JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Analysis of the diagnostic value of CD138 for chronic endometritis, the risk
factors for the pathogenesis of chronic endometritis and the effect of chronic
endometritis on pregnancy
Version:1Date:19 November 2015
Reviewer: Ashraf Moini
Reviewer's report:
Based on my assessment of the validity of the manuscript: it is acceptable after
minor essential revisions.
The authors should explain:
1- According to important role of chlamydia infection in etiology of endometritis,
why the patients have not been investigated for chlamydia infection by measuring
the specific antibodies.
2. In the discussion section, it should be explained: if the CD 138 is positive, what
is the second step and which medications are recommended?
This diagnostic study was performed with appropriate methodology and the
results were presented corrective in the table and figures . The discussion
section was balance and adequately supported by the data, but the limitations of
the work have not mentioned. The title and abstract accurately convey what the
authors have been found. The writing is acceptable.
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:Analysis of the diagnostic value of CD138 for chronic endometritis, the risk
factors for the pathogenesis of chronic endometritis and the effect of chronic
endometritis on pregnancy
Version:1Date:27 November 2015
Reviewer: MARIA MATTEO
Reviewer's report:
In this study the authors analysed the the diagnostic value of CD138 for
diagnosis of chronic endometritis, the risk factors for the pathogenesis of chronic
endometritis and the effect of chronic endometritis on the reproductive outcome
both of spontaneus and IVF et cycles
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Althouhg the question posed by the authors is well defined authors may wish to
address the following items:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Back ground: There are a lot of studies in literature describing the diagnostic
criteria of CE and the relationship between CE and infertility, implantation failure
at IVF and repeated pregnancy loss. The authors should better introduce the
study with more references
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
2. Methods :
2.a The authors defined as “positive to CE “ specimens with five or more typical
plasma cells in the endometrial stroma. in each 400 x magnification field,
Is this cut off used in other studies in litterature? If so please provide references,
if not please explain the criteria used to chose this cut off.
3. Are the data sound?
3. Results
3.a The authors evaluated the pregnancy rate of both spontaneus and IVF et
cycles
and concluded that “pregnancy rate of CD138-positive patients (7.7%) was lower
than the pregnancy rate of CD138-negative patients (31.3%) (p = 0.017 <0.05);
Authors should independently evaluate the pregnancy rate of spontaneous and
of IVF cycles
The authors should give much more information on the clinical features of IVF
cycles performed in both CE positive and CE negative group: day 3 FSH ,
number of oocytes retrived, number of embrios transferred , and differences
between the two groups should be reported .
Withut these data Author’s can’t drive any conclusion on the difference in terms
of reproductive outcome of the two groups
Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by
the data?
4. Discussion
Again the authors should include in the discussion a number of recent reports on
the effect of CE on the reproductive outcome
Level of interest
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research
interests
Quality of written English
Acceptable
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence And Determinants Of Unintended Pregnancy Among Pregnant
Woman Attending ANC At Gelemso General Hospital, Oromiya Region, East
Ethiopia: A Facility Based Cross-Sectional Study
Version:2Date:19 November 2015
Reviewer: Kirsten I Black
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
Abstract:
Nature of the questionnaire not stated
Results having awareness of contraception was negatively associated with
unplanned pregnancy.
The presentation of the results in confusing and need to make clear that the
unintended pregnancies were made up of the mistimed and the unwanted.
Conclusion: language needs attention
Background:
English language needs attention as many of the sentences do not make
grammatical sense.
The first sentence of the second paragraph repeats information from the first
paragraph. Organization of the paragraphs needs attention. Greater attention to
the issue of family planning and what methods are best at reducing unplanned
pregnancy.
Methods:
No information is given about how unintended pregnancy was assesses.
Results
Attention to language throughout. The section headed “Obstetric characteristics
of the respondents is particularly difficult to understand”
Language problems eg “Regarding current pregnancy status, 112(27.1%) of the
mothers were not intended to be pregnant 207 their last child,..”
Eg” Almost all 209 mothers, 396(95.9%) were heard about contraceptive from
different sources, and majority 339 210 (82.1%) of the respondent make decision
on their health care with their partners”
The following sections are confusing
# Determinants of unintended pregnancy amongst the respondents
# In addition, those mothers who 235 didn’t heard about contraceptives had an
adjusted odd of 2.7(AOR=2.73, 95CI= 1.15, 6.50) of 236 having unintended
pregnancy compared to those who have heard about contraceptives
Discussion
The discussion again contains language problems that need addressing but
more importantly lacks depth and breadth about what can be done to reduce
unintended pregnancy and improve access to contraception. Programs that
provide information on contraceptive choices for women who have had a baby
before they leave hospital may
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: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
NIL
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence And Determinants Of Unintended Pregnancy Among Pregnant
Woman Attending ANC At Gelemso General Hospital, Oromiya Region, East
Ethiopia: A Facility Based Cross-Sectional Study
Version:6Date:4 April 2016
Reviewer: Melissa L Harris
Reviewer's report:
Although the authors have made attempts to improve the language used in the
manuscript, there are still quite a few grammatical errors and words missing. This
needs to be checked and amended. The discussion is still lacking necessary
detail to place the findings within the context of other work. For example, the
authors need to go beyond saying that “considering themselves as not fertile”
has been reported in Ethiopia, China and Indonesia. What makes the findings
here unique and important if this has already been found in Ethiopia? There are
also abbreviation in the introduction that have not been spelt out in the first
instance. There is still a lack of justification regarding the inclusion (and validity)
of some of the measures included in the study. While the authors provided a
reference in the response to reviewer’s document to justify the inclusion of
availability of tv or radio, this should be included in the manuscript so that it is
obvious the reader.
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:
During 2012-2014 I was employed on an Australian Research Council Linkage
project that received some financial support from Family Planning New South
Wales and Bayer Australia.
Reviewer's report
Title:Patterns of cervical cytological abnormalities according to the Human
Development Index in the northeast region of Brazil
Version:3Date:4 December 2015
Reviewer: Chengquan Zhao
Reviewer's report:
It is a very interesting study. The authors conclude Pap cytology abnormal rates
are associated with HDI, TZ.
Suggestions:
As authors mentioned the Pap abnormal rates are lower compared the data from
other countries, even from Brazil. I hope the authors can explain more in the
discussion part. What is the Pap screening system in Brazil, cytotechnicians,
pathologists, cytopathologists?? I assume they are not the same group of
pathologists to sign out the more than million Pap tests. Is it possible the different
abnnormal Pap rates can be caused by the local pathologists? Most of previous
US studies indicate the TZ presence/absence will not change the Pap testing
results. Why does this study are much different?
In the page 12, reference 23. the abnormal rate in the USA is 4.3% which is not
correct. The abnormal rate (ASC-US and above) in the USA should be about 7%
in LBC.
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:
Non
Reviewer's report
Title:Patterns of cervical cytological abnormalities according to the Human
Development Index in the northeast region of Brazil
Version:3Date:22 February 2016
Reviewer: Deanna Kepka
Reviewer's report:
This is an important and interesting study. It is detailed, well-written, and nicely
organized. I have a few minor issues that I think should be addressed.
Minor Essential Revisions
-More description of how the HDI is created? Who creates the HDI?
-More background on the use of HDI as an independent variable is other studies
would be helpful in the introduction.
-Lines 212-214 are difficult to understand.
-Lines 302-303 are also very difficult to understand.
-In the Discussion, please include a section that describes the implications of the
findings from this study.
-In the Discussion, please also include a section on future directions that should
be explored as a result of the findings uncovered in this study.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:
No, I do not have any competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors influencing place of delivery for pastoralist women in Kenya: a
qualitative study
Version:3Date:30 November 2015
Reviewer: Lorraine Walker
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
None. Well execute manuscript!
Minor Essential Revisions
Page 7, lines 187-189: Clarify if further revisions were made in the findings as a
result of the presentation to community members, or if they supported the
findings as presented to them.
Discretionary Revisions
In regard to assessing findings (starting on page 7), the authors might wish to
highlight that this is one of the classic "3 days" in the cited Thaddeus & Maine
study, which they cite.
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 influencing place of delivery for pastoralist women in Kenya: a
qualitative study
Version:3Date:7 February 2016
Reviewer: Bobbie Sterling
Reviewer's report:
Extremely engaging manuscript. Relevant topic of interest addressing a topic that
could be transposed into many different geographic areas with indigenous
groups living semi-nomadic lives. The problem of difficult access to safe
maternity care is universal.
Major Compulsory Revision: Recommend addition of textual data in each
category descriptive of major themes. There is very limited (although relevant)
textual data in each major theme. Considering the cultural differences in some of
the groups, it would be helpful to the reader (and policy developer) to have a
deeper understanding of possible differences. The reader must "see the data" to
evaluate the relevance of the study. The only way for the reader to understand
the data in a qualitative study, is to provide the reader with access to the data.
Including thematic textual data from each type group (TBA, SBA, CHW) within
some major themes would offer additional data for the reader.
Minor Compulsory Revisions: None identified
Discretionary Revisions: None identified.
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 influencing place of delivery for pastoralist women in Kenya: a
qualitative study
Version:5Date:19 April 2016
Reviewer: Kenneth Finlayson
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my original comments and made appropriate
changes as necessary.
I have no new major or minor revisions.
In terms of discretionary revisions the authors have sought to clarify the
reservations I had about the limited and descriptive nature of the analysis section
(lines 187-191). I still feel this is a little vague and, as it is not supported with
reference to a recognized analytical approach, the reader is left to wonder
exactly how the themes and sub-themes were generated. A reference or an
example from the topic guide might aid clarity here. A good example from a
similar, recently published paper (Pell C, et al. (2013) Factors Affecting Antenatal
Care Attendance: Results from Qualitative Studies in Ghana, Kenya and Malawi.
PLoS ONE 8(1): e53747. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053747) describes the
analysis as follows:-
Data from each site were first analyzed separately and then combined. Using
Atlas Ti 6 (Scientific Software, Berlin, Germany), codebooks were developed, in
collaboration with the fieldworkers/social scientists, using a combination of
established categories based on the original research questions (examples of
basic broad codes included ‘first ANC’, ‘IPTp’ etc) and codes that emerged from
the data using a Grounded Theory approach [27]. The codebooks were flexible
and codes were reassessed during data collection and revised according to the
emergence of novel themes. Based on discussion between CP and AM, data
from the four sites at key codes relevant to ANC attendance (e.g. ‘pregnancy
disclosure’, ‘first pregnancy’) were extracted and collated. Data from the four
sites at these different codes were then compared and situated in the
site-specific data.
This is just to illustrate the level of detail I would expect to find in a paper of this
nature but standards do vary.
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: Gender at the Intersection with Race and Class in the Schooling and Wellbeing of
Immigrant-Origin Students
Version: 1Date: 03 Mar 2016
Reviewer: Manonita Ghosh
Reviewer's report:
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assessAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscriptQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: A survey of
public attitudes
Version:4Date:5 April 2015
Reviewer: molly brewer
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting manuscript but has some limitations. This is a large case
series that evaluates acceptability of OC screening in a UK population between
18 and 74 years of age using a survey design.
Major revisions:
1. It does not represent a heterogeneous population as 25% are college
educated which introduces bias re compatibility to the UK population. In addition,
92% were white. They did include this in their statistical model which cannot
entirely account for the effect of bias.
2. It is not clear what the value of this article is as they are trying to estimate what
the acceptability would be for OC screening based on risk stratification. Most
participants did not understand risk stratification or what it meant.
3. The tables are difficult to read and need to be redone. The CI's are on 2
different lines and this should be organized in an easier fashion. It took me at
least 3 times to understand what they were showing.
4. The difference between Tables 2 and 3 are not clear except that Table 3
includes perceived risk. It might be easier to combine them.
Discretionary revisions
4.One approach might have been an educational approach to test the
acceptability of OC screening before and after an educational module.
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:Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: A survey of
public attitudes
Version:4Date:20 August 2015
Reviewer: Melissa A. Merritt
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript review: Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: A
survey of public attitudes
General comments: This was a well-written and interesting article that covers an
important issue, of whether women in the UK would be open to genetic testing for
ovarian cancer if this were available at some time in the future. The article was
fairly straight forward and I have only added some points to consider as Minor
Essential Revisions.
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) Methods/ line 118: Can the authors provide more detail about the geographic
region that the surveys cover? For example is it the entire UK (Scotland, Wales,
Nth Ireland, England) or England only?
2) Line 139: Please provide references for the Flesch Reading Ease formula and
the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formulas.
3) Line 140: ‘This produced a score of 68’; was this a mean score among all
respondents to the survey? Or was it the mean score among your study
population (women age 18-74 years to reflect the population to whom ovarian
cancer screening might be offered). An estimate of the variance of the score
could be added.
4) Line 190: In the March wave were a similar proportion of households ineligible
because they were businesses or empty properties? It would be good to state
this explicitly as was done for January.
5) Line 193: < http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html > is there a link that takes
you directly to the survey? With this link to the ONS website the reader needs to
spend time digging up the relevant report.
6) Table 2 (footnotes) can you please indicate how the variables that were
mutually adjusted were modelled; for example, was age modelled in the two
categories or as a continuous variable? This comment also applies to the other
variables.
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:Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: A survey of
public attitudes
Version:4Date:21 August 2015
Reviewer: John K Gohagan
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions.
The authors recognize that ovarian cancer screening is not recommended
because there are currently no effective screening tests. The PLCO trial
demonstrated that the two tests most likely to detect ovarian cancer early enough
to reduce mortality from ovarian cancer were ineffective. Further, PLCO showed
that those tests, transvaginal ultrasound and CA125 were unreliable in that both
produced unacceptable false positive and false negative findings. It has also
been found that the risk profiling technique ROCA developed by Steven Skates
and others, when applied retrospectively to PLCO did not result in reduced
mortality from ovarian cancer. The authors should incorporate this fact into their
manuscript for completeness and provide the following citation: Pinsky PF, Zhu
C, Skates SJ, et al. Potential effect of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm
(ROCA) on mortality outcome of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian
(PLCO) trial. Int. J. Cancer 2012; 132:2127-33.
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 interests.