did not find any information
describing the selection criteria for the control group women. The authors should
provide these.
2. Lines 113-116: The authors should clarify that the dietary data for the control
group were collected once during the study, unlike the repeated collection for the
lactating mothers. In addition, it would be helpful for the authors to indicate at
what particular time (day, week) during the study that the dietary data for the
control group was obtained. This would help to better understand the
comparisons made in Tables 2-4.
Discussion:
1. The discussion is extremely to long and should be reduced and made more
concise.
2. The authors should not repeat the results and citation of Tables and Figures in
the discussion.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. In several places, the authors used the term "justified for BMI". Did they mean
"adjusted for BMI". If so, then they should use "adjusted".
2. The authors should provide a reference to support their statements in lines
266-273.
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:Evaluation of dietary intake of lactating women in China and its potential
impact on the health of mothers and infants
Version: 3Date:15 May 2012
Reviewer: Mingyan Xiang
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Discussion
L315-318: “Surprisingly, the control group of women consumed only 37-43% of
the recommended carbohydrate (RNI 316.3-373.8g/day) (Table 4), while their
protein and fat intake were -12% and 20% higher than the RNI (Figure 1).” There
is a self-contradiction because the fat intake of the control group was 64.3 g/day
which is in the normal range, i.e., 51.1-76.7 g/day (see Table 4).
2. Figure 1
Figure 1 uses days 2, 10, 30 and 90, but the text and tables 1-4 use days 2, 7, 30
and 90 for lactating women. The authors should keep a consistency in those
descriptions.
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:Evaluation of dietary intake of lactating women in China and its potential
impact on the health of mothers and infants
Version: 3Date:23 May 2012
Reviewer: Bright Nwaru
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my earlier concerns.
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:A Population-Based Study of Kurdish Breast Cancer in Northern Iraq:
Hormone Receptor and HER2 Status and a Comparison with Arabic Women
Version: 1Date:11 July 2011
Reviewer: Alexandru Eniu
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Background, paragraph 2: the authors should describe better the clinically
relevant , IHC determined, breast cancer classification into subtypes ,
emphasizing also that ER + tumors , can also be Her2 positive
2. Background, paragraph 3: the authors stated “ Her 2 statusis predictive of a
better response to anthracycline or taxane-based compared to
cyclophosphamide” however there is no clear evidence so this remains
controversial. Please rephrase.
3. Background, paragraph 3: the authors stated incorrectly that trastuzumab
improves survival when used in the neoadjuvant setting. Please rephrase.
4. Results, paragraph 2; check “encysted”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:A Population-Based Study of Kurdish Breast Cancer in Northern Iraq:
Hormone Receptor and HER2 Status and a Comparison with Arabic Women
Version: 1Date:9 November 2011
Reviewer: Shaheenah Dawood
Reviewer's report:
Review of “A Population-Based Study of Kurdish Breast Cancer in Northern Iraq:
Hormone Receptor and HER2 Status and a Comparison with Arabic Women”.
The aim of the paper by Raunak and colleagues was to investigate “ the
frequency of HR and HER2 expression among Kurdish and Arabic women with
breast cancer”. It is an important paper describing characteristics of cohort within
the middle east. My comments are as follows:
1. Although the author attempts to look at differences between Kurdish and arab
women it appears that the real comparison was between women diagnosed in
Iraq and those identified from the SEER database. The author thus needs to
reflect this both in the title of the paper and the aim.
2. In the conclusion of the abstract the authors make a blanket statement that
“frequency of non-testing is a deficiency in oncology practice that appears to be
common in the Middle-East”. Although this may be true in Iraq it is certainly not
true in other parts of the Middle East and it would be important that the authors
revise this statement.
3. There should be a table 1 that summarizes the patient characteristics of both
groups of patients including stage of disease and treatment if present. At present
time there are too many smaller tables that can be summarized into one table of
patient and tumor characteristics.
4. Why was the age incidence standardized ratio only calculated for the
sulaimany patients. The authors have a cohort of over 800 patients. It would be
important to look at the cohort as a whole and then subdivided into the pre
identified subgroups.
5. As a whole the way the results are reported is a little confusing. It would be
important to first look at the whole cohort. Report on their demographics and
characteristics and then look at each subgroup separately before doing
comparisons and within each subgroup and that with the SEER group.
6. The authors compare results to that of information derived from SEER. The
authors do not comment what years of diagnosis of the information was extracted
from within SEER.
7. The authors have a unique dataset of information on ER/PR and HER2.
Taking that information it would be important to look at the proportions of triple
negative, hormone receptor positive HER2 positive and homone receptor
negative HER2 positive subgroups of the whole cohort and compare that with
whats reported in the literature.
8. It is important that the authors describe the drawbacks of this study
highlighting the fact that the results are biased by which patients IHC was
requested for.
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:Psychosocial impact of perinatal loss among Muslim women
Version: 2Date:12 March 2012
Reviewer: Annsofie Adolfsson
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
No, I would like more specific information about the analyzes as I’m usually write
and read more specific clarification, but when I read the whole paper I can even
accept it without this as it is well written.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
See answer paragraph 2 above.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
No, get clarification
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
Level of interest: An exceptional article
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Psychosocial impact of perinatal loss among Muslim women
Version: 2Date:1 May 2012
Reviewer: Elizabeth Peel
Reviewer's report:
Psychosocial impact of perinatal loss among Muslim women
This article addresses an interesting and important topic and the authors’ are
right to highlight the significance of pregnancy loss for minority groups of women
in non-western countries. I do, however, have a number of serious concerns
about the paper as it stands - all of which I consider to be major compulsory
revisions.
1) A central problem is that no data is presented in the results section therefore
the reader has to take the authors’ perspective on the FGD and interviews
entirely on trust. This does not constitute adequate qualitative analysis. Although
most participants did not consent to audio-recording I would expect data extracts
from those who did presented, alongside extracts from the field notes taken.
These materials need to form the basis of the analysis.
2) Why do the authors focus on later pregnancy loss and neonatal death rather
than pregnancy loss as a whole as evidence suggested that the psychosocial
impact of loss is not determined by gestational age? A stronger rationale for the
exclusion of miscarriage experiences is needed.
3) The authors would benefit from reading the following work in this area: Peel,
E. (2010) Pregnancy loss in lesbian and bisexual women: An online survey of
experiences. Human Reproduction, 25(3), 721-727. And Layne LL. (2003)
Motherhood lost: a feminist account of pregnancy loss in America. Routledge,
New York, USA.
4) I appreciate that English isn’t the authors native language, but the expression
is rather unclear at times and also, in my view, some of the terminology used is
problematic in that it is overly medicalised (e.g., ‘macerated’ and ‘fresh’ stillbirth)
and likely does not reflect that kinds of language the participants used (although
we have no way of knowing this as no data are presented).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Psychosocial impact of perinatal loss among Muslim women
Version: 4Date:30 May 2012
Reviewer: Elizabeth Peel
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a good job of engaging with the reviewers' comments. I
was especially pleased to see the inclusion of extracts from the fieldnotes as
data in the revised version. Some more language correction is needed prior to
publication.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Receiving voluntary family planning services has no relationship with the
paradoxical situation of high use of contraceptives and abortion in Viet Nam: a
cross sectional study
Version: 2Date:31 March 2012
Reviewer: William Stones
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has adequately addressed the points raised.
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:Barriers of condom use among women at risk for HIV/AIDS: a qualitative
study from Iran
Version: 2Date:12 September 2011
Reviewer: Mzikazi Nduna
Reviewer's report:
see attached report
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Barriers of condom use among women at risk for HIV/AIDS: a qualitative
study from Iran
Version: 2Date:21 October 2011
Reviewer: Webster Mavhu
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
Overall, language is a serious impediment to understanding and it is very difficult
to have a sense of the outlined issues.
Authors state that they used a grounded theory approach to data analysis and go
on to mention constant comparative analysis as well as open and axial coding in
passing. My feeling is that the authors used an inductive approach, coded and
identified emerging themes/sub-themes iteratively using grounded theory
'principles'. If the authors conducted a complete grounded theory study - they
should outline each step in detail.
Again, they should mention in the Methods section whether or not they managed
to achieve theme saturation 9implied in passing under 'Strengths and limitation' -
this helps us see whether their findings/inferences are reliable.
Minor Essential Revisions
Last paragraph of the Introduction - authors state that quantitative researches
lack adequate competency to properly explore condom use - that statement is
strong and perhaps not true - suggest authors delete it completely.
Minor Essential Revisions
Methods: Participants and data collection - states that 'Participants provided
written informed consent...' but does not mention how 1 illiterate participant (as
indicated in Table 1) was consented.
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:Barriers to condom use among women at risk for HIV: A qualitative study
from Iran
Version: 3Date:31 January 2012
Reviewer: Mzikazi Nduna
Reviewer's report:
I am happy with the revisions that the authors have made in response to my first
review. No further areas of clarification are required from my side.
Thanks you for the opportunity to review the revised version of 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:Barriers to condom use among women at risk for HIV: A qualitative study
from Iran
Version: 3Date:10 February 2012
Reviewer: Webster Mavhu
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Title
1. Could be at risk of?
Introduction
2. 1st line – HIV prevalence?
Methods
3. 2nd line – Why were 3 interviews repeated?
4. 2nd paragraph – insert closing quotes after …evolving theory”
5. Validity – First sentence should perhaps say, ‘Validity is prolonged…?
Currently out of context
Results
6. Low self-efficacy and lack of behavioral skills – Quote beginning with “What I
mean is…” should have a question mark (?) at the end.
7. Financial needs-2nd quote – see space on word s and between quotes and
condom (same line).
8. Cultural norms – 3rd from last quote delete first he (but he all he said was…).
Following sentence, change to … a woman has (not have) no role… Next quote
– delete second exclamation mark (!) after yes!! And delete full stop.
Discussion
9. Delete e after “conducted e in Uganda…”. Next paragraph, delete of after
“despite of their knowledge…”
10. Page 17 – 2nd paragraph – Should say “…false beliefs pointed out in this
study” – delete by some participants (in any case was just one participant). Next
sentence, delete but after “essential…”.
11. Next sentence, delete have after study have pointed out
12. Page 18 – long sentence starting with “But a small number…” need to be
broken down.
13. Strengths & limitations (give full form of DICs) - not common acronym. Next
sentence should read: Since there are a limited number of quantitative
researches on HIV and women in Iran, … Next sentence should say their
readiness.
Conclusion
14. Should read “…for HIV aimed at curbing the increase in its prevalence.”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests' .
Reviewer's report
Title:DNA-testing for BRCA1/2 prior to genetic counseling in patients with breast
cancer: Design of an intervention study, DNA-direct
Version: 1Date:12 March 2012
Reviewer: Manuel Zorzi
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion the study design is adequate to test the hypothesis.
The protocol provides enough details to allow replication of the work
The planned statiscitcal analysis is appropriate.
I have only one suggestion: in the Sample size calculation the authors should
add the expected difference between the two groups regarding the primary
outcomes
The writing is very good
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:Hypovitaminosis D and prevalent asymptomatic vertebral fractures in
Moroccan postmenopausal women.
Version: 2Date:31 January 2012
Reviewer: Jose Alberto Hernandez Bueno
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
Posible selection bias, only Caucasian postmenopausal women, only from
Rabat, representing roughly 2% of country population. Mostly overweight/obese
(no reference of the national prevalence of these conditions), known to decrease
the risk of osteoporosis.
It would be desirable and useful to know PTH levels, known to be inversely
related to 25(OH)D levels, as well with the prevalence of vertebral fractures.
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:Assessment of leukemia inhibitory factor and glycoprotein 130 expression
in endometrium and uterine flushing: a possible diagnostic tool for impaired
fertility
Version: 3Date:5 August 2011
Reviewer: Amolak Bansal
Reviewer's report:
This results of this study are fine and interesting but the report needs to be
rewritten by somneone with a good standard of English and who can summarise
and eliminate many of the superfluous details in the introduction and discussion.
There are well over 20 spelling errors. I would also like to see better photographs
of the gels (if possible). Without adherence to these changes the report is very
difficult to understand and particularly in regard to the conclusions.
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'