JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Use of reproductive health care services among urban migrant women in
Bangladesh
Version:3Date:28 September 2015
Reviewer: Ian Askew
Reviewer's report:
1. This paper presents clearly the findings from a well-structured analysis of an
important topic and would contribute to the literature if published. This reviewer
proposes that the authors undertake one revision to improve the overall quality of
the paper.
Major compulsory revisions
2. The paper would benefit from greater interpretation of the meaning of some of
these findings. For example, could the authors offer their thoughts on:
i. Given the differences for pregnancy related services, why are there virtually no
differences for use of modern contraception and seeking treatment for STIs?
ii. The authors imply that lower use of pregnancy-related services may be
attributable to primarily to "supply" weaknesses in the health system and
maternal health programs in being able to reach migrant women, especially
those originating from rural areas. The role of "demand" for such services is not
explored, either through analysing relevant data from the survey (if they exist) or
in the authors' discussions and conclusions of the findings. For example, the
finding that spending more time living in an urban area increases use of ANC
may indicate a change in demand for this service through exposure to other
women who use the service or to messages about the benefits of ANC.
Minor essential revisions
3. Please clarify that the proportions seeking STI services are among those
diagnosed to have STI signs or symptoms, either self-diagnosed or by a health
provider
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:Use of reproductive health care services among urban migrant women in
Bangladesh
Version:3Date:11 December 2015
Reviewer: Laura Serrant
Reviewer's report:
This is a well constructed informative paper.
The authors set out the context well in relation to Bangladesh. The only
discretionary revisions I would suggest are perhaps a contextualisation of the
findings with reference to countries with a similar GDP in order to make the
application relevant to a wider international audience
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:Midlife women's stages of change from violence towards freedom
Version:1Date:8 June 2015
Reviewer: Nicole Westmarland
Reviewer's report:
1. This is a very well written article. The problem is well defined and is a definite
gap in existing knowledge. It is an article I would definitely quote within my own
work and I found it interesting reading. I only have a few suggested corrections,
all of a minor or discretionary status.
Minor corrections
2. Abstract should include number of interviews.
3. Can you say in abstract and method broadly where the study took place -
national, local, eg 'participants were based in a small town in northern England'
or wherever.
4. I read that you recruited your participants via both community and residential
support services - could you break your sample down as to how many you
recruited in the end from each these different services? Because if most were
from residential then I'd like to see that as a limitation. And if this is not the case,
then good to alleviate that concern.
5. Did you ask if any had grandchildren not just children? This is proving
important in some work I am doing with a postgraduate researcher on this topic.
Discretionary corrections
6. Language - Semi structured not semi structure
7. Language - Refuge not safe house (latter sounds more US, but fine if thats the
term used locally)
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:A qualitative study exploring midlife women's stages of change from
domestic violence towards freedom.
Version:2Date:18 August 2015
Reviewer: Nicole Westmarland
Reviewer's report:
I have no further comments, I am content that the authors revised the manuscript
according to my earlier feedback.
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:Experience of gender-based violence among young pregnant women in
urban slums of Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: A qualitative study
Version:2Date:5 October 2015
Reviewer: Sari ANDAJANI
Reviewer's report:
please refer to attached report
all of my comments relate to major compulsory revision criteria set by your
journal.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Sonographic patterns of uterine fibroids among Ghanaian women
undergoing pelvic ultrasound scan
Version:3Date:28 July 2015
Reviewer: Nneka Iloanusi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision.
A. In the statistics section. 1. Three different machines were used for the study.
Were the data analysed separately in order to assess the degree of
inter-observer error?
2. What was the rationale for the age group division of <35, 35-44, >45 years?
B. Rationale for the study- To my knowledge, there is no documented diagnostic
confusion related to the features of fibroids on ultrasonography. So, there is no
new ground this study has achieved. Fibroids have almost pathognomonic
appearances except where they present as adnexal masses or leiomyomatosis
and other atypical locations. A symptom-related approach would've been more
beneficial, e.g, what proportion of patients presenting with pelvic pain/mass or
bleeding or sub-fertility or infertility is attributable to leiomyoma uteri?
Minor essential revision- they are noted within the body of the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Sonographic patterns of uterine fibroids among Ghanaian women
undergoing pelvic ultrasound scan
Version:3Date:4 November 2015
Reviewer: Cyril Dim
Reviewer's report:
I commend authors for the efforts in the study. They correctly noted that the true
prevalence of uterine fibroid was not known; and they set out to determine the
sonographic “pattern” of common benign tumor of the uterus. My comments are
as follows:
• A study in 3 centers within Accra cannot be used to generalize for Ghanaian
women. Authors should modify the study title, objective and conclusions to reflect
the actual study population.
• Authors are encouraged to adhere to the journal’s guideline for manuscript
development. A separate section for literature review etc was not necessary.
• Authors’ research question(s) is not specific. “Sonographic pattern” is not a
specific and reproducible objective.
• How did authors determine their sample size?
• How did they ensure quality assurance across the 3 study centers?
• What were the exclusion criteria and study limitations
It is my opinion that the scope of this descriptive work is too narrow for this
journal. Authors would have done more work by studying all or an appropriately
selected sample of women presenting at the study centers for any reason
(excluding those with history of hysterectomy). This would have assisted in filling
the gap posed by lack of data on the prevalence of uterine fibroid in that
population as well as provide information on other sonological variables (location,
size, degeneration). Also, associations between certain variables and uterine
fibroid would have been re-evaluated.
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: 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:Mammographic breast density evaluation in infertile and in parous woman.
Version:1Date:22 July 2014
Reviewer: Shawna Willey
Reviewer's report:
See attached critique
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Mammographic breast density evaluation in infertile and in parous woman.
Version:2Date:20 January 2015
Reviewer: Virginia Lope
Reviewer's report:
The paper has slightly improved, but certain issues should be improved before
being published:
Major Compulsory Revisions
ABSTRACT:
Results of OR are not correct (if the tables are ok):
- Adjusted Odds ratio for the case group to be in BIRADS-3/BIRADS-4 categories
is 1,78 (95%CI: 1.10-2.89)
- 53.6% instead 52.6%
- Adjusted Odds ratio for case group to be in Boyd’s class E/F is 2.05 (95%CI:
1.07-3.93)
INTRODUCTION
- You should re-review the references. Reference numbers should be presented
in a consecutive order: reference 5 must be cited after reference 4 in the text.
RESULTS:
- Adjusted Odds ratio for the group 1 vs. group 2 to be in BIRADS-3 and
BIRADS-4 categories is 1.78 (95% CI: 1.10-2.89), p=0.019 (Table 3).
- Adjusted Odds ratio for group 1 vs. group 2 to be in class E/F vs being in lower
categories is 2.05(95% CI: 1.07-3.93), p=0.031. OR for class C/D vs. class A/B
OR=0,75 (95% CI:0,39-1,46), p=0,395 (Table 4).
- OR and CI (tables and text) should have only two decimals.
- Tables 3 and 4: The title is not correct. You have shown the ORs of cases
versus controls. Title for table 3 could be :” Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals
and P values for higher BIRADS categories (BIRADS 3/4) by characteristics of
the study population”. For table 4: “Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals and P
values for higher Boyd grade by characteristics of the study population”
- The footnotes of tables 3 and 4 should be: “Odds ratio for each variable is
adjusted for the remaining variables shown in the table” (if you have done it
because I’m not sure…)
- For table 4 I would show only the risk of having in E/F class versus being in
lower categories (A/B/C/D).
- I am not sure how do you built the models. All variables in table 4 (and family
history and age at menarche of table 3) are included as continuous variables.
The ORs means the risk of being in high mammographic density categories per
unit of increment of the variable?. In Table 3 which is the reference of BMI and
age?
- You should comment at least the significant results of tables 3 and 4: women
with 35-39 years have significantly higher risk of having in higher mammographic
density categories (OR=3.99) than the reference group. Which one?
DISCUSSION:
- I think that some references are not suitable for the text. For example
references 19 and 20 for the first sentence, and reference 20 for the last
sentence of the first paragraph. There are many articles more suitable to justify
this sentences.
- I’m not sure if the difference in age between the groups is a limitation because
you have adjusted by age in the models…
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Mammographic breast density evaluation in infertile and in parous woman.
Version:3Date:17 July 2015
Reviewer: Virginia Lope
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
- Last paragraph of results section: P=0.02 instead of 0.20.
- Tables 3 and 4: P value column should go after 95%CI
Discretionary Revisions:
- I think the reference 19 is not the most appropriate for some assertions.
-Table 1: family history of "BREAST" cancer
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Anemia among Indigenous women in Brazil: Findings from the First
National Survey of Indigenous People's Health and Nutrition
Version:6Date:7 August 2015
Reviewer: Premananda Bharati
Reviewer's report:
Article title: Anemia among Indigenous women in Brazil: Findings from the First
National Survey of Indigenous People’s Health and Nutrition
Review comments:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Ans: The author(s) of the present study try to focus a comprehensive view of
anemia among indigenous population rather than to explore a specific
hypothesis/question.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Ans: Methods are basically based on national based survey in the year
2008-2009, ignoring the fact of community specific variability of anemia.
3. Are the data sound?
Ans: yes,
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?
Ans: Yes. All are rightly represented.
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Ans: Yes.
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Ans: Yes
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Ans: Yes
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Ans: Yes
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Ans: Title is ok but abstract may be revised as per results.
10. Is the writing acceptable?
Ans: Although the manuscript contains a important data on anemia among
indigenous population but I have some doubt regarding the comprehensive
representation of the Hb data for indigenous groups as because they may have
different socio-economic, cultural and geographically set up in micro level, which
may be contributed in their food habits and others and finally reflected in Hb
level. Therefore, the study has some importance but author should clarify the
foresaid queries before its consideration in the journal.
Reviewer's report
Title:Anemia among Indigenous women in Brazil: Findings from the First
National Survey of Indigenous People's Health and Nutrition
Version:6Date:10 August 2015
Reviewer: Manoranjan Pal
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
Nil
Minor Essential Revisions:
A principal component Principal component is nothing but a linear combination of
the variables in the concerned group of variables. There is no guarantee that the
coefficients of the variables will all be positive for a principal component. Thus a
principal component may not give a representative figure of the group. I would
prefer taking average of the variables after giving appropriate numerical values
for categorical variables and giving due weights for each variable if necessary.
Discretionary Revisions:
(i) To see whether there are significant interregional differences, MANOVA
(Multivariate Analysis of Variance) could have been used.
(ii) Is it possible to present p values for all the categories (except the base
category) where the number of categories is more than two? E.g., in Table 1 for
the variable Population Size the p values may be supplied for both 2nd and 3rd
tirtiles.
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:Anemia among Indigenous women in Brazil: Findings from the First
National Survey of Indigenous People's Health and Nutrition
Version:6Date:24 August 2015
Reviewer: Rafiqul Islam
Reviewer's report:
I read the manuscript several times and I found it is OK for publication if the data
is latest. Otherwise, revise/analyze it using the latest data. Moreover, some minor
corrections are needed that is indicated in the body of the manuscript. And, add
some latest literature on Anemia that is published in PLOS. Other sides of the
manuscript are also OK. So, it is accepted after minor corrections if the data is
latest.
I am now sending the scan PDF file (Brazil-Anemia) of the corrections
Reviewer's report
Title:Anemia among Indigenous women in Brazil: Findings from the First
National Survey of Indigenous People's Health and Nutrition
Version:7Date:4 December 2015
Reviewer: Manoranjan Pal
Reviewer's report:
I have read the authors reply and the revised manuscript.
Though I do not agree with some points made by the authors to defend the use
of PCA, I okay it because the authors used VARIMAX rotation to make all
loadings positive and considered only those greater than 0.3.
The authors have misunderstood the inner meaning of MANOVA. Anyway, the
use of MANOVA was just a suggestion and not a binding.
The revised paper is OK.
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:Contraceptive Use, Knowledge, Attitude, Perceptions and Sexual Behavior
among Female University Students in Uganda: A Cross-sectional Survey
Version:2Date:28 June 2015
Reviewer: Ingrid Rowlands
Reviewer's report:
This study focuses on knowledge and attitudes towards, and use of,
contraceptives among young women attending universities in Uganda. This is an
interesting study and I agree with the authors that we need to research ways to
better support women’s reproductive health.
Major Compulsory Revisions
My main suggestion for the paper is that the authors situate their findings within
the broader social and cultural context. For example, while the paper focuses on
individual factors (e.g. knowledge and attitudes towards contraceptives) I’d
encourage the authors to consider the social and cultural aspects when they
interpret their findings. Social and cultural factors appear to be important – for
example, the study describes the difficulties women have accessing
contraceptives and discussing sexual matters with their partners. Some women
also perceived contraceptives as ‘wrong’. Can the authors comment more on a)
health care factors, such as the availability of contraceptive services and b)
socio-cultural factors, such as stigma associated with sex outside of marriage,
and the influence on women’s attitudes towards, and use of, contraceptives? The
recommendations made at the end of the paper are good as these have a public
health focus and it would be nice to see this reflected throughout the paper.
A second issue is that the methods of the study need to be described in more
detail. Information about the survey is missing including how the survey
questions were developed; whether the questions were based on a previous
survey and how many questions were included. How did women complete the
survey e.g., was the survey paper-based? Or administered online?
Results/Tables
The numbers and percentages [N (%)] in the tables are confusing because they
do not match each other. It would be most useful to present both the number and
percentage of respondents who “Agree”.
Table 1 –It may be useful to show how these characteristics vary by
contraceptive use (Yes vs. No).
Tables 2 and 3 - Similarly, it may also be useful to show how knowledge varies
by contraceptive use (or among sexually active participants), rather than by year
of study. The results section in the body of the paper would need to be amended
to reflect the changes to the tables.
As a minor comment, you may consider reordering the Tables so that Table 1 is
followed by Table 4.
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:Contraceptive Use, Knowledge, Attitude, Perceptions and Sexual Behavior
among Female University Students in Uganda: A Cross-sectional Survey
Version:2Date:9 August 2015
Reviewer: Michael Johnson Mahande
Reviewer's report:
Results
Line 173: Please check on the median with its interquartile range. It looks like the
age distribution was normally distributed. Did the authors tested for normality
assumption?. Otherwise, mean could be the right descriptive statistics.
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' below
Reviewer's report
Title:Patient and disease characteristics associated with late tumour stage at
presentation of cervical cancer in northwestern Tanzania
Version:3Date:23 November 2015
Reviewer: Lauro Bucchi
Reviewer's report:
To the Authors:
I have only one further suggestion. In page 4, line 56, please change the
sentence to: “In developing countries, due to poor availability of health services
… etc ...”.
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:Patient and disease characteristics associated with late tumour stage at
presentation of cervical cancer in northwestern Tanzania
Version:3Date:28 November 2015
Reviewer: Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Reviewer's report:
the authors made almost all the changes.
Discretionary revisions.
tables could be more informative: presenting the univariate distribution of the late
presenter by each characteristic, as suggested by the other reviewer.
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'