JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Female genital mutilation and intimate partner violence in the Ivory Coast
Version:1Date:19 December 2013
Reviewer: Priscilla S Dlamini
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential
Check on the analysis patagraph and make sure you avoid the use of the word
'we". reconstruct those statements. Its known that you are the researchers,
personalization waters down the scentiifc stand of your study. Avoid uses of "I"
We etc.
Other wise the article is evaluated as follows
The study is very scientific, the question at hand was well answered, The
methodology used were sceintific. Limitations were indicated and the results
were presented scientifically with the use of the STATA and conlcusions were
relevant.
I conclude that with the monor correctins the study is recommended for
publication
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:Urinary tract infection among Obstetric Fistula Patients at Gondar
University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia
Version: 1Date:6 October 2013
Reviewer: Alison N Fiander
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be congratulated in conducting this study which is of
importance to those working in the provision of OF services, especially given the
difficulties of undertaking research in Northern Ethiopia.
Major compulsory:
Clarify why there were patients below 10 years of age who were classified as
obstetric fistula patients. If these children were under 10 years they need to be
removed from a study of obstetric fistula unless the study is redefined to include
urogenital injuries or malformations.
Numbers are too small to be able to conclude that divorced women had higher
risk of UTI. Details of statistics applied required (needs checking by statistician).
Minor essential:
English needs attention in places eg 'further' rather than 'farther.' Some examples
given in attached file.
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, 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:Urinary tract infection among Obstetric Fistula Patients at Gondar University
Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia
Version:3Date:8 December 2013
Reviewer: rahel nardos
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most if not all my concerns on this revised
manuscript. I would recommend the editors run one more grammar check on this
manuscript before publication. Overall, I am satisfied the the changes and have
no further request. I recommend publication of this work.
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Women's perspectives of female genital cutting: Q-methodology
Version:2Date:27 November 2013
Reviewer: Saleem Saaed Qader
Reviewer's report:
I revised the article, it is very good paper and really the authors have spent too
much energy on it. It is well written, they have explored a very important issue
and really they spend too much time and energy but I do have few comments
with few minor changes.
1. There few typographic errors, e.g.:
A. Iraqi Kurdistan Region … the R in region has been written in small letter
which, should be written in a capital letter.
B. Erbil City… the c letter in City has been written in a small letter, it should be
written in capital letter.
2. The title: to be rewritten:
Currently:
Women’s perspectives of female genital cutting: Q-
methodology
To be like this:
Women’s perspectives of female genital cutting:
Q- methodology
or this:
Women’s perspectives of female genital cutting: Q- methodology
3. Page No. 14: Discussion:
A. The first paragraph repeating the aim which is not required because it is
already written in the aim section in the background.
B. Type I FGC repeated several times but it is not defined in the study, better to
be defined.
4. Conclusion:
Not conclusive, it is better to define few points which could be concluded from the
long discussion they had in the study.
Reviewer's report
Title:Women's perspectives of female genital cutting: Q-methodology
Version:2Date:10 December 2013
Reviewer: Selwa Dr. Yacoub
Reviewer's report:
1.Minor Essential revision: the references need to be rewritten in a unified
manner since the title of some of them written in Latin letters , others in bold
letters
Level of interest: An exceptional article
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:Women's perspectives of female genital cutting: Q-methodology
Version:2Date:18 December 2013
Reviewer: Jokin J de Irala
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1) Page 7 Q analisis and factor interpretation
There are some comments here that belong to the results section. For example
the statement on how many factors were selected and the % of variance in the
correlation matrix.
2) Page 9 Under the Factor 1 tittle they refer to Factor 2 in line 8 of page 9 when
it should read Factor 1.
3) In the limitation section they state their decision to involve uneducated and
less educated women in the study. But I think more should be said on this issue
in the discussion and maybe even in the methods section:
-How did they deal with illiterate persons in the process of using cards? Was
there a guideline on how to explain the cards to these people? Was there only
one interviewer to do this with all illiterate participants?
-How may this affect results? Any possibility of commenting what would happen if
these illiterate participants were not counted in the analysis?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below
Reviewer's report
Title:Educational level, prevalence of hysterectomy, and age at amenorrhoea: a
cross-sectional analysis of 9536 women from six population-based cohort studies
in Germany.
Version:2Date:18 November 2013
Reviewer: Bjørn Heine Strand
Reviewer's report:
In this study the authors first wanted to investigate the differences in
hysterectomy prevalence by education in six German cross sectional studies (4
West-Germany and 2 East-Germany). Secondly, they wanted to investigate if
age at onset of amenorrhoea differed by hysterectomy status. The research
questions posed by the authors are well defined. Methods are sound, and
authors present their results adequately. Nevertheless, I have some major
concerns, which I list below.
Throughout the paper the authors claim differences in hysterectomy prevalences
without supporting these claims by a statistical test. For example in the first para
in results it is claimed that there are lower risk in East than in West. Also the age
by education interaction effect which is claimed is not supported by a formal test.
I suggest to narrow the analyses to age groups covered in all sub-studies.
Especially when results between studies are compared, it seems strange to
compare results for age group 45-83 with 20-81. Survival bias might be a
problem in this study, especially regarding the older age groups, so a restriction
regarding the upper age groups would possibly also be wise. The width of the
95%CI in tab 2 indicates a very small % in the upper educational group for the
65+ group. Could it be feasible to focus on the middle age group only? Maybe
this would also make the paper more focused.
In the conclusion it is stated that the educational differences in hysterectomy
could possibly be mediated by parity, life style, gynecological diseases, patient’s
attitude and more. There is no information about these mediating paths in this
paper and I think the conclusion should be based on what this paper adds and
not a speculation of mediating paths not covered in the paper.
I think the DAG in Figure S1 could be dropped as it doesn’t add much valuable
information regarding the present study, as most arrows cannot be tested in the
present study. Furthermore, assessing causality in a cross sectional study is
overly optimistic.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Social, behavioral, and sleep characteristics associated with depression
symptoms among undergraduate students at a women's college: A
cross-sectional stress and depression survey, 2012
Version:1Date:28 October 2013
Reviewer: Deborah Kim
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Please define Women's college students in abstract and manuscript.
2. Please put in introduction why this is important, why you expect it to be
different to look at single sex institutions and whether you think this will represent
all female only colleges.
3. Please explain why you chose the 2 scales you did.
4. Please explain why the response rate was so low and whether you think there
is a difference between responders and non-responders.
5. On page 8, sentence 2, did you meane absence of strong social support?
6. All you can say is that poor sleep is associated with depression and because
depression causes poor sleep, you can't infer casuality.
7. Are there other variables you wish you had examined? Why didn't you also
look at rates of anxiety or eating disorders for example?
8. What about the rates of suicidality?
9. Table 4's title is not appropriate for its content.
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Relation between menopause and health-related quality of life in
middle-aged Chinese women: a cross-sectional study
Version: 2Date:17 September 2013
Reviewer: Nicola Nante
Reviewer's report:
You conducted a study on an interesting topic. I recognize the importance of
conducting studies among population not previously studied.
Major Compulsory Revisions
In general the paper needs editing on English spelling and grammar, since I
notice quite some spelling errors, errors in the formulation of the sentences and
sloppiness in general.
Minor Essential Revisions
Strengths of your study are not valued.
The methods lack a clear description of your statistical analyses.
The content of your results section is not well structured and the description of
the results needs some revisions. In your discussion section you elaborate on the
findings of your study, which is interesting, but try to compare your findings with
previous studies or refer to comparable studies more often.
Discretionary Revisions
Just over 20% of the references date from the last 5 years. Some updated
references recommended in the text.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Relation between menopause and health-related quality of life in
middle-aged Chinese women: a cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:13 November 2013
Reviewer: Riitta Luoto
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has an important topic, since there are practically no studies
describing the quality of life among Chinese menopausal women.
However, there is need for clarification in the paper, more detailed
below:
Abstract: please mention that the study was an interview study in the methods.
Additionally, 'menopause was related with mobility problems' is unclear
expression- you could specify that using menopausal categories explained in the
methods.
Conclusions include statement that certain factors 'had a negative impact on
HrQOL', which should be revised as 'association' or like.
SInce the data was cross-sectional the direction of the associations cannot be
stated. The same revision is needed for page 7, in the results describing logistic
regression analyses.
Methods: Use of alcohol and physical activity were very crude measures and not
based on recommendations. Also, physical activity categories in the methods
and in the tables are not equal, please revise.
Discussion: in page 9, you discuss that decrease of physical function might be
related to bone loss in early menopause. Although this is true, it is not likely that
bone loss gives much symptoms, if only in a preliminary stage- so please revise.
In page 11, you mention ceiling effect in HrQoL- please explain what do you
mean with this in more detail.
Reviewer's report
Title:Patterns, aetiology and risk factors of intimate partner violence-related
injuries to head, neck and face in Chinese women: A retrospective study
Version:2Date:20 November 2013
Reviewer: N. Zoe Hilton
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to the reviewers’ comments and the rationale is
stronger, the potential problems of the data and how they were handled are dealt
with in the method section, and a measure of inter-rater agreement (although not
a strong method) has been included.
Minor Essential
1. page 5, the line “consideration of the causal relationships among the variables”
should state “consideration of the hypothesized causal relationships among the
variables.”
2. I still find the description of the regression analyses confusing. The authors
cite Lam, Fong, Lauder, and Lam (2002) are cited for the analysis, perhaps
because their article describes the steps used in that particular study. Please
provide the same details of the steps in the current study. It seems to me that the
multi-phases are actually separate regression analyses and this might elsewhere
be called set-wise regression. Were significant variables at one phase forced into
the analysis for the next phase?
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Patterns, aetiology and risk factors of intimate partner violence-related
injuries to head, neck and face in Chinese women: A retrospective study
Version:2Date:22 November 2013
Reviewer: Sheila Sprague
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the editor and authors once again for the opportunity to
review this manuscript titled “Patterns, aetiology and risk factors of intimate
partner violence-related injuries to head, neck and face in Chinese women: A
retrospective study”. The authors have done an excellent job at addressing the
comments and questions I raised previously. Overall, the manuscript is
well-written and the results are well-presented. The content will be of use to
health care professionals who treat Chinese women in emergency situations.
There are a few minor language errors throughout the manuscript but they can
be corrected during the publication process.
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:Punishment or harm reduction? Contraceptive access for women who use
drugs
Version:2Date:22 October 2013
Reviewer: hong he
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
My opinion:
For Table 1, the total number of some characteristics is not equal to 90. why? is it
because of missing?or other category? I think the author should describe clearly.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Punishment or harm reduction? Contraceptive access for women who use
drugs
Version:2Date:28 October 2013
Reviewer: Anne Kjersti Daltveit
Reviewer's report:
General remarks: This is a study based on semistructured interview, with a brief
set of questions followed by open-ended questions. How was this questionnaire
developed - were the questions based on previous studies or specifically
designed for this study?
In the first section of the discussion the authors state that "These descriptions of
contraception , pregnancy and mothering are mixed and at times ambivalent", but
still the authors come up with some main conclusions. On which questions do the
authors mainly draw their conclusions? I.e. which questions turned out to be
most informative vs. the research questions?
75% of the interviewed were mothers. Would it be possible to present some more
information on previous pregnancies?
Were responses different among those who were already mothers compared to
those who were not, and should such differences be reflected in the
conclusions?.
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:Pilot test and validation of the Peak Day method of prospective
determination of ovulation against a handheld urine hormone monitor
Version:1Date:11 November 2013
Reviewer: Per-Göran Larsson
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting article in teaching women to find the estimated day of
ovulation. It shows that it is possible to do that in nearly 90% of the cycles. This is
therefore possible to use when you want to become pregnant but could be some
not to secure when it is used for not getting pregnant.
I think the article can be published as it is
P-G Larsson
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:A case of a large solitary fibrous tumour of the uterine cervix
Version:1Date:7 November 2013
Reviewer: Hyginus Ezegwui
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential Revisions
In line 54 you wrote Gravida 6 para 5 . Gravida refers to women currently
Pregnant.
Please delete Gravida.
The 15 cm tumor . Was it measured with ultrasound ,CT ,or MRI.
In line 93. The result showed that the patient was infected.
Do your unit use prophylactic antibiotic routinely in such surgery.
I wonder why the surgeons need to remove the ovaries considering the long term
effect of such procedure.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:A case of a large solitary fibrous tumour of the uterine cervix
Version:1Date:22 November 2013
Reviewer: AZUBUIKE A ONYEBUCHI
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written but the only problem i have is the solitary cumbersome
table that was used in this case report. The case report should be published.
Dr. Azubuike .K. Onyebuchi
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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:
No, I declare that i have no competing interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Acute Vulvar Pain in a Lady with Post Circumcision Inclusion Cyst of the
Vulva Containing Stones - A Case Report.
Version:7Date:26 October 2013
Reviewer: Hailemariam Segni
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions needed:
1. Better use female genital cutting than female genital mutilation and
circumcision.
2. Chemical analysis of the stones may be tried in the capital city (Addis).
3. Better use data on EDHS 2011 than 2005.
4. Shorten the discussion part.
5. Some references are a bit old and better be replaced by recent ones.
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:Acute Vulvar Pain in a Lady with Post Circumcision Inclusion Cyst of the
Vulva Containing Stones - A Case Report.
Version:7Date:16 November 2013
Reviewer: Odi' Ugochukwu Joannes Umeora
Reviewer's report:
modrerate
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 no competing onterest
Reviewer's report
Title:A systematic review of effectiveness and safety of different regimens of
levonorgestrel oral tablets for emergency contraception
Version:5Date:17 December 2013
Reviewer: Abdul Mazid
Reviewer's report:
My comments and suggestion about the manuscript are stated below:
1. The Authors has clearly stated the objectives of the study.
2. The Review has summarized the pharmacokinetics data of levonorgestrel from
different studies which seemed to be good collection and reference for future use
of the drugs in pregnancy control.
3. These are some mistakes in spelling and language. Authors are suggested to
correct those.
Opinion: The Manuscript seems to be suitable for publication in your esteemed
journal