JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of a risk prediction tool for coronary heart disease in middle-aged
women
Version:5Date:12 May 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Veronesi
Reviewer's report:
I found the new version of the manuscript improved in many parts. However, in
my previous review, I raised some concern on the calibration issue. In their reply,
De Vito and colleagues agreed on the importance of assessing calibration in
external validation papers, and argued that the analysis of age-adjusted RRs by
YDR categories could be considered an assessment of model calibration, due to
the nature of the YDR score. Nevertheless Table 2 results are not presented
(pages 11-12) nor discussed (page 13) in terms of calibration. I invite the authors
to do so. The age-adjusted RRs for the first two risk categories overestimated the
YDR risk category as the RRs for YDR lies outside the confidence intervals
(Table 2). This may be of relevance, as 67% of the NHS women had a YDR
score below 0.5, accounting for 50% of the events with an event probability of
1.6% (2.1% in the overall sample). Similarly, the RRs for the last category
underestimated the RR for the YDR, and the RR for the “much above average”
category almost did the same (upper 95% CI limit 2.11). A plot of observed vs.
expected number of events by YDR risk categories may help clarifying the
clinical consequences of using the YDR score in a given population without
re-calibrating it. In fact, the YDR category depends on the risk of the “average”
woman of a given age and this may change across populations and time periods,
in particular as risk factors distribution changes.
Minor Essential Revisions:
At least accoring to the review material, in the main manuscript "table 2" is the
first table, while Table 1 is among the supplementary material. Is it intended?
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:Validation of a risk prediction tool for coronary heart disease in middle-aged
women
Version:7Date:23 August 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Veronesi
Reviewer's report:
In this reviewed version of the paper, the authors added a sentence about
model's calibration among the study limitations, in the discussion section. I
personally would have liked to see something more (see my previous report).
However, with this addition the discussion section is now complete, and paper's
conclusions are well-balanced with respect to the presented findings. I have no
further comments.
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:The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of
cervical screening in Finland
Version:2Date:5 June 2015
Reviewer: Morgan Marks
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
1) It would be helpful for the authors to expand on the statistical analysis
methods utilized in their cost-effectiveness analysis. Specifically, what models
were used to estimate the costs.
Discretionary revisions:
1)The authors conduct a sensitivity analysis of their cost effectiveness estimates
based on increased detection of hrHPV by molecular assays as compared to
standard cytology. It would be helpful for the authors to provide a reference for
the 20% and 50% increased sensitivity estimates they utilize. Furthermore, it is
unclear how extensive the authors factored into their analysis the effect of the
reduced positive predictive value of HPV testing alone due to a high number of
HPV infections that will not progress to cervical pre-cancer. This increased
detection of hrHPV and potential overtreatment, while potentially being balanced
out by Pap Smear triage, may have an effect on the costs associated with CIN 2+
detection. I believe the authors make mention of this in the discussion, however a
further elaboration would be helpful.
2) Did the authors consider differences in non-attendance and the
cost-effectiveness of HPV-testing by self-sampling by age group in their
analysis? It is unclear if cost-effectiveness estimates, particularly costs
associated with CIN 2+, are different among women >30 or >35 years of age as
compared to women <30 or <25 years of age. As above, a comment in the
discussion section would be informative.
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, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I am an employee of Merck and Co. Inc, a manufacturer of an HPV vaccine.
Reviewer's report
Title:The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of
cervical screening in Finland
Version:5Date:27 September 2015
Reviewer: Morgan Marks
Reviewer's report:
Major Compuslory Revisions
Overall, I have no additional major comments on this manuscript other than
additional information on the assumptions the authors used to generate their
cost-effectiveness model. For example, a more detailed description of where
their opt-out rate for self-sampling was generated from.
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, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I am currently an employee of Merck and Co. Inc which manufacturers the HPV
vaccine.
Reviewer's report
Title:The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of
cervical screening in Finland
Version:5Date:6 October 2015
Reviewer: Jesper Bonde
Reviewer's report:
First, please accept my appologies for the late returned review. The manuscript
reads more easy now, which is a clear advantage.
In the background section, line 56, I was wondering whether 70% participation
rate is with or without the reminder.
And what is the coverage incl. the opportunistic screening?
Finally, in your discussion: The participation increased as per reminders, one or
two, but did that affect the coverage, or was the increase in participation
countered by a drop in opportunistic screening?
Other than the above which are discretionary revisions for my part, merely my
thoughts, this manuscript is now ready for publication. Its important informations,
and many countries will benefit from the ability to compare experiences to
Finland by use of this manuscript. Best of luck
Jesper Bonde
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:
In this respect none.
Reviewer's report
Title:"Every method seems to have its problems"- Perspectives on side effects of
hormonal contraceptives in Morogoro region, Tanzania
Version:2Date:26 October 2014
Reviewer: Yeetey Enuameh
Reviewer's report:
This is a nicely written manuscript on an essential public health issue.
I only have minor comments that could be addressed under Minor essential
revisions.
1. Include philosophical perspectives under study design
2. Provide a brief description of "rapid ethnographic approaches" as used in the
current study
3. Provide some clarifications as highlighted in the PDF document under
"community"
4. Address the issue raised with respect to the title "facility-based providers" and
the contents of the section as highlighted in the PDF document
5. Address some issues raised in discussion section as highlighted in PDF
document
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:Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in
Rwanda: A cross-sectional study
Version:3Date:25 June 2015
Reviewer: Mara J Goldman
Reviewer's report:
The paper is much improved and the authors have taken the comments seriously
and responded well to all of them.
A few minor comments:
1. in the abstract the results should clarify that there is an increase in violence
associated with the following list of factors (p. 2 bottom, it just says "factors
associated with IPV" which is a bit unclear.
2. I was surprised to see that any children, including a male child, lead to more
IPV, any speculation on why?
3. It would be helpful to clarify what is meant by 'reporting'. there is official
reporting in the sense of going to the police, center, etc. And then there is just
reporting that one was experiencing IPV in the survey. These are different but
related and get confused in the manuscript so more clarification would be useful.
4. It is not clear why the beliefs did not come up as relevant in the first survey,
were they not in the survey? or they were less significant then other factors so
did not show up? these are quiet important so clarification would be good.
overall great job on revisions!
Very interesting and important work.
While I would still like to see more exploration of why some of the changes may
have happened, and how to tease out 'reporting' vs actual violence, I recognize
the limitations of the journal and see this as a great start in getting important
information out.
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:Twenty years and still counting: including women as participants and
studying sex and gender in biomedical research
Version:2Date:29 June 2015
Reviewer: Gillian Einstein
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
None.
- Minor Essential Revisions
None. The authors have responded adequately to the issues raised in the first
review.
- Discretionary Revisions
None.
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:Twenty years and still counting: including women as participants and
studying sex and gender in biomedical research
Version:2Date:24 June 2015
Reviewer: Cara Tannenbaum
Reviewer's report:
Unfortunately the authors' response to reviews was not made available for this
revision.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the majority of points were addressed in the revision,
including more explicit information about the source of materials, restriction of the
review to the US context, and better streamlining of the milestones.
There remains some redundancy and I still think increased clarity would have
been achieved by adding a methods heading. Overall, however, the manuscript
is timely, especially with the NIH's latest announcement mandating assessment
of sex as a biological variable in funding applications. I recommend publication in
its current form.
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:Do women with complications of an incomplete abortion have different HIV
infection status than women without complications?
Version:2Date:11 February 2015
Reviewer: Moses Bateganya
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
General comments
1. The authors have done a great job to address a topic of great public health
importance and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in resource limited
settings.
2. The paper is well written but critical data is missing from the abstract e.g.
setting, results etc. See specific comments below
3. Limitations and other comments withstanding, this paper adds substantial new
knowledge in a field of great public health importance. These comments are .
Specific comments
1. Title: Could simply be stated as “Are women with complications of an
incomplete abortion at a higher risk of HIV infection than women without
complications?” or “Are women with complications of an incomplete abortion
more likely to be HIV infected than women without complications?”
Abstract
2. Page 2/28- Seems to be a big statement. I am not sure it is supported by
existing evidence or justified from the literature review.
3. Page 2/44; the results sections should present some data on how many
women were in each group. How many were in the different status (Positive,
negative and status unknown). The abstract should be able to stand on its own
and present relevant data.
4. Page 3/59- In some ways the conclusion is written like the results section.
Please use similar language to that used in the main paper. Avoiding words such
as “three folds higher odds
Background
4. Page 5/104-114. Consider adding some information on access to testing for
women seeking health care especially as many resource limited settings are
implementing provider initiated testing and counselling. Please mention whether
this is a gap in Uganda or not
Methods
5. Page 6/125: Referring to the study design as “Cross sectional case control
analysis of …” is confusing. Consider re-stating/rewording as. “We analyzed
secondary data from a study assessing the economic impact of ……[15]. We
compared x to y.
Results
Nicely written no comments
Discussion and conclusion
Well written, no additional comments
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:The Relationship of Social Support Concept and Repeat Mammography
Among Iranian Women
Version:1Date:21 June 2015
Reviewer: Pilar Carrasco-Garrido
Reviewer's report:
REVIEW: Professor PILAR CARRASCO GARRIDO
TITLE: The Relationship of Social Support Concept and Repeat Mammography
Among Iraian Women
Comments:
This is a relevant manuscript from a public health standpoint because one of the
main contributions of the present work is the analysis of the predictors of repeat
mammography, like a higher social support.
The stated objectives have been addressed.
The methods used to collect representative data seem appropriate.
The results have been compared with investigations conducted in other countries
with similar health-care systems. The discussion of the results is well conducted
with the latest references in this field.
The authors point out and discuss the potential limitations of the study, but are
not clear. They should develop more.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
Comments to the Author
1. More detailed description of how sociodemographic independent variables
were categorized would be interesting. (Table 1).
2. The authors point out and discuss the potential limitations of the study, but are
not clear. They should develop more.
3. On the values of OR and 95% CI zero should appear in all tables. It's right.
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 Relationship of Social Support Concept and Repeat Mammography
Among Iranian Women
Version:1Date:24 June 2015
Reviewer: Nazan Bilgel
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Table 1
Please correct the sub groups of age distribution
like as 51-54; 55-60
similar corrections are needed for the "date of last mammography" and "date
before last mammography" distributions.The term date before last mammography
does not sound correct please use another term.
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:The Relationship of Social Support Concept and Repeat Mammography
Among Iranian Women
Version:1Date:2 July 2015
Reviewer: Maryam Ahmadian
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
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:The Relationship of Social Support Concept and Repeat Mammography
Among Iranian Women
Version:3Date:4 September 2015
Reviewer: Rafiqul Islam
Reviewer's report:
I read the manuscript entitled “The Relationship of Social Support Concept and
Repeat Mammography Among Iranian Women” several times and I found it is OK
for publication after major revision, particularly, results of logistic analysis.
Moreover, some minor corrections are needed that is indicated in the body of the
manuscript. And, add some latest literature. Other sides of the manuscript are
also OK. So, it is accepted after major corrections.
I consider the following points while assessing the work:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes
3. Are the data sound? Yes
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation? No
figure is presented.
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? It is OK
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Results of logistic are not properly written.
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes but
some corrections are needed in the abstract.
10. Is the writing acceptable? Accepted after major revisions.
I am now sending the scan PDF file (Iran-cancer) of the corrections
Thanks again
Sincerely yours
Dr. Md. Rafiqul Islam
Professor
Department of Population Science
and Human Resource Development
University of Rajshahi
Reviewer's report
Title:Perspectives on cervical cancer screening among educated, Muslim
women in Dubai (UAE) - A qualitative study
Version:2Date:27 May 2015
Reviewer: Lesley Wilkes
Reviewer's report:
Minors revisions An interesting paper
move rigor to data analysis section
add more about relevance and implications for women health workers
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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:Emotional Suppression and Depressive Symptoms in Women Newly
Diagnosed with Early Breast Cancer
Version:3Date:23 July 2014
Reviewer: M. Tish Knobf
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes
3. Are the data sound? Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Somewhat..I don't think they can coclude that the women were in need of an
intervention. CES-D is a screening tool..which would indicate referral to
determine if the person was, in fact, depressed.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
See comment above #5 and I would suggest changing the wording "restricted
emotion coping" to something like controlled emotion coping or suppressed
emotions in coping
9. Is the writing acceptable? Needs some attention to grammar and also APA
style
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, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Emotional Suppression and Depressive Symptoms in Women Newly
Diagnosed with Early Breast Cancer
Version:3Date:10 October 2014
Reviewer: Tananze Tinati
Reviewer's report:
This article examines the relationship between women newly diagnosed with
breast cancer and emotion, specifically depression and suppression. It is novel
by virtue of the patient group, as there is a paucity of research with Chinese
breast cancer patients.
The paper is structured and presented well. There are some interesting insights
that could be taken into routine care.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Throughout the article, there are grammatical mistakes that need attention. For
example, please remove instances of ‘researches’ and replace with ‘research’.
Please do not start sentences with ‘And’.
PG4:
Line 5: change to ‘which used to be a’
Lines 6-9 needs grammatical improvement.
Line 21:change to: …quality of life, ‘and may even have’…
PG6:
Line 1: change ‘research’ to ‘study’
Line 10: use aims rather than ‘purposes’.
Line 20: use recruited not ‘collected’
PG7:
Two inclusion criteria presented, but in line 8, it states women were chosen in
they fit the 1st 3 inclusion criteria – please clarify.
Line 13: after rural, include ‘areas’. This is repeated in a few other places.
PG8:
Line 3 – removed ‘were voluntary’ replace with ‘volunteered’. Replace ‘elimated’
with ‘excluded’.
PG11:
In various places please use the term ‘significantly different’.
In the discussion section, please present a section on the strengths and
limitations of the present study.
PG13
Lines 10-13 are not clear, please clarify.
Line 21: extent not extend
PG14
Lines 13-14 are not clear, please clarify.
PG15
Line 6 change to ‘difficulty in expressing’
Lines 9-12 are not clear, please clarify.
Referencing:
PG10
Lines 10 & 14 please use the author’s last, not first, name
Line 17 – please reference this finding.
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, 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:"You can't always get what you want". Study designs for clinical
investigation in endometriosis: from doctrine to practicability
Version:1Date:4 February 2015
Reviewer: Roberto Marci
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well-writtened and data are interesting. All possible limitations have
already been discussed. The work provides important insights for future
research.
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 have no competing interests