JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report 
 Race, rank, and satisfaction in general OB/GYN clinics Title: 
 2  13 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Eyal Zimlichman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have addressed all of my suggestions and, as I believe, improved the article. Please 
note one more suggestion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Table 1:As I understand, the table represents a comparison between satisfied (yes) and non-satisfied (no) patients. This should be made clear in the title of the table. ("Descriptive statistics comparing satisfied (yes) vs. non-satisfied (no) patients") 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Race, rank, and satisfaction in general OB/GYN clinics Title: 
 2  26 April 2005 Version: Date: 
 Thomas LaVeist Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I do not think the authors did a particularly good job responding to some of the comments from the 
reviewers. For example the title of the manuscript implies that “rank” is an important aspect of the analysis. In my first review I suggested that the discussion needs to comment on the findings regarding rank. The authors replied by suggesting that I write an editorial. However, my review is the 
editorial. The stated goal of the study is to examine the affect of rank on satisfaction. As such it is 
incumbent upon the authors to comment on why and/or how rank affects satisfaction. The fact that 
they are not military sociologist is irrelevant. If the authors feel that discussing the affect of rank on 
satisfaction is outside of their disciplinary expertise then I wonder why they are writing on the topic at 
all. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Several comments in the manuscript should be clarified. For example, the third paragraph of the 
“Discussion” has several unclear statements (paragraph beginning “The methods employed…” 
(1) “In addition to using an ordinal measure of satisfaction, researcher should use a comparison 
group when evaluating the benefits of a procedure.” 
What is meant by this? What would be the comparison group in the present manuscript? Please 
clarify, perhaps give an example. 
(2) “…use of a standardized single item assessing overall satisfaction would enable comparisons 
among research report.” 
How? How would this allow one to compare with studies using ordinal measures or multi-item 
measures of satisfaction? 
The fourth paragraph of the “Discussion” needs to be rewritten (paragraph beginning “Our study 
differs…”). What is meant by “…though it is not an evaluation of a procedure?” 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Reviewer's report 
 Do Indonesian medical practitioners approve the availability of emergency contraception Title: 
over-the-counter? A survey of general practitioners and obstetricians in Jakarta. 
 1  6 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Edith Weisberg Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General It is unclear how many of the respondents were from urban or rural areas and if this affected 
the knowledge or attitudes to EC. it is also unclear how the views expressed by the respondents 
reflect attitudes inthe rest of Indonesia.Does the religious breakdown of participants reflect the percentage of different religions represented amongst GPs and O&Gs and is the religious 
background of participants likely to affect their views. It would be interesting to have the authors 
comments on this. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct)None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
See general comments Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? 
The question is new in regards to the knowledge and attitudes of GPs and O& Gs in Indonesia to EC 
but is not a new question in regards to other countries where similar studies have been carried out. 
The question is well defined in this context. 
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate 
the work? 
The methodology is appropriate and well described. However, it is unclear how many of the respondents were from urban or rural areas and how applicable the findings are to other parts of Indonesia. 
3. Are the data sound and well controlled? 
The data that are presented appear to be sound. However there are considerable missing data and 
although this is stated in the text and the tables it is unclear whether the missing data are sporadic or 
whether a limited number of participants were responsible for all the missing data. 
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? The conclusions about factors influencing the attitudes to OTC in Indonesia are well supported but a further conclusion appears to be that these attitudes could possibly be influenced by further 
education of Indonesian doctors about the efficacy and mode of action of Ec. 
6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? The conclusion could be expanded as in no.%. 7. Is the writing acceptable? 
Yes 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interest in relation to this paper
Reviewer's report 
 Do Indonesian medical practitioners approve the availability of emergency contraception Title: 
over-the-counter? A survey of general practitioners and obstetricians in Jakarta. 
 1  21 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 tanja tydÃ©n Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript could be accepted as it is. It is well 
written and easy to understand. The authors are updated with references, 
the methodology was ok, and they are careful in their conclusions. A 
cultural discussion could be added in the the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Capsaicin receptor TRPV1 and related vanilloid receptors TRPV3 and TRPV4 in human breast Title: 
pain 
 1  6 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 Mark S Wallace Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This study looked at the presence of NGF and TRPV receptors in women who had undergone breast 
reduction or breast reconstruction. Women were divided into those with pain and without pain. 
Biopsies were taken along the incision line and stained for NGF and TRPV1, 3 and 4 receptors. 
They found an increase in intraepidermal TRPV1 receptors in the painful group but no difference in 
the NGF levels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Need to better define NGF immunostaining grading. Give how 1, 2 and 3 levels were graded. There 
is potential for bias in this study. 
Why do you consider breast reduction patients as having no surgery? This is mentioned several 
times in the paper. 
Need to better describe the breast reconstruction patients. Flap? Implant? 
Need to better describe the patients who reported pain. How many breast reduction patient vs breast 
reconstruction patients? How many had implants? The presence or absence of implants could be a 
factor here. How long was the pain present? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None
Reviewer's report 
 Capsaicin receptor TRPV1 and related vanilloid receptors TRPV3 and TRPV4 in human breast Title: 
pain 
 1  11 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 Yi Dai Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have investigated the involvement of TRPV1, V3 and V4 in human breast pain. They found that TRPV1-positive intra-epidermal nerve fibers were significantly increased in patients with breast pain and tenderness. TRPV4-immunoreactive fibres were present in sub-epidermis but not 
significantly changed in painful breast tissue. Both TRPV3 and TRPV4 were significantly increased in 
keratinocytes in breast pain tissues. The experiments were clear presented, the findings will be 
helpful for understanding mechanisms of breast pain in women. However, there are several issues should be addressed before publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 1. The title is too vague to the contents in this study. It should be adjusted to the contents. 
2. TRPV1 is known as a receptor important for thermal hyperalgesia, in the present study, the 
authors did not clearly point out the relationship of TRPV1 and thermal hyperalgesia in breast pain (in the McGill Pain Questionnaire may be represented as hot, burning, scalding and searing). I think this point is important for letting readers understand the role of TRPV1 in breast pain. Also, they 
selected patient with breast pain and tenderness, tenderness is thought as a mechanical pain 
symptom, the relevance of tenderness and TRPV1 or V3, V4 should be discussed. 3. Antibodies used in this study should be described in detail, at least include immune host 
information (such as: polyclonal rabbit anti TRPV1, etc). The 2nd antibody also should be described. 
I feel concern for that the authors use neurofilament as a nerve marker (page6, line 1-2), the 
neurofilament's type should be pointed. For example, neurofilament200 is a marker just for myelinated neuron, which little contain TRPV1. This issue should be reconfirmed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) [VR1] in the text table/figures is better to be unified with [TRPV1]. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 Increased capsaicin receptor TRPV1 in skin nerve fibres and related vanilloid receptors Title: 
TRPV3 and TRPV4 in keratinocytes in human breast pain 
 3  21 February 2005 Version: Date: 
 Mark S Wallace Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
All of my concerns were addressed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Reviewer's report 
 Correlation of breast cancer risk factors with HER-2/neu protein overexpression according to Title: 
menopausal and estrogen receptor status. 
 1  13 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 Robert Millikan Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: 
The authors present an interesting study of risk factors for HER2+ and HER2- breast cancer. The study is small, many of the ORs are imprecise, and there are some problems with the data analysis and interpretation. But the study provides important, worthwhile information. 
Major Revisions: 
1. The OR results in Table 3 (adjusted for age) differ considerably from the ORs in Table 4 
(multivariate adjusted). This suggests the presence of confounding, and that the age adjusted 
estimates are not the best (most valid) estimates. Only ORs adjusted for confounding should be presented. 
2. p. 11 It is not correct to interpret case-only ORs as estimates of 
risk. Rather, they estimate ratios of odds ratios. For example, the case only OR of 3.12 in Table 4 for abortion in premenopausal women should not be interpreted as a measure of "increased risk" but as a 
measure of the relative strength of the association for HER2+ versus 
HER2- breast cancer. 
3. Methods p. 5 What was the time period for ascertainment of cases and 
controls? 1990 through 2002 for cases is listed in Abstract but not in 
the Methods section of the paper. Were cases consecutively diagnosed and not selected for family history or other characteristics. Were cases invasive only, on was DCIS included? 
Minor Revisions: 
4. Background p. 4. "etiological heterogeneity...rather than 
prognosis." These are not mutually exclusive, and need not be "either or." 
5. p. 6 How were the cut points for BMI chosen? Were HRT and OC use 
classified as any use, or was there a threshold for positive? 
6. p. 7 What was the retrieval rate for tumor blocks? 
7. p. 15 The discussion of recall bias and selection bias needs to be 
clarified. What does "inevitable" mean in this context? Exposure can 
still be misclassified due to memory or reporting differences between cases and controls. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Correlation of breast cancer risk factors with HER-2/neu protein overexpression according to Title: 
menopausal and estrogen receptor status. 
 1  14 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 Christos Markopoulos Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Even though results of such an analysis could be stronger with a larger sample size, the study is 
well designed, efficient statistical analysis has been performed and the paper is well written. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Correlation of breast cancer risk factors with HER-2/neu protein overexpression according to Title: 
menopausal and estrogen receptor status. 
 3  10 January 2005 Version: Date: 
 Robert Millikan Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have responded carefully to previous comments. 
The revised article in my view is acceptable for publication. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no compdeting interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Hysterectomy at a Canadian Tertiary Care Facility: Results of a One-Year Retrospective Title: 
Review 
 2  22 June 2004 Version: Date: 
 James B Unger Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
GeneralThe authors have improved their paper significantly with their revisions. Unfortunately, 
because of the limited information it contains, it is really useful only to a very small audience, probably just their own institution. But, perhaps that is the intention of the paper. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Hysterectomy at a Canadian Tertiary Care Facility: Results of a One-Year Retrospective Title: 
Review 
 2  5 October 2004 Version: Date: 
 Sherry Kelsey Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Although the data were collected retrospectively, it is stated that all 
cases were collected so that the analysis should be prospective in nature to 
answer questions such as, given a particular diagnosis what proportion of 
women get what procedure. The explanatory variables should be those such as 
age, BMI and diagnosis and the outcome type of procedure. The presentation 
in the tables would be a lot more interesting and useful with this in mind. 
Table 1 OK 
Table 2 This would be a lot more useful if the percents reported were row 
percents. So for example we could compare the rates of procedures for Dysfunctional bleeding as 68%,22%5%,6% 4% compared to rates for Leiomyomas of 95%,4%,0%,1% etc for each diagnosis. 
Table 3 What is the aim here? To my way of thinking age and BMI 'predict' 
cancer but cancer 'predicts' length of stay and length of surgery. Table 4 This is an uninteresting retrospective presentation. Your question is does age, BMI, and LOS 'predict' whether a woman will be readmitted. 
Table 5 same comment as table 3 
Table 6 should indicate that this is based on regression model. It would also be informative to include in a footnote, the variables that were considered but which were not significant. 
There are no references for the statistical analysis. There is no discussion 
of whether the data fit the assumptions of the regression models. LOS rarely has a normal distribution. Often transformations of this variable are used 
in regression models. I would recommend that this be explored. 
This is an interesting, important paper. I believe it would be strengthen 
with a little more attention to the analysis and presentation.
Reviewer's report 
 Surveying of Relationship between Anxiety, Depression and Duration of Infertility Title: 
 1  12 December 2003 Version: Date: 
 secondo fassino Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The objective of this paper is to survey the relationship between anxiety, depression and duration of 
infertility in a sample of infertile couples. The subject is a very interesting one, and this paper may support the evidence in literature. However it is not clear which are the new elements distinguishing this paper from those already existing in literature. The paper is well written and the title is 
appropriate. 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. Introduction: the Authors do not mention some recent papers on the issue they discuss. The 
introduction thus lacks some relevant references. 
2. Methods: the questionnaires used should be described with more detail and some references about them should be cited. Which BDI version was used? Which are the cutoffs used to describe the depression stages? How were the causes of infertility investigated? 
3. Discussion: references are scarce also in this section of the paper. The limits of the study should 
be discussed with more detail. Moreover the results should be discussed after revising the adequacy 
of the statistical analysis. 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 4. page 2 line 11 BDI = spell out: in the results section, data should be presented in a clearer way, separating descriptive analyses from correlation and association analyses. It is often difficult to 
understand whether in the text the Authors refer to individuals or couples: e.g. page 4 they refer to 
depressed couples, but what does this exactly mean? The chi-square value should be reported in 
the tables. Explain the basis on which subjects were subdivided according to infertility duration in 1-3 
years, 4-6 years, 7-9 years. 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 5. The statistical analyses displays some problems. Chi-square values should be reported when 
presenting the results, for the study of the association of categorical variables. 
6. Continuous and categorial variables can not be correlated with Pearson’s method, but Spearman’s correlation should be used. Though dichotomous variables can be codified in SPSS as 
0 and 1 and used as continuous variables, this is a forced situation which should be underscored and 
discussed. A linear regression might provide more realible results. Last, data analysis should 
investigate also the possible correlations between anxiety and depression in the sample studied. 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: