Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: What Women Say about their Dysmenorrhea: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 May 2017  
 
Reviewer: Matthew Hopkins  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you for allowing me to review this interesting manuscript.  I applaud the authors for 
looking at this common clinical complain t in a qualitative, (and often overlooked) fashion.  In 
general I feel the manuscript requires some condensation and editing.  The methods (Data 
Collection) as written were too long and somewhat difficult to follow. In general the methods 
appear appropriat e and the data support the conclusions drawn by the authors.  
I do have one area of concern/comment.  In conducting survey research it is important to 
investigate whether the responders and non -responders are similar/different.  The authors are 
able to giv e us some very basic demographics.  Do you have the data to expand this section?  
Specifically are the groups similar or different with respect to the quantitative aspects of their 
disease (dysmenorrhea)?  Pain scores, medication use, surgeries, etc.  
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 wh ich controls 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscr ipt 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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
  
Quality of written Engl ish 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, 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 gain 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 recei ved reimbursements, fees, funding, 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 that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer r eview policy 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 Access 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 a s confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal