JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Women's experiences following severe perineal trauma
Version:2Date:18 November 2013
Reviewer: Denis Walsh
Reviewer's report:
An interesting, robust and generally well written paper
Minor Essential Revisions
There are a number of corrections and revision required in this paper. There was
no abstract included in what was sent to me, though the authors say they did
include one.
Page 2, 2nd para, sentence beginning 'A meta-ethnographic .... etc' does not
make sense and needs to be reworded.
page 3, line 3 & 8, Vancouver and Harvard referencing mixed up here and in a
number of other places of the paper
page 5, line 1, developing sub themes from broader themes is the wrong way
round: sub themes inform broader themes
page 6, there is no introduction to subthemes. They just appear in the transcript.
There needs to be an introductory sentence
page 19, line 1, limitations should come at the end of discussion section. small
sample size is not a limitation in qualitative research. Usually, sample is
purposive but the contextual depth enables the reader to make connections with
similar experience elsewhere.
The discussion should have referred to Kirkham's important book Exploring the
Dirty Side of women's health.
page 24 Boon is not in the reference list.
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:Women's experiences following severe perineal trauma
Version:2Date:4 December 2013
Reviewer: Jane Thompson
Reviewer's report:
Comments provided in Attachment
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:Women's experiences following severe perineal trauma: a qualitative study
Version:3Date:3 February 2014
Reviewer: Denis Walsh
Reviewer's report:
I am now happy with the paper
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:Women's experiences following severe perineal trauma: a qualitative study
Version:3Date:5 February 2014
Reviewer: Jane Thompson
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied that the authors have attended to the revisons suggested in my
original review and that no further revisions are necessary.
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:Impact of chronic sputum on quality of life in women with COPD: an
observational study
Version: 1Date:22 July 2013
Reviewer: Hideaki Senjyu
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author
Major Comments
The purpose of this study was to describe the main factors determining the
quality of life related to respiratory status according to gender in patients with
moderate-to-severe COPD and determine the characteristics of COPD by gender
after adjusting on age and active smoking.
Overall the study design and analysis are appropriate and the paper is
well-structured.
However, Inclusion criteria is unclear. The progress which chose 175 persons
from 430 candidates of Table1 and 2 is unknown. Please describe this procedure
in detail.
Minor Comments
1. Mean age of Table1 is changing from Women to the upper part.
2. What is the reason for having set the cutoff point of BMI to 21?
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Impact of chronic sputum on quality of life in women with COPD: an
observational study
Version: 1Date:4 September 2013
Reviewer: Takashi Hajiro
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1. The authors are advised to have the paper professionally edited for English
grammar. Many grammatical errors and misspellings were recognized.
2. Out of 446 patients, only 175 patients were evaluated for multivariate analysis
of SGRQ. Although the authors mentioned this low rate as one of the limitations
of the study in Discussion, the reason of drop-out should be clarified in Result. It
is very difficult to evaluate the result of multivariate analysis, which might lead to
undermine the credibility of the current study itself.
Minor essential revisions:
1. Title: Does this title really reflect your findings? Please reconsider the title.
2. Abstract: line 9; SGRQ should be spelled out.
3. Background: First and second paragraphs dealt with general understandings
of COPD. The authors are advised to make them concise.
4. Methods: The authors should elaborate more on inclusion criteria and
recruitment of patients. Each physicians was asked to include only three
patients? How you recruited what kind of COPD patients should be the key of
this study.
5. Page 5, line 10: SGRQ should be written in full spell here, not in line 19-20.
6. Page 6, line 18: Did the authors get the written informed consent from the
participants?
7. Page 7, line 20: Please clarify how to evaluate the severity of dyspnea and
chronic sputum.
8. Discussion: The Discussion should be the place to discuss the implications of
your findings, not simply repeat them. As your title shows, second paragraph in
Page 10 might be the main point of your study. Please let the discussion have
the focus on the most important findings of the study.
9. Page 10, line 21-22; Do you have any references to support this sentence?
10. References: Please rewrite it for its clarity and accuracy. Some numbers of
volumes and pages were not written.
11. Page 13, Table 1: Numbers in Women column should be aligned.
.
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:Impact of chronic sputum on quality of life in women with COPD: an
observational study
Version:2Date:8 November 2013
Reviewer: Takashi Hajiro
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions.
There are some spelling mistakes, typos, and grammatical errors. Please revise
the manuscript carefully. Some of them are described below:
Page 2, line 7: pulmonologist # pulmonologists
Page 2, line 10: HADS can be eliminated, since the authors did not mention it
later in the Abstract.
Page 2, line 11: A space before Results is not necessary.
Page 4, line 2: became # become
Page 4, line 12: (5)(6) # (5,6)
Page 4, line 18: HRQoL should be spelled out.
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:Assessment of Reproductive Health and Violence Against Women Among
Displaced Syrians in Lebanon
Version:2Date:18 November 2013
Reviewer: Stephen Lawoko
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revision
1) The authors need to provide references to the text which they have added on
page 5 (following my initial suggestion) on the pathways linking violence,
reproductive health and potential confounders e.g. demographics. (see for
example Okenwa L, Lawoko S., Jansson B. Contraception, reproductive health
and pregnancy outcomes among women exposed to intimate partner violence in
Nigeria. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16:18-25; and Emenike E,
Lawoko S, Dalal K. Intimate Partner Violence and Reproductive health of women
in Kenya. International Nursing Review 2008;55:97-102. etc) They could add to
the end of that text that "accordingly, we adjusted for potential confounding of
such variables in our analysis"
2) Under data analysis (page 5), the authors for some reason choose a rather
stringent condition for inclusion of covariates associated with both outcome and
risk factors in further analysis when they choose a p-value of p<0.01. It is not
clear why. In the explanation they provide in the separate file however, they have
indicated p<0.05, so this is possibly an error??. In any case, a p-value of 0.05 is
usually the norm. In some cases p<0.1 (not 0.01!) could also be used.
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:Assessment of Reproductive Health and Violence Against Women Among
Displaced Syrians in Lebanon
Version:2Date:23 November 2013
Reviewer: Natalia Linos
Reviewer's report:
The revised paper is well written and makes an important contribution to our
knowledge about the needs of female Syrian refugees in Lebanon and more
broadly among female survivors of conflict violence. Authors have addressed all
of my previous concerns, so there are no major compulsory revisions at this
stage.
Minor Essential Revisions
1) Please make sure the figures are consistent. In the discussion, for example,
the authors note: “Exposure to conflict-related violence, abuse, and/or sexual
violence was reported by over 25% of women” although the results section finds
that it was over 30 % (which is more striking and reflected later on in the
discussion).
2) The statement “Although the indicators differ, we can see that the 30.8%
prevalence of conflict violence that we found in our sample is close to WHO’s
37.0% prevalence of intimate partner violence in the Eastern Mediterranean
region [31]” doesn’t make sense to me. It may be useful to present the IPV rate
at 37 % to stress that the 30.8 %, which did not include intimate partner violence,
is in addition to violence women may be experiencing at home (therefore to make
the case that the needs for support may be much greater if one were to take into
account IPV exposure as well).
3) It is still a bit unclear to me whether stress was considered a 'mediator'
between exposure to conflict violence and poor health outcomes (as mentioned
in the intro), or as a separate question: presumably women who weren't exposed
to violence also felt stress due to their refugee status - was their stress assessed
and included? Some clarity here could be useful since the authors note that the
majority of women reported having stress- related symptoms but is this the
majority of women exposed to violence or the whole sample? I couldn't find this
answer in the tables since prevalence rates of stress seem to not be there.
Please re-insert in some form either in the tables or the text.
Thank you.
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:knowledge, attitude and practice about cancer of the uterine cervix among
women living in Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of Congo
Version: 1Date:30 September 2013
Reviewer: Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript covers an important area. As most of the other papers have
investigated similar issue but in different parts of Africa, I feel that the paper is
important but the authors need to address few comments (detailed below):
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? The method section was
written clearly. However, I was unsure about grouping the women on the KAP
scales as 'sufficient' and 'insufficient' as most of the other papers have reported
on each separately. Also have a concern in defining sufficient: 'The maximum
score for the questions on knowledge was 9, for attitude 5 and for practice 6. To
explore the correlation between the women’s scores on knowledge, attitude and
practice, we calculated Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. We then
dichotomized the women’s scores using 4 as a cut-off point.'
Table 2 report score=1 if the women gave one of the expected answers but no
clear definition of this given. It would be useful to have an additional column on %
scoring over cut-off (4) in Table 2 A-C.
3. Are the data sound? Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Yes but I feel that this paper needs to be included - BMC Medical
Education (Knowledge, attitudes and practices on cervical cancer screening
among the medical workers of Mulago Hospital, Uganda) by Twaha Mutyaba,
Francis A Mmiro and Elisabete Weiderpass, BMC Medical Education).
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? The discussion needs a section on
the limitations/bias of the group studied.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes but
need feedback from the authors on the dischotomising into sufficient/insufficient
KAP scores
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Reviewer's report
Title:knowledge, attitude and practice about cancer of the uterine cervix among
women living in Kinshasa, The Democratic Republic of Congo
Version:2Date:23 December 2013
Reviewer: serena donati
Reviewer's report:
I think the manuscript is now suitable for publication and I thank the authors for
the precious review.
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:Estimates of delays in diagnosis of cervical cancer in Nepal
Version:2Date:18 December 2013
Reviewer: Adeola Olaitan
Reviewer's report:
Cervical cancer is n important helath problem, particularly in the developing world
and thus this paper should be considered after major revision
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The grammar needs o be revised for clarity
e.g. Abstract – Cervical cancer is the first leading cause… - repetitive –first can
be omitted. The following sentence could also be better worded e.g. the long
symptom to diagnosis interval means that women have advanced disease at
presentation
Background: Although cervical cancer is the most curable… - could be better
worded
Also the sentence ‘Earlier diagnosis and treatment of cancer could result in lower
stages and less intensive treatment’ should be split as it deals with 2 different
issues
‘In Nepal most cervical cancer patients….’ Should be disease onset not ‘initiation’
Discussion ‘Diagnostic delay quite higher…’ The word quite should be removed
2. Methods:
Confusing description in abstract and this may reflect the methodology
For example the authors have nit described their sampling method – random? If
so how was randomisation achieved
?consecutive – if so over what time period
What is the denominator i.e. how many patients in total were treated over that
time period?
Operational Definitions
These definitions need to be clarified as the rest if the paper makes no sense
otherwise
Why has 60 days been chosen as the definition of delay?
Short referral delay – Up to 7 days – Referral within 7 days would not be
considered a delay in any healthcare system
Total diagnostic delay 90 days or less – this could be 1 day in which case there is
no delay
Thus the authors should reclassify into delay or no delay, specifying & justifying
time periods selected. Having done this, they can tabulate results looking at
stage at diagnosis & outcome
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No conflicts
Reviewer's report
Title:Estimates of delays in diagnosis of cervical cancer in Nepal
Version:2Date:30 December 2013
Reviewer: Beena CR Devi
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is indeed intersting in the context of many developing countries.
Cervical cancer is a curable disease if detected early. The authors have
attempted to identify the causes of delay.
y suggestions are:
As older patients, illiterate women and those who go to the HCP had the longest
delay, it is pertinent that these are highlighted in the conclusion and the other
stuff in the conclusion can be omitted.
In the discussion it would have been interesting to include if the reason for delay
was due to financial contraint as many had to travel long distances.
For the delay in HCP it would be valuable to add if the reason why
gynaecological examination was not done : is it due to lack of training or due to
inadequate staff or too many patients? If that reason is not known it is good to
add that so that the reader is aware that all these factors caused the delay in
HCP. This is important for policy makers to identify the causes especially the
poor women can have access to only public services like HCP.
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:
No to all the above
Reviewer's report
Title:Womens' preferences and values in contraceptive choice: a systematic
review of relevant attributes
Version:2Date:25 November 2013
Reviewer: Dawn Stacey
Reviewer's report:
Identifying attributes to be considered when selecting a contraception method is
important knowledge that could assist women’s decision making. Among the
strengths of this paper is the introduction: it is well done as it is lays out very
clearly the issue, knowledge gap and objective of the paper. The result section
attempts to identify and categorize attributes for selecting contraception methods.
The paper, however, has several important issues need to be addressed.
Major Compulsory Revisions
Analysis is missing from the methods section – some of this is in the results
section.
Results should report on the study designs used particularly given that the 2nd
main points in the discussion were about needing for more rigorous studies.
The discussion needs to be linked to broader evidence – currently there is no
discussion within broader literature.
Conclusions don’t reflect results or discussion
- Minor Essential Revisions
Womens’ in title needs to be spelled correctly
Were the decision aids evaluated to determine if they met the definition of a
decision aid?
Although Title includes “preference”, there is no discussion on women’s choice or
preference in the paper.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearer and include – eligible
outcomes, study designs; were qualitative studies eligible?
Why were studies not quality appraised for risk of bias?
It is unclear how many studies were included in the review – is it 28 or 26 (e.g. p6
states 28 papers were included but then 2 were not considered)
Number of tools used for decision making (40) should also be discussed in the
main text
Inadequate reporting on the 32 attributes in the results section (e.g., post coital –
what is meant by this as an attribute)
Limitations need to acknowledge that only 10% of data was extracted by 2
people independently
No reasons for excluded articles provided in the flow figure or text.
In the conclusions, it mentions a framework for future da development but there
is no discussion on what this framework is
- Discretionary Revisions
Line 126 – “attributes included in a survey, interview, or DA were extracted”
reads awkwardly. Was this attributes identified in surveys, qualitative interviews
or decision aids were extracted? Or was it the interview guides?
Missing reference to a decision aid and series of studies by M Labrecque
focused on vasectomy
No table with examples of excluded papers – this is required according to
PRISMA guidelines.
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:
nothing to declare
Reviewer's report
Title:Women's values in contraceptive choice: a systematic review of relevant
attributes included in decision aids
Version:3Date:29 January 2014
Reviewer: Dawn Stacey
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for addressing most of our major compulsory and minor
essential revisions.
The conclusions of the abstract and manuscript should be revised. In the
abstract, there is no discussion of implementation and the authors should
consider removing this from the conclusions. In the manuscript, the conclusions
appear to occur immediately after the limitations/strengths section but the actual
conclusion section is only 2 sentences. In the pre-conclusion section there is
reference to a framework but there is no framework explicitly discussed or
referred to in the manuscript.
The discussion is expanded upon but there are a few references missing (e.g.,
line 209 for WHO, line 224) and lines 236 to 240 is a run on sentence.
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:
Nothing to declare
Reviewer's report
Title:Brazilian Adolescents' Knowledge and Beliefs about Abortion Methods: A
School-Based Internet Inquiry
Version:1Date:25 October 2013
Reviewer: Rodolfo Gomez Ponce de Leon
Reviewer's report:
6 Minor Revisions
1) explain better the universe of school sistem in Rio and the sample selection
criteria in order to see how generalizable are the findings.
2) explain better the full projetc 15 month long and the six questionars mentioned
in Page 7
3) what types of filters used for the 25 minutes free internet access and why?
4) last paragraph in page 14 mentioning "earliest work" need a reference
5) reference 47 is unformated
6) reference 55 have a new edition that needs to be replaced
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' below
Reviewer's report
Title:Violence against women and unintended pregnancies in Nicaragua: a
population-based multilevel study
Version:1Date:10 January 2014
Reviewer: Bernie Newman
Reviewer's report:
This is an important, well conceptualized and rigorous analysis of factors
influencing reproductive control for women. Please see review attached for
comments and suggestions for minor 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, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.