JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: A survey of
public attitudes
Version:5Date:10 January 2016
Reviewer: molly brewer
Reviewer's report:
This is much improved and the tables are much easier to read. My only additional
comment is that I would have liked to see age as a continuous variable or at least
by 10 year increments. The younger women were more likely to have a positive
response but I would expect this to differ by age. For example a 30 year old
might have a different response than a 45 year old. in addition, looking at
educational status might influence the age related response. I think this would
make this a more interesting and potentially more important manuscript as it
would give us some clue about what might be the age when women are most
responsive.
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:
none
Reviewer's report
Title:Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: do women's autonomy and
health matter?
Version:5Date:25 January 2016
Reviewer: Wybo J Dondorp
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their answers and amendments. I think the paper has
further improved and gives an interesting update of the legal situation regarding
MAR in Italy.
The background section is now clear, as is the part on PGD. The new version
now also correctly refers to the evidence showing that children born in
non-standard families (eg with two mothers) are generally doing fine.
However, I still wonder if the issue of MAR for homosexuals and single women
should be swept together with that of MAR for women of advanced reproductive
age (line 46, line 204). The limits referred to in 315-322 (about admittance in the
National Health Care System) seem to be more about reimbursement than about
allowing access (=for those willing to pay)? As suggested earlier these are
different debates that should not be mixed up. And if this is not about
reimbursement, there may still be reasons for limiting access above a certain age
that would not as such be discriminatory. I therefore suggest, as intended earlier,
to skip the lines 315-322.
Finally, I still think that the authors should refrain from taking such a strong
position on open identity versus anonymity, as there is insufficient space for
arguing this properly. For instance, as remarked before, it is far from obvious that
the EC ruling referred to in 307ff would also apply to the context of third-party
reproduction. I propose to considerably shorten lines 265-314 by limiting this now
disproportionally long part of the paper to a brief summary of the debate about
open identity versus anonymity while acknowledging that open-identity does not
automatically entail parental disclosure. By the way, do the authors of reference
51 indeed defend the view described in line 272?
A further minor point: in line 154 it is said that half of those going abroad did so
for treatment also available in Italy. If that is so, shouldn’t the percentage (200%
increase) referring to those ‘forced to travel abroad’ (line 157) not be lowered?
It would be good to reread the whole text for small typographical or grammatical
errors. Eg line 37: The should be Ten; line 44 couple should be couples; line 55
what is meant by ‘ both objectives and subjective’? Etc.
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:Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: do women's autonomy and
health matter?
Version:6Date:8 April 2016
Reviewer: Wybo J Dondorp
Reviewer's report:
I am happy with the changes that the authors made and compliment them with
making the paper much better readable. Although the discussion of donor
anonymity is now more balanced, my feeling is that this part (273-303) has grown
quite long for what is really a side issue to the main topic of the paper. However,
as this was done in response to one of the other reviewers, I will not object.
Some minor points that the authors may want to consider as discretionary
revisions:
193: clarify the provenance of the quote. Constitutional Court?
208: ‘…a matter for debate’. Do the authors mean that debate about this is
necessary or desirable (this reading would seem at odds with what the authors
say in lines 222-224 and in the abstract)? Or do they just mean to make the
factual observation that debate about this is going on? In that case the phrasing
should be adapted?
266: Can this document be referenced?
267: Clarify ‘key points’ (of the guidelines as meant in the document named in
the previous paragraph?).
281 Reference(s) needed?
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:Development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to measure
factors influencing on women' behaviors toward breast cancer prevention
(ASSISTS)
Version:3Date:9 February 2016
Reviewer: Myriam Blanchin
Reviewer's report:
Statistical review
The qualitative phase seems to be well conducted. The face and content validity
and reliability were correctly carried out. The psychometric properties of the scale
have not been fully assessed.
The two factor analyses are not sufficient to conclude to construct validity. Given
the results in terms of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and ICC on the dimension
Attitudes, we can suspect that some items are not quite adequate for this
dimension. This would have been diagnosed if the convergent and divergent
validity have been assessed to ensure construct validity.
The CFA in Figure 2 does not incorporate a higher-order to confirm that a higher
factor grouping all the seven dimensions makes sense. Given this, a total score
should not be used in the scoring procedure (p.10) or a hierarchical CFA should
be added to confirm this structure.
Even if the authors have considered that the women were culturally
homogeneous, the paper could be improved by adding discriminant validity. In
fact, we can assume that age or level of education or employment status might
produce different scores.
Finally, the study lacks of concurrent validity. I agree that assessing women’s
behavior toward breast cancer prevention is quite new but some subscales of the
ASSISTS questionnaire could be correlated to questionnaires evaluating social
support, stress or attitudes for example. The results presented do not ensure that
the questionnaire really assess the concept that the authors wanted to measure.
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:Development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to measure
factors influencing on women' behaviors toward breast cancer prevention
(ASSISTS)
Version:4Date:10 March 2016
Reviewer: Myriam Blanchin
Reviewer's report:
Comments are attached.
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:Development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to measure
factors influencing on women' behaviors toward breast cancer prevention
(ASSISTS)
Version:5Date:4 July 2016
Reviewer: Myriam Blanchin
Reviewer's report:
All previous comments were addressed properly by the authors.
Thanks
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:Factors Influencing the Conduct of Maternal and Perinatal Death Reviews
in Oyam District, Uganda: A cross-sectional study.
Version:3Date:29 May 2015
Reviewer: BERNARDO HERNANDEZ
Reviewer's report:
The paper describes an interesting study. It discusses the application of maternal
and perinatal death reviews in hospitals in Uganda, using quantitative and
qualitative methods. I would have the following comments:
Compulsory revisions:
1. The introduction describes the context of maternal and perinatal death reviews
in Uganda. However, some more context on the levels and trends of maternal
and perinatal deaths (using estimates or record data) would help as well.
2. The methods section describes 4 sources of information (lines 126-138):
health facilities, maternal and perinatal deaths, key informants and health
workers. My impression was there was information on the 4 of them. However,
no results are presented about the maternal and perinatal deaths. That is a
crucial piece of information, the authors could explore the characteristics of some
deaths that make them more or less likely to be reviewed.
3. Having the health workers purposively selected can be a major source of bias.
The authors mention this in the limitations, but they need to provide more
information on how they were selected, and make a case on why it does not
invalidate the results.
4. There is no analytical framework presented for the qualitative study. Being a
qualitative study implies the use of rigorous methods, that are not described.
Because of this, the results section becomes almost anecdotical.
5. These limitations in the methods really limit the contribution of the paper. the
authors need to make a strong case about the main problems to conduct
reviews, and apply recommendations. Not having results on the review of all
cases excludes the source where they could have more data, and conduct a
mutlivariate analysis, which is missing now
6. They have very small numbers and empty cells in their tables. How did they
conduct a chi-square with empty cells?
Minor recommendations
1. Use the same order in the methods and results when referring to different
sources of information
2. Some tables refer to results of the whole population, and other compare
participants and non participants. they could be merged just adding another
column (Table 2 with 4, and 3 with 5)
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 I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The Conduct of Maternal and Perinatal Death Reviews in Oyam District,
Uganda: A descriptive Cross-sectional Study.
Version:5Date:26 October 2015
Reviewer: BERNARDO HERNANDEZ
Reviewer's report:
Compulsory revisions
The authors have addressed the comments of the reviewers. The only one that I
feel has not been fully addressed is the lack of a theoretical framework for the
qualitative analysis. I would recommend the authors to reanalyze this information
detailing the theoretical framework that is used.
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 Conduct of Maternal and Perinatal Death Reviews in Oyam District,
Uganda: A descriptive Cross-sectional Study.
Version:6Date:4 January 2016
Reviewer: BERNARDO HERNANDEZ
Reviewer's report:
The authors have clarified the rational of the analysis and the reasons for not
using an a priori framework,what is OK for me.
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:Prenatal care and childbirth assistance in Amazonian women before and
after the Pacific Highway Construction (2003 - 2011): a cross-sectional study
Version:3Date:1 March 2016
Reviewer: Emma Williams
Reviewer's report:
The authors addressed my previous comments, and I don't wish to add any new
comments.
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:Prenatal care and childbirth assistance in Amazonian women before and
after the Pacific Highway Construction (2003 - 2011): a cross-sectional study
Version:3Date:24 February 2016
Reviewer: Janet Hirst
Reviewer's report:
I have looked at the revised paper and I am pleased to see the authors have
been diligent in responding to reviewer’s suggestions. The paper has been
improved with added clarity, explanation, and insight. There remain some
typographical errors of which these are some I noted (there were no line
numbers available so I hope my directions help):
Abstract:
• In2003 both Brazilian and Peru governments have finished: remove the word
‘have’
• black/afroamericanethnicity: should read black/Afro-American ethnicity
Just before the methods section:
• improved health are acesse: should read improved healthcare access
Number of prenatal care consultations section:
• gynecological exam: should read gynecological examination
• (black and miscigenated women): miscigenated needs explaining or use
another phrase for the international community as it is not a common expression
• Health literacy, defined as defined as: just needs editing
• diseases processes: should read disease processes
• Current practices such as outdoors: needs explaining i.e. ‘such as outdoors’
• Parteiras: is this a traditional birth attendant?
Reviewer's report
Title:Beliefs underlying Women's Intentions to Consume Alcohol
Version:2Date:5 June 2015
Reviewer: M. Renee Umstattd Meyer
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions: none.
Minor essential revisions: There are two areas that the authors should address in
the conclusion section (and introduce in the background section). First, the
authors need to acknowledge that subjective norm actually includes both
descriptive and subjective norms, not just subjective as is supported by TPB and
models that have built off of TPB (ex: integrated behavioral model and others).
This needs to be transparently discussed in the background section and then
discussed in the conclusion section as to how this limited the study and
potentially left important information out of this study's results. This discussion
should interweave literature on this influence. Second, in the conclusion section
the authors also need to discuss how other empirically and theoretically
supported variables/constructs might help further explain the findings reported in
this study, or are the authors suggesting that TPB is comprehensive in explaining
these types of drinking behaviors? This discussion should talk about how
previous evidence could be used in combination with these TPB findings, versus
only discussing the TPB findings.
Discretionary Revisions: none
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Beliefs underlying Women's Intentions to Consume Alcohol
Version:2Date:7 September 2015
Reviewer: Christina Chambers
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well-written and provides the essential details regarding this
survey.
The interpretation of these findings is useful, particularly as it relates to intentions
vs. actual behavior.
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:
No competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Beliefs underlying Women's Intentions to Consume Alcohol
Version:4Date:19 March 2016
Reviewer: M. Renee Umstattd Meyer
Reviewer's report:
There are not further requested revisions. The authors adequately addressed my
previous concerns and suggestions.
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: Contraceptive Method Choice among Women in Slum and Non -slum Communities in  
Nairobi, Kenya  
 
Version: 1 Date: 13 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: Eva B azant  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which contr ols are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would  you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written Englis h 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimb ursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gai n or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, fundi ng, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this  paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
I declare I have no competing interests  
I agree to the open peer review poli cy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses . I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Acce ss Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confiden tial comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer's report
Title:Levels and correlates of physical activity/ inactivity and body mass index
among Saudi women working in office jobs in Riyadh city.
Version:2Date:15 March 2016
Reviewer: Janet Shaw
Reviewer's report:
The authors have attended to my comments and the manuscript is now much
easier for the reader to understand.
I do have a few more recommendations.
Minor Essential Revisions
In the title and in subsequent uses, I suggest using a comma to separate
“…physical activity, inactivity….” Instead of a “/”.
Abstract line 42 (results line 4), provide reference for time frame of seven or
more hours: Suggest…..”working seven or more hours per day….”
Abstract lines 46-47 (conclusion lines 2-3), states that Saudi women may have
fewer opportunities for PA due to harsh climate and cultural influences. Climate
and culture were not listed as reasons for not doing PA—suggest leaving this
out, unless the data support this statement in the conclusions. Perhaps a case
for these two potential barriers is made in the introduction.
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:Does female sex hormone supplementation (FSHS), exercise or a
combination of both, improve pain and function in post-menopausal women with
greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS)? A randomised controlled trial.
Version:3Date:28 February 2016
Reviewer: antonio Frizziero
Reviewer's report:
The paper is methodologically well conducted and well argument. Nevertheless,
there are some points that need to be better clarify.
Minor essential revisions
1. In the introduction section I suggest to mention other metabolic and endocrine
factors that are linked to tendon pathology (i.e. diabetes, hypercolestherolemia,
thyroid disorders, smoke).
It may be useful to you to cite Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2014 Nov 17;4(3),
that is entirely dedicated to the current findings about this argument.
2. In the introduction section, when you discuss the current knowledge about the
physiological effects of female sex hormones and the animal studies performed,
you may cite also:
Frizziero A, Vittadini F, Gasparre G, Masiero S. Impact of oestrogen deficiency
and aging on tendon: concise review. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2014 Nov
17;4(3):324-8. eCollection 2014.
Veronesi F, Della Bella E, Torricelli P, Pagani S, Fini M. Effect of adipose-derived
mesenchymal stromal cells on tendon healing in aging and estrogen deficiency:
an in vitro co-culture model. Cytotherapy. 2015 Nov;17(11):1536-44
Torricelli P, Veronesi F, Pagani S, Maffulli N, Masiero S, Frizziero A, Fini M. In
vitro tenocyte metabolism in aging and oestrogen deficiency. Age (Dordr). 2013
Dec;35(6):2125-36.
In the chapter "Blood sampling and electrocardiography" in the Method section I
suggest to clarify if patients with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance were
excluded from the study. Nevertheless, you don't mentioned diabetes in the
exclusion criteria.
Discretionary Revisions
In the exclusion criteria you don't include rheumatic diseases that may determine
tendon pathology itself. Why?
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests