JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Methodological quality of test accuracy studies included in systematic
reviews in obstetrics and gynaecology: sources of bias
Version: 2Date:4 January 2011
Reviewer: Nynke Smidt
Reviewer's report:
Reply to the authors:
1) No comments
2) No comments
3) Although the number of articles that included a flow chart is minimal (< 5%) it
is very important to report this as a flow chart is associated with better quality of
reporting making the judgement of the methodological quality easier. I will leave it
up to the editor whether this information is included in the paper or not.
4) I leave it up to the editor whether he/she wants to publish figure 2 or that this
information can be presented in a table or in the text.
5) I do understand that the authors cannot present the design characteristics
(case-control versus cohort studies), journals, sample size of studies, test
characteristics (index and reference standard), target condition, study population,
setting for each study, but it would be interested to see the variation and to give
readers an idea about what kind of studies are included in this review. However, I
will leave this also up to the editor.
6) Maybe I was very clear in my question, but it would be worth to add the legend
is missing. It is not clear from the graph what ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘unclear’ and ‘not
applicable’ is.
7) No comments
8) No comments
9) With regard to my second comment “Did the authors found the same poorly
reported items compared to other reviews investigated the quality of reporting
using STARD?”. Hopefully, I can explain here. There are more authors that have
investigated the quality of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies on other
medical topics. It would be interested to see whether the same poorly reported
STARD are found in the reviews, irrespective of the medical topic. This could
indicate that some STARD items are more difficult to report than other STARD
items. It would then be clear that more attention to these items is needed (by
reviewers, editors, authors, but also the STARD steering committee). However, I
will leave it up the editor whether this is above the scope of the paper.
10) No comments
11) No comments
12) No comments
Reviewer's report
Title:Contraceptive Methods and Use by Women Aged 35 and Over: A
Qualitative Study of Perspectives
Version: 2Date:11 December 2010
Reviewer: Deborah Oakley
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions: None
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. p. 11, line 10 wording change. Suggestion: Respondents who expressed
apprechasion about mothing tried to be conscientious about...
2. p. 18, line 16: Should "IUC" be IUD?
Discretionary Revisions: No suggestions
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:Contraceptive Methods and Use by Women Aged 35 and Over: A
Qualitative Study of Perspectives
Version: 2Date:11 January 2011
Reviewer: Tessa Madden
Reviewer's report:
The changes to manuscript look good and the authors have made appropriate
responses to the reviewer comments. I just have a couple of points where
additional clarification is needed:
Abstract
1. “More than 30% of the pregnancies in women aged 35 and over are
unintended. This paper compares perceptions about contraceptive methods and
use among women who had an unintended pregnancy after age 35 with those
who did not.”
Are you comparing women with an unintended pregnancy at age >= 35 to
women who did not have an unintended pregnancy after 35 but may have had an
unintended pregnancy < 35? It would be clearer to include that in the abstract.
What about saying “…compares perceptions about contraceptive methods and
use among women with and without an unintended pregnancy after age 35.”
Background
1. Unintended pregnancy in older women is problematic because inherent
obstetrical risks increase during the late reproductive years. U.S. women aged
35-39 have a pregnancy-related mortality ratio twice that of women aged 20-34
(deaths per100,000 live births = 9.1 vs. 2.1)
There is a four-fold increase in mortality ratio for the rates shown.
Reviewer's report
Title:Treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a randomized multicenter
trial comparing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (SAVE U trial)
Version: 1Date:1 February 2011
Reviewer: Riitta Luoto
Reviewer's report:
Referee comments
1. Will the study design adequately test the hypothesis?
Yes, study design is a randomized controlled multi-center trial
2. Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the work or comparison
with related analyses: if not, what is missing?
Details are carefully given, no need to clarify
3. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition: if not, in what ways?
Manuscript has enough high level for reporting
4. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
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:Socio-demographic factors and processes associated with stages of
change for smoking cessation in pregnant versus non-pregnant women.
Version: 1Date:5 July 2010
Reviewer: David Tappin
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
I think that the data is helpful, but needs to come from a different angle. That is:
Has 'stage of change' measurement any relevance to smoking cessation
services during and outwith pregnancy? I think stage of change is important, but I
am not sure it can be measured by a doctor using a psychologist's questionnaire.
The dissonance between stage of change measurement and smoking cessation
during pregnancy compared with smoking cessation in other situations may be
due to inability to accurately measure stage of change by a health care worker in
their normal care situation with a pregnant patient. The introduction must focus
on the review of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy and the lack
of efficacy of stage of change interventions. It must contrast this with any
evidence about stage of change interventions outside pregnancy. The question
then is: Is stage of change intervention no good in pregnancy or are we not able
to measure stage of change accurately during pregnancy?
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'
Reviewer's report
Title:Socio-demographic factors and processes associated with stages of
change for smoking cessation in pregnant versus non-pregnant women.
Version: 2Date:13 October 2010
Reviewer: Ross Barnett
Reviewer's report:
Major Revisions
I still feel that the authors have paid lip service to environmental factors and the
way they affect the chances of smoking cessation. For example, there is a large
US literature on this topic especially as it relates to African Americans. Some
mention of this literature is necessary. Even if a women is pregnant and more
sensitive to the health risks of smoking other environmental factors may affect
the perceptions of smoking risk.
Minor revisions
The discussion is still relatively descriptive. Take one example - discuss why for
non-pregnant women there was no relationship between cessation and
education. Why not?
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:Socio-demographic factors and processes associated with stages of
change for smoking cessation in pregnant versus non-pregnant women.
Version: 2Date:18 October 2010
Reviewer: Cheryl Merzel
Reviewer's report:
Comments on revisions were provided in my first review of the paper. No further
revisions required.
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:Socio-demographic factors and processes associated with stages of
change for smoking cessation in pregnant versus non-pregnant women.
Version: 2Date:21 October 2010
Reviewer: David Tappin
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
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:Socio-demographic factors and processes associated with stages of
change for smoking cessation in pregnant versus non-pregnant women.
Version: 2Date:27 October 2010
Reviewer: Monique Baha
Reviewer's report:
In this revised version, the authors have take into account most of the reviewers’
remarks. I’ve particularly noted the practical suggestions for interventions in the
conclusion. However, in my opinion, there are still a few weaknesses.
• Major Compulsory Revisions
Introduction:
The authors have made an effort to reshape their introduction. However, based
on the references used, it is still unclear what this paper adds to existing
literature. For instance, the authors cite that TTM-based interventions yielded
little to no benefit for smoking cessation during pregnancy. They should therefore
clearly explain why they choose to use this theoretically frame and what novel
approach they are adding to the body of knowledge.
Also, they authors mention publications of Stotts and Scheibmeir already show
that pregnant women adopt less behavioral as well as experiential strategies to
stop smoking. What is thus the objective of their work? Is it simply to
illustrate/confirm these findings?
Methods and Results:
The methods and results are presented more clearly.
I notice now that the authors do not indicate the proportion of
smokers/ex-smokers among pregnant and non-pregnant women. This concerns
me, as 60.5% of pregnant women were in maintenance stage and the average
number of cigarettes smoked was low. Could it be because most pregnant
women in the sample were not smoking anymore? One can thus wonder if
there’s enough data to draw any conclusion on pregnant smokers. Anyways, this
information should be mentioned in the methods and presented as a limit in the
discussion.
The association between relationship status (or living with smokers/ non
smokers) and smoking has been documented in literature. Authors should
present and discuss it as such.
• Minor Essential Revisions
Tables:
Consistency in terms used:
“college education” in the text becomes “degree” on table 1.
“acceptability of smoking” in the text becomes “acceptability of smoke” on table 4.
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:Elevated Serum Polymorphonuclear elastase in Obese Prehypertensive
Women: Impact on Respiratory Function
Version: 2Date:23 June 2010
Reviewer: Pavithran P
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
• On the title page, the authors have misspelled the term medicine, it’s spelled as
midicine.
• The contact address of the corresponding author can be brought above the list
of email address of all the authors.
• It’s better to avoid the use of abbreviations in the abstract.
• I suggest the authors to highlight the findings of the present study in the
abstract section, rather than stating the use of NE inhibitors for treatment
purpose.
• Background, Para 1: I would suggest the authors use Joint national Committee
instead of the evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure.
• In the background section, para 2: NE also acting as a secretagouge for
cytokines. Check the spelling for acting and also need to modify the sentence
structure.
• In paragraph 1 and 3 of the Methods section, the font seems to differ. Make
sure proper proof reading is done before submitting the manuscript to the journal.
• In the Statistics section: Its either SPSS or statistical program for social
sciences and not both.
• Remove the sentence which says statistical analysis was done to test for
significance.
• In the results section at many places FEV1 has been wrongly spelled.
• Discussion section: Para 5 what does MMP stand for?
• Some places the authors have used the term polymorphonuclear elastase,
other place it is serum elastase. I suggest the authors use either PMNE or SE
through out the manuscript.
• The authors seems to have duplicated a figure.
• Overall the manuscript is poorly formatted before submission.
Major comments
• The authors need to state what is new in this manuscript. Obesity itself will have
a deleterious effect on lung function, so do the presence of SE.
• A correlation between two parameters does not mean anything significant. U
can never state one thing will lead to another or the other way round.
• Why did the author study female subjects alone, why not both? I would like a bit
of clarification on this?
• From your manuscript it’s not clear how will it be possible to use the presence
of elevated SE as a precursor in the development of PreHT?
• How do u recommend the use of inhibitors of SE for patients with obesity and
hypertension. This would require a RCT, rather than a study like yours.
• U need to modify the title of the study to highlight the main finding of the study.
• JNC7 recommends that BP be measured in the sitting position, the authors
seems to have measured it the lying position. How do you justify this?
• It is mandatory that the authors take clearance form the ethical committee of the
institute where they are working. A statement regarding this needs to be
mentioned in the methods section.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Elevated Serum Polymorphonuclear elastase in Obese Prehypertensive
Women: Impact on Respiratory Function
Version: 2Date:28 June 2010
Reviewer: Elmo Mannarino
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript shows for the first time that serum PMN elastase is elevated in
obese prehypertensive women as compared with obese normotensive and lean
normotensive women.
The study is well performed and discussed.
I have only a comment. Obese women had very high average BMI values, in the
range of grade 3 hypertension (39-43 Kg/m2). This limits the applicability of the
Authors' conclusions to severe obesity. Do the Authors have data on less
severely obese women?
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:Elevated Serum Polymorphonuclear elastase in Obese Prehypertensive
Women: Impact on Respiratory Function
Version: 3Date:16 November 2010
Reviewer: Pavithran P
Reviewer's report:
There are a few minor things that needs to be address, like the statistics, where it
is mentioned that ANOVA was used i didnot see ANOVA being mentioned in the
tables. I saw only unpaired t test P values metioned,this needs to be corrected.
I am attaching the PDF where i have added some comments. Please attend to it.
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:Awareness and knowledge of HPV, cervical cancer, and vaccines in young
women after first delivery in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 2Date:19 August 2010
Reviewer: Rosa Prato
Reviewer's report:
Background
- Paragraph 3: “However, vaccine coverage in adolescents can be low because
they generally seek preventive health services less frequently than other age
groups [5].”
Please be more clear about this sentence. Also the reference 5 does not help me
to fully understand what the authors have stated.
- Please insert some basic information on HPV vaccination strategy in the study
setting. It is difficult for me understand the aim of this study without any data
about the vaccination programs choosed, the way of vaccine offer, and so on.
Some information are present at the end of discussion (and in the cover letter)
but they should be anticipated in the background.
Methods
- Paragraph 1: “Detailed exclusion criteria have been previously published [6].”
Please summarize the main exclusion criteria from this study.
- Paragraph 4: “A total of 509 women were invited to participate: …………….
Therefore, 301 primiparous women were included in the analysis.”
No woman had been vaccinated for HPV?
Discussion
The authors conclude their discussion stressing the need for educational
interventions. At the end of the article it is not yet clear for me if the vaccine has
been offered to the enrolled young women or not. If yes, is it been offered free of
charge? What is the reached coverage? Their conclusions appear a little obvious
without this information.
Please note that in the results is reported: “All participants affirmed that they
would accept vaccination after delivery if the HPV vaccine were available (Table
1).”
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:Awareness and knowledge of HPV, cervical cancer, and vaccines in young
women after first delivery in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 2Date:24 August 2010
Reviewer: Magdalena Grce
Reviewer's report:
This paper is well designed and brings new information essential to a successful
implementation of the HPV vaccine in Brasil.
There are only some minor changes that the authors might consider (Minor
Essential Revisions).
- Backround; space between HPV and the type number
- Statistical analysis paragraph and Tables 2 and 3M; instead of symbol write
Chi-square for trend
- In the text delete the Zero decimal (i.e. 27% instead of 27.0%) and replace “on
08 June 2006” by June 8, 2006.
- Results; delete one space before the comma
- Discussion; comma before “which” and small letter to “knowledge of HPV can
be changing….”
- Table 1, define the 301 “participants” in the same manner like in Tables 2 and 3
- Tables 2 and 3; define the superscript *: statistically significant.
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:Awareness and knowledge of HPV, cervical cancer, and vaccines in young
women after first delivery in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 2Date:24 August 2010
Reviewer: Carrie Nielson
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The rationale for studying this population was not given in this manuscript, but
is clear from the discussion section in their previous paper (ref 6). This
information (i.e., high HPV prevalence but low oncogenic HPV prevalence) is
important for readers to consider the utility of offering these women the HPV
vaccine after sexual debut.
2. There was some information given to all participants about the HPV vaccine,
which led to 100% of them indicating acceptability. This information should be
completely described. For example, were its cost, effectiveness, side-effects, and
alternatives to vaccination (i.e., regular screening) explained? If they were only
told that the vaccine can prevent cervical cancer and genital warts, it is not
surprising they would all agree, but this would not be very complete information
for decision making purposes.
3. Abstract: Does the fact that it is a “public maternity hospital” (in Methods) imply
they are “low income” (in Conclusions)? Please clarify the population base and
the use of “low income” throughout the manuscript.
4. The reason for excluding income in the multivariable model is not given.
Therefore, I’m not sure the appropriate model and adjusted PRs are presented.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Exclusion criteria should be stated, not referred to in a previous publication.
2. Why is it important that women know how cytological tests are performed?
3. “Ordinal gynecological test” should probably be “ordinary …”, although this
phrase seems a bit ambiguous. Is the point that women should be asking for a
Pap smear when they have their annual gynecologic exam?
4. Include in the background some information about vaccine approval and
educational efforts in Brazil that are mentioned in the Discussion.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Is HPV vaccine contraindicated among pregnant women? Presumably these
women were not receiving regular health care until they became pregnant but did
have some contact with the health care system for prenatal care. Is post-delivery
the first opportunity to offer this population a catch-up vaccine?
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Awareness and knowledge of HPV, cervical cancer, and vaccines in young
women after first delivery in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 3Date:14 November 2010
Reviewer: Rosa Prato
Reviewer's report:
The paper has been significantly improved.
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:Awareness and knowledge of HPV, cervical cancer, and vaccines in young
women after first delivery in Sao Paulo, Brazil
Version: 3Date:18 November 2010
Reviewer: Carrie Nielson
Reviewer's report:
My concerns have been addressed in the revisions.
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