JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report 
 Surveying of Relationship between Anxiety, Depression and Duration of Infertility Title: 
 1  18 December 2003 Version: Date: 
 Ellen Olshansky Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript addresses a very important topic in infertility, that of the relationship of anxiety and 
depression with the duration of infertility. I believe that the manuscript would be strengthened if more detail was provided. These suggestions are described under the section Major Compulsory Revisions, below. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 1. Please describe the type of infertility, beyond simply female or male factor (e.g. infertility due to tubal problems, anovulation, azospermia, etc). 
2. Describe the cross-sectional method in more detail - what groups were sampled in a 
cross-sectional manner? 3. Describe Cattle questionnaires. 4. In the discussion section, please describe the implications of these findings for clinical practice or 
for further research. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Surveying of Relationship between Anxiety, Depression and Duration of Infertility Title: 
 4  6 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ellen Olshansky Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
There is a sentence that states that T-tests showed significant differences between depression 
scores of housewives and employees. Please describe what those differences actually were. A few paragraphs later idt is stated that "it seeems being at work outside home affects and decreases psychological signs of anxiety and depression. Our finding is different from other reports and it is 
maybe related to our culture." This statement deserves more discussion and expansion on the ideas 
the authors are putting forth. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) I think, in general, that a bit more discussion is needed to expand on the ideas put 
forward. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) Put the aims of the paper sooner - at the end of the first paragraph. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 The effect of duration and cause of infertility on anxiety and depression in infertile women Title: 
 6  8 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Hidehiko Matsubayashi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This revised manuscript is very much better than the previous one, which could be worthwhile for the 
publication after following minor revision. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1) Page 3, lines 16-17; Lapane et al (1995) should be changed to Some reports, because this 
sentence includes 2 references (8,9). 
2) Page 4, line11; increases of stress should be changed to increases stress. 
3) Page 4, lines 14-16; The author should add another reference to this sentence, because some studies means more than 1 studies. Otherwise, some studies should be changed to one study. 4) Page 5, line 16; Probably 6.36 means 6.36 years. 
5) Page 5, line 20; WHO criteria 1999 would be changed to WHO criteria in 1999. 
6) Page 5, line 22; lapascopy would be laparoscopy, HSG should be spelled out at the first 
appearance, facto would be factor, detected in Post Coital Test would be detected by post coital test. 
7) Page 6, line 5; It is much better to add reference number (20) after Becks depression inventory. 
8) Page 6 , lines 6-7; It is better not to change the line. 9) Page 6, line 18; It is much better to add reference number (21) after Cattles inventory. 10) Page 7, line 17; figure-1 would be Figure-1. 
11) Page 8, line 1; Chi2 would be c2 or chi square. 
12) Page 8, lines 11-12; Duration of ---Beck and Cattle scores is indicated in Table 4. Therefore, the 
authors should add (Table 4) after this sentence. In that case, Table 4 will appear before Table 3, 
then the authors should change the number of Table 3 and 4. 
13) Page 10, line 10; Is this comma really necessary? 
14) Page 11, line 14; The underline below period is not necessary. 15) Page 11, line 19; more common would be less common. 16) Table 2; chi-square=20.643 would be changed to chi-square test for 2 x 9 table. 
17) Table 3; The authors should indicate the statistical method under the table. 
18) Table 5; *t=9.179, **t=2.943 would be changed simply unpaired t-test. 19) Figure 1; Plots of anxiety are not matched the vertical scale. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Examination of EIF2B genes in a large panel of patients with premature ovarian failure Title: 
 1  13 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 antonino forabosco Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have screened known EIF2B mutations, causing ovarioleukodystrophy, in a wide 
number of POF patients. The methods applied are appropriate for the limited goal of the project. In order to realize a more complete work, it would have been better using DHPLC technique, considering the big size of the genes. 
The methodology used by the authors is sufficiently described, even if a more precise description 
(list of the primers used and conditions of PCR) would have been required. The data are well controlled. The manuscript adheres to the standards for reporting and data deposition. 
The discussion and conclusions are adequately supported by the data provided by the work. 
The title is not appropriate. The abstract is well done. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
- The title does not reflect the content of the work; we suggest this one: "Screening for known 
mutations in EIF2B genes in a large panel of patients with premature ovarian failure". - We prefer to define "pure" premature ovarian failure instead of "spontaneous". 
- We suggest to add a table with the sequences of primers used and their PCR conditions. 
- The use of the term "mutations" for genes and for proteins in the same speech generates confusion and mislead readers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Pregnancy weight gain and breast cancer risk Title: 
 4  14 July 2004 Version: Date: 
 Bianca L De Stavola Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have addressed all my points and the paper is greatly improved. 
I am however still concerned about three aspects of their new draft. These are: 
_________________________________ 
Major essential revision 
1-representativeness of the included women (first half of page 6): 
the authors say that "there is no reason to believe that exclusion of these women affected the 
findings". I would recommend more caution because the women excluded were heavier and had 
higher BMI (presumably before pregnancy) with these two factors having been identified as important for pregnancy weight gain. 
2- the piecewise regression model used to compute pregnancy weight gain is now well described in 
the appendix. However the ranges reported at the bottom of page 8 include negative values (and enormous ones too)!!! Have the authors worried about this? For how many women is the predicted 
weight gain negative? Table 3 lists 4 such women and several others with gains <5kg: are these not 
too small to be realistic? This highlights that there may be something wrong with the way calculations 
are carried out. 
3- the separate analyses for pre- and postmenopuasal women are explicitly described 
in the response letter.There seems to be an error in how calculations are made 
for post-menopasal women: the follow-up should be from age 50, not from the end of pregnancy. 
_________________________________ 
Minor essential points: 
a) Table 2: the 95% CI for weight gain seem wrong 
b) Table 4: one p-value testing the significance of each risk factor as a whole 
would be preferable to separate p-values for each category. 
c) Appendix: the choice of percentages (45.1% and 51.4%) used to extrapolate values should be 
justified (lines -7, -3). 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
no competing interest
Reviewer's report 
 Additional Collection Devices Used In Conjunction With The SurePath Liquid-Based Pap Test Title: 
Broom Device Do Not Enhance Diagnostic Utility 
 3  26 August 2004 Version: Date: 
 Joel Bentz Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript appears ready for acceptance, and the authors have responded to all of the 
comments/suggestions. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
NONE 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
NONE 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
NONE 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
Dr. Bentz has served as a consultant to TriPath Care Technologies. He has received honoraria for 
speaking and as a expert reviewer for company sponsored clinical trials. Dr. Bentz does not hold any 
finacial interests in any commercial company discussed in the manuscript.
Reviewer's report 
 Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data Title: 
 1  28 April 2004 Version: Date: 
 Steen Moiniche Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Comments on Jayne E Edwards et al. Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual 
patient data. 
This is yet another excellent review from Oxford. This time it concerns pain treatment with a Cox-2 
inhibitor administered for a single specific condition (dysmenorrhoea). It could also have been a 
specific surgical procedure or similar types of procedures (e.g. laparotomy, etc.). This may be 
welcomed due to the ongoing debate of whether it always is correct to pool pain data from different 
pain models (e.g. dental surgery and more extensive procedures). 
I only have a few comments. 
The authors state that the QUORUM guidelines were followed where appropriate. Please specify 
what is meant. When were the guidelines not followed? 
Methods section, the paragraph “Our intension was to use two pain outcomes (pain relief over the 
first dose, and pain relief over the whole cycle, with the OUTCOME BEING THAT CLOSEST TO AT LEAST HALF PAIN RELIEF)” I am not sure I understand what is meant. Is it the maximum pain 
relief obtained or…please clarify? 
Results 
Spelling error in the first line “women in..” 
Efficacy 
Efficacy results at 6, 8 and 12 hours were chosen, however, why were the 2 or 4 hours assessments 
not evaluated in addition? The effect of ibuprofen should peak at about 2 to 3 hours after 
administration and 6, 8 or 12 hours might be too late. 
The third paragraph is a little difficult to read. I expect the meaning is that “.., no significant difference 
was seen at the 12 hour comparison of NNTs of rofecoxib 25 mg versus placebo and rofecoxib 50 
mg versus placebo; no significant difference was seen at the 12 hour comparison of NNTs of 
rofecoxib 25 mg versus placebo and ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, and between the NNTs of rofecoxib 25 mg versus placebo and naproxen sodium 550 mg versus placebo. 
Perhaps it would be more easily to understand if the sentence was changed to something like: 
…no significant difference in the 12 hour comparison was seen between the NNTs of rofecoxib 25 
mg and rofecoxib 50 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, or naproxen sodium 550 mg, or between NNTs of 
rofecoxib 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg, or naproxen 550 mg. 
Discussion, third paragraph, spelling error: NNT 
Table 2 
Please consider changing subheading: “Improved with” to “Number with at least 50% pain relief” or 
“Number with =50% pain relief”, and “% improved” to “% with at least 50% pain relief” or “% with 
=50% pain relief” 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data Title: 
 1  14 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 William W Stones Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
A well conducted and highly relevant study. Industry support to undertake the study is appropriately 
declared. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
There are a couple of typos, eg "NNNT" 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. As a non- statistician I would appreciate a little more explanation of the 'z test'. I looked at the cited 
paper which shows how the formula is calculated, but it would be helpful to give some explanation of 
why this is a useful test. I was not clear whether the 'z score' mentioned is the same as the 
conventional use of 'z score' to mean the number of standard deviations. 
2. Gynaecologists are often asked whether a particular NSAID will improve other menstrual 
symptoms as well as dysmenorrhoea, such as heavy menstrual bleeding. Mefenamic acid has been 
heavily promoted and is widely recommended for this benefit. I know this analysis relates specifically 
to primary dysmen, but as the authors have access to the individual patient data it would be very 
interesting to know whether there were any differences in heavy menstrual loss between the treatment group. Were these outcomes recorded? 
3. It would be helpful to know whether being on the combined oral contraceptive pill had any 
influence on the pain outcomes. Given the effect of the ocp on reducing prostaglandin production it is possible that all the agents would be less effective in pill takers, or conceivably that coxibs could 
be less effective than ordinary NSAIDS in this sub-group. Again the authors may be in a position to 
answer these questions given their access to the individual patient data. I appreciate that it might be 
a matter of 'no evidence of a difference' rather than 'evidence of no difference' as the studies were 
not designed to answer this point. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None.
Reviewer's report 
 Congenital scoliosis associated with agenesis of the uterine cervix. Case report. Title: 
 4  14 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 Murat Sonmezer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1. Reference #2: Is it correctlly written? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. The authors described a case with a non-communicating mullerian anomaly. It is more common to 
see endometriosis in these cases. Was there any finding related to endometriosis at laparotomy? In 
histologic evaluation was there ectopic presence of endometrial glands and stroma? 2. Was there any history of inutero DES exposure? 3. Did authors investigate for possible urinary tract anomalies? 
4. In patients with non communicating mullerian anomalies and with a functioning endometrium, as 
in the present case, the diagnosis is usually made just after the onset of menarche, since it causes 
cryptomenorrhea leading to significant pelvic pain. So, "occasionally these patients are identified and 
diagnosed in the early adolescence (page 2, first paragraph)" is not true. 
5. Treatment with GnRH analogues or oral contracetives is a subject of debate that could be 
mentioned in the discussion. It is not a part of conclusion, and should be removed. 6. One of the figures of 2-3 and of 4-5 are superfluous and should be omitted. 7. The paper needs linguistic revision. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Prevalence of Chlamydia Trachomatis infection among women in a Middle Eastern Title: 
Community 
 1  11 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 veronique verhoeven Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Since few data on chlamydia prevalence are available from this region, the manuscript may provide useful data for comparison.I would suggest to make some alterations to put the results in a somewhat different perspective. It would be worth the effort because this study shows that cultural 
aaspects are important in interpreting results. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I would suggest to rewrite somehow the conclusions concerning prevalence, for the following 
reasons: * the authors state that prevalence is low but 1) a large proportion of older women is included; most 
other studies are restricted to a young population (under 30, under 40) so that comparison is difficult. 
Leaving out the oldest age groups from prevalence calculations already gives a different picture 
2) the group with highest prevalence (16-19y) is underrepresented which will undoubtably contribute to the low prevalence. it would be good to dicuss this in the paper * the diagnostics are far from being the golden standard (as mentioned in the discussion), in my 
opinion there will have been an underestimation of positives which makes the comparison with other 
countries (as made in the discussion) not valid. 
* as a western reader my first thought was that the authors had just missed the risk group, since 1) only married women were included and 2) unlike the authors statement it is a selected population 
(women participating in cervical abnormalities screening), which is probably a very low-risk group. 
it would be very interesting to give some more detailed information on the cultural setting (for example polygamous marriages etc.). in the western population unmarried women without stable relationships are at high risk for chlamydia; I understand from the paper that legal and social 
concerns played in excluding these women. maybe this could be discussed more extensively. are 
these women supposed to have no sex before marriage? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
just a little remark: you refer to reference 9 as a study from the Netherlands, but it is a scandinavian 
study. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
no