JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:HPV vaccination in women aged 27 to 45 years: What do general
practitioners think?
Version:2Date:28 May 2014
Reviewer: Lyndal Trevena
Reviewer's report:
This is a very well written article about a small study of Australian general
practitioners' view sod HPV vaccination in females aged 27-45 years.
My main concern with the paper is that the new evidence cited in the discussion
about efficacy in older women needs to be considered much earlier in the paper.
It needs to be considered more prominently as a driver for the interpretation of
the results. Not surprisingly this relatively new research has not been well
disseminated amongst general practice and the broader issue is whether women
are prepared to trade-off the cost of paying for the vaccine against this level of
efficacy.
I think the paper would read more clearly if it was reframed in this way but
otherwise it should be considered for publication after this 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 have no financial competing interests to declare. I wish to declare that I have
collaborated with the first author on another project.
Reviewer's report
Title:HPV vaccination in women aged 27 to 45 years: What do general
practitioners think?
Version:2Date:6 June 2014
Reviewer: Leonard Ajah
Reviewer's report:
I wish to thank the Editorial Board of BMC women's Health for finding me worthy
to review this article.My report is stated as follows:
1.The article is relevant and may help the policy makers in designing programs
towards improving compliance to HPV vaccine among the target population.
2. The methods were well described.
3. Even though it was 6% of 400 GPs in Australia that fully responded for the
study,I suggest that it should be accepted considering the constraints the authors
encountered in contacting the respondents.
4.However the results did not reflect the proportion of respondents that answered
those questions that either facilitated or inhibited uptake of HPV vaccine among
the women aged 27-45 years.
5. A table reflecting the proportions will be needed .
6. The results and discussions have to be re-written in order to reflect the
anticipated change.
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:
The authors declared that they had no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Giant uterine artery pseudoaneurysm after a missed miscarriage
termination in a cesarean scar pregnancy
Version:2Date:30 January 2014
Reviewer: Shigeki Matsubara
Reviewer's report:
1. You performed hysterectomy ONLY AFTER UAP has been ruptured; in other
words, you looked and wait the situation even though you found it (gigantic!) as
early as next day of D&C. Why? It is quite a dangerous scenario; if the rupture
had caused 4000 mL bleeding (for example) at one time, the patients may have
died!
2. Why do you conclude that embolization is ineffective for “giant” UAP? If yours
is the largest ever, then, we cannot conclude it because no interventional
radiologists have never have had a chance to treat it. Your context lacks
rationale.
3. You concluded, “hysterectomy should be performed as soon as possible. What
do you mean? You did it 10 days after!; not at all “as soon as”. Do you mean, “as
soon as possible only when bleeding occurs”? You did it long after you noticed
UAP.
4. If you expected “spontaneous absorption (disappearance) of UAP”, then write
so. Even in that occasion, discussion on whether such a “gigantic” UAP can be
absorbed or not is required; this should be deeply and completely discussed.
5. There are many wrong English. Even though the grammar may be right, it is
not “comfortable” English from paper writing point of view.
6. You can never say “US SHOULD be done within 24 hours”. As indicated in
Author Guideline of this Journal, you had better quite cautious to say the actual
way of practice. Why 24 hours? 12 hours in not good? 36 hours is not good?
Single case report cannot allow such a definite conclusion.
I hope that you may take my advice positively.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Giant uterine artery pseudoaneurysm after a missed miscarriage
termination in a cesarean scar pregnancy
Version:2Date:5 February 2014
Reviewer: nidhi sharma
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
The study is neatly presented. It is apt for reporting as the cases for caesarean
scar pregnancy are likely to increase with the global rise in the rates of
caesarean section.The problem of post abortal bleeding due to arteriovenous
malformations also needs addressing.
However, there are some points, as would be beneficial, considering the social
need of the problem.
Major compulsary revisions
1. In the conclusion of the structured abstract , please mention doppler
ultrasound in the preoperative work up in addition to the postoperative
management of caesarean scar pregnancy. This will help us to decide if any
arteriovenous malformations were formed as result of previous caesarean
section or currettage done for previous missed abortion.We will also know if the
pseudo aneurysm resulted as a result of currettage done for this gestation or an
earlier one. We recommend Doppler in all cases of undiagnosed vaginal bleeding
to rule out arterio venous malformations of uterine vascular architecture.
2. In the background, the cause of onset of symptoms after 1 week to 3 weeks
after pelvic surgery needs to be speculated. A word about a gradually increase in
the size of pseudo aneurym due to characteristic presssure gradient can be
mentioned. The flow into the pseudo aneurym is more during systole. This leads
to a gradual pressure build up and eventual rupture.
3. In case presentation kindly mention if the previous missed abortion was also
managed by a surgical currettage.
4.In Discussion ,paragraph 1,line 21 please add doppler with ultrasound
examination as a required postoperative investigation.
5.In Conclusion, please add doppler with ultrasound for post operative care of
caesarean scar pregnancy.
Discretionary
The author is also welcome to speculate the role of intraoperative ligation of
feeding vessel of the pseudo aneurysm. The possibility of securing hemostasis
with plication should be considered before a radical decision of hysterectomy is
made.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Giant uterine artery pseudoaneurysm after a missed miscarriage
termination in a cesarean scar pregnancy
Version:2Date:12 February 2014
Reviewer: Beatriz Rojas
Reviewer's report:
I do not see any changes necessary.
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:Giant uterine artery pseudoaneurysm after a missed miscarriage
termination in a cesarean scar pregnancy
Version:2Date:22 March 2014
Reviewer: Lorraine Corfield
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) The key message is that these uterine pseudoaneurysms must be treated
urgently. Many will be amenable to endovascular treatment which can include
stents as well as embolization and thrombin. Therefore the conclusions should
be changed to reflect this-an opinion from an interventional radiologist and /or
vascular surgeon should be sought prior to resorting to hysterectomy where time
allows
2) It is not clear from the report whether this was a pseudoaneurysm or a cyst
which was highly vascular. I am sure the diagnosis was clear at hysterectomy
and it appears that the authors were convinved this was a
pseudoaneurysm-hence the use of the word 'cyst' in the uterine wall is
misleading-if it was a pseudoaneurysm this should be called a pseudoaneurysm
rather than a cyst
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:Giant uterine artery pseudoaneurysm after a missed miscarriage
termination in a cesarean scar pregnancy
Version:3Date:5 May 2014
Reviewer: Shigeki Matsubara
Reviewer's report:
I admit that the authors faithfully responded to the comments. But, as for me, this
manuscript does not meet the criteria of acceptance. However, if you decided to
accept this R1 one, will you please make the following modification?
The discussion section consists of ONE paragraph. Please trim this ugly style for
the sake of your Journal reputability.
Reviewer's report
Title:Giant uterine artery pseudoaneurysm after a missed miscarriage
termination in a cesarean scar pregnancy
Version:3Date:20 May 2014
Reviewer: nidhi sharma
Reviewer's report:
The changes are apt
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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:Giant uterine artery pseudoaneurysm after a missed miscarriage
termination in a cesarean scar pregnancy
Version:3Date:20 May 2014
Reviewer: Lorraine Corfield
Reviewer's report:
My points have been answered and the report amended appropriately
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:Severe morbidities associated with induced abortions in a tertiary public
hospital, Ghana
Version:2Date:7 February 2014
Reviewer: Hilary M Schwandt
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Title
1.Doesn't convey the main point of the manuscript/research
Abstract
2.Gestational age finding unclear
Introduction
4.Comprehensive abortion services – really? Do all Ghanians know about these
services? Are all abortion patients counseled and offered a method?
Subjects and Methods
5. Who was asking the women about the abortion? How did they ask?
6. Women who admit to having an abortion in this highly stigmatized environment
are likely much different than those who don’t admit to having an abortion - a
discussion of this issue needs to be included in the limitations/discussion section
7. This quote from the paper (below) is quite confusing. So clients were selected
sequentially? So clients who had an abortion of the same type were skipped until
a patient admitting to a different type of abortion was selected?
“Every eligible client who admitted to using any other method apart from
misoprostol to induce abortion in the index pregnancy and the next consecutive
client who admitted to inducing abortion with misoprostol were selected to
participate in the study.”
8. Data on sample should be in the results section – not the methods section
9. 344 seems like a very low number – esp if there are 350 clients admitted on
average each month to they gyne ward, please address this in the discussion
section
10. How did the team go from 199 to 126 misoprostol users? How were
misoprostol users eliminated from the sample?
Results
11. Include discussion of the non-misoprostol elements used so reader
understands what the items are
12. Why isn’t the difference in religion seen in Table 1 noted in the results
section?
13. Need to report on the prevalence of severe morbidities overall and by the two
groups
14. Table 3 - gravidity doesn’t meet 0.05 criteria
15. Table 4 – cohort variable is not included in the table...and maybe the
analysis???
Tables
16. Table 2 needs column headings n(%)
17. Keep columns consistent between tables – keep non-misoprostol in the left or
right column consistently for all tables
Discussion
18. Limitations – how would the misclassification effect the results?
19. Need to include the fact that some questions were omitted from the
study/questionnaire on the abortion: dose, agent, schedule, route of
administration; as well as a question on FP USE!!!
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Severe morbidities associated with induced abortions in a tertiary public
hospital, Ghana
Version:2Date:3 March 2014
Reviewer: Francis Obare
Reviewer's report:
Comments for authors are attached as a separate document.
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:Severe morbidities associated with induced abortions in a tertiary public
hospital, Ghana
Version:2Date:10 March 2014
Reviewer: Richard Adanu
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is generally well written with correct methods, analysis and valid
conclusions. The authors however need to address the following issues:
Major compulsory revisions
1. The study is not a retrospective cohort study as stated by the authors. It is
rather a case control study with 126 cases of misoprostol induced abortion and
126 controls of non-misoprostol induced abortion. The methodology section
should be revised to clearly communicate that this was a case control study
2. The reason for selecting only 126 out of the 199 eligible cases should be
stated. Did the authors recruit consenting consecutive cases and stopped when
they had gone beyond the calculated sample size or was it only the 126 who
consented?
3. One of the main aims of the study which is to compare the morbidities
between misoprostol users and non-users is not sufficiently addressed. Since
this is a major objective, it would be good for the authors to report on the
morbidities and compare them as they did for the sociodemographic
characteristics (second major objective). It is also necessary to have the mode of
induced abortion in the final regression model which examines the determinants
of severe morbidity. If the authors are unable to do this, then the comparison of
morbidities should not be an objective. Choosing to remove this as an objective
will however require a major re-writing of the introduction and discussion
sections.
4. The abstract should have a statement on the comparison of morbidities
between the two groups.
5. The statement in the abstract about gestational age and morbidity should be
revised because the meaning is unclear in its current state
6. Given the type of data collected, it is more appropriate to use simple and
multiple logistic regression for the analysis and not a Poisson regression.
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:Influences on visit retention in clinical trials: Insights from qualitative
research during the VOICE trial in Johannesburg, South Africa
Version:3Date:6 June 2014
Reviewer: Keira Lowther
Reviewer's report:
On the whole I think this is a really nice piece of work, which contributes greatly
to understanding of the experience of participation in a trial and the facilitators
and barriers to adherence to study protocol.
Discretionary Revisions
1. There is a p value cited in the description of the sample, but no description of
tests used are included in the data analysis section. It would be nice to have this
information if possible.
2. I wonder whether a mention of the recently published paper by Ware et al
might benefit the manuscript. Their's as a similar qualitative exploration of
reasons for non attendance, but in Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. There are
interesting similarities and differences between the two papers.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001369#abstract1
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:Reliability of a wellness inventory for use among adolescent females
Version:1Date:28 October 2013
Reviewer: Jane Myers
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the manuscript and found it to address in a positive manner all of
the following criteria:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
3. Are the data sound?
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
9. Is the writing acceptable?
I would suggest that the publication decision be:
- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
In particular, this paragraph needs further explication (it now appears on page 2
of the introduction). The highlighted text is really incorrect. There was no a
reframing of the model. The Wheel was a theoretical model. Upon statistical
analysis, the authors were unable to confirm the hypothesized circumplex model,
leading to the development of a new evidence based model of wellness, the
IS-Wel.
Numerous theories and models have been created to represent wellness, all of
which encompass a diverse range of lifestyle dimensions. One such model of
wellness that
has been developed, largely based on the psychology of Alfred Adler, is the
Wheel of
Wellness (WoW) [5], and subsequently reframed as the Indivisible Self Model of
Wellness
(IS-Wel). Wellness assessment instruments derived from these theories allow
researchers
and practitioners to apply these concepts in a variety contexts and settings.
Otherwise, the manuscript is well written, clearly presented, and makes a
valuable contribution to the literature. The authors do not overstate their
conclusions and discuss appropriate limitations to their results and implications.
Reviewer's report
Title:Reliability of a wellness inventory for use among adolescent females
Version:1Date:7 March 2014
Reviewer: Simone Vigod
Reviewer's report:
The rationale for the study is clear, and the concept of the wellness inventory
well-described.I am not an expert at statistics needed to demonstrate reliability
but the methods appear appropriate and the results are straightforward. The
implications and limitations are also appropriate.
Major compulsory revisions:
1. The sampling procedure is not described --- was this a convenience sample? If
so, that should be stated clearly and its implications discussed in the discussion
section. The abstract suggests that 96% agreed to participate but this is not
detailed in the methods.
2. The sample comprised adolescents age 12 to 14. Adolesence (at a minimum)
is usually around 13-19. Therefore, I think that the title of the manuscript should
be changed accordingly (i.e. reflecting the age group under study).
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:Reliability of a wellness inventory for use among adolescent females aged
12-14 years
Version:3Date:8 June 2014
Reviewer: Elisabeth Svensson
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors to the considerably improved manuscript according to
my comments and suggestions. The manuscript is well written and your
responses, comments to me show an understanding of the importance of good
statistical practice to ordinal data combined with attachment to tradition.
Your findings illustrate clearly that the use of sum scores hides important
information of variations in assessments by smoothing the data; consequently
the stability will increase by summing many variable data sets. The stability of the
sum scores is in fact a drawback for the use of sum scores of wellness, since all
variations are smoothed.
Minor comment: Avoid decimals in percentages
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:Sex Trafficking Awareness and its associated Factors among Youth
Females in Bahir Dar town, Northwest Ethiopia: A community based cross
sectional study.
Version:1Date:11 April 2014
Reviewer: Amha Admasie
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
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.