JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Physical activity counseling in maternity and child health care -a controlled
trial
Version: 2Date:29 June 2008
Reviewer: Mireille van Poppel
Reviewer's report:
The paper is revised according to the suggestions. I have no more comments on
this version.
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:A Prospective study of the association between weight changes and
self-rated health
Version: 4Date:3 June 2008
Reviewer: C Schooling
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is much improved. The outstanding issues are mainly cosmetic.
Major Compulsory Revisions
None
Minor Essential Revisions
None
Discretionary Revisions
The sixth sentence in the Background section, the one starting “Studies have
found several physiological advantages of weight..” could have the clause after
the comma deleted as that appears to be repetition.
The section in the methods concerning the “Exposure variables” only describes
BMI as an exposure. Similarly the “Outcome variables” section only describes
changes in SRH as an outcome. However, the authors also use SRH as an
exposure and change in BMI as an outcome to answer their second research
question. I realize this is complicated to explain, so maybe the simplest thing to
do is the following
- At the end of the background section, where the authors give their hypotheses,
describe the research question about the impact on weight loss on SRH (i.e.
hypothesis 1) as the primary research question, and the question about the
impact of SRH on changes in BMI (hypothesis 2) as a secondary research
question
- In the statistical analysis section, put the last three sentences into a separate
paragraph prefaced by a clause along the following lines: ”When examining our
secondary hypothesis..”
Then the description of the exposure and outcome will match their primary
reserach questions, with a shorter explanation of their secondary research
question
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:Study of knowledge, perception and attitude of adolescent girls towards
STIs/HIV, safer sex and sex education: (A cross sectional survey of urban
adolescent schoolgirls in South Delhi, India)
Version: 2Date:28 February 2008
Reviewer: Anthony Smith
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1. Why two schools?
2. How were they chosen?
3. To what population can the results be generalised?
4. Was parental consent obtained? If not why not given that participants were as
young as 14?
5. What was the refusal rate?
6. The instrument is not sufficiently described. This leads to numerous
statements in the results such as "two fifths had no idea about Syphilis" which
are effectively meaningless to the reader.
7. Check for value laden language e.g. "admitted being sexually active"
8. Check for poor expression e.g. female STIs.
9. The first 2 paragraphs of the discussion should be removed.
10. Avoid errors of fact. "multiple sex partners increased the risk of HIV
infection" - only true in the absence of consistent condom use.
11. Discussion paragraph 5 - confuses cure and treatment.
12. Much of the discussion is actually a statement of the results and as a result
the discussion needs to be completely rewritten.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Study of knowledge, perception and attitude of adolescent girls towards
STIs/HIV, safer sex and sex education: (A cross sectional survey of urban
adolescent schoolgirls in South Delhi, India)
Version: 2Date:27 March 2008
Reviewer: Ann O'Leary
Reviewer's report:
The present manuscript reports data from a survey on HIV and STI administered
to adolescent girls in secondary schools in South Delhi. Although only nine
percent of participants reported having engaged in sexual activity, upper-class
girls are at significant sexual risk in India. The society is in the process of relaxing
standards for sexual behavior, and in fact sexual experimentation is very popular
now. Thus, the abysmally low levels of knowledge exhibited by adolescents in
the present study is of great concern. However, data that appear to demonstrate
poor understanding of HIV and other STIs can in fact merely demonstrate poor
understanding of the questions themselves. The English-language survey was
developed in Australia, where English is the first language of non-indigenous
peoples. In the present context there is no assurance that students understood
the items fully. The survey was not piloted in cognitive testing, there are no
scales whose psychometric properties could be evaluated, and no correlations
among constructs are provided to demonstrate the orderliness of data that might
confirm student comprehension. The items themselves are not presented in the
manuscript. Other lesser concerns include:
Demographic information should include income. Female students receiving
secondary education are not from lower castes where survival sex might be a
risk factor, but income and distribution of income within the schools could be
telling in other ways.
Some schoolgirls are involved in sex exchange (an aspect of the sexual
experimentation mentioned above). This should be assessed.
What percentage of students declined to complete the survey? Specific items on
the survey (such as sexual behavior)?
How was sex defined for the students? Could sexual experience be based only
on oral sex or other non-vaginal sex? Was condom use reported?
Reviewer's report
Title:Study of knowledge, perception and attitude of adolescent girls towards
STIs/HIV, safer sex and sex education: (A cross sectional survey of urban
adolescent schoolgirls in South Delhi, India)
Version: 3Date:21 May 2008
Reviewer: Anthony Smith
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
The discussion still includes a lot of material that is results. The manuscript
requires further editing in order to conform with accepted standards.
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:Cervical dysplasia and use of hormonal contraceptives in Jamaican women
Version: 1Date:27 November 2007
Reviewer: Saibua Chichareon
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s report
Overview
This case-control study was designed to determine the association (odds ratio)
between cervical dysplasia and using of hormonal contraception in specific
context. It was found that HC have some risk of dysplasia, especially long-term
use for more than 4 years.
Comments
1. The question in this study is well defined, but not new. A couple of large study
concluded that long-term use of hormonal contraception increased significant risk
of cervical cancer. However, data about DMPA on cervical cancer risk is still
insufficient; thus, the result of this study supports the potential risk of DMPA.
2. Case-control study was appropriate method. The source of sample size was
not declared, and the detail of questionnaire was not shown (Discretionary
Revisions).
The grouping of women with diseased is questionable (Minor Essential
Revisions). Severity of diseased usually based on histological diagnosis, not on
cytological diagnosis. The proposed categorization should be pre-invasive (CIN
I-III) and invasive state. Pre-invasive group may require sub-group analysis, as
low-grade lesion (CIN I) versus high-grade lesion (CIN II, III)
3. The data are sound but unable to evaluate their quality.
4. Reporting and data deposition are relevant
5. By using logistic regression analysis, the data support the association between
HC and disease in both occurrence and severity. The evidence at both molecular
and clinical level were referred to explain why women using HC susceptible to
HPV infection. For conclusion, clinical implication was also proposed.
6. Both title and background of this study focused on cervical dysplasia, but the
subjects in the study were women with all types of CIN as well as invasive
cervical cancer. Thus, the title and abstract (back ground) should be revised to
convey accurate information from the study. (Major Compulsory Revisions)
7. The format of the writing is acceptable.
Advice
- Acceptance if the authors change the title to convey accurate information from
the study.
Level of interest
- An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research
interests
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 interest’ below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Cervical dysplasia and use of hormonal contraceptives in Jamaican women
Version: 1Date:14 December 2007
Reviewer: amy berrington
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study of the relationship between hormonal contraceptives
and cervical cancer in a novel population. More details about the study design
are needed though and the analyses need to be repeated with consistent
adjustment for number of sexual partners before it should be published.
Methods â## More details about the population from which the controls were
recruited are needed. Who were the women attending this clinic and how might
they have differed from the women attending the colposcopy clinic from which
the cases were recruited? For example did they come from the same geographic
area?
Methods - What were the response rates from the cases and the controls? Was
there any attempt to frequency match on age? If not then it is very surprising how
close in age the two groups were. What were the inclusion criteria for both the
cases and controls?
Table 1 â## are these values means and standard deviations?
Table 2 â## what is the comparison group for severity of disease? Is it a
case-case analysis? Please provide more details and justification - what is the
interpretation?
Table 2 â## In the absence of information on HPV all multivariate models should
include adjustment for number of sexual partners. HPV is such a strong potential
confounding factor that it is difficult to believe that number of sexual partners did
not confound the relationship between HC use and disease. It is not clear why
different models included different variables. What was the basis for variable
selection? Were categories of sexual partners used for adjustment of the disease
severity model or was it used as a continuous variable?
Table 2 - What was the comparison group for length of exposure? 0 years or <=
4years use?
Page 8 discussion - IARC has formally classified hormonal contraceptives as a
cause of cervical cancer, so it too strong to say that there is no consensus about
this relationship (see Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Straif K, Secretan B, El
Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives
and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005; 6:552-553.)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Cervical dysplasia and cancer: use of hormonal contraceptives in
Jamaican women
Version: 2Date:20 February 2008
Reviewer: Saibua Chichareon
Reviewer's report:
The authors clarified comments and changed the title of the manuscript to
include cervical cancer too.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Cervical dysplasia and cancer: use of hormonal contraceptives in
Jamaican women
Version: 2Date:11 March 2008
Reviewer: amy berrington
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
i. Methods – The description of the recruitment and inclusion criteria for the
cases and the controls still requires more details. The description ‘attending the
routine gynecologic clinic’ is too vague. Over what time period were the controls
recruited? How many clinics? How were the clinics selected? Were there any
exclusion criteria?
ii. Methods – Please provide response rates for the cases and the controls
separately?
Table 1 – the percentages for contraceptive use do not seem to be correct. Eg
11.1% should be 11.3%, 2.5% should be 1.7%, 4.3% should be 4.2%. Secondly
there are 22 missing values for cases and 7 for controls which should be added
to the table for completeness.
Table 2 – please also check the % in this table as they do not seem to
correspond with the values given in Table 1 (either with/without inclusion of the
missing values).
Minor essential revision
Table 3 – please include in the table the comparison group in each analysis as it
is not possible to interpret the results without this information. For example for
hormonal contraceptive use: Never HC use OR 1.0, for Length of exposure: 1-4
years HC use OR 1.0.
Discretionary revision
Table 3 - the customary approach for assessing a dose response would be to
show the odds ratios for 1-4 years use and then >4 years use compared to never
use. It is not clear why the authors have chosen only to show >4 versus 1-4
years use.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Cervical dysplasia and cancer: use of hormonal contraceptives in
Jamaican women
Version: 3Date:25 April 2008
Reviewer: amy berrington
Reviewer's report:
The authors have now completed all of the revisions that I requested.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial
cancer
Version: 1Date:28 September 2007
Reviewer: Antonino Ditto
Reviewer's report:
General
This manuscript reports a systematic review of tests for lymph node status in
primary endometrial cancer.
The article is well written and is comprehensive. The authors did a good job
investigating the role of imaging and sentinel node biopsy to evaluating lymph
node status in endometrial cancer patients. MRI could represent an alternative to
surgery, in elderly patients that often present other co-morbidity like obesity, in
absence of a therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy. The information of this study
is likely to have an impact on the way physicians practice medicine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Anyway, some minor considerations must be addressed prior to publish this
paper:
- In the introduction the authors report that women with stage I disease have less
than 5% chance of lymph node metastasis. The authors should clarify in which
FIGO substage occurs this percentage of metastasis.
- The small number of studies considered, the heterogeneity and the wide
ranging of 95% IC did not allow any firm conclusions on MRI. The authors should
modify the conclusions.
- In the introduction last word “caner” should be correct
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial
cancer
Version: 1Date:1 October 2007
Reviewer: Zdenek Holub
Reviewer's report:
I have read the manuscript entitled A systematic review of tests for lymph node
status in primary endometrial cancer. The theme of lymphadenectomy in
endometrial cancer is actual.
In cancer research, regional lymph node status is a major prognostic factor and a
criterion for adjuvant therapy. The sentinel node procedure, which has emerged
to reduce morbidity of extensive lymphadenectomy, remains a major
controversial step in the surgical management of endometrial cancer.
Final assessing the work
1. The question is posed by the authors new and very well defined.
2. The scientific methods are appropriate and well described.
3. The data are sound and well controlled. The data synthesis are high quality.
4. The manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition.
5. The title and abstract accurately convey what has been found.
6. The writing is acceptable after improvement of References.
The scientific level of the reviewed paper is average. The main limitation of the
study is comparison of preoperative and intra-operative methods . Preoperative
MRI, CT and ultrasound scanning were compared with operative sentinel lymph
node dissection. The role of sentinel lymph node in women with endometrial
cancer is still controversial.
Reviewer's report
Title:A systematic review of tests for lymph node status in primary endometrial
cancer
Version: 2Date:15 February 2008
Reviewer: Rob J Scholten
Reviewer's report:
In general, Iâ##m happy with the revisions made by the authors (especially
applying modern statistical methods). To me, this is a very well performed review
which is easy to follow. Iâ##ve some minor suggestions (and some questions).
Minor (essential) revisions
1. Direct or indirect comparisons of index tests: from the references, mentioned
in Figure 3, I conclude that no study addressed two or more index tests
simultaneously. Therefore, all conclusions re relative performance of tests seem
to be based on indirect comparisons of tests, which is prone to bias. I donâ##t
disagree with the conclusions, but the authors might wish to stress more explicitly
that their conclusions are based on indirect comparisons in the Discussion
section (NB: the first sentence on page 12 doesnâ##t seem to be correct: â##we
are making direct comparisonsâ#¦â##) and abstract.
2. The authors present LRs. I take it that those are calculated from the summary
estimates of Sens and Spec, obtained by the bivariate analysis. The first
sentence of the second paragraph of page 9, however, doesnâ##t seem to state
this. Suggest to change â##â#¦and other derived measures such as positive and
negative likelihood ratiosâ## into â##â#¦form which we derived other measures
such as positive and negative likelihood ratiosâ##
3. Results, page 10, second paragraph: here diagnostic odds ratios (DORs)
appear, the calculation of which has not been mentioned in the methods section.
Suggest using here LRs as well (or sensitivities and specificities) and/or refer to
Table 2). The p-value for the test for equality of both tests can still be mentioned
(without specifically mentioning that DORs are compared).
4. No results of the 2*2 tables are presented. It would be helpful for the readers
to have those numbers. Please, add TP, FP, FN, TN to Figure 3. NB: the legend
is not complete on my print and seems to be invcorrect. Is â##Aâ## indeed CT
scanning? All Sens and Specs seem to be 100% (except one)? The new
Cochrane RevMan 5 programme can provide both the 2*2 tables and the forest
plots, including 95%-CIâ##s.)
5. Table 2: the authors might wish to add p-values of tests for comparisons
between tests (maybe in a footnote).
6. Figure 4: it may be useful to present the individual studies as well.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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 have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Abnormal vaginal bleeding in women of reproductive age: descriptive study
of initial management by GPs
Version: 1Date:11 January 2008
Reviewer: A Magos
Reviewer's report:
This paper summarises the outcome of 360 GP consultations for abnormal
uterine
bleeding over a two year period showing that in the majority of cases, no
investigations are carried out and no treatments are offered, and only a small
number of cases are referred to secondary care. What happens to patients with
menstrual problems when they are seen by their GPs is not a common topic for
publication, so from that point of view, the results are interesting, especially to
those
of us working in secondary care. The results, however, may not necessarily be
applicable to other developed world countries; for instance, the use of drugs such
as
tranexamic acid and of course the Mirena IUS is probably much more common in
Scandinavia and even the UK.
The paper is generally well written, although there is much overlap between the
results summarised in the main text and the tables â## this could easily be
corrected
by reducing the text. I would also suggest that the term AVB should be replace
by
AUB (Abnormal uterine bleeding) as the latter is the more commonly used
terminology.
I have some other minor points to make:
a. The first paragraph too long and short be divided into 2 paragraphs.
b. The authors should explain the format of truncated words (e.g. %fibroid%)
referred
to on page 4.
c. The authors should define what is meant by PAP2 on page 7.
I am surprised that no treatment was offered in 47% of women complaining of
excessive bleeding who were not taking hormonal contraception. This makes me
wonder about one of the other outcomes of the survey, namely the fact that
patients
rarely returned to see their GP with menstrual bleeding problems â## could this
have
been because they knew that treatment was so rarely offered that they went
elsewhere? I would be interested to know the authorsâ## views on this.
Overall, no major revisions are needed to this manuscript in my opinion, but I
would
suggest that addressing the points above would improve the paperâ##s
readability.