JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:The Economic Consequences of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and
Child Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic
Literature Review
Version:1Date:16 November 2014
Reviewer: Hanh Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
Title: “The Economic Consequences of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and
Child Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic
Literature Review”
Version: Date: 17 November 2014
Reviewer: Hanh Nguyen
To the authors:
Major revision:
1. The conclusion sentence of the abstract is not functional as a conclusion as
well as seems not to link with what have been mentioned above in the abstract.
2. The main objective of the article is to find out the economic consequences of
RMNCH intervention. But among 29 studies selected to be reviewed, only one
third used relatively standard economic indicators, all the others just used what
the authors called “indirect economic indicators” including schooling, cognitive
development and health status. Among those indirect economic indicators, there
are indicators that do not have clear and obvious relation with economic benefit
but needed more researches or proof (e.g. reading comprehension, motor skills).
To this extent, the validity requirement may not be met.
3. Line 165, page 7, the authors wrote “Most studies were experimental or
quasi-experimental”. Actually, ALL the studies must be experimental according to
the inclusion criteria number 2 (page 5).
4. In the Findings IV A. on reproductive health and family planning intervention,
only 2 studies were reviewed with limited indicators and information which
causes less persuasiveness.
5. HIV/AIDS is quite specific and relate to a specific group only, so it is not very
logical to put AIDS treatment together with other disease prevention and
treatment.
6. The conclusion was mixed with the discussion, hence was not focused on and
is not very clear.
Minor revision:
1. In the abstract, the authors wrote “25% of children aged 0 to 4 years suffer
from malnutrition” but in page 8 this number is 37%.
2. The article uses data from 13 low and middle - income countries, but in the
abstract, only low-income countries were mentioned (line 57, page 2).
3. Line 95, page 4, there seems to be an unnecessary repeated number (53%,
twice times).
4. IV.B should be named as “Macronutrients supplementation” to be consistent
with the way the authors divided the intervention in the former parts.
5. The number 46% higher wage in adult year as result of early childhood
macronutrient intervention is a particular phenomenon happened in Guatemala
and should not be mentioned as prominent or popular.
6. Line 278-280 page 12, the authors listed only 5 RMNCH intervention instead
of 6 as written in the beginning of the sentence.
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Health literacy as a modifier of health-related quality of life responses to
chronic disease among Chinese rural women
Version:2Date:28 December 2014
Reviewer: C. Ann Gakumo
Reviewer's report:
See attachment.
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:Health literacy as a modifier of health-related quality of life responses to
chronic disease among Chinese rural women
Version:2Date:2 January 2015
Reviewer: Hongwei Xu
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision:
The main issue in this study is that, as the authors more or less acknowledged in
the discussion section, it is difficult to interpret the moderation effect of health
literacy (HL) on the relationship between chronic disease and health-related
quality of life (HRQoL). The reason is that both diagnosed chronic disease and
HRQoL are subject to reporting heterogeneity due to HL rather than certain true
causal effect. It is possible that rural women with higher HL are more likely to
become aware of chronic condition, seek physical examination, and receive
doctor’s diagnosis. Meanwhile, it is also possible that those who happen to take
medical examination and be diagnosed with a chronic disease increase their HL
as a result of their diagnosis. Similarly, being a subjective measure of quality of
life, it is possible that rural women with higher HL simply employ a higher
standard to rate their life satisfaction, instead of living a true poor life. I am afraid
that the main conclusion of this study is seriously challenged by such
endogeneity issues.
Minor Essential Revisions:
The subjects of this study were mothers of children sampled from seven rural
elementary schools in a northwestern Chinese province. The school-based
sample may be representative of school-aged children in the area, but it is
unclear to what extent their mothers can be representative of rural women in the
same area. At least, unmarried women or married women without children are
not represented at all.
The coefficient estimates in Tables 3 and 5 are not directly comparable because
they are obtained from separate subsamples (i.e., stratified by HL levels, or
diagnosed with chronic disease or not). One solution is to interact chronic
disease with HL in the full sample.
Would the main findings be sensitive to a different cut-point between low and
high HL?
I don’t understand how the models are “hierarchical”.
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:Gene Polymorphisms in RANKL/RANK/OPG Pathway are Associated with
Ages at Menarche and Natural Menopause in Chinese Women
Version:3Date:21 January 2015
Reviewer: Maria Kaczmarek
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. It is recommended to give references supporting the statement in lines 80-81
“Mammary gland changes are one of the hallmarks during menarche and
menopause” to strengthen the rationale for this study.
2. Selection of TagSNP is briefly outlined in the manuscript. It is suggested to
describe methodology used in this study in more detailed manner (lines:
114-119).
3. Description of genotype assays and genotyping is not satisfactory. It needs
major revision by additional details on how blood samples were obtained, how
they were storage, what samples were used for genetic analysis and so on…
4. Statistical analyses (i) involve only crude associations using one-way ANOVA,
therefore all other confounders such as BMI, age at interview, characteristics of
reproductive period can be only taken as bivariate relationships; more informative
would be a multivariate approach for analysis of all potentially confounding
variables simultaneously (ii) did authors check AAM and AANM distributions for
normality allowing to calculate means and SD not medians and Q1 and Q3? This
has further consequences in testing statistical significance.
5. The cross-sectional studies are observational in nature and are known as
descriptive research, not causal or relational, therefore more useful term is
‘association’ than ‘influence’ (lines: 52; 239 and others).
6. Recall bias needs to be discussed in more details in the paragraph Study
Limitation (lines 224-231) as the participants’ age ranges from 42
(postmenopausal?) to 89. This RB refers in particular to the AAM.
7. The potential relationship between AAM and AANM should be discussed in
more details in the Discussion chapter and several inconsistencies in the final
results should be highlighted.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. The final statement of the Introduction (lines 85-87… “The results showed….)
should be deleted from this paragraph of the manuscript
2. The running heading (line 4) is not a shortened version of the manuscript’s full
title but gives a new info. It is suggested to revise it.
3. The keywords repeat the manuscript’s title (line 55). It is suggested to build
another keywords list that will assign to the paper but not be its title.
4. Line 207 misspelling RNAK, RNAKL
5. It is recommended to repeat age range of the study sample in the first
statement of Results chapter (lines 146-147)
6. It is suggested to replace the foot note in table 3 by a label for AANM in
respective table cell (page 23).
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:Gene Polymorphisms in RANKL/RANK/OPG Pathway are Associated with
Ages at Menarche and Natural Menopause in Chinese Women
Version:3Date:1 February 2015
Reviewer: Yao-Zhong Liu
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study on AAM and AANM. Using genetic association study,
the study found several polymorphisms from the TNFRSF11A gene, which
appear to be associated with AAM and AANM. The statistical methods used are
sound. However, the findings should be validated with at least one independent
dataset, e.g., a dataset from dbGap.
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:Predictors of severe pelvic inflammatory disease in remote North
Queensland Indigenous communities, 1997-2005
Version:1Date:7 December 2014
Reviewer: Jane Hocking
Reviewer's report:
This well written manuscript describes the results of an analysis of hospitalisation
records and aims to understand behavioural and other predictors of severe PID
among Aboriginal Australians living in remote northern communities.
Major compulsory revisions:
1. It is unclear why you chose to examine the association of biochemical
measurements and PID. No evidence to support their investigation was included.
Please provide a rationale for investigating their association with PID must be
provided.
2. Please explain what a “well Person health check is”. This is an international
journal and it might not be clear to those outside Australia.
3. Provide 95% confidence intervals in the abstract.
4. Can you be sure that the chlamydia or gonorrhoea diagnosis came before the
PID hospitalisation or was it after – and if after, how much after? It is unclear how
the linkage was done – were WPHC linked temporally with hospitalisations?
Please provide further information.
5. I am unsure exactly what value Table 1 makes to the paper? It compares
values between those hospitalised and those not, but doesn’t include the results
of any statistical analysis. Please add p values or differences and confidence
intervals for the differences. Footnotes are needed to explain the acronyms, how
is smoking or drinking defined? Why provide data about all hospitalisations when
the paper is about PID? This table could be deleted.
6. Similar comments apply to Table 2. What were the results of any statistical
analysis? Please provide p values or differences and confidence intervals for the
differences in Table 2. No confidence intervals for the proportion whom had PID
were provided in the results.
7. What is the biological explanation for RCF or ACR being associated with PID?
Please include some discussion about this.
8. Table 3 – how did you select variables for inclusion in the MV model? Systolic
BP was significantly associated, so why wasn’t that included? You could create a
new variable that pooled the gonorrhoea and chlamydia data together – this
would allow you to determine which of chlamydia alone, gono alone or chlamydia
and gono together was more associated with PID.
Discretionary revisions
9. Did you examine PID rates over time? This would be interesting to do. For
each year under observation, calculate the PID hospitalisation rate and the
chlamydia and gono diagnosis rates and see how these are correlated.
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:Print versus a Culturally-Relevant Facebook and Text Message Delivered
Intervention to Promote Physical Activity in African American Women: A
Randomized Pilot Trial
Version:2Date:21 October 2014
Reviewer: Dori Pekmezi
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript describes a randomized trial examining differences in physical
activity (PA) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) constructs among African
American women in a Facebook and text message intervention (FI) compared to
those in a print material intervention (PI).
Strengths of the study include the timely/important topic (use of technology to
reduce health disparities), high retention, use of theory to design the FI, and
objective PA measures. The discussion section of the manuscript is insightful
and well written. Weaknesses include small sample size and short assessment
time frame (8 weeks). Moreover the design of the study (culturally adapted
Facebook + Text with adaptive pedometer goal setting vs standard Print with
static pedometer goal setting) does not allow us to tease out which aspects were
beneficial to behavior change (the delivery channel, cultural adaption, goal
setting type, or some combination).
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The manuscript states the intervention text was written at 10 grade reading
level. While this sample was particularly well-educated, perhaps the discussion
should mention that the reading level should be reduced to improve potential for
dissemination in larger population.
2. More detail could be provided on the cultural adaption process.
3. The design of the study (culturally adapted Facebook + Text with adaptive
pedometer goal setting vs standard Print with static pedometer goal setting) does
not allow us to tease out which aspects were beneficial to behavior change (the
delivery channel, cultural adaption, goal setting type, or some combination).
While the authors address the issue of the different pedometer goal setting types
in the discussion, perhaps they could also address teasing out the delivery
channels and cultural adaption in future larger studies (test culturally adapted FB
+ text vs culturally adapted print)
4. The study focuses on rather short term PA outcomes and perhaps the
discussion should mention attending to long term PA outcomes (that are likely
more conducive to chronic disease prevention) in future studies (12 month
assessments etc)
5. Table 1 does not add much
6. There are a few typos.
7. It is reported in the manuscript: “Additionally, half (n=7) of the FI participants
viewed all the PA promotion materials posted to the group wall and the median
number of participant comments for each weekly group discussion topic was 5.5
(M=5.75).” did the participants who interacted more with FB show greater
increases in PA than those who did not?
Minor Essential Revisions: None
Major Compulsory Revisions: None
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
Reviewer's report
Title:Genito-anal injury patterns and associated factors in rape survivors in an
urban province of South Africa: a cross-sectional study
Version:1Date:11 December 2014
Reviewer: Andre A Rose
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
Reviewer’s report: Genito-anal injury patterns and associated factors in rape
survivors in an urban province of South Africa: a cross –sectional study.
1. Title: this is appropriate.
2. Abstract: concise and well written.
3. Background: this very sparse but this might be due a lack of literature in the
field. Would suggest a more extensive literature review but this is at the
discretion on the authors.
4. Methods: this is adequately described.
5. Results: these are well described.
6. Tables: The tables are well put out but they were confusing. The numbers in
some of the tables do not add up and I suggest the authors relook at the figures
reported. In Table 1 the columns and rows do not add up e.g. in column 2 a total
of 1472 is reported but when I add this column up I get 1356; when row 1
columns 3 to 11 is added I get 2125. Generally none of the columns and rows in
Table adds up. If there is a reason for this the authors have not explained this. In
Table 2 the figures do not add up either. In Table 3 there is a heading “Length of
offence” (row 9); this term is very ambiguous to me. I am not sure what this refers
to; I suggest the authors clarify this. I read this and think the offence (rape) took a
day or more than a day and I am sure this is not the intention of the authors. In
Table 3 there is a heading “Perpetrator victim relationship” and the second
subheading I think should read “Current or ex-partner” and not “current of
ex-partner”. In Table 4 “Length of offense is also used.”
7. Discussion: well written.
8. The limitations are adequately discussed.
9. References: the title of an article is written in bold throughout the references
except for reference 10. Reference 17 has an asterisk and a number 1 which do
not refer to anything.
10. General comments: the article is well written. There are some grammatical
errors especially with the use of the plural verb for data e.g. page 6 line 5. The
Tables need to be reviewed.
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:Depression, Social Support and Associated Factors Among Women Living
in Rural China: a Cross-sectional Study
Version:4Date:27 October 2014
Reviewer: Simone Vigod
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written manuscript describing a cross-sectional survey in
rural China focusing the relationship between depression, distress and
social support for women living in these areas. The authors describe the
methods well, and the limitations are well articulated.
Minor points:
1. Please do not use 2 significant digits for reporting numbers greater
than or equal to 10.
2. Please describe the referent group when describing the results of Table
1 in the text. Otherwise, the reader does not know what the ORs are
comparing unless they look at the Table.
3. Page 9, Lines 9-11: This is a strong statement re: US-based syndromes.
Please either reference this statement and explain further or delete it
from the manusciprt.
Reviewer's report
Title:Pain-preventing strategies in mammography: an observational study of
simultaneously recorded pain and breast mechanics throughout the entire breast
compression cycle
Version:1Date:8 January 2015
Reviewer: Gianni Saguatti
Reviewer's report:
The issue of pain due to mammograms, which is of particular relevance for the
repercussion it may have on the diagnostic imaging for breast cancer, has been
dealt with by the authors in a technically original and interesting way.
Pain-preventing strategies (a personalized compression protocol with the same
target pressure at the same slow rate, and the reduction of the clamping time)
are welcome and potentially effective.
Discretionary revisions:
1) The pain experienced during mammograms,measured through the turning
knob by the patient certainly provides a more actual element with respect to the
usual ex-post assessment, but it is also too subjective to allow the
standardization of collected values.
2) In order to carry out this study , patients have to cooperate both during the
procedure and in the following days. This may result in a psychological attitude
focused on pain which accordingly determines an increase in sensitivity.
3) In dealing with pain during mammograms, the authors failed to consider that
pain can largely be reduced by the ability, deftness, kindness and attitude of the
technician: this is the first and maybe most important tool to prevent and reduce
pain.
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:Assessing Breast Cancer Research Activity in Arab Countries Using ISI
Web of Science Bibliometric Database: Comparison with non-Arab Countries
Version:3Date:19 November 2014
Reviewer: omalkhair Abulkhair
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed the manuscript and here is my comments:
1) first the question they have raised (objective) has to be more focused as they
stated in the objective they assessed OR analysed as in the introduction.
2) The method they used is the bibliometric and they have used 3 refrences ,they
should have pointed out the pitfuls of these method and how might affect the
result.
3) The data collected according to the method used ok.
4) Yes
5)No ,it requires a lot of focusing & organization of the ideas especially the
introduction and more specific the discussion.
6) Discussion need to be re written to allow the auther to reach to the conclusion
stated.
7)No as stated in both the method and other section as i am sure the auther are
aware of.
8) Refrences from 10-14 in the second paragraph in the method should be
replacedby refrences related to breast cancer. I am also concerened that the
study period ended 2011 while the auther refered to studies after 2011 and now
we are in 2014
9) The authers have been using almost the same title but different disease
condition However the title match the abstract
10) No the article require extensive editing and english correction.