JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Cytological evaluation of breast lesions in symptomatic patients presenting
to Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya: a retrospective study
Version:5Date:19 November 2015
Reviewer: Aziza Nassar
Reviewer's report:
- Minor Essential Revisions:
1- In Table 1: Please remove the first half of the table which includes the number
of women and men as well as the female to male ratio. This can be written in the
text. Please also omit the first half of the table which the "age cohort", mean age
and age range. This is also included in the text under the results section. This
table should include only the presenting complaint.
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:Current knowledge, attitude, and patterns of oral contraceptives utilization
among women in Jordan
Version:2Date:6 August 2015
Reviewer: farihan barghouti
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary revisions
under the methodology
line 113 the author needs to clarify the type of the outpatient clinics
line 122 PI stands for ??
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:Current knowledge, attitude, and patterns of oral contraceptives utilization
among women in Jordan
Version:2Date:18 August 2015
Reviewer: JILL j SHAWE
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this paper. The strength of the study is that
women and Health Professionals were involved in the study design. It was good
to validate the questionnaire.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Background
This section needs development for a wider readership. The first paragraph aims
to give an introduction to contraception but it needs setting in the context of the
chosen study and oral contraception. The final sentence about failure rate
appears out of context. The situation in Jordan needs better explaining especially
about how contraception is obtained by women. The literature used is dated -
many references from 1970's and 80's - and few after 2000. it may be that no
studies have taken place but it would be good to explain this.
The aim of the study is valid and could be interesting if the paper was better
structured.
Methodology
Consent: The paper states that 'verbal informed assent' to participate was
obtained - was written consent not required?
Reasons for the sample selection and age group need explanation. Are only
married women using contraception in Jordan - this needs explanation for a
wider readership.
Why was a convenient non- randomised sample chosen? Why Pharmacies and
out patients? Is this where women obtain contraception?
The questionnaire was administered by 'a well-trained' administrator. Was only
one involved - that is a lot of interviews in the time frame.
It is not clear if all participants were interviewed or if they completed the
questionnaire - it says pharmacists were also involved - this needs clarifying.
The first of the four areas of data needs greater explanation - the
appropriateness of use - this is also described as patterns of use but this then is
evaluated in respect of a Doctors input. This needs explaining in the context of
Jordan. It may be helpful to have a text box with questionnaire details rather than
try to explain it in the text.
The data coding needs further explanation - ' predictors were decoded into
dummy categorical variables' Examples are needed to clarify.
Results
Results need reporting as facts - superlatives should be avoided. The tables are
very long - too much data is presented. If you are quoting percentages then
confidence intervals should be considered.
Discussion
The literature used to support the discussion appears rather dated.
The Abstract will need updating once revisions have been made.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Current knowledge, attitude, and patterns of oral contraceptives utilization
among women in Jordan
Version:4Date:17 October 2015
Reviewer: farihan barghouti
Reviewer's report:
the original criticism have been done
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:Current knowledge, attitude, and patterns of oral contraceptives utilization
among women in Jordan
Version:4Date:28 October 2015
Reviewer: JILL j SHAWE
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for responding to the comments and amending your paper which is
clearer to read. There is one area of concern which needs to be compulsory
revised for clarification in the methods and in the discussion:
The authors responded to comments about the well trained administrator in their
letter but this is unchanged in the text Line 130 . It would be preferable to say
that ' the questionnaire was administered by well trained administrators on each
site.'
The referral to interviews and to use of pharmacists in the discussion Line 241 is
confusing and Lines 241 - 243 needs clarifying as Pharmacists,and interviews
are not included in the methodology.
Line 144 - data was... - change to data were....
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:Correlates of women's health seeking behaviour and empowerment of
women in Ethiopia
Version:2Date:8 August 2015
Reviewer: Khalifa Elmusharaf
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. How did you measure empowerment? What is your operational definition of
empowerment?
2. Most of the argument in the background section (such as determinants of
women’s status, definition of women’s status, indicators of women
empowerment, gender discrepancy, were based on the reference number 1
(Kabira, W.M., and Masinjila, M. (1997).
http://www.xn--knsnet-bya.dk/images/konsnet/pdf/analysis/ABCgenderanalysis.pdf
). It also used inappropriately in the discussion section. This reference is almost
20 years old. The content of this reference doesn’t support the argument in the
background.
3. Reference in line 30 was written in different reference style
4. The authors claim that based on their knowledge – there is no other study that
has very closely focused on both of these important aspects (health seeking
behaviour and women empowerment) in Ethiopia. However I can identify some
articles who examined these issues in Ethiopia:
I. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19882240
II.
http://www.unicef.org/ethiopia/Women_Empowerment_Contraceptive_use_in_Ethiopia.pdf
III. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:198005/FULLTEXT01.pdf
IV. http://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/WP91/WP91.pdf
5. Some sort of conceptual framework would have helped to bring the different
sections of this paper together more clearly
6. The authors used data from two surveys that were conducted in 2005 and
2011. It is important to clarify that the methodologies of the two surveys are
similar. Any discrepancies should be stated. Clarify how this discrepancy, if any,
might interfere with the analysis, influences response rates or the
representativeness of the sample, and to make sure that there are no
methodological discrepancy that might influence your analysis and comparison.
7. Are there any differences in questions phrasing? Because subtle differences in
question wording may influence how the survey respondent answers the
question. Any discrepancies should be stated and clarified.
8. It is not clear why the authors did not include the recent DHS 2014 data in their
analysis http://www.unicef.org/ethiopia/Mini_DHS_2014__Final_Report.pdf
9. Authors provided very detailed description of the tables in the results section.
Sometimes these are often very difficult to follow.
Minor Essential Revisions
I. Write out all numbers less than 10 (i.e., one, two), unless the number is
followed by a unit
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Correlates of gender characteristics, health and empowerment of women in
Ethiopia
Version:3Date:11 October 2015
Reviewer: Khalifa Elmusharaf
Reviewer's report:
The author/s have responded to all my queries and the paper appears more
cohesive and reader-friendly. Paper has improved and is suitable for publication
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:Correlates of gender characteristics, health and empowerment of women in
Ethiopia
Version:3Date:30 October 2015
Reviewer: Philip Adongo
Reviewer's report:
Most of the issues raised in my last review has been addressed except one.
I still think the authors will do themselves a great deal of good if they improve the
Kishor's framework particularly as it relates to their current work.
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 I have no competing interest's
Reviewer's report
Title:Supplementation of Standard Antibiotic Therapy with Oral Probiotics for
Bacterial Vaginosis and Aerobic Vaginitis: A Randomised, Double-Blind,
Placebo-Controlled Trial.
Version:2Date:11 August 2014
Reviewer: Paola Mastromarino
Reviewer's report:
General Comments
This manuscript describes the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo
controlled trial performed to evaluate the effects of a probiotic preparation
together with standard antibiotic treatment on the recurrence rates of bacterial
vaginosis and aerobic vaginitis in comparison to standard treatment alone in
women with recurrent bacterial vaginosis. The probiotic significantly lengthened
the time to clinical relapse of symptoms compared with placebo.
The study is interesting and well designed and addresses an important issue for
women's health because the recurring bacterial vaginosis requires repeated
antibiotic therapies and is an important risk factor for the acquisition of sexually
transmitted infections.
Minor Essential Revisions
It would be useful and interesting to include in the introduction or in the
discussion the biological characteristics of the strains relevant to the effect
studied, if available.
Background
A reference should be added for the sentence “AV is often found in patients
treated unsuccessfully for BV with antibiotics.”
Line 62-63, A reference should be added on the recurrence rate of AV
Methods
Line 108, it is not reported when the II visit was performed, please clarify
Line 116, Please clarify what is meant by the peri-menstrual period, before,
during or after menstruation?
Line 130, change “clinical and/or microbiological symptoms” with “clinical
symptoms and/or microbiological results”
Discussion
Lines 239-240, the sentence is not clear, please modify.
Minor issues not for publication
Methods
Line 109, change “analyzed for a presence of pathogens” with “analyzed for the
presence of pathogens”
Results
Line 215, visits I and III is repeated 2 times, perhaps the first should be I and II
Line 223, add Figure 7
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Supplementation of Standard Antibiotic Therapy with Oral Probiotics for
Bacterial Vaginosis and Aerobic Vaginitis: A Randomised, Double-Blind,
Placebo-Controlled Trial.
Version:2Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Richard Cone
Reviewer's report:
Review of Heczko et al on Supplementing Antibiotic therapy with oral probiotics
for BV and AV.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
This MS is well written and reports a major study on both VB and AV. The results
are significant, not just statistically! However, the MS so stresses statistically
significant findings that it fails to report some of the key experimental findings. I
think Tables 3 and 4 must be expanded to include the average vaginal pH values
the average Nugent scores (with standard deviations). This is an excellent study,
and the actual results, not just the differences, will be very useful for investigators
in this area.
Remarkably, no mention is made of how the pH observations were made. This
must be included in the methods section.
Minor Essential Revision:
Abstract, second line: please add “oral” to probiotic preparation (prOVag is no
doubt well known to the investigators, but will not be so readily recognized by
most readers. Oral is in the long title, but it is a key aspect of this study and bears
repeating in the abstract.
Discretionary Revisions:
Methods, second paragraph: This MS refers to BV as an inflammatory condition.
How was this defined clinically?
Level of Interest:
This is an article of outstanding merit and interest in its field.
Quality of English:
Excellent
Quality of Figures:
Acceptable, however they would be easier to understand if the key differences
between plots were inserted in the figure so one would not have to read the
caption. For example “Clinical Relapse in figs 2 and 3, and Microbiological
Relapse in figs 4 an 5.
Statistical analysis: Excellent
Competing Interests: I declare that I have no competing interests.
Accept after minor essential revisions (which the authors can be trusted to make)
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Supplementation of Standard Antibiotic Therapy with Oral Probiotics for
Bacterial Vaginosis and Aerobic Vaginitis: A Randomised, Double-Blind,
Placebo-Controlled Trial.
Version:2Date:9 February 2015
Reviewer: Lisa Hanson
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The use of 10X5 CFU as the minimal diagnosis of vaginal infection needs a
citations/reference.
2. Please describe the total number of study visits for subjects early in the paper.
3. Rewrite the sentence about the study endpoints so that it is clearer. Do you
mean if there was a reoccurrence of BV/AV that the study would end for that
subject? What if a participant who had BV was diagnosed with AV during the
study?
4. Please clarify if proVag contains >10X8 of each Lactobacillus species of if this
is the total for the combination product.
5. The discussion of sample size calculation came too ate in the methods
section. Moving it earlier would add clarity.
6. Clarification and definition of "safety analysis" earlier in the paper would add
clarity.
7. The authors should address the timing of the probiotic ingestion in relationship
to the antibiotic ingestion in the discussion as a limitation. Probiotic bacteria are
vulnerable to antibiotics when doses are taken simultaneously.
8. "Adverse events" should be specified and the number of such events per
group should be indicated clearly. What adverse events should be attributable to
the placebo group?
9. The first paragraph of the discussion should be moved to the literature review.
10. The discussion over-emphasizes strengths of the study. Limitation including
threats to internal validity should be described.
11. Clinical recommendations and suggestions for future research would
strengthen the paper.
12/. A discussion of the impact of Clindamycin vs Metronidazole on lactobacillus
colonization would add to the discussion. I have read that Clindamycin has an
increase and more lasting disruption on vaginal lactobacillus population.
The author must respond to these before a decision on publication can be
reached. For example, additional necessary experiments or controls, statistical
mistakes, errors in interpretation.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. One sentence paragraph in methods section related to random assignment
should be incorporated into another paragraph or expanded upon in place.
The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures,
the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.
Discretionary Revisions
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Fine needle aspiration of lymph nodes in breast cancer follow-up: A feasible
alternative to watchful waiting and to histology?
Version:2Date:23 September 2015
Reviewer: Min Jung Kim
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory 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:Fine needle aspiration of lymph nodes in breast cancer follow-up: A feasible
alternative to watchful waiting and to histology?
Version:2Date:13 October 2015
Reviewer: Franco Fulciniti
Reviewer's report:
1) Major compulsory revisions: 0
2) Minorr essential revisions: 0
Discetionary revisions: 0
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competinig interests in relation to the paper I am rewieving
Reviewer's report
Title:Expectations and satisfaction with antenatal care among pregnant women
with a focus on vulnerable groups: a descriptive study in Ghent.
Version:1Date:19 August 2015
Reviewer: Angela Todd
Reviewer's report:
(attached report)
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, 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:Expectations and satisfaction with antenatal care among pregnant women
with a focus on vulnerable groups: a descriptive study in Ghent.
Version:1Date:2 September 2015
Reviewer: Carol Bugge
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports on expectations and satisfaction of pregnant women about
antenatal care. The data are cross-sectional and drawn from one institution, the
authors note this within their limitations section. The sample size is relatively
small. The paper does offer a useful discussion and comparison of the findings to
other studies. Although there are limitations, the paper does offer a useful
perspective to the literature.
Major revisions
The authors should clearly state their definition of vulnerable women.
In the limitations it is discussed that women who don’t attend are excluded from
the sample – were there other ways that vulnerable women could have been
accessed? Here this is about creating a stronger argument for approaching the
participants in the areas you did in order to access vulnerable women, while
being clear about who those women are.
Why did the authors pick over 18 to sample as some vulnerability will come from
being under 18 at conception.
Some of the subgroups used in analysis are small or very small e.g. 7 women
late initiation of care (see table 5) – a statistician may wish to comment on the
implications of the small ‘n’ on the validity of the statistical testing.
There have been a lot of stats run on a relatively small sample – does this create
an error risk?
Minor revisions
Abstract: IPV abbreviation in their abstract – needs written out in full
The authors use the word ‘compliance’ and ‘co-operation’; I would suggest that
these concepts are replaced by notions of adherence to treatment, or another
form of words that recognises and embraces patient involvement in decision
making.
P8: line 141 use term ‘assisted questionnaire’ - what is meant by this term is
explained below – what proportion of women needed help? Were women who
didn’t need help alone or was the researcher always in the room?
Reference for use of back translation of the questionnaire.
Were the English and Dutch versions of the questionnaire the same ie the
adapted version used in this study (expect for the language difference)?
Paragraph starting on line 268 p13 needs stats presented.
There are several grammatical errors throughout the paper – it needs hard
editing to improve flow.
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, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of a low dose testosterone undecanoate to improve sexual
function in postmenopausal women
Version:6Date:12 August 2015
Reviewer: Victoria Martinez Moron
Reviewer's report:
Dear peers,
Thank you for counting on me for referee this abstract.
It is noted that the study has been planned very carefully but I would like to make
two questions :
1.- We all Know that FSFI questionnaire is autofilled and not easy to be
answered because requires some cultural level. Furthermore, The questionnaire
needs to be validated to the own language of the patient. Could you explain how
did you collect data?
2.- They say that both groups were homogeneous but it would be very interesting
for me that you explain how many women were castrated , suffering for
depression o having medicines that could interfere with hormone treatments, how
many women had a steady partner that influences sexual life and the age interval
should be specified too.
Thank you very much.
Best Regards
Dra. Victoria Martinez Moron
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of a low dose testosterone undecanoate to improve sexual
function in postmenopausal women
Version:6Date:5 September 2015
Reviewer: José Luis NEYRO
Reviewer's report:
No comenta.
The methoda are good.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
Nothing at all.