JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Risk-reducing strategies for women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations with a
focus on prophylactic surgery
Version: 3Date:28 May 2010
Reviewer: Amy Finch
Reviewer's report:
The authors provide a review of the literature and summary of the existing
management options for women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.
References are needed for many sentences including the first paragraph of the
introduction, the fourth paragraph of the introduction, and the first paragraph of
the chemoprevention paragraph. A reference is needed for the last sentence of
the fourth chemoprevention paragraph. A reference is needed for the last
sentence of the first paragraph of the prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy
section.
the statement: 'Prospective controlled trials examining the various
interventions...' should be clarified. The authors mention randomized controlled
trials earlier in the abstract.
The wide use of abbreviations distracts the reader. Suggest use of abbreviations
only for widely accepted terms such as DCIS, MRI. Suggest using long form for
terms such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, epithelial ovarian cancer, life
expectancy.
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:Risk-reducing strategies for women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations with a
focus on prophylactic surgery
Version: 4Date:8 September 2010
Reviewer: victor grann
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is much improved.
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 intersts' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Compliance and treatment satisfaction of post menopausal women treated
for osteoporosis
Version: 2Date:12 March 2010
Reviewer: Marco Gambacciani
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR REVISION
1. Present paper describes the information given by MDs and Patients.
2. The AA should quote and discuss different papers reporting the pharmacy
data providing a real use and thus the real adherence to medication, that are
quite different from those reported .
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:Compliance and treatment satisfaction of post menopausal women treated
for osteoporosis
Version: 2Date:29 March 2010
Reviewer: Jose Alberto Hernandez Bueno
Reviewer's report:
a) There could be a selection bias thru the physician selected to participate, and I
don't know if the proportion reflects the "real world" treatment of osteoporosis by
specialities/GP's
b) It's been a very short term study.
c) The SF 12 questionnaire is not specific for osteoporosis-related QoL, specially
having the QUALIOST available.
d) Compliance could have been assessed via refill of prescriptions ( if applicable
in France)
e) They draw conclusions regarding HRT from really tiny numbers, according to
their table
f) There is no concordance in their statements of compliance between daily vs
weekly vs monthly regimes with the figures.
g) They don't register if the patient participated in the elected treatment.
It seems to me that there is a tendency to favor Ibandronate, not substantiated in
the article, that looks larger than it really was. I think it's not an addition to what
BALTO studies reflect, so I don't see any benefit of its publication.
Reviewer's report
Title:Relationship between spine osteoarthritis, bone mineral density and bone
turn over markers in post menopausal women.
Version: 1Date:21 March 2010
Reviewer: Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont
Reviewer's report:
This study aims to determine the association between radiographic spine
degeneration, bone mineral density (BMD) and bone-turn over markers in post
menopausal women. The results show that the severity of disc narrowing, but not
osteophytes, is associated with a generalized increase in BMD and a decreased
rate of bone resorption.
The study design does not allow to state that lumbar BMD and radiographs are
measuring different thinks. It is clear that vertebral spondylosis is a confounding
factor for BMD measurement. In this sense another way to capture the real MBD
in the vertebrae is required as well as another tool to OA diagnosis. In this regard
is understandable that osteophytes are not associated to BMD in the same
vertebral bodies. For these reasons it would be interesting to study OA in other
places such as dorsal spine.
It seems that along the manuscript authors confuse two collagen types, I and II.
This is an important point because they are biomarkers for different tissues and
diseases. In fact, Garnero et al (Reference 20) talk about CTX-II, but not CTX-I.
The OA prevalence in the population studied is very high, 88%. Can the authors
give any explanation about that?
Minor points:
On page 8, line 6, BMD should be 1.118 g/cm2 instead of 1.18
On page 9, line 9, -“The level of CTX was also negatively associated with SUM
DSN (r adjusted= – 0.202, p = 0.019), while on table 4 figures are others with a r
value of -0.209??
Legend of Table 1, once again is it CTX I or II?
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:Women's Constructions of the 'Right Time' to Consider Decisions about
Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Oophorectomy
Version: 1Date:13 May 2010
Reviewer: Bettina Meiser
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion, no revisions are required.
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:Women's Constructions of the 'Right Time' to Consider Decisions about
Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Oophorectomy
Version: 2Date:22 July 2010
Reviewer: Gwendolyn P. Quinn
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is much improved and the authors have replied to and
successfully addressed all the concerns and major revisions suggested in the
first review.
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:Motivations and purposes for women attending BSE training program: A
qualitative study
Version: 1Date:1 February 2010
Reviewer: Kirsi Lumme-Sandt
Reviewer's report:
The study is of interest in the sense that it aims to study women’s own
motivations attending BSE training programme.
The research questions are clear and focused enough. The studied women are
already attending the programme and therefore they have already some kind of
positive attitude towards BSE. Because of this definition the results can’t be
generalized as women’s attitudes towards BSE in general.
The literature review is rather scarce, mainly based on medical or nursing
science literature. Although it is said that BSE is not only a medical issue but also
a sociological one, refers to sociological literature are almost non existing.
Adding some deeper sociological understanding would strengthen the paper, but
it is not necessary.
The main weakness of the manuscript is the chapter ’Methods’. The principles of
the sampling are not clear. What was the purposeful sample? And what was the
criterion of saturation? Also the data collection remains unclear. It is said that the
researcher met participants twice and then there were interviews. What was the
purpose of those meetings and are they a part of the data set? What does mean
‘comparable data were obtained in both manners’? It seems that the main
researcher and also a main facilitator of interviews is a same person who
launched the programme. It is not discussed what impact it has to focus groups
discussions. It can be assumed that participants talk about BSE in a different way
in front of a person in charge of the programme than with someone more
outsider.
The way how the analysis have been carried away should have been explained
more thoroughly. Also the themes of interviews are not told. Therefore it is
impossible to tell are the found categories same as those already set by a
researcher(s) or derived from data by analysis. Data analysis stay at the rather
descriptive level, but otherwise are presented in logical way.
Discussion is also rather weak and should be re-written in more coherent way.
Despite of the weaknesses of the study it is interesting and deals with an
important topic, I hope that the authors are able to clarify the methodology and
emphasize main findings in discussion. I feel that the paper needs major
compulsory revisions as stated above, but revisions are possible to make.
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:Motivations and purposes for women attending BSE training program: A
qualitative study
Version: 1Date:20 March 2010
Reviewer: Sibel Kalaca
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Motivations and purposes for women attending BSE training program: A
qualitative study
Version: 2Date:9 June 2010
Reviewer: Kirsi Lumme-Sandt
Reviewer's report:
The authors have met the criticism and the manuscript is much clearer now.
However I am still missing some justifications, why it was recruited participants
who had better knowledge on the subject. It is o.k to recruite such a sample, but
the reasons should be given.
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:"I'm the Momma": Using Photovoice to Understand Matrilineal Influence on
Family Food Choice
Version: 1Date:21 December 2009
Reviewer: Melanie Besculides
Reviewer's report:
The paper presents an interesting study using a novel tool.
Major:
please add a brief discussion in the introduction as to why you focus on moms.
For instance, they are the one's primarily responsible for food preparation and
food affects health...
-add a transition between the second and third paragrapghs on pg 9. Discuss
how the guide was used and by whom in the first sentence of par. 3-I had trouble
following this until I read on
Minor essential-
-check italics in table 2. I only see them under 'support vs/ sabotage' but think
they should be there for other subcategories.
-also do a check on 'you' versus 'your'
discretionary:
I realize the jopurnal doesn't limit length, but the paper would be
strengethened/more focused by shortening both the introduction and results. The
introduction presents far more references than are needed to understand the
research at hand. Presenting sentinel literature that make your point would make
the paper much more clear and easier to read. Also, the introduction sounds
slightly sexist in parts(e.g., feeding the family is part of being a good wife), but
maybe that is just me.
-the results present far too much information. While reading the quotes was
intersting, it was more like reading a final report than a journal article. If you could
focus on only the results that get the point across, the paper would be much
stronger.
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 declar I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:"I'm the Momma": Using Photo-elicitation to Understand Matrilineal
Influence on Family Food Choice
Version: 2Date:18 March 2010
Reviewer: Melanie Besculides
Reviewer's report:
Positive-The report has greatly improved. The introduction and conclusion now
more clearly state the 'so what'? question of why the topic is important/how the
findings may be used. The analytic methods are clearer and defensible. The
discussion is much more focused. Describing the pictures added a lot to the
paper.
Discretionary Revisions (but important)-
(1) The introduction is still too long and a bit unfocused. It moves between topics
and could still be organized better to improve flow. I know it is hard to cut back on
things when you have done such an extensive lit review, but cutting further will
only strengthen the paper's focus. Consider having a professional editor provide
feedback to scale back what is said. Creating a logic model that depicts factors
that influence the food that children are fed and the health effects this may have
may also help create a structure for what is vital to present and in what order.
(2) In the intro section the first two sentences of the paragraph that start 'although
their maybe conflict...' don't seem 100% very relevant to the message you are
trying to convey.
Minor essential
(1) you are missing a period in the first sentence of the results.
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:"I'm the Momma": Using Photo-elicitation to Understand Matrilineal
Influence on Family Food Choice
Version: 2Date:13 April 2010
Reviewer: Angela Odoms-Young
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
On page 8-9, please provide a brief description of the investigators that
conducted the interviews (was the interviewer the first author?).
On page 9 the authors indicate that they “completed a 1-page paper survey prior
to the in-depth interview.” Please briefly describe the questions asked on the
survey.
The interviews lasted from 25 to 70 mins. This is a wide range. Please list the
average length of the interviews.
Constant comparative analysis is the analysis method used within grounded
theory. If authors used all aspects of grounded theory they should just list
grounded theory (delete constant comparative analysis). (Two web-based
sources that may be helpful include http://www.qualres.org/HomeCons-3824.html
and http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-1/dye.html)
In addition, parts of the description such as “Other memos included lists of the
most characteristic quotations from each participant intended to reveal a
participant’s essence.” What is a participants’ “essence”? This could be removed.
However, if included please explain.
Authors indicate that “preliminary findings were shared with the project team for
discussion and validation”. I would recommend that authors remove the word
“validation”. This concept is not commonly used in qualitative research and it
implies that other researchers can validate the authors interpretation of
participants perceptions and experiences. This is more commonly referred to a
peer debriefing (http://www.qualres.org/HomePeer-3693.html).
In Table 2, I would recommend that you include a definition of each of the
themes and some representative quotes. Although the general attitudes toward
“mom” are presented, this table would provide a good opportunity to clarify these
attitudes relate to food choice.
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 interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Smoking decreases the level of circulating CD34+ progenitor cells in young
healthy women - a pilot study
Version: 2Date:9 November 2009
Reviewer: Francesco Pelliccia
Reviewer's report:
The authors have carried out an interesting descriptive study on the effect of
smoking on the level of CD34+ cells, that is an important subgroup of endothelial
progenitor cells (EPCs), in young healthy women.
The paper addresses a very important social issue, as smoking is still a major
worldwide health problem and is more and more diffuse among young women.
The manuscript is well written, has not major methodological pittfalls, and results
are presented in a clear manner.
The most important limitations are the very small sample size (only 32 healthy
women)and, most importantly, the fact that the detrimental effect has already
been clearly documented albeit in another small investigation. The authors
should therefore discuss their results in light of previous knowledge pointing out
which are the novel aspects they have found and providing details of their
incoming research following this 'pilot' experience.
Minor comments are as follows:
Page 3, line 66: The authors should provide a reference for their sentence
(elevated estrogen plasma concentrations in women correlate with higher levels
of circulating EPCs)
Page 4, line 91: The authors should explain why they have decided to exclude
men from the study. Although the effect of smoking on men has already been
investigated, it would have been very interesting a comparison between sexes on
the different effects of smoking on EPCs
Page 6, flow cytometry: The authors have assessed only two subgroups of
EPCs, that are CD34+ cells and CD34+/CD133+ cells. This is at variance with
most recent works which have taken into account many other subtypes of cells,
such as CD34+/KDR+/CD45- and CD133+/KDR+/CD45- cells. The authors
should explain why they have not assessed thse commonly evaluated subtypes
Page 7, line 169: The authors report that smoking women were older. This is a
major limitation of the study, as age has been previosly told to influence itself the
circulating levels of EPCs. The authors should discuss this point reporting
references of recent researches that have shown no major impact of age on
EPCs.
Page 7, line 175. The title of the paragraph should be changed as: Effect of
smoking on CD34+ cells in young healthy women
Page 11- line 272. Conclusion is completely unrelated to the aim of study. The
authors are not allowed to derive any conclusion based on thei results on the
significance of CD34+ cells evaluation in risk factor characterization of women.
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:Smoking decreases the level of circulating CD34+ progenitor cells in young
healthy women - a pilot study
Version: 2Date:12 November 2009
Reviewer: Viviane Conraads
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors compare circulating CD34+ and CD34+CD133+ cells
between healthy smoking and non-smoking women in different phazes of their
menstrual cycle.
I have the following remarks:
1. In their introduction, the authors describe that to define EPC, VEGFR2 is used.
Why then, was this not replicated in their study?
2. How comparable were these groups in reality? Tot chol, LDL and triglycerides,
as well as age were higher, HDL was lower in smoking women. While only age
was significantly lower, total cardiovascular risk is a sum of different components.
I would like to see the Framingham risk score for both groups.
3. In relation to remark 3, the authors describe on the last page of their results,
last line, that, after correction for age, no influence of “this parameter” was seen.
What exactly do they mean? I would like to see multivariable regression analysis
for relevant determinants of EPC numbers.
4. For table 3, we need repeated measures ANOVA, time x group effect with
post-hoc comparison.
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:Smoking decreases the level of circulating CD34+ progenitor cells in young
healthy women - a pilot study
Version: 2Date:24 November 2009
Reviewer: Michael Fritzenwanger
Reviewer's report:
The study of Ludwig et al. examines the level of CD34+ progenitor cells in
obviously healthy young smoking women compared to non-smoking women. The
authors could show in this well done study that smoking decreased the number
of CD34+ cells significantly, decreased the number of CD34+/CD133+ progenitor
cells and the number of CFU both without reaching significance, indicating that
smoking deceases EPC number both in women and men. Futhermore the
number of CD34+ cells correlated with FMD. A little disappointing is the small
number of women which were examined but this limitation was mentioned by the
authors in the title: pilote study and in the limitation section.
Minor Revisions:
1. It should be VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2) instead of VEGFR
2. PC should be mentioned
3. The text is not allways easy written.
4. The conclusion that the number of CD34+ progenitor cells may be a tool for
risk stratification in young smoking women seems very speculative and should be
rewritten.
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 Ihave no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Smoking decreases the level of circulating CD34+ progenitor cells in young
healthy women - a pilot study
Version: 3Date:25 January 2010
Reviewer: Francesco Pelliccia
Reviewer's report:
These Reviewer is happy with the changes made by the authors and has no
further requests
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:Smoking decreases the level of circulating CD34+ progenitor cells in young
healthy women - a pilot study
Version: 4Date:6 April 2010
Reviewer: Viviane Conraads
Reviewer's report:
1. In their introduction, the authors describe that to define EPC, VEGFR2 is used.
Why then, was this not replicated in their study?
2. Why express CD34+CD133+ as % of PBMCs and not as numbers/events
measured?
3. How comparable were these groups in reality? Tot chol, LDL and triglycerides,
as well as age were higher, HDL was lower in smoking women. While only age
was significantly lower, total cardiovascular risk is a sum of different components.
I would like to see the Framingham risk score for both groups.
4. In relation to remark 3, the authors describe on the last page of their results,
last line, that, after correction for age, no influence of “this parameter” was seen.
What exactly do they mean? I would like to see multivariable regression analysis
for relevant determinants of EPC numbers.
5. For table 3, we need repeated measures ANOVA, time x group effect with
post-hoc comparison.