JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:An examination of the health and wellbeing of childless women: A
cross-sectional exploratory study in Victoria, Australia
Version: 1Date:2 September 2011
Reviewer: Echo Chang
Reviewer's report:
The research question posed by the authors is well defined, but the methods are
not appropriate to shed light in the questions asked.
Problem area that require major revisions:
• Convenience sample is not representative
• Sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusion
• T-test can only shows differences of two groups, but not the cause of the
difference. To achieve that, one needs at least multiple regression to isolate the
effect of childlessness on the dependent variables.
However, I don’t see how this can be fixed with the small sample of this study.
Other minor essential revisions:
o The definition of key variables is missed in the methods.
o The discussion and conclusions are not supported by the data. Due to the
small sample size, the appropriate statistical tool is not applicable to do
appropriate analysis, thus the conclusion is not supported.
o The authors touched the limitation in sampling and the problem of drawing
causation from the cross-sectional study. In that case, the conclusion that
“Childless women may be at a greater risk of experiencing poor physical health”
is unfounded.
o A relevant issue: the abstract does not accurately convey what has been
found---The t-test results can only be inferred as an existence of correlation, not
causation.
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:From papers to practices: District level priority setting practices, attitudes
and criteria for family planning, maternal, newborn and child health interventions
in Tanzania
Version: 4Date:29 August 2011
Reviewer: Jens Byskov
Reviewer's report:
The Authors have seriously consideres and as appropriate addressed all the
concerns and commnets.
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:From papers to practices: District level priority setting practices, attitudes
and criteria for family planning, maternal, newborn and child health interventions
in Tanzania
Version: 4Date:2 September 2011
Reviewer: Nancy Walton
Reviewer's report:
Many of the major revisions were made, except for addressing the first point
regarding confidentiality (point 1). This could be addressed by simply rewording
the statement on confidentiality that you have in the paper now, which is worded
somewhat awkwardly.
While it is noted that you added some recommendations into the discussion, it
would have been quite valuable to have a separate section on recommendations
or next steps - as this is, for most readers, an extremely useful section. It also
provides clear steps forward that can underpin a research platform or agenda.
While they are integrated into the text, I would have liked to see a more thorough
and separate section addressing recommendations that emerged from the
project. Filling a gap in the literature is certainly a clear and laudable goal - and
you have achieved this in terms of this specific context - but making
recommendations, even very modest ones, about how to improve the
priority-setting practices, is a valuable part of priority-setting literature. This is, at
this point, up to you to include or not include, as you see fit.
You have addressed the limitation of generalizability of the findings to other
areas in Tanzania and beyond (point 3).
If you could either reword or respond to the issue of confidentiality, that would be
the only outstanding issue. I trust that the issue is not one of not maintaining
confidentiality, rather one of rewording the statement about confidentiality, so it
is, in essence, I suspect, a rather simple revision or comment.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:From papers to practices: District level priority setting processes and
criteria for family planning, maternal, newborn and child health interventions in
Tanzania
Version: 5Date:4 October 2011
Reviewer: Nancy Walton
Reviewer's report:
No further revisions required at this point.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Awareness of HPV and Cervical Cancer Prevention among Cameroonian
Healthcare Workers
Version: 2Date:1 September 2011
Reviewer: Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Reviewer's report:
Gneral comments
The paper is well writtn and the data clearly presented.
The introduction easy to read and interesting.
Major Compulsory revisions
none
Minor essential
I suggest to give a look also at the monography published on "Vaccine" in 2007
by the HPV WHO monitoring centre (WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and
Cervical Cancer.Vaccine. 2007 Nov 1;25 Suppl 3:C1-230.) in which are reported
all the HPV and cervical cancer statistic available country by country.
In the discussion most of the comparison is with the Thay survey, some other
comparisons may add interest to the study.
Pag 8 3rd par last sentence. It is not clear if this concern about safety of vaccine
is expressed by the author or by the interviewed
in the discussion, the paragraph on the best screening program is too long and
not linked to the results.
In the References: what is WHO bulletin, without any specification?
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:Molecular subtype analysis determines the association of advanced breast
cancer in Egypt with favorable biology
Version: 2Date:12 May 2011
Reviewer: Maggie Cheang
Reviewer's report:
This study is an important study, and i read with great interest. This represents a
great study trying to determine the molecular subtypes in Egyptian population.
Major Compulsory Revisions
I have a few questions that I would like the authors to address or clarify please
1) Given Ki67 is done in the study, why the authors did not use Ki67 to segregate
the Luminal B from Luminal A; instead just apply ER/PgR and Her2+ as stated in
the methods.
2) Is Her2 FISH done?
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
Reviewer's report
Title:Molecular subtype analysis determines the association of advanced breast
cancer in Egypt with favorable biology
Version: 3Date:4 August 2011
Reviewer: Maggie Cheang
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my concerns, and i have no further comments.
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:Molecular subtype analysis determines the association of advanced breast
cancer in Egypt with favorable biology
Version: 3Date:8 September 2011
Reviewer: Lisa Baumbach
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the above referenced manuscript in its revsied version.. It is a
vastly improved manuscript. the authors have responded to the previous
critcisms, and the figures are much more legible. The only additional sentence I
would add is in the abstract after "whereas the basal-like subtype....was found in
11% of cases". New sentence: These findings are in sharp contrast to previously
published reports in other parts of Africa in which basal breast cancer has been
over-represnted in African breast cancer patients.
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:
declare that I have no competing interests' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Women's knowledge about cervical cancer risk factors, screening, and
reasons for non-participation in cervical cancer screening programme in Estonia
Version: 1Date:25 July 2011
Reviewer: Silvia de Sanjose
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript explores different aspects in relation to cervical cancer
knowledge and on reasons for non participation in cervical cancer screening
programme in Estonia. The study is of interest as it tries to identify factors that
could be modified in order to increase participation.
The sample size of the study is adequate and conclusions are well derived from
their data.
My specific comments are:
1.- Could you specify who are the women outside the insurance system? Are
they in very different social strata? Also who are Russian-speaking women in
terms of social group?
2.-.Could you provide a bit more details on the random sampling of your study
population? How did you make sure that this was a representative sample?
3.-Knowledge on risk factors seem much higher than previously reported in other
countries. It would be adequate to report on previous published reports (i.e.
Knowledge about infection with human papillomavirus: a systematic review. Klug
SJ, Hukelmann M, Blettner M. Prev Med. 2008 Feb;46(2):87-98. Epub 2007 Sep
14. Review.) in which knoledge was much lower. Has there been a campaign on
HPV in Estonia?
4.-It would be of interest to have the questionnaire as an Annex.
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:Women's knowledge about cervical cancer risk factors, screening, and
reasons for non-participation in cervical cancer screening programme in Estonia
Version: 1Date:1 August 2011
Reviewer: Ilze Viberga
Reviewer's report:
REPORT regarding the manuscript: 1778072325564490
1. The research question posed by authors is well and clearly defined.
2. The study methods are appropriate and well and clearly described.
3. The got data sound.
4. The manuscript adheres to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition.
5. The discussion and conclusions well balanced and supported by the got
results.
6. Limitations of the study are clearly stated and sound.
7. References are very relevant.
8. The title and abstract accurately convey what has been found.
9. The writing is very clear and understandable and, so, very acceptable.
10. I can not find any serious deficiencies as everything is clearly described.
11. Accept the paper without revision.
12. I find this paper scientifically relevant, interesting, with high input for activities
to improve effectivness of cervical cancer screening programme not only in
Estonia, but also in other countries.
Reviewer: Assoc.Prof. Ilze Viberga MD PhD, Ob/Gyn, Latvia University
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’ below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Reasons for non- use of condoms and self- efficacy among female sex
workers: A qualitative study in Nepal
Version: 1Date:29 May 2011
Reviewer: Maria Kyrgiou
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting manuscript that assesses an important problem in deprived
areas of Nepal. It is well written and referenced with appropriate methodology.
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 I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Reasons for non- use of condoms and self- efficacy among female sex
workers: A qualitative study in Nepal
Version: 1Date:23 June 2011
Reviewer: Davy Vanden Broeck
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled: ‘reasons for non-use of condoms and self-efficacy
among female sex workers: a qualitative study in Nepal’ addresses an important
issue and aims to gain insight in the underlying motivation of this high-risk
population not to use condoms. The study is conducted properly and the results
reflect the work done.
This paper is not the first in his kind (neighboring countries, other at risk
populations, …), and confirms the findings by other groups.
Clear study limitation are stated, placing the results in the right perspective.
Some remaining remarks include:
Major Compulsory Revisions
My most prominent comment on this paper goes on the structure. I feel that this
paper is not structured well enough. The authors can bring more flow in the
report: e.g. client refusal and decision making should follow eachother. More
structure is needed.
Also a clear distinction needs to be made between results and conclusions. E.g.
page 11: ‘The FSWs who we interviewed did not use condoms for …’ is a
conclusion, not a result. The other way around: page 15: discussion: third line:
the results with foreigners are presented here for the first time.
I would like to ask the authors to elaborate more on the sample and sample
selection. This study was conducted on a sub-sample of a cohort from another
study. Please provide the selection criteria, as this is an important potential
confounding factor (e.g. all participants recruited in bars, at home, …).
Furthermore, how was this subsample selected? Also, I would like to ask to
explain the sample size. When was saturation reached?
Methodology: explain in more detail how the analysis was done? One person
analyzing or more?
Minor Essential Revisions
insert a table with socio-demographics (age, ethnic affiliation, marital status, …).
E.g. for age, report mean (or median depending on normal distribution of the
values) and the range (or inter quartile ranges), not like done in the manuscript
now.
Remove episodes of interviews if they are not informative enough.
The manuscript needs to be spell checked by a linguist. Quality of English needs
to be improved.
Some abbreviations are not explained
Subjective comments should be removed: p.12 ‘the so-called educated’
Define better paying partners/clients and non-paying partners/clients.
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:Reasons for non- use of condoms and self- efficacy among female sex
workers: a qualitative study in Nepal
Version: 3Date:20 August 2011
Reviewer: Davy Vanden Broeck
Reviewer's report:
no further comments, the authors have incorporated the suggestions in the new
manuscript. Language needs to improve (editoral support???)
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:Mexican American mothers' made-from-scratch cooking, values and
strategies help keep children well-fed in colonias along the Texas-Mexico border:
results from a participant-driven photo elicitation study
Version: 1Date:18 April 2011
Reviewer: Carmen D Samuel-Hodge
Reviewer's report:
Please see the attached document.
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:It's all about the children: a participant-driven photo-elicitation study of
Mexican-origin mothers' food choices
Version: 2Date:6 August 2011
Reviewer: Carmen D Samuel-Hodge
Reviewer's report:
Please see the attached document.
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:It's all about the children: a participant-driven photo-elicitation study of
Mexican-origin mothers' food choices
Version: 3Date:11 September 2011
Reviewer: Carmen D Samuel-Hodge
Reviewer's report:
All comments and suggested revisions were addressed by the authors. No
additional revisions are required.
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:It's all about the children: a participant-driven photo-elicitation study of
Mexican-origin mothers' food choices
Version: 3Date:13 September 2011
Reviewer: Lisa K Staten
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all my concerns. I have no additional comments on
revisions. The manuscript is greatly strengthened through improvements in
clarity, elimination of redundancy, and reorganization of the results. The authors
present important data for understanding the role and significance of food and
food preparation on low income women of Mexican origin. This information
provides valuable contextual factors that should be incorporated into culturally
competent to health promotion programs.
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:Phytoestrogen consumption from foods and supplements and epithelial
ovarian cancer risk: a population-based case control study
Version: 2Date:26 August 2011
Reviewer: Michelle Cotterchio
Reviewer's report:
The response to reviewer comments (and corresponding revisions) are sufficient.
No further revisions suggested.
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:Phytoestrogen consumption from foods and supplements and epithelial
ovarian cancer risk: a population-based case control study
Version: 2Date:31 August 2011
Reviewer: Paolo Toniolo
Reviewer's report:
The authors have considered all issues raised by the reviewers and the
manuscript appears to be considerably improved
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:Providing Web-based Mental Health Services to At-Risk Women
Version: 1Date:17 June 2011
Reviewer: John Powell
Reviewer's report:
This pilot study assesses the feasibility of a web-based videoconferencing group
intervention for at-risk women.
[MINOR REVISION] = MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISION
[MAJOR REVISION] = MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISION
The background section is good but would benefit from giving a little more
context on the use of the internet in mental health more generally (e.g. Powell &
Clarke British Journal of Psychiatry 2006). [MINOR REVISION]
Throughout, and especially in table 1 , percentages of participants are given –
this is not helpful with such small numbers and absolute numbers should be
given. [MINOR REVISION]
Technical difficulties in pilot group 1 are described. How often did these occur?
To what extent where the 1.5 hour sessions curtailed? Did all the planned
sessions take place? [MINOR REVISION]
Twenty dollars per session for ten sessions, plus free computer equipment, and
free high speed internet access for a year sound like a generous package,
especially for people on low incomes. The authors need to discuss whether they
feel this influenced the participant’s responses in being positive about the
intervention. [MAJOR REVISION]
Authors use term “nervous conditions”, do they mean mental health problems – I
would prefer a less ambiguous term. [MINOR REVISION]
The statistical analysis is not acceptable as currently presented – it is not
acceptable to give the results without the data, which could easily be provided in
a small table. Was there any missing data? How was this dealt with? Was the
data explored to examine whether it fitted an assumption of normality? In any
case is it appropriate to use parametric tests for all these scales? Are they really
interval scales? Much more detail needs to be given about the pre and post tests.
[MAJOR REVISION]
Given that the results are non-significant it is not appropriate to quote effect sizes
(at the very least, not without giving results, confidence intervals, and the
P-values for the significance tests). To do so otherwise is misleading. [MINOR
REVISION]
With pre and post test analysis in this small sample, regression to the mean is
likely. This needs to be discussed in limitations. [MINOR REVISION]
The sentence “demonstration of improvements on all measures…..” is misleading
and should be removed. There were no significant differences and the study was
not designed to look for these. Non-significant improvements (with no data
presented) in a very small study using pre and post test comparison is no basis
for saying “demonstration of improvements…”. [MAJOR REVISION]
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