JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors affecting knowledge and perception of women about smoking: a
cross sectional study from a developing country
Version: 3Date:8 February 2011
Reviewer: Joan M Brewster
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1. I previously suggested that the authors recommend general education for
women in Pakistan, and the authors claim to have made this addition, but I do
not see it in the conclusion section. Instead, they discuss specific measures such
as package warnings. While these may be important, the study findings suggest
that general education is an important intervention. Education is the only factor
consistently related to tobacco knowledge in the results.
2. In discussing the effect of smoking on the fetus in the results section, the
authors state the “While 18% was not aware of any effect and 5% reported that it
does not affect the fetus at all.” The difference between these two answers
should be clarified.
3. There are fairly consistent significant relationships of education to knowledge.
But the relationship with a smoker in the house is only for one question, and
there is only one significant relationship with perceptions. The authors do not
mention correcting for multiple comparisons, and the fact that so many
relationships were tested should be mentioned as a limitation of the study.
Minor essential revisions:
4. The manuscript should be read for minor grammatical corrections by a native
English speaker.
5. The authors mention the ITC result relating tobacco knowledge to education. It
should be mentioned that these are all high income countries.
6. At the end of the introduction, the sentence should be “We investigated the
knowledge … in three urban slum settlements in Karachi, Pakistan.”
7. In tables 2 and 3, there should be clarification of what the numbers and
percentages are. Are these the numbers who knew about the effect, or believed
the perception. And are the percentages of the total number of women in the
factor category?
8. At the bottom of tables 2 and 3, separate the questions so that each is on a
separate line.
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:A cross-sectional study of different patterns of oral contraceptive use
among premenopausal women and circulating IGF-1: implications for disease
risk.
Version: 2Date:3 March 2011
Reviewer: Luis Miguel Garcia-Segura
Reviewer's report:
This study reports changes in IGF-I levels in plasma in premenopausal women
associated to the current or past use of oral contraceptives (OC). The results
indicate that past use of OC is associated with increased IGF-1 levels. This is a
new and interesting finding. The results also confirm that the current use of OC is
associated with lower IGF-1 levels. The study is well designed and includes a
large number of women. The main limitation of the study is the lack of information
on the formulation of OC used, but this point is adequately discussed.
Minor essential revisions
Legend of figure 1: Please describe the statistical parameters represented in the
figure.
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:A cross-sectional study of different patterns of oral contraceptive use
among premenopausal women and circulating IGF-1: implications for disease
risk.
Version: 2Date:25 March 2011
Reviewer: Andrea Arikawa
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
- The purpose of this manuscript is to understand the effects of different patterns
of OC use on IGF-1 levels and its influence on disease risk. Based on previous
studies examining OC use and IGF-1 levels, the contribution of this manuscript
towards new knowledge in the field seems negligible. In my opinion, the lack of
information on the formulation of OC is a major flaw of the study design.
- Another major point is the fact this manuscript leaves the reader confused as to
the role of IGF-1 on disease risk. High IGF-1 levels are associated with cancer
risk but low IGF-1 levels are associated with heart disease. The authors need to
present this issue in a way that will no confuse readers.
- In the discussion (second to last paragraph), the authors mention that the
findings were not expected in the context of breast cancer, because IGF-1 levels
are not higher in current or recent OC users. This issue needs to be further
addressed in a lot more detail, because this is an important finding of this
manuscript.
- Overall, the manuscript is very well written, but the background and discussion
need to be focused and less confusing to the reader.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:A cross-sectional study of different patterns of oral contraceptive use
among premenopausal women and circulating IGF-1: implications for disease
risk.
Version: 3Date:18 April 2011
Reviewer: Andrea Arikawa
Reviewer's report:
I believe the revisions done by the authors significantly improved the clarity and
quality of this manuscript. My recommendation is to publish this manuscript as
revised.
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' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:A cross-sectional study of different patterns of oral contraceptive use
among premenopausal women and circulating IGF-1: implications for disease
risk.
Version: 3Date:30 April 2011
Reviewer: Luis Miguel Garcia-Segura
Reviewer's report:
I consider that the revised version is acceptable for publication.
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:Effectiveness of ovarian suspension in preventing post operative ovarian
adhesions in women with pelvic endometriosis: A randomised controlled trial.
Version: 1Date:13 March 2011
Reviewer: Philippe R. Koninckx
Reviewer's report:
This is an important study to be performed and the protocol is overall suited to
draw valid conclusions.
Discretionary Revisions
- It is unclear what the value of ultrasound is to assess adhesions (ultrasound
examination assesses ovarian mobility) and whether ovarian adhesions outside
the pelvis can be equally well assessed.
- the definition of severe endometriosis is not that clear : results could vary when
exclusively unilateral cystic ovarian endometriosis (with side wall adhesions) was
included, or bilateral, or only large plaques in the pouch of souglas , or deep
endometriosis of the rectum, rectosgmoid, sigmoid or bladder.
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 do not have competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of episiotomy on pelvic floor disorders and their influence on
women's wellness after the sixth month postpartum: a retrospective study
Version: 3Date:30 September 2010
Reviewer: Tiina Pirhonen
Reviewer's report:
This is an important manuscript from Italy. It is always interesting to read new
studies which are going against the main stream.
The statistical analyses in the manuscript are robust. The material is limited in
size, the results are preliminary, and the authors are advised to plan a larger
study with longer follow-up in the future. However, the results of the present
study are of great interest even in the current form.
The study is nicely and carefully planned. For example, the placement, length
and depth of episiotomy are precisely given which is uncommon in the majority of
earlier published articles.
Minor essential revisions:
1. One decimal in percentages is far enough i.e. 59.4% instead of 59.42%
2. It would be of interest to know more about risk factors for perineal tears; did
the authors collected information of fetal presentation (occiput anterior vs. occiput
posterior) and newborn’s head circumference?
3. In addition to the reference 12, the authors should consider to add a brand
new article to their reference list (Hals E, Øian P, Pirhonen T, Gissler M, Hjelle S,
Berge Nilsen E, Severinsen AM, Solsletten C, Hartgill T, Pirhonen J. A
Multicenter Interventional Program to Reduce the Incidence of Anal Sphincter
Tears. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:901-08.)
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:Impact of episiotomy on pelvic floor disorders and their influence on
women's wellness after the sixth month postpartum: a retrospective study
Version: 3Date:8 February 2011
Reviewer: Riitta Luoto
Reviewer's report:
Please keep in mind that the data only gives possibilities to associations, and
thus no causal inferences can be drawn. Now the results section in abstract is
written as if episiotomy could be the causal factor in quality of life. If episiotomy is
associated with better quality of life, this may also be due to selection bias or
other factors. Whether episiotomy is a protective factor needs to be inferred from
a prospective study, which is the next step.
Reviewer's report
Title:Gender norms in transition: a qualitative study on community
understanding of intimate partner violence in urban Tanzania
Version: 2Date:28 January 2011
Reviewer: Angela Taft
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
I am happy with the majority of your revisions and I think the artcile reads more
clearly now, especially your results section. Much better title also.
Minor essential revisions
Your letter
P.7 Your study limitation section: your study has strengths worth
acknowledgement too - your efforts at a diverse and representative sample, your
coding and checking accounts but you should acknowledge that while you cannot
generalise these results to all areas of Tanzania (or Africa) you feel they are in
line with many other studies.
P.8 Your references to the new WHO report (thanks - I hadn't seen it).
You say ' there is evidence of effective strategies etc...This is not what they say
(see Section 3.2 p. 36 onwards) but they call for more and better evidence of
prevention etc. You need to amend this and then you can use it for your call for
more research.
Small grammatical points - I think from your data (in English) that 'viewed as
discreditable AND unfair' is what is meant - but up to you as you know Kiswahili.
Discussants 'who' not 'that' as they are people..p17
Manuscript p.6 Jewkes ET AL have
p.7 Second last sentence - dont you mean violence rather than 'dur to controlled
male authority'.?
p.11 Top para 'muslim women toleratING'... middle para..community members
WHO.
p.12 Top para.. 'prior mentioning OF IPV.
p.15. Discretionary revision Suggest 'Discussants WHO reacted emotionally ...
were politely INVITED to leave .... and SUPPORTED to talk etc."
bottom sentences... used to promote study RIGOUR.... was tested by constant
COMPARISON/CHECKING between etc..
p.21 Title Temporary or SHIFTING? tolerance?
p.24 Societal level 'resolve family conflicts and (ADEQUATE OR INADEQUATE)
provision etc
p.29 2nd para have also been associated WITH having witnessed
...not much elaborated IN the FGDs... point to the need FOR engaging..
bottom para accepted at the SAME TIME AS.. being trapped
good luck Angela Taft
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 I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Gender norms in transition: a qualitative study on community
understanding of intimate partner violence in urban Tanzania
Version: 2Date:9 February 2011
Reviewer: Stephen Lawoko
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded well to all but one of my concerns expressed below:
The title of this work should be considered very carefully. I still argue that the new
title "Gender roles in transition...." creates the illusion that there is a positive
change in Tanzania stakeholders views towards IPV. Yet, there are at least as
many positive as there are negative findings in this work. Moreover, there are no
previous studies from this context acting as a gold standard for comparison to
imply there is a change (or transition). Unless the authors in their discussion
compare what was with what is (as per their findings), transition cannot be
assumed! Let us not give the impression that developments in Tanzania with
regard to IPV is promising, when the data does not clearly speak for that. As I
had in the earlier review indicated, a more neutral title is called for.
Otherwise, all the issues raised previously have been well addressed by the
authors.
Reviewer's report
Title:The reaction of women to colposcopy: A qualitative investigation of
women's experience
Version: 1Date:26 January 2011
Reviewer: Lawrence von Karsa
Reviewer's report:
This paper is clearly written and addresses a topic that is very important to
women's health. Although some aspects of women's experience reported in this
study may be specific to the cultural context of the UK NHS Screening
Programme, the applied methodology, the results and conclusions are relevant in
any context wherever cervical cancer screening and diagnosis is performed and
the methodological approach is instructive for any research aiming to assess
similar issues in other cultural contexts. As stated in the paper, the aim of the
study was not to collect a demographically representative sample but to ascertain
the range of women's views and experiences in order to better understand the
topic. It successfully achieves this aim and provides an authentic view of the
breadth of relevant issues and instructive insights into key potential areas for
further research and improvement.
Level of interest: An exceptional article
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 reaction of women to colposcopy: A qualitative investigation of
women's experience
Version: 1Date:8 February 2011
Reviewer: K A Galaal
Reviewer's report:
I have completed reviewing this article, it is well written and good qualitative
work.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes, interviews
3. Are the data sound?
Qualitative study wiht no data presented
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting
and data deposition?
N/A
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately
supported by the data?
Discussion and conclusions were balanced
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes, small study, qualitative
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are
building, both published and unpublished?
Some published work
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
No
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
Reviewer's report
Title:Extraordinary exposed in early motherhood- a qualitative study exploring
experiences of mothers with type 1 diabetes
Version: 1Date:2 November 2010
Reviewer: Marilyn K Evans
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript, Extraordinary exposed in
early motherhood: a qualitatative study exploring experiences of mothers with
type 1 diabetes. The paper was a pleasure to read and well articulated. The
paper adds to the knowledge regarding promoting the health of childbearing
women especially those who have diabetes. The use of hermeneutic
methodology fits well with the intent of the study, that being to explore women
with type 1 diabetes experience ealry and late postpartum. The authors build
upon previous work and their findings concur with other published research on
diabetes and pregnancy. The results have implications for further research to
help understand the transition to motherhood in the context of a chronic
condition.
My comments for revisions are discretionary but I believe may help with clarity of
findings. It might be useful to define the terms "exposure" and "extraordinary
exposed" when they are first introduced on page 7.
I am also wondering about what are the general practices around breastfeeding
in the various hospitals? I am also wondering if there are differences among the
regional guidelines as I note both rural and urban centers were used. Suggest to
add some detail about these.
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:Extraordinary exposed in early motherhood- a qualitative study exploring
experiences of mothers with type 1 diabetes
Version: 2Date:5 January 2011
Reviewer: Michelle Owens-Gary
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review the paper again.
The authors define “extraordinary exposed” however, they use the word
“exposed” in the definition on page 7. This term could still be clarified more. Are
there references to support the use of this term? Is there a theory that supports
this term?
In the initial review of the paper, it was suggested that the authors include
additional information about the various socio-demographic backgrounds of the
participants. This would help the reader to know more about the participants and
whether any salient themes emerged based on their various backgrounds. The
authors didn’t respond to this suggestion and this was not included in the
revision.
The paper does read well and it provides excellent information about motherhood
and experiences with type 1 diabetes.
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:Breast Cancer Screening Practices of Safety Net Clinics: Results of a
Needs Assessment Study
Version: 2Date:21 January 2011
Reviewer: Diana Beckmann-Mendez
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
1) Would have liked to have seen a better description of the three interview
guides and why questions were different based on the job description of the
person interviewed. For example, how did questions differ for the medical
director versus the healthcare provider? What insights did the authors gain by
interviewing the administrative personnel versus the providers of care?
2) The data collected from the needs assessment identified cultural and linguistic
barriers that patients' decisions in regard to breast cancer screenings. Although
the linguistic barriers were discussed, specific cultural barriers were not noted.
What were the cultural barriers identified by the safety net clinics?
Minor Essential Revisions
1) On page 10, under the heading of "Discussion", paragraph 2, the last
sentence beginning with "However, the United States Preventative...", it appears
that the verb is missing there. Should it read..."However, the United States
Preventative Task Force 'STATES' or 'RECOMMENDS'...that prevention
counseling be part of every medical visit."
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:The quality of reporting of primary test accuracy studies in Obstetrics and
Gynaecology: application of the STARD criteria.
Version: 2Date:29 December 2010
Reviewer: Nynke Smidt
Reviewer's report:
Reply to the authors:
1) No comments
2) No comments
3) No comments
4) No comments
5) No comments
6) The authors have split up table 1 into two tables (table 1 and 2), but forgot the
include the number of studies (n=) at the top of both tables (Pre2004 (n=..) and
Post2004 (n=…). Furthermore, the authors decided to present p-values for the
differences in reporting between studies published before 2004 and after 2004.
However, p-values are not very informative and can mislead the reader. For
example, the quality of reporting of STARD item 11a and 12 is decreasing
(p-value = 0.04 and 0.02) over time (diff between < 2004 and > 2004). In stead of
p-values, mean differences and 95%CI would be more informative. Data can be
analysed using mixed models (logistic multi level analysis). The mean differences
and 95%CI will indicate whether quality of reporting in diagnostic test accuracy
studies has improved over time.
7) No comments
8) No comments
9) Although the number of articles that included a flow chart is minimal (< 5%), it
is very important to report this. A flow chart is associated with better quality of
reporting making the judgement of the methodological quality easier. I will leave it
up to the editor whether this information should be included in the paper or not.
10) I will leave it up to the editor whether he/she wants to publish figure 2 or that
this information can be presented in a table or in the text.