JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Providing Web-based Mental Health Services to At-Risk Women
Version: 2Date:21 July 2011
Reviewer: John Powell
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made good responses however I have two further requests:
1. Please remove all percentages as previously requested. You have now
included the absolute numbers which are all that is required with such small
numbers and percentages are not helpful.
2. In the abstract please include reference to the incentives given to participants
to take part - I do think this is a significant issue in your methodology given that
you find they were enthusiastic. Also in the abstract you mention non-significant
improvements on quantitative measures but given such small numbers and
P>0.1 and that this was primarily about exploring feasibility and acceptability, I
think to put this comment in the abstract gives it undue prominence (when it
could be argued that a more conservative comment would be "we did not find
any significant differences on quantitative measures, although the study was not
powered to detect these").
3. Please state which statistical tests were used to determine P values in your
pre and post test comparisons.
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:Disparities Exist Between National Food Group Recommendations and the
Dietary Intakes of Women
Version: 1Date:7 June 2011
Reviewer: Wendy H Oddy
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this paper is to compare food intakes of reproductive women by
pregnancy status to current Australian recommendations. It is a well written
paper considering an important question.
Specific
Abstract
2nd sentence states ‘This study compared…’ A study cannot compare – the
sentence ought to read ‘In this study we compared the food intake….’
Study sample
How were the women ascertained for this study? Some references are given but
it would be useful to know how the women were ascertained initially.
What is the referencing format for this journal? Should paper titles be bolded?
Are reports allowed to be used as references? Are the correct abbreviations for
journals used?
Reference 12, 27, 28 and 29 are all very similar – are these the same reference?
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:Dyslipidemia in HIV-infected women on antiretroviral therapy. Analysis of
922 patients from the Spanish VACH cohort.
Version: 4Date:18 July 2011
Reviewer: Soumya Swaminathan
Reviewer's report:
I have gone through the authors response to reviewers comments and the
revised manuscript. They have addressed the majority of the concerns and
queries raised. The manuscript is now acceptable for publication.
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:"I do what I have to do to survive": An ethnographic investigation into the
perceptions, experiences and economic considerations of women engaged in
sex work in Northern Namibia
Version: 1Date:19 February 2011
Reviewer: Victor Minichiello
Reviewer's report:
All of my comments below are major revisions.
First, I am not sure if the aim of highlighting the factors that influence FSW's
ability to negotiate safer sexual practices has been adequately addressed in this
article. What are these factors and which ones are critical? The discussion in the
conclusion needs to be clearer about the order of importance of the factors
identified in this paper. What is the unique contribution of this study? How does it
add new knowledge with respect to the emerging literature on FSW in Africa and
from poorer countries?
Second, the article locates FSW as a homogeneous group, and likewise male
clients. But this is not the case as shown in the literature. Making this
assummption the discussion becomes simplistic. Can the authors discuss
whether there are differences in interaction with clients if they are, for example,
attracted to the client, if there is an ongoing relationship with the client, if the
FSW does sex for pleasure as well, and so on. This discussion would add a
unique contribution.
Third, there appears to be a contradiction between the KAB model where the
individual assume responsibility and the earlier discussion about poverty and its
impact on the lives of women. Can this be clarified?
Fourth, I would like to see more information on who these women are eg., how
long they have been FSW,married/not married, do they all work on the streets,
for organised crime or brothels, drug or non-drug users etc.
Fifth, on page 11 it states that condoms are used in six out of every ten
transactional sexual encounters. Can you present data that explains why they
are used in some, and not others. Do you have any quotes from the informants
here?
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:"I do what I have to do to survive": An ethnographic investigation into the
perceptions, experiences and economic considerations of women engaged in
sex work in Northern Namibia
Version: 1Date:3 March 2011
Reviewer: Kate Shannon
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this paper is well written and addresses an important gap in research on
HIV prevention among sex workers in Namibia, and sub-Saharan Africa in
general. The findings offer important documentation of the lived experiences of
sex workers. Below are some suggestions for strengthening the paper.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) My main concern relates to the recommendations and discussion of the
findings in relation to current literature and HIV prevention among sex workers.
The narratives in the results section are very articulate descriptions and
discussion of the limitations of behavioural interventions in Namibia (especially
were female-controlled prevention mechanisms are limited and sex workers must
rely on negotiating male condom use by clients and partners, concepts of
masculinity, socio-cultural barriers). I would encourage the authors to look at the
successful HIV prevention models among female sex workers in other LMIC
(such as India, South Africa)– the structural limitations (policies, lack of structural
support) and how their results fit into this within the Namibian context.
Minor Revisions:
1) Introduction: The authors mention that while there is a dearth of research on
sex work in Namibia, though mention there are a number of recent studies.
Please provide more specifics to provide context to sex work risk environment in
Namibia and how this research builds/expands these findings and/or addresses
gaps in knowledge.
2) Objectives: The authors provide a great overview of gender inequities,
economic dependence and barriers to negotiating “male condom use”, and as
such, I would encourage the authors to use language to reflect this. The current
study objectives state that they will examine their [sex workers’] use –or
non-use-of male condoms. I would suggest that you reframe this as sex workers
ability to “negotiate condom use by clients, partners” (since the actual condom
use is by the male partner and you have eloquently laid out the gender and
power dynamics).
3) Methods: The authors refer to informal ethnographic observational work,
however there are no field notes/ observational findings in the Results section?
While the ethnographic work may have been more to provide context, some
clarification is needed of this work supported/contextualizes the interview results.
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 interests
Reviewer's report
Title:"I do what I have to do to survive": An ethnographic investigation into the
perceptions, experiences and economic considerations of women engaged in
sex work in Northern Namibia
Version: 2Date:25 May 2011
Reviewer: Victor Minichiello
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions
On page 8 second paragraph that begins 'This study sought to address gaps...'.
This repeats information already provided and the second sentence of this
paragraph is the same as that provided earlier in this paper. Please delete this
paragraph.
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:"I do what I have to do to survive": An ethnographic investigation into the
perceptions, experiences and economic considerations of women engaged in
sex work in Northern Namibia
Version: 2Date:6 June 2011
Reviewer: Kate Shannon
Reviewer's report:
The authors have thoughtfully addressed the concerns of the reviewers,
significantly strengthening the potential contribution of the manuscript. As such, I
am happy to recommend the revised version 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:The effect of stress and anxiety associated with maternal prenatal
diagnosis on feto-maternal attachment
Version: 1Date:13 March 2011
Reviewer: Annsofie Adolfsson
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:The effect of stress and anxiety associated with maternal prenatal
diagnosis on feto-maternal attachment
Version: 1Date:29 March 2011
Reviewer: Nevin Sahin
Reviewer's report:
'The effect of stress and anxiety associated with maternal prenatal diagnosis on
feto-maternal attachment'
Sara J Allison, Dilly OC Anumba and Julie Stafford
BMC Women's Health
Research article
Report
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? /yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?/ ” This study aims must be
changed because of women and their partners enrolled in the study.
3. Are the data sound? /yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? /yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? /yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? /yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? /yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? /yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
COMMENTS:
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
This study aims must be reviewed.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement
Therapy: An Observational Cohort Study
Version: 1Date:13 January 2011
Reviewer: Evelyn Palaypayon
Reviewer's report:
1.Out of the first 1000 patients that were followed up,only 27 % were included.If
this was an intent to treat analysis for RCT study,the drop-out rate is quite
alarming and will compromise the validity of the results.Similarly in this study,the
profile of those subjects who were excluded should be compared to those who
were included.Current age,age at menopause,severity of symptoms,metabolic
profile of those excluded can be compared with those who were included.
2.The intervention under study were specific to the contents of the E 1/ E 2/ E
3.Most studies cited in the literature involved Estradiol and Conjugated Equine
Estrogen.And both were proven as effective in the reduction of vasomotor
symptoms.However,this study used preparation with less Estradiol than the
commercially available preparations.Thus,the reduction in the hot flushes were
not statiscally significant.
3.The title of the figures must be included in the actual figures to avoid confusion.
4.The shortcomings of this paper were recognizes by the authors as mentioned
in the limitations.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement
Therapy: An Observational Cohort Study
Version: 1Date:22 January 2011
Reviewer: Mark Brincat
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes, the use of the tool is
delineated
3. Are the data sound? My concern that the patients included in this study vary
too widely in age (18 to 89), so it is very difficult to draw any sound conclusions.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
For any sound conclusions to be drawn, the patients have to be categorised by
age and medical history, at least. Only then can any conclusions be worthy of
publication
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? There is a statement saying that the
numbers were too small to draw any conclusions of the effect on menopausal
symptoms. However, by admitting to the limitation, it does not justify publication
as is.
7. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes
8. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes, the writing and spelling are acceptable
Conclusion-Major compulsory revision
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:The risk factor profile of women with secondary infertility: an unmatched
case-control study in Kigali, Rwanda
Version: 1Date:24 December 2010
Reviewer: Win May
Reviewer's report:
The authors pose a well-defined question, which is also an important one.
The methods are appropriate and well-described. I would like the authors to add
in the Abstract that the controls were multiparous women "in the same age
group." That is described in the Methods section of the document, but not in the
Abstract. In addition, I would like to suggest that instead of the term "predictors",
the authors might like to use "risk factors" as stated in their title. If they would like
to determine predictors, they may want to continue with a cohort study.
The data is sound and adheres to the relevant standards for reporting.
In reviewing the discussion and conclusions, my suggestion would be to make
some of the statements less definitive, as the findings are associative and not
causal. E.g. Page 11 – “The fact that secondary infertile women are more likely
to be HIV infected and to report lifetime high-risk sexual behaviour than primary
infertile and fertile women indicates that this group of women may enter a vicious
circle of unsafe sex, beginning from the start of sexual activity, leading to a first
pregnancy (and often the last), STIs and HIV infection, all of which can impair
their fertility. “
In the conclusion where the authors state: “Our data suggest that secondary
infertility rates in Rwanda could be significantly reduced by improving prenatal,
obstetric, neonatal and paediatric care”, my suggestion would be to delete
“neonatal and pediatric care” as there were no findings to suggest that.
The limitations of the work are clearly stated and the authors acknowledge
previous work in this area.
The title and abstract clearly convey their findings and the writing is acceptable
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:The risk factor profile of women with secondary infertility: an unmatched
case-control study in Kigali, Rwanda
Version: 1Date:30 December 2010
Reviewer: Abida Malik
Reviewer's report:
• Discretionary 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.
Reviewer's report
Title:The risk factor profile of women with secondary infertility: an unmatched
case-control study in Kigali, Rwanda
Version: 2Date:2 March 2011
Reviewer: Win May
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for re-submitting and making the suggested changes.
The manuscript is ready for publication.
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:Symptom Interpretation and Health Care Seeking in Ovarian Cancer
Version: 1Date:23 November 2010
Reviewer: Gabriella Ferrandina
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Lene Seibak et al. evaluates the role of symptom interpretation and
health care seeking for the early detection of ovarian cancer. Considering the
lack of reliable strategies able to help physicians in performing early diagnosis of
ovarian malignancies the scientific relevance of the proposed manuscript seems
acceptable, but several major criticisms have to be raised; in particular:
a) The authors reported a description of the mostly used health care providers,
prior to initiate oncological treatments, by a population of newly diagnosed
ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, no data have been provided on the distribution of
stage of disease at diagnosis according to health care providers and number and
type of contacts. In this context, the manuscript does not seem to report novel
useful findings but only descriptive data.
b) As reported in the manuscript, the symptoms development from patients’
perspective has been evaluated in a series of 19 cases. Considering the small
sample size we retain that no reliable conclusions can be drawn on the basis the
reported data.
c) Moreover, it is mandatory to detail in the manuscript the clinical and
psychosocial characteristics of the interviewed patients.
d) Finally, it is required to specify in the Methods section which questionnaires
have been used for the patients’ interviews.
e) After a careful revision of Table 1, we can conclude that for patients who used
General Practitioners as first health care provider more than 5 visits are required
prior to formulate a suspicious of ovarian malignancy. On the other hand,
gynaecologists and surgeons seem to guarantee patients a faster diagnostic
process. This crucial point represents the main study findings and should be
adequately discuss in the appropriate manuscript section.
f) The authors reported relevant conclusions on the impact of socio-economic
features on patients’ access to health care providers in Denmark. Unfortunately,
these conclusions seem not supported by data from the text and should be
deleted.
g) A major revision of English language is required in order to improve the quality
of the manuscript.
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:Symptom Interpretation and Health Care Seeking in Ovarian Cancer
Version: 2Date:8 April 2011
Reviewer: Gabriella Ferrandina
Reviewer's report:
I have really appreciate the efforts made in order to improve the quality of the
manuscript that now I retain suitable for publication in BMC Women's Health
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 have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Frequency of symptoms, determinants of severe symptoms, validity of and
cut-off score for Menopausal Rating Scale (MRS) as a screening tool: A
cross-sectional survey among midlife Nepalese women
Version: 2Date:28 April 2011
Reviewer: Syed Alwi Syed Abdul Rahman
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary 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'
Reviewer's report
Title:Frequency of symptoms, determinants of severe symptoms, validity of and
cut-off score for Menopausal Rating Scale (MRS) as a screening tool: A
cross-sectional survey among midlife Nepalese women
Version: 2Date:10 May 2011
Reviewer: Pauliina Tuomikoski
Reviewer's report:
The paper by drs Chuni and Sreeramareddy bring to our attention the less
reported issues on menopausal health of rural women, which illustrates that
menopausal symptoms and health-related concerns are a global issue in need of
medical and research attention. However, some points need to addressed before
the manuscript in my opinion is suitable for publication.
Overall, some linguistic revision is needed. The manuscript could also benefit
from some condensation through out the text.
Major comment is raised by the fact that the authors state that thay found
significant differences, but leave out the p-values or state that the data are not
shown. Furthermore, the authors report that poor general health affected the
results, but list none of the chronic diseases.
Additional comments: I could not find a reference to Table 3 in the text. What is
ment by Q1 & Q3 - minimum and maximum age of the participants? I suggest
that the authors restructure the The Methods -section and add clarification to how
the questionnaires were filled out - obviously by the interviewer since 65% of the
particiants were illiterate. How many patients were referred to the gynaecologist
and by whom? In addition, I would have liked to see data on actual MRS-scores
and symptom severites according to STRAW with p-values.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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.