JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Rare case of complete colon structure in a mature cystic teratoma of the ovary in  
menopausal woman : A case report  
 
Version: 0 Date: 04 Jun 2016  
 
Reviewer: Alon Altman  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Excelle nt and concise case report. Perhaps expand the discussion on immunohistochemistry  
differences between benign and malignant mucinous epithelium arising from MCT.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complet e 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 financi al 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 acc epted for publication, my named report  
including 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 Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommon s.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Utilization of Contraception among Sexually Active HIV Positive Women Attending ART
Clinic in University of Gondar Hospital: A Hospital based cross-sectional study
Version: 1Date: 18 Sep 2016
Reviewer: Celso Khosa
Reviewer's report:
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality 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 interestsI 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:Endometriosis and its global research architecture: An in depth density
equalizing mapping analysis
Version:2Date:24 August 2015
Reviewer: Bradford Fenton
Reviewer's report:
Endometriosis and its global research architecture: an in-depth density- 2
equalizing mapping analysis
This is a study of the global citation distribution for publications on endometriosis
The introduction describes endometriosis well, but fails to make a solid case for
the importance of this research. The last paragraph of the introduction should
specify the objectives of the study.
The methods use a citation based strategy, and I am unfamiliar with the
appropriate statistics to use for this approach.
The lack of non-English citations limits the conclusions.
The authors make a point that endometriosis research is limited in may highly
populated countries, but do not go on to do any sort of analysis of other factors
that may explain this (poverty, GDP, misogyny, etc.). The authors do not
compare endometriosis related research to the total research productivity of any
particular country, making it difficult to tell if smaller countries are investing more
resources into endometriosis research compared to other topics.
Overall this is a modestly interesting study on the study of endometriosis. The
authors need to make a more compelling argument for the importance of their
work.
Reviewer's report
Title:Endometriosis and its global research architecture: An in depth density
equalizing mapping analysis
Version:2Date:11 November 2015
Reviewer: Ertan ES Saridogan
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revision
1. This is an interesting manuscript which may potentially help researchers,
clinicians and funding sources understand the ‘map of endometriosis research’
around the world. The results are somewhat predictable but are presented in a
colourful style which is easy to understand. The findings indicate, as expected,
that the main source of publications in the field of endometriosis is the USA,
Western Europe and Japan (Japan has been omitted by the authors in some of
the general statements). This is probably a reflection of the level of wealth in
these countries and the availability of funding for scientific research in general. It
would be useful to the reader to know the distribution of overall contribution to the
scientific literature in general so that one can compare this with the distribution of
endometriosis research to see if there are any differences. It is quite likely that
the picture in the field of endometriosis will be the same as overall contribution to
scientific publications.
2. Another interesting point might to compare the findings in the field of
endometriosis with another condition such as diabetes or cancer (or a specific
type of it) to see the similarities or differences. Without these comparisons the
manuscript does not stand as a specific source of information to promote
research into endometriosis in different parts of the world.
Another main finding is that the number of publications in endometriosis have
increased significantly in the recent years and this is naturally good news for
everyone involved in the management of endometriosis but more importantly for
women who suffer from it.
Minor essential revisions
1. Timeframe, line 105: It would be useful to know when the search was carried
out.
2. Line 125, Which language contributes 2.3% of the publications?
3. Lines 150-151, the sentence appears incomplete, as the current statement
does not make sense.
4. The legend for Figure 1B does not match the figure.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interest
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The effect of brisk walking on postural stability, bone mineral density, body weight and  
composition in women over 50 years with a sedentary occupation: A randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 2 Date: 20 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Mark Willems  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Authors have addressed properly all my comments/suggestions.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If no t, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the ma nuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of writ ten English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration 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 publicatio n 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 declar e that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have not 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 report  
including 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 Acc ess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The effect of brisk walking on postural stabi lity, bone mineral density, body weight and  
composition in women over 50 years with a sedentary occupation: A randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 2 Date: 21 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Simone V. Gill  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have done a great job of addressing the concerns. I think that the manuscript is ready 
for publication.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of  written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration 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 publicatio n 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 declar e 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 report  
including 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 Acc ess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology and outcome of cervical cancer in National Institute of
Oncology of Morocco
Version:6Date:23 April 2015
Reviewer: Margaret Madeleine
Reviewer's report:
This case series followed women diagnosed with cervical cancer at one
institution in Morroco, treated/diagnosed between January and December 2006.
Strength of the paper: important to motivating development of screening and
vaccination programs.
Major Revisions:
1. How long were women followed? what was the study end date? range of
months followed?
2. Tables 1-3 missing. The paper cannot be published without them. Table 2 is
not mentioned in the text, and may repeat information in the figures.
3. ref 7 web page not found
4. In the conclusion, I would disagree that screening has to be established before
vaccination program is started. Also, new screening programs that incorporate
HPV DNA may be most effective. Neither vaccination, for adolescents, nor
screening, for women over about 30 years old should be overlooked in this
setting.
5. 96 cases lost to follow up should be excluded from all tables and statistics,
would be useful to know how many patients were in the final Cox model.
6. New results on pelvic control presented in discussion, should move to results.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology and outcome of cervical cancer in National Institute of
Oncology of Morocco
Version:12Date:15 January 2016
Reviewer: Margaret Madeleine
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
* Hypothesis at end of Introduction should be recast along the lines of a testable
hypothesis, as is given in the last paragraph of the Study Design in the Methods
section
* 2nd paragraph of Methods, what is number of cases from Rabat, number from
Casablanca?
* I believe that obtaining oral instead of written consent to participate in a study
can be ethical if women are provided and understand the essential elements of
consent. How many women volunteered and how many refused to participate in
the study?
* How many women were diagnosed and not treated?
* Compare epidemiologic factors of those included and excluded from treatment
analyses so that the reader knows the epidemiologic characteristics of those in
the treatment analyses.
* 2002 FIGO Stage 1B2 is confined to the cervix, not sure why it is counted here
as locally advanced in results?
*On pages 8-9, the authors have provided a list of observations; these should be
recast as paragraphs
Discretionary Revisions
* Table 1 years instead of ans, parity does not include those with 4 births (is it
>=4?); please describe performance status and state of parameters--is that
parameters of invasion?
* Table 3 how many with grade 1 neutropenia? not given
* Table 4 write out abbreviations
* Figure 3 were Stage 4 not included in DEF?
* Define good vs poor response to EBRT
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology and outcome of cervical cancer in National Institute of
Oncology of Morocco
Version:13Date:22 February 2016
Reviewer: Alejandra Castanon
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editors,
Please find below my third review for the manuscript titled “Epidemiology and
outcome of cervical cancer in National Institute of Oncology of Morocco.”
I am satisfied that the authors have adequately addressed my comments.
I have a few further comments which would improve the document.
Minor Essential Revisions
Last sentence of the first paragraph in the methods has a spelling mistake: “lake”
should be “lack”.
It would be useful to add to the introduction, perhaps under study endpoint a
sentence along the lines of “a previous study of Moroccan women, treated
between 1980 and 1990 found overall survival was only 41% at 5 years.(ref 15)”
In this way it sets the scene for the hypothesis.
Second paragraph of the methods: The methods do not reflect the answer to
reviewer 1 in that the methods suggest that the study includes data from Rabat
and Casablanca (I know this is clear in the flow chart and elsewhere, but not in
this paragraph). I think what the reviewer wanted was to know what proportion of
all the cases in Morocco are diagnosed in Rabat compared to Casablanca (to
have an indication as to whether it really is representative of the whole country).
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:Correlation of body mass index levels with menarche in adolescent girls in
Shaanxi, China: a cross sectional study
Version:3Date:9 February 2016
Reviewer: Lisa Iversen
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript: 4047134531764848
Correlation of body mass index levels with menarche in adolescent girls in
Shaanxi, China: a cross sectional study
The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript and
addressed most of my original concerns. The manuscript is now much clearer.
Minor essential revisions:
I previously raised that the authors had suggested that the association between
BMI and age at menarche might be modified by socioeconomic status but they
did not suggest why this might be the case. In response the authors have now
included Table 4 Trend of association between percent of body mass index and
menarche. This Table does not address the issue of effect modification by
socioeconomic status – the analysis the association between BMI and age at
menarche would need to be stratified by socioeconomic status to demonstrate
effect modification, rather than including socioeconomic status as a factor in the
adjustment.
For clarity, I recommend that Table 4 is removed. The authors can say that the
effect modification might be possible but they have not examined it particularly
given the small sample size as it is likely that some of the numbers in some of
the strata might be small.
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:Correlation of body mass index levels with menarche in adolescent girls in
Shaanxi, China: a cross sectional study
Version:4Date:27 April 2016
Reviewer: Lisa Iversen
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made the changes I requested
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:Correlation of body mass index levels with menarche in adolescent girls in
Shaanxi, China: a cross sectional study
Version:4Date:30 April 2016
Reviewer: Lynn Cialdella Kam
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this reads much better - good job!
Minor Essential
Table 1: 1 – Can you separate out the numbers form the percentage? I think if
you make it two columns that would be better. It is difficult to read as is - right
align the numbers.
Table 2 and rest that have Mean and SD. You have it as Mean (SD) - in
descriptor but present as Mean ± SD - just change that in the descriptor as well.
Nice job.
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