JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Experiences of Barriers and Facilitators to Weight Loss in a Diet
Intervention - a Qualitative Study of Women in Northern Sweden
Version:2Date:21 October 2013
Reviewer: Birgitta Hovelius
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes. However, Background
is too short and give no references there to what is referred to as ”few studies …
about the perceived experiences, attitudes and feelings of the participants from
the general population in the dietary interventions”. However, from Discussion it
is appears that several studies have been undertaken.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes. However, it is argued
that a strategic selection was performed of the participating women in relation to
social class/education, civil status, living in rural or urban areas, age (working
age or retired). There seem, however, to be too few participants (n=12) to have
each represented in all strategic subgroups (n=2x4x3=24).
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? Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes, However, barriers and
facilitators may be seen as connected when considered across social levels (e.g.
individual, group, community level), the presence of social support at one level
functioning as a barrier when absent and as facilitator when present. The
interviews of this study were performed only once with each participant after the
completion of the diet program and do not add new knowledge from a more
process oriented point of view.
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both published and unpublished?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?Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
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:Experiences of Barriers and Facilitators to Weight Loss in a Diet
Intervention - a Qualitative Study of Women in Northern Sweden
Version:4Date:20 January 2014
Reviewer: Jennifer D. Irwin
Reviewer's report:
I believe the authors have addressed my major concerns well. The only
remaining concern that I suggest the authors consider, is with regard to their use
of the term "trustworthy" when describing the processes in which they
engaged...the components/terms of data trustworthiness are used in a unique
manner in the current manuscript and I recommend additional sources be
referenced to help the reader interpret the unconventional use of these terms
(e.g., credibility typically is supported through the use of member-checking and
the provision of multiple representative quotes for each theme; confirmability is
the term typically used to reflect the use of multiple coders who independently
analysed the data and them met to agree upon the themes, etc).
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:An unusual case of a woman with multiple recurrent cystic ovarian
teratomas
Version:1Date:24 December 2013
Reviewer: Akin-Tunde ODUKOGBE
Reviewer's report:
Report of assessment
A. Major Compulsory Revisions (A – MCR)
B. Minor Essential Revisions (B – MER)
C. Discretionary Revisions (C – DR)
TITLE
1. Remove ‘multiple’. Recurrent already explains the condition. (B – MER).
ABSTRACT
1. Remove ‘multiple’. (B – MER).
2. Depending on the type of excisional surgery done, it may be necessary to
distinguish between residual disease and recurrent disease. (A – MCR).
3. What are ‘silent ovarian tumours’? (B – MER).
4. ‘Conclusions’ should be Conclusion. (C – DR).
KEYWORDS
1. Remove ‘multiple’. (B – MER).
BACKGROUND
Nil comments.
CASE PRESENTATION
1. Routinely, as part of follow – up for teratomas, pelvic ultrasound scanning is
supposed to be done at least every six months. There is no evidence that this
was done for this patient. With the first surgery being a laparoscopic one with its
limitations in assessing the ovaries and doing cystectomy, it would be difficult to
distinguish recurrent disease from residual disease in this case report without
adequate follow up. (A – MCR).
DISCUSSION
1. ‘work’ should be word (first line). (B – MER).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The second statement is the standard gynaecologic practice regarding
teratomas. In order to prevent residual diseases or detect them early, thorough
examination of both ovaries, meticulous resection (including leaving just a sliver
of ovarian tissue) and regular follow up are essential. (A – MCR).
FIGURE LEGENDS
1. Figure 1. (short arrow) to be (shorter arrow). (C – DR).
FIGURES
1. Figures 2 and 3 are not necessary. They do not show in any way that these
are recurrent or bilateral teratomas. (A – MCR).
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 case of recurrent, bilateral ovarian mature teratoma in a young woman
Version:3Date:7 March 2014
Reviewer: Theophilus Nwankwo
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential report:
Abstract: Corrections have been made, may need more concise sentences to
express the same meaning in the conclusion.
Case presentation: the gravidity and parity in the first sentence may be
expressed as nulliparous (e.g. A 20 year old nulliparous woman presented)
Discussion: “Abovementioned” in line 5 of third paragraph format to “Above
mentioned”
References
The (,) after the year of publications should be changed to ( ; ) that is what
obtains in the Vancouver referencing style.
Is the bolding of the topic in each reference the journal's recommendation? if not
I don't think it is necessary.
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 case of recurrent, bilateral ovarian mature teratoma in a young woman
Version:3Date:14 March 2014
Reviewer: Akin-Tunde ODUKOGBE
Reviewer's report:
The authors complied fully with the suggestions made.
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 competing interests at all.
Reviewer's report
Title:Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of premenstrual syndrome in a
prospective cohort study
Version:1Date:2 February 2014
Reviewer: Martin Almquist
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper based on the very large prospective Nurses Health
Initiative. The authors have performed a nested case-control study on
premenstrual syndrome and assessed whether levels of 25OHD, calcium and/or
PTH are related to this condition. Overall, they found no association, but when
analysing (post hoc)differences between those with 25OHD measurements
prediagnosis compared to 25OHD levels analysed postdiagnosis, they find that
pre-diagnostic 25OHD levels are inversely associated with some, but not all of
PMS-symptoms, and that postdiagnostic 25OHD levels are positively associated
with some but not all PMS-symptoms. This was mostly seen in patients taking
vitamin D supplements.
Overall, the quality of the paper in terms of a well-defined research question,
adequate methodology to answer this question, quality of data, accuracy and
clarity of reporting, is high. THis paper adds to the ongoing debate on whether
associations with vitamin D and disesae are causal or reverse causal. Perhaps,
the only way to really clarify whether vitamin D is relate to the PMS would be to
conduct a randomised study between vitamin D supplements and placebo in
patients with PMS.
I Think the paper can be published in its present form.
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:Vegetarian diet and blood lipid profiles: a cross-sectional study of pre- and
postmenopausal women
Version:1Date:18 February 2014
Reviewer: Musarrat Riaz
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Although it is a good manuscript and the findings are important there are some
basic questions that needs to be answered before publication.
Lipid profile is affected by various factors apart from diet like
Diabetes,prediabetes,metabolic syndrome,obesity use of various drugs. Were
these factors taken into consideration?
Amount of diet taken by participants can affect the results.This fact has not been
taken into consideration.
Discussion is too long .Need to omit repititions of findings.
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:Vegetarian diet and blood lipid profiles: a cross-sectional study of pre- and
postmenopausal women
Version:1Date:19 February 2014
Reviewer: Gerald H Tomkin
Reviewer's report:
An analysis of 2002 data. The introduction is clear and the aims concise. The
methods well presented. It would be helpful to know how many premenopausal
women were on the contraceptive pill. The discussion could be shortened to
concentrate on the other studies which have shown similar or different results in
regard to lipid changes. It might be easier to discuss only the absolute values
rather than ratios when comparing the authors results with other studies. The
discussion of fact that the pre and post menopausal women who were vegetarian
had significantly lower HDL and similar LDL to omnivores and therefore a
potentially more atherogenic profile, seems to have been lost in the unfocused
discussion. Discussion about metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance seems
irrelevant as blood sugars in the groups were similar and insulin was not
measured.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Gender: Shaping Women's Personality, Lives and Health in Pakistan
Version:2Date:9 November 2013
Reviewer: Atif Rahman
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The findings, and the conclusions derived, need to be presented in a more
balanced manner. For example, the study was conducted on groups of women
from a squatter settlement in Karachi – Pakistan’s largest city. This group is not
representative of the ethnic, socioeconomic or rural/urban mix of population in
Pakistan, yet the findings are presented as though these apply to all Pakistani
women.
2. The methodology needs to be described in more detail. How were the
participants selected? What were there demographic characteristics? How were
the field guides constructed so as to retain objectivity and reduce bias? Could the
field guides/questions/probes be included as appendices to the paper? How was
the data collected, transcribed and analysed? Has the ‘body mapping exercise’
been used before? It would be much more informative if small case studies of
how women responded to the questions and probes could be presented to
illustrate the process.
3. What measures did the researchers take to reduce interviewer bias and
imposing their own views on this apparently disempowered group of women?
Our own experience of conducting research in such groups in Pakistan is that
there is often strong acquiescence in response, especially if leading questions
are asked. The group dynamics is also often such that dominant voices tend to
impose their views on the rest of the group. These issues should be described in
limitations so that the conclusions are more balanced.
4. The results are not adequately presented. It would be useful to have some
idea of the frequency of responses, leading to development of themes, supported
by more actual quotes from participants. It is unclear how the themes described
were drawn out. As the paper focuses on women’s perception, it would be useful
to have verbatim quotes
5. The discussion (and introduction) should include a slightly more in-depth
analysis informed by anthropological, economic, social and religious factors
shaping society. For example, the discussion begins with the statement, “The
study informs that Pakistani society idealizes a ‘Model Woman’ based on the
principles that reproduction is a woman’s only responsibility, and the family
honour is dependent upon her sexual chastity”. This is over-generalisation of the
data – and the statements should be qualified by a description of this particular
population, and factors that may led to these perceptions. There should be a
section on limitations of the study, such as those described in 3 above.
Minor Essential Revisions:
The abstract should also be rewritten in light of the above comments.
Abstract; The term 'constructed' is better than 'fabricated' .
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:Gender: Shaping Women's Personality, Lives and Health in Pakistan
Version:2Date:13 November 2013
Reviewer: Maggi Banning
Reviewer's report:
The question posed is well defined.
2. the methods are appropriately described
3. the data are sound
4. relevant standards of reporting are used
5. the discussion id finely balanced 6. limitations are clearly acknowledged
7 Yes
8. the title reflects the paper.
9. the writing is acceptable with the exception of one typo on page 12.
I feel that the paper could be published with only 1 correction.
Reviewer's report
Title:Gender: Shaping Women's Personality, Lives and Health in Pakistan
Version:3Date:19 December 2013
Reviewer: Atif Rahman
Reviewer's report:
I am generally happy with the authors' revisions, but would still like the following
changes. These reflect my previous comments, so for this iteration, may be
considered minor revision not for publication:
1. Abstract: Methods - snowballing instead of snow bowling.
2. Results: First line. Instead of 'Pakistani community' say 'The community
studied'
4th line - delete 'fabricated'
3. Discussion: First line - instead of '...general Pakistani society...' say '...in this
sample of pakistani women in a poor urban settlement, society...'
4. Conclusion - first line - same as 2 above.
5. Conclusions - second line, say 'Compliance to this 'Model' in many cases is
ensured by....'
6. Conclusions - 2nd paragraph - 1st line - instead of '....Pakistani women....' say
'....many Pakistani women in similar circumstances....'
I hope this is useful.
Reviewer's report
Title:Gender: Shaping Women's Personality, Lives and Health in Pakistan
Version:3Date:6 January 2014
Reviewer: Maggi Banning
Reviewer's report:
. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes 2. Are the methods
appropriate and well described? Okay but the Sample selection was not a cross
sectional sample that provided insights into the opinions and views of women
from the educated classes. The sample is bias towards uneducated women with
limited resources who depend on the male partners to ,make decisions for them.
The sample of women was
was selected from women living in squatter camps. Surely women from educated
classes and working classes women could have been included in the sample to
give some element of balance.
I feel that the paper is flawed because of this reason. What contribution to
knowledge can this paper offer based on interviews with a limited sample of the
female community in PaKISTAN.? I feel that thr paper is limited in its
transferability to all Pakistani women outside this region
3. Are the data sound? To some extent , 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? TO some extent 6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? TO
SOME EXTENT 7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which
they are building, both published and unpublished? na 8. Do the title and abstract
accurately convey what has been found? YES 9. Is the writing acceptable? YES
I feel that the paper should be rejected.
Reviewer's report
Title:Gender: Shaping Personality, Lives and Health of Women in Pakistan
Version:5Date:17 March 2014
Reviewer: Kiran Pienaar
Reviewer's report:
Please note that I have attached my review as a .pdf as it loses the formatting
when pasted into this textbox. Thank you.
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:Physical activity and mental health in women with Polycystic Ovary
Syndrome.
Version:1Date:28 February 2014
Reviewer: Andrew Levy
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None
Minor Essential Revisions
None
Discretionary Revisions:
None
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:Factors influencing adherence to regular exercise in middle-aged women: a
qualitative study to inform clinical practice
Version:2Date:10 February 2014
Reviewer: Terra TM Murray
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revisions to this paper. I only have two small minor revisions.
The table (Table 1) appear to have a blank section and there is no PA reported in
the table? Not sure if there should be, but it seems to me that the reference to
the table is after discussion of PA data, so this should either be included in the
Table, or where we are guided to “See table 1” in the paper should be moved.
Results. Characteristics of participants: I find the first sentence here awkward,
and I think rewording would help improve clarity.
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:Factors influencing adherence to regular exercise in middle-aged women: a
qualitative study to inform clinical practice
Version:2Date:14 February 2014
Reviewer: Kristina Karvinen
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The authors have done a good job addressing the reviewers’ concerns. There
are still a few comments that may have to be further addressed.
1. I still feel it is a major limitation that we do not have much information about
the exercise status of the sample. Although it is helpful to have the additional
information provided about the type of exercise involved in, it still doesn’t inform
the reader about volume of exercise, which seemingly is a very important factor.
If this data was not collected, it should at least be noted as a limitation in the
Limitations section.
2. The categorization of “perceived health benefits” under “Instrinsic Motivation”
still does not make sense and is not consistent with Self-Determination Theory
(as referenced). I believe “perceived health benefits” would fall under Identified
Regulation (extrinsic motivation) under SDT and not Intrinsic Motivation. Suggest
moving it to under another theme.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 influencing adherence to regular exercise in middle-aged women: a
qualitative study to inform clinical practice
Version:3Date:19 March 2014
Reviewer: Kristina Karvinen
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a good job addressing the comments of the reviewers.
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:High coffee consumption and different brewing methods in relation to
postmenopausal endometrial cancer risk in the Norwegian Women and Cancer
Study: a population-based prospective study.
Version:2Date:26 November 2013
Reviewer: Emilie Friberg
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions
This is a well written study concerning coffee intake and risk of endometrial
cancer, confirming earlier findings and adding information to the issue of brewing
method.
1)I miss a number of how many women were invited to participate eg response
rate, important since you claim representability.
2) In collapsing the categories of coffee it is not evident were the individuals
answering 6-10 cups/day in the total coffee questionnaire end up. That is, is that
categorized as 4-7 cups/d or more than 8 cups/d?
3)I would like to see some mentioning of diabetes, as risk of diabetes have been
found to be reduced by coffee and diabetes is an important risk factor for
endometrial cancer. I would also suggest adding the number of individuals
included with and without history of diabetes, to the description of characteristics.
4)The assessment of coffee cup size is “recent,” could one speculate that it might
have been smaller at the time of the questionnaire and thus partly explain the
very high consumption in relation to previous findings? An average consumption
of more than a liter coffee per day is surprisingly high!
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