JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Variability of bothersome menopausal symptoms over time - a longitudinal
analysis using the Estonian postmenopausal hormone therapy trial (EPHT)
Version: 1Date:13 June 2012
Reviewer: Ilze Viberga
Reviewer's report:
According to the given guidelines for review process, my conclusion is;
1.The question posed by the authors is well defined.
2.Methodology of the study is appropriate and well and clearly described.
3.Study data sound.
4.The manuscript adheres to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition.
5.The discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported
by the data.
6.Limitations of the study are clearly stated.
7.Authors' contributions are clearly stated.
8.The title of manuscript and abstract accurately convey what has been found.
9.The writing is fully acceptable.
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:Variability of bothersome menopausal symptoms over time - a longitudinal
analysis using the Estonian postmenopausal hormone therapy trial (EPHT)
Version: 1Date:7 November 2012
Reviewer: Keith Hansen
Reviewer's report:
Variability of bothersome menopausal symptoms over time-a longitudinal
analysis using the Estonian postmenopausal hormone therapy trial (EPHT)
This is an interesting manuscript with a stated purpose “to use readily collected
data on control women in a hormone therapy trial to study how bothersome
vasomotor symptoms are for women and what is their patterning.” This is a
sub-analysis of a larger cohort study evaluating two groups of women; 1. Placebo
treated group and 2. No treatment group.
1. How did the authors arrive at their ‘n’? Did they perform an ‘a priori’ sample
size determination?
2. Who was the initial recruitment questionnaire sent to in this study? Was it a
random sample of women in Estonia or some other sampling method?
3. How were women selected to be in the Blind HT arm, the placebo arm, the
non-blind HT arm and the non-treatment arm? If this was a random selection how
was randomization performed? Also how was blinding performed? Could the
authors provide a figure with a flow sheet documenting the flow of recruitment
from the beginning to each arm of this trial?
4. On page 5 the authors note a 81% response rate of the final surveys. Was this
81% of the individuals who answered the initial survey or 81% of those who
answered the second annual survey?
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 interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:A comprehensive approach to women's health: lessons from the Mexican
health reform
Version: 1Date:23 July 2012
Reviewer: Emanuel Orozco
Reviewer's report:
This article describes advances in the reproductive health policy of Mexico from a
governmental perspective. In general terms, macro level information and data
presented are valid and reliable. Nevertheless, there are some situations that
should be reviewed, in order to present a more adequate and complex panorama
about implementation of reproductive and gender policies.
Authors emphasize some achievents in reproductive health that can be
controversial if they remain as they are presented:
1) The day after pill is included in the national catalogue of drugs, but it doesn’t
imply that this pill is available for vulnerable populations. Nowadays, about 25 of
childbirths attended occur in women under 18 years of age.
2) Mexico City is the only place that decriminalized abortion in the whole country.
It is important to describe that while Mexico City was achieving this goal, 17 state
level governments prohibited abortion in any of its modalities.
3) About “Fair Start in Life” program, authors aren’t including several critical
analyses presented by Daniela Díaz and Graciela Freyermuth. There are some
other authors such as Sandra Sosa that describe challenges for reproductive
health in rural Mexico.
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 hereby declare that I don't have competing interest with the topic and the
authors.
Reviewer's report
Title:A comprehensive approach to women's health: lessons from the Mexican
health reform
Version: 2Date:13 October 2012
Reviewer: Deborah Billings
Reviewer's report:
The authors have considered the detailed comments provided and have revised
the manuscript accordingly.
This article will be of interest to a broad audience and will be very useful to
researchers and practitioners throughout the world.
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:A comprehensive approach to women's health: lessons from the Mexican
health reform
Version: 2Date:15 October 2012
Reviewer: Emanuel Orozco
Reviewer's report:
I really apreciate the seriousness and commitment of the authors for attending
our previous comments and suggestions.
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:Comparison of health-related quality of life between housewives and
employed women in Zahedan City, Southeast Iran during 2009-2010 : A
cross-sectional study
Version: 6Date:21 May 2012
Reviewer: Andreja Bari¿in
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
Title: 'Comparison of health-related quality of life between housewives and
employed women in Zahedan City, Southeast Iran during 2009-2010 : A
cross-sectional study'
Version: 1 Date: 21 May 2012
Reviewer: Andreja Barišin
Reviewer's report:
This is an article on the effect of quality of life between housewives and
employed women. The comparison between different social groups is interesting,
but not new. Revisions are needed in some parts.
Major concerns:
1. Statistics: The authors have used data from a small sample (n=110) but
sufficient for statistical analysis that is correct. Only one comment the authors
use the p-level <0.02 as cut-off for statistical significance perhaps it is better
<0.05.
2. Interpretation in Discussion: at the beginning of the discussion is more
involved and comments (concludes) the results of other studies and too little
compared to this study and the results obtained.
Some limitations could have avoided by separating the participants with mental
health diagnoses and psychological condition (before completing the
questionnaires)
3. Conclusions: The conclusion of studies of 'Comparison of health-related
quality of life between housewives and employed women in Zahedan City,
employment should be promoted among housewives in order to maintain a
higher HRQOL in these conditions, it is correct.
Minor concerns:
1. Tables: after number put point instead of a colon (example Table 1.), and align
results in tables (justify)
2. References: Formal and grammatical corrections
Level of interest: It is an article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Do not 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
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:Comparing health-related quality of life of employed women and
housewives: a cross sectional study from southeast Iran
Version: 7Date:13 August 2012
Reviewer: Pawel Zagozdzon
Reviewer's report:
Re-review of the paper
“Comparison Health–related Quality of Life Housewives and Employed Women
in Zahedan City, Southeast Iran During 2009-2010”
The authors resubmitted their paper on Quality of Life in housewives and
employed women in southeast Iran. This manuscript has significantly improved
after revision. The results are now discussed in the context of used methodology.
A few further suggestions:
1. Results.
Table 1: The income should be presented as value calculated per household not
per women.
Table 2: The comparison of QoL would be more informative if the results from
both univariate and multivariate model would be presented.
The authors should add missing figures in the sentence form section Sample
characteristics: “The women’s mean income was …..”. However the remark
concerning income calculated per family refers to this as well.
2. Discussion
The grammar of the text from section Limitations should be corrected i.e. the
following sentences: “This might be introduced a biase and should be noted in
interpreting the resutls. Finally, social, economic and environmental issues may
be influenced the results for which we were unable to control for.
3. Conclusion
I suggest to rephrase conclusion by adding “After controlling for potential
confounders” to first sentence "The findings from this study indicated that were
no significant differences in quality of life between employed women and
housewives”.
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:Comparing health-related quality of life of employed women and
housewives: a cross sectional study from southeast Iran
Version: 7Date:22 August 2012
Reviewer: Maryam Tajvar
Reviewer's report:
Dear Ms Wella Valenzuela,
I have re-reviewed the revised manuscript, submitted by the authors in response
to our original comments.
I would generally state that the authors have had great efforts to improve the
quality of the manuscript and response to the questions. I believe that the
manuscript would be good enough for publication after doing some further
amendments (mainly in the DISCUSION section of the paper) and addressing
some more issues as listed below:
Although I believe that the authors can be trusted to make these amendments, I
would consider the following list as “Major Compulsory Revisions” because of
their importance:
Dear authors:
You had three main sets of findings summarised at the beginning of the
DISCUSSION section: 1) no statistically significant difference between the quality
of life of the groups; 2) poorer physical functioning status among employed
group; 3) main difference in mental health aspect rather than physical health
aspect between the groups.
1) Regarding the first item, I believe that you have tried to ignore the non
significant differences and tended to overemphasis on the differences. I think
alongside what you have already discussed, you could also discuss on why and
how non workers and workers have had rather similar health status like the
interesting discussion of your Ref No 19 in the second paragraph of Discussion
section. Thus, please discuss more on the reasons for non-significant differences
between the groups. For example, the rather low power of your study (small
sample size) could be one justification. Work-related stresses, etc… could be
another justification.
2) With regard to the second item, although again statistically non significant,
please discuss why housewives had higher physical functioning scores
compared to the employed women, despite other domains.
3) Also, regrading the third item, please discuss why comparatively the
differences were more related to psychological health aspect rather than physical
health aspect.
4) In the second paragraph of Discussion, you have mentioned that your findings
were consistent with the results of similar studies conducted in Iran [16-18].
Please add one paragraph to summarise the findings of Refs 16- 18 and
compare them with your own findings.
Apart from the above comments please once more check carefully for the
spelling errors of the manuscripts. Also the manuscript still needs to be edited
grammatically and for English. Formatting of the references also needs to be
unified and edited.
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:Comparing health-related quality of life of employed women and
housewives: a cross sectional study from southeast Iran
Version: 10Date:15 October 2012
Reviewer: Maryam Tajvar
Reviewer's report:
I have no more comment
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:Comparing health-related quality of life of employed women and
housewives: a cross sectional study from southeast Iran
Version: 10Date:16 October 2012
Reviewer: Pawel Zagozdzon
Reviewer's report:
The authors resubmitted their paper on Quality of Life in housewives and
employed women in southeast Iran after suggested corrections. Despite some
minor issues, authors were able to describe highly contextualized situation
related to quality of life in Iranian women and I recommend to publish this paper.
Proofreading by a native-speaker might be helpful.
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:An assessment of the likely acceptability of vaginal microbicides for HIV
prevention among women in rural Ghana
Version: 2Date:29 June 2012
Reviewer: Rebecca Giguere
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions: None
Minor Essential Revisions:
Please check grammar carefully throughout and particularly in the passages
added most recently. For example, errors were found in many of the passages
added: study limitations; awareness- missing period after first sentence;
qualitative methods- missing period at end of 4th sentence; Intro- sentence about
large scale effectiveness studies does not read smoothly- take out this phrase so
that it reads better.
Discretionary Revisions
In the qualitative methods section, for clarification you could reword the sentence
on how responses were grouped to say: The responses were grouped according
to the thematic areas generated from the questionnaire survey (instead of the
vague: responses were grouped accordingly).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:An assessment of the likely acceptability of vaginal microbicides for HIV
prevention among women in rural Ghana
Version: 3Date:10 September 2012
Reviewer: Elizabeth Greene
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the paper is much improved and previous comments have been
sufficiently addressed. A few minor comments are noted below.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Background section, para 3, third sentence: grammatical error - change “are”
to “have.”
2. Methods section, Quantitative Approach: Consider adding a brief statement
about how the survey was administered – for example, verbally by a researcher,
or self-administered and written? You may also consider how the survey was
administered in your discussion section – many questions asked were sensitive,
so could administration of the survey biased participant responses?
3. Results section, para 2, first sentence: the word “interviewed” implies
qualitative interviews or focus group discussions, but I believe you are referring
to the survey here. Suggest changing the word to “surveyed.”
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 Health of Women in the Fire Service
Version: 1Date:8 August 2012
Reviewer: Harri Lindholm
Reviewer's report:
The topic of the health issues among female firefighters (FF) is interesting and
there is a real lack of information in this area. Although the population of FF's is
small in every country, it is probable the number of FF's (and other rescue work)
is increasing. So this type of studies are highly preferred.
The authors present clearly the limitations of the study. It could be interesting, in
spite of the low number of subjects, to see some more sophisticated statistical
analyses with correlations and/or risk ratios in this population.
Major compulsory revisions
There are some reports which show that slightly elevated BMI is good for the
work ability among male firefighters (if caused by increased muscle mass). What
was the correlation between muscular fitness/BMI/waist circumference or even
muscle mass measured by TANITA?
A very interesting finding was the relatively high number of smokers. Is there
available any objective data about ventilatory function. We know that women are
more vulnerable to COPD in general and a smoking firefighter has more
pulmonary problems due to the occupational exposures . Perhaps this risk
combination can be added in discussion?
In many male dominant occupations the family life might be an important stress
factor. Can you express the singles, married /related in the description of the
population.
Discretionary revisions
Stress is very important factor. Can you show some more sophisticated analyses
of the stress factors (explaining factors etc) among female FF's.
In a small population consisted of young and relatively fit subjects the non
exercise method is not always very accurate method at the individual level.
Perhaps this can be discussed more clearly?
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:Medically unexplained illness and the diagnosis of hysterical conversion
reaction (HCR) in women's medicine wards of Bangladeshi hospitals: a record
review and qualitative study
Version: 2Date:23 July 2012
Reviewer: Laurence Kirmayer
Reviewer's report:
“Medically unexplained illness and the diagnosis of hysterical conversion
reaction”
This is a very well written report, with clearly described methodology, and a lot of
useful observations that will make an important contribution to the literature.
I have only a few suggestions for minor revisions.
Minor essential reviews
p. 5 – it is not entirely clear why cases with a diagnosis of “conversion” were
excluded from the study – since it seems this is a matter of clinicians’ use of
diagnostic terminology.
p. 12 The rates quoted in the first paragraph are not comparable and do not give
much of a sense of what might be distinctive about the settings.
There is better info on rates of conversion disorder that could be used for
comparison, e.g.:
Akagi, H. & House, A. (2001). The epidemiology of hysterical conversion. In
Contemporary Approaches to the Science of Hysteria: Clinical and Theoretical
Perspectives (ed. P. Halligan, C. Bass and J. Marshall), pp. 73–87. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Se also studies of patients with medically unexplained symptoms, eg.:
Gureje, O. (2004). What can we learn from a cross-national study of somatic
distress? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 56(4), 409-412.
Gureje, O., Simon, G. E., Ustun, T. B., & Goldberg, D. P. (1997). Somatization in
cross-cultural perspective: a World Health Organization study in primary care.
Am J Psychiatry, 154(7), 989-995.
The observed rates reflect patterns of resort and hospitalization that need to be
discussed.
p. 13 The study by Slater was in the UK not the US. Later studies have not
confirmed his finding of high rates of medical morbidity in patients with hysteria,
e.g.:
Crimlisk, H. L., Bhatia, K., Cope, H., David, A., Marsden, C. D., & Ron, M. A.
(1998). Slater revisited: 6-year follow-up study of patients with medically
unexolained motor symptoms. British Medical Journal, 316, 582-586.
Stone, J., Smyth, R., Carson, A., Lewis, S., Prescott, R., Warlow, C., & Sharpe,
M. (2005). Systematic review of misdiagnosis of conversion symptoms and
"hysteria". BMJ, 331(7523), 989. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38628.466898.55
Discretionary Revisions
p. 3. A relevant source on the impact of stigma on somatization is:
Raguram, R., Weiss, M. G., Channabasavanna, S. M., & Devins, G. M. (1996).
Stigma, depression, and somatization in South India. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 153(8), 1043-1049.
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