JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:A systematic review of effectiveness and safety of different regimens of
levonorgestrel oral tablets for emergency contraception
Version:5Date:28 January 2014
Reviewer: Norman Goldstuck
Reviewer's report:
1) During the introduction the authors state that one of the outcomes they will
assess is "the proportion of pregnancies prevented". This is then equated with
the number of women in the studies who do not become pregnant which is
something altogether different which fatally flaws the study.
2)they fail to separate pharmacological studies(which they report very well) with
clinical studies & this leads to examples like Table 1 which makes no sense.
In this Table which is difficult to follow because reference numbers are not given
to studies we learn that there was a double blind study by Croxatto et al. This
was a pharmacological study. There has never been a double blind study to
evaluate emergency contraception efficacy. This is why it has taken so long to
determine how effective it might be.
The study by Tremblay et al was in france not South Africa.
3) In Table 2 we are told that there is a 99% pregnancy prevention by 1.5mg
levonorgestrel. This is not true. Many of the women who do not become pregnant
would not have become pregnant anyway for various reasons.
4) Although not part of the systematic review no paper on emergency
contraception is complete without reference to the work of James Trussell who
has shown by reference to day of cycle of unprotected sex that levonorgestrel
1.5mg is 50% effective at best.
5) there is no mention of the effect of weight on the efficacy of levonorgestrel .
This is very topical as increased BMI rapidly reduces the effect of levonorgestrel.
6) this is a topic in desperate need of a good systematic review but this misses
the mark.
7) the paper needs to be redone with a clinician with a well defined protocol
which should be deposited in PROSPERO before redoing the study.
This is a potentially very interesting paper which needs very major revisions so
that it makes clinical sense. The pharmacological studies should be clearly
differentiated from the clinical; studies which should be interpreted In light of
recent knowledge.
Consult the Chapter in "contraceptive Technology" by Trussell et al.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Ways of coping with premenstrual change: Development and validation of
a premenstrual coping measure
Version: 1Date:15 July 2013
Reviewer: Khaled Ismail
Reviewer's report:
This is a detailed report of the methodology utilised to develop and validate a tool
to assess coping mechanisms in core PMD.
The authors do not use the terminology standardised by the International Society
of Premenstrual Disorders with regards to disease classification and diagnosis.
The authors state that they have recruited women who have regular
menstruation and who have not been pregnant or lactating over the previous 12
months. However, there is not indication if they asked if these women have been
using any hormonal treatment or contraception. This is very relevant because it
can mask, or re introduce a diagnosis of PMD.
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 am an ISPMD member.
Reviewer's report
Title:Ways of coping with premenstrual change: Development and validation of
a premenstrual coping measure
Version: 2Date:2 October 2013
Reviewer: Khaled Ismail
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the reviewers for addressing the comments I raised before.
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:
Member of ISPMD
Reviewer's report
Title:Ways of coping with premenstrual change: Development and validation of
a premenstrual coping measure
Version: 2Date:2 October 2013
Reviewer: Lisa Iversen
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
The authors have dealt with my queries. However, in response Major
Compulsory Revisions no. 5 about coping the authors have noted the posititve
context of coping by adding a sentence on page 21 at the end of the Conclusions
"In providing a mesaure of a premenstrual construct beyond that of "symptoms"
or "distress" it holds the potential for more positive stories of premenstrual
experience to emerge." The authors have created a quantitative measure of
coping, I do not understand how "positive stories" of premenstrual experience will
emerge. I recommend that statement is removed or tempered.
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:Normal reference values of strength in pelvic floor muscle of women: a
descriptive study
Version:2Date:30 August 2014
Reviewer: Edward Araujo Júnior
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Title:
I will modify it to “Reference values of strength in pelvic floor muscle of women: a
descriptive study”, because reference values imply that this values are normal.
Abstract:
Methods – To include the statistical tests utilized in the analysis.
Results – To include the ranges of variables (minimum and maximum), beyond of
mean ± SD.
Methods:
Participants
How did the authors obtain the number of 218 cases? Did the authors use a
power samples?
Why did the authors use a large age range (22 – 85 years)? It is may be a bias.
Outcome informed by the clinician
Manual Muscle Testing – The authors should refer how many physiotherapists
realized this test, and the respective initial letter names, because of the great
variability among the examiners, depending of the experience of each examiner.
Results:
The authors should include scatter plots of stretch of the right and left ani
muscles to women’s age by manual methods, and this relationship using the
perineometer method.
Discussion:
The authors should include a recent article published by Petricelli et al. Biomed
Res Int 2014; 2014:437867, about the stretch of pelvic floor muscles in the third
trimester of pregnancy in nulliparous and multiparous women using a modified
Oxford scale.
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:Normal reference values of strength in pelvic floor muscle of women: a
descriptive study
Version:2Date:8 September 2014
Reviewer: Esther Medrano-Sánchez
Reviewer's report:
REVISION OF THE MANUSCRIPT “NORMAL REFERENCES VALUES OF
STRENGTH IN PELVIC FLOOR MUSCLE OF WOMEN: A DESCRIPTIVE
STUDY”
First of all, I would like to highlight the importance of the issue addressed in this
study, since we usually measure pelvic floor strength without considering or
knowing real normal values.
However, there are certain aspects to be improved by the authors.
Title and abstract:
1-The title is confusing, because those “normal values” seem to represent the
strength in women with functional pelvic floor; however, when you read the rest
of the manuscript, you realize that this study is centered in women with with
stress urinary incontinence, who usually have a pelvic floor dysfunction and,
therefore, abnormal strength values.
2-The objective isn´t consistent with the title, because the authors aim to
determine not only the strength, but also clinical and functional findings, as well
as quality of life characteristics in women with stress urinary incontinence.
Besides, it is suggested that a correlational analysis has been carried out, and
not only a pure descriptive analysis.
Introduction:
1-The background is all focused on women with stress urinary incontinence,
another reason to consider changing the title to adapt it to the real aim of the
study.
Methods:
1-What do you mean by a “semi-structured interview”? This is a very commonly
used method in qualitative research, but I could not find any qualitative analysis
of the data. What happens then with all that important information compiled
during the interview? And, if you didn´t do a qualitative analysis, did you do a
quantitative analysis? Have you validated the questionnaire?
2-You haven´t used any specific questionnaire for measuring quality of life in
women with urinary incontinence, why?
3-Did you calculate inter-observer reliability, both in perineometer and manual
measuring?
Results:
1-If Oxford scale scores from 0 to 5, how did you get a score over 5? I believe
you have mistaken the data and shown the perineometry results.
Discussion:
1-Again, you highlight, as you did in the title, you have found the normal
reference values for pelvic floor strength, and you compare your results with
those of another Spanish study. But your results are not normal values, in my
opinion, since they represent a sample with a pelvic floor dysfunction. Does it
happen the same in the other study with which you are comparing your results?
2-Do you think that the fact that half the participants had a cystocele might have
influenced in the results of the perineometer measuring? If affirmative, do you still
believe that your results are absolutely reliable?
Conclusion:
You still state that this study provides normal reference values of pelvic floor
strength, but I can only see normal references values for a sample of women with
stress urinary incontinence.
Reviewer's report
Title:Normal reference values of strength in pelvic floor muscle of women: a
descriptive study
Version:3Date:14 October 2014
Reviewer: Carmen Suárez
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
"A stratification of the strength of pelvic floor muscles in a normal distribution of a
large sample of women WITH SUI, which provided the clinic with a baseline" This
change should be included in the abstract conclusion.
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:Normal reference values of strength in pelvic floor muscle of women: a
descriptive study
Version:3Date:14 October 2014
Reviewer: Edward Araujo Júnior
Reviewer's report:
The article can be accepted to the publication in the present form.
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:Normal reference values of strength in pelvic floor muscle of women: a
descriptive study
Version:3Date:15 October 2014
Reviewer: Esther Medrano-Sánchez
Reviewer's report:
Accept without revisión
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:Fertility Desire among HIV-Positive Women in Tigray Region, Ethiopia:
Implications for the provision of Reproductive Health and Prevention of
Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission Services
Version:3Date:16 August 2014
Reviewer: Kenneth Ngure
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary revisions
Abstract
Some details in the abstract such as the type of software used could be left out.
The term “wealthier countries’ used in the abstract may not be conventional.
Methods:
This section is too detailed and could be shortened.
Results
Figure 2 could be left out since it is already well reported in the results section.
There is need to relationship between HIV status disclosure to husband or sexual
partner with fertility desires should be included in the multivariate analysis .
Either Table 2 or 3 could be left out and the main results covered in the results
section.
Through out the manuscript:
The language could be tightened to remove such phrases " It is important to
acknowledge the limitations of this study".
Check on spacing and unnecessary italics in the manuscript - though may be this
happened during the process of converting the manuscript to PDF.
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:Fertility Desire among HIV-Positive Women in Tigray Region, Ethiopia:
Implications for the provision of Reproductive Health and Prevention of
Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission Services
Version:4Date:25 September 2014
Reviewer: Risa Hoffman
Reviewer's report:
The authors have largely responded to prior reviews/comments, in particular
doing a very nice job providing an expanded background about the context of
their study in relation to others from Ethiopia, and in shortening the paper to be
much more concise. I have the following additional comments:
Discretionary Revisions
1) I still find Tables to be a problem. I think Table 1 and 2 should be combined
into one single table on socio-demographic and clinical characteristics (and
considering shortening/simplifying) and then Table 3 becomes Table 2.
2) The authors state they do have sufficient power to determine whether ART
status is associated with fertility desire because 15% of 964 were non on ART.
That means only ~145 were not on ART and this does not seem sufficient to be
drawing conclusions about ART and fertility desire. I recommend the authors
present this information stating that they had small numbers not on ART and
were not specifically powered to detect differences between these groups (would
include this in limitations). IF they were powered, then specific power calculations
need to be provided. The authors cannot say power is 'sufficient' but rather need
to provide a calculation.
3) Appreciate the clarifications about the sampling but it is still unclear how
women were randomly selected. Every 3rd woman? Every other woman? What
was the random sampling technique? That should be included in the methods.
4) The authors state they want to include information about unmet need for
contraception in the paper and that they have provided data, but then I don't see
that info in the text of the results or the paper, and then it shows up in the
discussion as a statistic (40.2% had unmet need). If authors want to include this
they need to include results in the Results section. Otherwise, would delete it
from the discussion.
5) The results section still feels a bit disorganized. There is a section on
socio-demographic characteristics and a separate section on "medical,
reproductive health etc" but info on fertility desire and associations with fertility
desire are scattered throughout both these sections. It would make more sense
to (1) summarize the basic sociodemographic and clinical characteristics first
(without mention of fertility desire yet) then in a separate section to (2) talk about
associations of these things with fertility desire and then (3) in another section
talk about your regression analysis results [this section is clear as it now exists]
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:Educating women about congenital cytomegalovirus: Assessment of health
education materials through a web-based survey
Version:4Date:18 September 2014
Reviewer: olivier picone
Reviewer's report:
Didcretionary revision:
The authors must only add that prevention do no depend on maternal serology:
every women of childbearing age will benefit of prevention, wathever the
maternal CMV serology is.
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:
no
Reviewer's report
Title:Educating women about congenital cytomegalovirus: Assessment of health
education materials through a web-based survey
Version:5Date:24 October 2014
Reviewer: Daniel E Noyola
Reviewer's report:
The authors have satisfactorily addressed all issues raised during the initial
review of the manuscript.
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:HIV risks vary according to type of sex work in a cross-sectional survey
from Nagaland, India
Version:1Date:17 June 2014
Reviewer: Chen Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Comments on HIV risks vary according to types of sex work in a cross-sectional
survey from Nagaland, India
1. A stronger and more convincing rationale is needed to illustrate the importance
of typology study in the current paper, although authors mentioned that analyses
of places where FSW solicited and had sex were important. Authors may want to
provide a theoretical framework to illustrate the importance of the current study.
2. In table 2, authors seemed to compared percentages of each typology by
rows, if so, authors need to report the row percentage. In the current version,
authors reported the column percentages, but provided the p-value of the
comparison across the row. Please also revise the result part based upon the
revised table.
3. As authors presented the typology of FSW in Nagaland, authors may want to
provide a summary table for each typology with detailed description (e.g.,
HIV/STI prevalence, characteristics, HIV risks, etc.). The summary table can be
either quantitative or qualitative. As long as it is self-explanatory, it should be
fine.
4. Authors need to provide more discussion of implications of findings in the
current study. How the typology of FSW guides the intervention both locally and
nationally. How the findings in the current study can be generalizable to settings
outside Nagaland in India.
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:HIV risks vary according to type of sex work in a cross-sectional survey
from Nagaland, India
Version:3Date:4 October 2014
Reviewer: Valerio Bacak
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
These comments refer to the Abstract:
Abstract
Add “virus” to “Human immunodeficiency.”
There is a spelling error in the second sentence: redundant “of.”
Given the large uncertainty in your estimates, I would suggest you add
confidence intervals along with odds ratios.
The second part of the following sentence needs rewording: “Combining place of
solicitation and place of sex more effectively highlighted the most vulnerable
women compared to place of solicitation or place of sex alone.” Women cannot
be compared to place of solicitation or sex.
The same way the authors qualified in the body of the text their conclusion about
interventions, I would suggest they do the same in the abstract.
Finally, the authors should consider turning some of the descriptive results
(tables 1-3) into figures.
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:Environmental and cultural determinants challenge causal attribution for
serious burns to women in India: a qualitative study from two major burns units
Version:2Date:12 September 2014
Reviewer: Tanya Caulfield
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting and well written article. The paper provides a fascinating
insight into the determinants of serious burns to women in India.
Minor essential revisions
1. The research question could be defined more explicitly. At present, it is
unclear why the study is being undertaken and what it hopes to contribute to. An
inclusion of the reasons/need for undertaking the study, such as filling gaps in
knowledge, building on existing literature etc would help to clarify this.
Clarification should be done in both the abstract and main article.
2. In the methods section, need to explain how participants were chosen, in
particular, the women admitted to hospital with burns.
3. Should explain the reason for choosing Delhi and Mumbai as research sites.
The authors explain the reason for the selection of hospitals but it is unclear why
the 2 cities were chosen.
4. What was the reason for doing a FGD with counsellors given that all other
respondents were interviewed individually?
5. The use of the term 'burns deaths' is difficult to read. Suggest revising using
another term such as burn related deaths/death by burning etc
6. Consistency in the use of percentages - lines 98-101 - percentages provided in
classification breakdown should be provided for all classifications.
7. Editorial changes: lines 36-38 - consistency in tense - change 'was' to 'is'; Line
172 - remove brackets around quote; line 201 reference required; line 347
question mark should be included in quote (before quotation mark)
8. In data collection section - lines 45-49 - for consistency and readability,
suggest using the word 'investigator' or 'each investigator' instead of replacing
this with the pronoun 'she' as has been done in the text.
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.