JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Breast cancer treatment and Sexuality: Moroccan Women's perception
Version: 1Date:23 February 2011
Reviewer: Anne Gompel
Reviewer's report:
it is an interesting study on sexuality in Moroccan women after treatment for
breast cancer. In this country, the prevalence of breast cancer is higher in
relative young women and the grades and thus the treatment are usually
aggressive. It is important that the aspects of quality of life can be taken into
account in this population.
Major compulsory revisions:
the study has been performed in women treated fr breast cancer but there is no
information on the time since they have been treated. It is very likely that the lag
time since the treatment can influence the responses. This should be precised
it is not as well clear if hormonotherapy and chemotherapy differentially affect
sexual life.
In addition minor questions: several typing errors p3 patient's', space after
hormone therapy, Ten participants and not teen,
what is biotherapy?
Table 1: mean+/- complete please: SD?? values??
in Table
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:
no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Breast cancer treatment and Sexuality: Moroccan Women's perception
Version: 1Date:11 March 2011
Reviewer: DEBORAH LEGORRETA
Reviewer's report:
The article is worth publishing considering the topic and population studied.
However, I would suggest the following.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Introduction. Should include review of previous studies to sustain arguments.
Methodology. Needs more precision concerning pilot test of instruments and
demographic data collected. Educational level in Table 1 which is confusing
Results. The use of both numbers and words to report results (Example 10% or
ten%)is very confusing and leads to spelling errors such as using "teen" instead
of ten and "two" instead of to. I suggest using numbers always as is customary in
medical articles.I would also suggest the authors to go beyond basic descriptives
in percentages to explore their data in terms of independent variables other than
breast cancer in general that may influence sexual function. Age, education,
number of years in the relationship and male sexual function as well as
comparisons of effect of different breast cancer treatments and adding a table
with results that go beyond descriptives.
Tables. Need to be done again. Confusing and have spelling errors
Discussion. Is adequate concerning study's limitations but includes the literature
research that perhaps should have been included in the Introduction.
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:Association between low-dose pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide
therapy and amenorrhea in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A
case-control study
Version: 1Date:19 March 2011
Reviewer: Hidekata Yasuoka
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is very interesting, however, several questions were raised
below.
Major compulsory revisions
1) Aim of this study is to clarify the incidence of amenorrhea following treatment
with low-dose IVCY and the association between amenorrhea and clinical
parameters of SLE, and the authors concluded in this manuscript that patients
who are < 40 years old have some risk for sustained amenorrhea with low-dose
IVCY treatment, and it is better to consider a higher risk of sustained amenorrhea
by treatment with IVCY for SLE patients who are # 40 years old. However, based
on results in this manuscript, age # 40 years old is a risk factor of amenorrhea for
SLE patients included in this study, irrespective of treatment arms.
2) In 2nd paragraph, Result section: Results of logistic regression analysis and
those of univariate analysis are presented. In this paragraph, the authors
mentioned there was no significant association between age and amenorrhea by
logistic regression analysis which is a multivariate analysis, then back to an
univarite analysis. This description might raise a question for the study design
itself, since it is difficult to understand which analysis is more important for the
authors.
Minor Essential revisions:
1) Percentages in Table 3 and 4 are difficult to understand. This is different from
Table 1 and 2.
2) Some results in Table 2 are repeatedly appeared in Table 3.
3) In Table 4, a gap between Age # 40 years old and IVCY group is not needed.
4) In Table 6, I do not find a suffix #1 in the table.
Discretionary Revisions
1) In this study, the authors mentioned that patients who are #40 years old are
risk factor for sustained amenorrhea irrespective of treatment arms. It seems to
be quite natural that females who are #40 years old have higher rate of sustained
amenorrhea in general. Is there any difference when compared with healthy
controls?
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:Association between low-dose pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide
therapy and amenorrhea in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A
case-control study
Version: 2Date:11 May 2011
Reviewer: Hidekata Yasuoka
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded to all of my questions very well. This manuscript is very
interesting.
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:Association between low-dose pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide
therapy and amenorrhea in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A
case-control study
Version: 2Date:26 May 2011
Reviewer: Katerina Laskari
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately answered most of the comments. Nevertheless,
the major drawbacks in this study are the small number of patients, especially in
the age group over 40 years, the very low median cyclophosphamide dose and
the very (unusually) high observed amenorrhea rates.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors added information on the amenorrhea rates observed in other age
groups, eg. 32, 35 and 37 years of age. In the main document (Results,
Associations between amenorrhea and clinical parameters, lines 7-8), they
mention that there was no association between these age groups and the
development of amenorrhea. Nevertheless, the statistical results for the age
group of 35 years are marginally significant, as indicated by a p-value of 0.06,
and for the age group of 37 years seem to be significant (p-value 0.04). Thus,
there is an increasing risk for amenorrhea after the age of 35 years. The authors
should emphasize this observation not only in the Results but in the Discussion,
3rd paragraph, as well.
2. The authors should delete the phrase “although we do not fully understand
what occurred at around that age” in the Discussion at the end of the 3rd
paragraph.
3. The statement that Japanese patients can be treated with weaker regimens
because they tend to see rheumatologists early in their disease course is not
reliable (Cover letter).
4. In the Discussion, 5th paragraph, the statement that it is not clear enough to
conclude whether the incidence of amenorrhea in the present study is higher
than usual is not true. In previous reports, both the rates of sustained
amenorrhea (Boumpas 1993, #7 pulses: 12%# Mok 1998, <10 g: 4%# Huong
2002, #7 pulses: 18%# Park 2004, <5g: 0% and 5-10g: 8%# Appenzeller 2007,
5-9g: 0%# Laskari 2010, 5-7 pulses: 4%) and transient amenorrhea (Boumpas
1993, #7 pulses: 31%# Appenzeller 2007, 5-9g: 0%# Laskari 2010, 5-7 pulses:
14%) among patients receiving a low cyclophosphamide dosage were lower than
in the present study. Moreover, the high amenorrhea rates in the study by Tham
et al (2007) may be explained by the concomitant administration of
cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin. It would be advisable to remove this
paragraph from the main document.
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:Menstrual bleeding patterns: a community-based cross-sectional study
among women aged 18-45 years in Southern Brazil
Version: 2Date:22 September 2010
Reviewer: Mark Shapley
Reviewer's report:
The author's have met my significant concerns
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:Menstrual bleeding patterns: a community-based cross-sectional study
among women aged 18-45 years in Southern Brazil
Version: 2Date:5 October 2010
Reviewer: cyrille huchon
Reviewer's report:
It was a pleasure to read your revised and improved manuscript.
Minor revisions:
References begin at number 2 in the text and the list of references is incomplete
(15 for 23 in the text)
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 that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Menstrual bleeding patterns: a community-based cross-sectional study
among women aged 18-45 years in Southern Brazil
Version: 2Date:6 October 2010
Reviewer: Sioban Harlow
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory revisions -- the authors were not responsive to key points of
the prior review.
1) How many grams of water correspond to the clinical definition of blood loss
required for menorraghia. How large was the difference in water held per
product? Is how strongly do number and size of pads alone predict grams of
water. How much error could be introduce if women do not "fill" each pad before
changing? How much blood loss might be associated with 18 grams of water,
with 32 grams of water?
There is clear digit preference in the number of days of bleeding. (page 7)
2) What interactions with age and low ses were present? Were interactions
examined? Were interactions with contraceptive type present?
3) Given the known impact of hormonal contraceptives (reduce flow and/or
intermenstrual bleeding) and IUD (what type is used in this population? Types
that increase blood flow or types that reduce blood flow?) on blood flow please
present results stratified by contraceptive use type (hormonal (pill + injection),
IUD and none/barrier/tubal. After viewing the stratified results it may be possible
to consider a single regression with interactions, but the data as presented here
to not give this reviewer confidence that the implications of contraceptive use on
bleeding has been adequately considered. This point made previously is not
addressed. As contraception is used to treat bleeding, the analysis needs a more
formal theorization of bleeding in the presence and absence of hormonal
contraceptives and its implications for this papers analysis and interpretation.
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:
I declare I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The Role of Female Hormones on Lung Function in Chronic Lung
Diseases
Version: 1Date:21 October 2010
Reviewer: Farook Al-Azzawi
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is a review of selected literature on possible associations of
gonadal steroids in women and their propensity to develop more severe
morbidity and higher mortality than men. The authors should have emphasised
the following points in abstract, main text and in the conclusion:
1. the dearth of data in this field.
2. The bulk of the in vitro data were generated on isolated epithelial celland not in
the context of these cells in vivo.
3. The observed mechanisms are only a small part of a large number of
compensatory albeit secondary redundant pathways.
4. The ovary does not produce the few steroids illustrated in their diagram but in
the process of ovulation may generate myriad cytokines and other factors that
modulate the inflammatory process.
5. Smoking per se induces 2-hydroxylase enzyme which drives the vast majority
of circulating oestrogen towards urinary excretion. Therefore one may argue that
smokers are oestrogen deficient.
Major observations:
A. Tables 1 &2 contain oestradiol concentration that were derived from
International Programme on Chemical Safety from the World Health Organization
2002 Reference table. The authors should amend those data and seek a
standard Gynaecologic Endocrinology book such as that of L. Speroff. They have
to add the range of the levels, which emphasises the intra- and inter-individual
variation in these hormone levels. Otherwise, tables 1& 2 are inaccurate.
B. Omitted from page 9 paragraph 2: AR is expressed in mammalian
reproductive tissue.
C. Page 10 paragraph 2: The authors are invited to comment on the recent
French data that showed a slight increase in the risk of asthma in oestrogen-only
users but more importantly that the risk was in non-smokers which question the
stated mechanisms of phase II metabolites. (Romieu et al (2010) Thorax 65:292
D. Page 11: If E2 shifts the immune response towards a TH1 type, it certainly
dampens IL1# and TNF#. TNF# is a characteristic of TH2 response. IL-10
induction is part of TH1 immune response. Further ovariectomy in mice and
natural or surgical menopause in women induce clonal expansion of TNF#
producing lymphocytes through up-regulation of IL-7, a fundamental triggering
step in oestrogen deficiency induced osteoclasts’ hyperactivity in bone turn over.
E. Page12 Caption Figure 4 Reference 60 is an opinion article and contains no
data. The authors’ abridged conclusion has overlooked the multiple caveats
presented in ref 60.
F. Page 13 paragraph 1 “The action of estrogen is mediated by intracellular
estrogen receptors (ER) that function as a ligand-activated transcription factor to
regulate the expression of estrogen-responsive genes [79]” this is a repetition of
earlier statement and does not add to the mechanism of MUC5B induction. It
should also be acknowledged that oestrogen is not the only regulator of MUC5B
and that oestrogen receptors activation regulates at least 150 genes down
stream
Reviewer's report
Title:The Role of Female Hormones on Lung Function in Chronic Lung
Diseases
Version: 1Date:2 November 2010
Reviewer: José Luis NEYRO
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
None
Minor Essential Revisions
The first part of the manuscript is, probably, too long and it might be slow.
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:The Role of Female Hormones on Lung Function in Chronic Lung
Diseases
Version: 1Date:9 November 2010
Reviewer: Evelyn Palaypayon
Reviewer's report:
1. The article is a review.There is no research objective.The rules for critical
appraisal of a systematic review or meta analysis will not apply.And the level of
evidence presented is not clinical.
2.The biologic rationale for proposing a relationship between the female
hormones and respiratory functions in chronic lung disease has been thoroughly
explained.However,clinical data on Menopause and hormone contraceptives are
lacking.The drop in female hormones in menopause would mean a reversal of
the effects and should be reflected in the epidemiologic data.The use of
hormonal contraceptives and even pregnancy should duplicate the hormonal
effects on the respiratory system.Again,clinical data should be cited.
3. There is no need for statistical analysis as there is no data to analyze.
4.The paper should be published as it introduces a new concept that could serve
as a basis for clinical studies.
5.No major nor minor revision is needed.The burden of understanding and
appraising is with the reader and not with the researcher.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest with this manuscript.
Reviewer's report
Title:Premenstrual symptoms in young adults born preterm at very low birth
weight - from the Helsinki Study of Very Low Birth Weight Adults
Version: 1Date:16 February 2011
Reviewer: Franco Guidozzi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this manuscript.
I found it to be well written and reader friendly with minimal typo-graphical or
grammatical errors.
The collaborative effort of these authors has resulted in notable number of other
articles addressing a variety of endpoints in patients born of low weight,be it
appropriate for gestational age or because of assosiated intrauterine growth
restriction, or in patients born prematurely, being published in 2010 and 2011.
Their database obviously is comprehensive and detailed with significant
follow-up.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISION
(1) The topic of this study, however, is quite surprising and the authors need to
elaborate why this was their intention in the first place. Reading carefully through
some of their references does not emphatically leave one with the notion that
there is enough data to support such a study. The authors need to substantiate
the logic for this study.
(2) It also would make sense to clearly define what their intention is. They group
all very low birth weight babies into seemingly a homogenous group and
throughout their text they apparently refer to their cohort as such.The authors
need to elaborate on the sub-groups that make up the cohort, namely growth
restricted babies versus the appropriately grown babies and their respective
adverse outcomes when they are adults.Are all preterm baies or very low birth
weight babies open to the same adverse outcome , irrespective of the assosiated
factors for the birth weight?
(3) Having said all this, the study methodology and the apparent conclusions are
sound. The authors found no differences with view to menarche, pubertal
development,menstrual characteristics etc in the study groups. In line with the
fact that they came to a conclusion that the severity of premensrual symptoms
and the prevalence of PMDD and PMS among young women born at preterm
and VLBW is not higher among their peers born at term, on the basis of their
study, are they therefore able to refute the premis that there is also any gonadal
hormonal dysfunction in these women. If not, they are to elaborate.
(4) A most unique topic which certainly has not been research before.I
compliment the authors on the study, but they must provide the scientic evidence
why it was undertaken.
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 that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Premenstrual symptoms in young adults born preterm at very low birth
weight - from the Helsinki Study of Very Low Birth Weight Adults
Version: 1Date:20 February 2011
Reviewer: Shaun Tregoning
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The lack of prospective data is superficially addressed. Prospective daily rating
scores still remain the most robust gold standard for all studies on PMS and
PMDD. Gallant et al in 1992 publication of PMDD criteria iterate this point. The
literature is replete with consensus that prospective rating is superior. In the light
of this, this study to my mind does not pay enough academic subservience to
this. Whilst the authors mention this as a limitation - it is just that, a mention - and
I would attach more relevance to it especially in light of the fact that only 2 cycles
were observed and intercycle inconsistency in data is also well described.
(Walker etal).
2. The lack of power of this study to detect true differences in the incidence of
disorders is again only superficially alluded to. Whilst this limitation is mentioned,
no actual power calculation is shared with readers so that they can objectively
assess the clinical shortfall of this study not being powered.
My big concern is that there may well be a difference in this study population
between PMS and PMDD. The incidence of PMS is cited as 30%, but no
incidence is cited for PMDD (which makes it impossible for a reader to even do a
power calculation for themselves), however a different statistical trend is noted
between debilitating PMS and PMDD (13.3% vs 14.7% as opposed to 8% vs
4.2%) - which implies that PMDD difference may reach significance is the study
was powered to detect differences in outcome between PMS and PMDD. This
leads the critical reader to hypothesise that VLBW may predispose to PMDD but
not necessarily PMS - and this is not addressed.
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 have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Premenstrual symptoms in young adults born preterm at very low birth
weight - from the Helsinki Study of Very Low Birth Weight Adults
Version: 2Date:15 April 2011
Reviewer: Shaun Tregoning
Reviewer's report:
I believe the authors have adequately addressed my concerns in this revised
manuscript
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