JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors affecting women's intention to use long acting and permanent
contraceptive methods in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional
study Mengistu Meskele1, Wubegzier Mekonnen2 1. School of Public Health,
College of Health Science, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, PO Box: 138,
Ethiopia 2. School of Public Health, College of Health Science, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa, PO Box: 9086, Ethiopia Email addresses:
1Correspondence: mengistu77@gmail.com 2 correspondences:
wubegzierm@gmail.com 1Author: Mobile: +251-913-17-79-96 2Author: Mobile:
+251-911-66-86-06 Both two authors contributed equally to this work
Version:6Date:10 June 2014
Reviewer: Yihunie Lakew
Reviewer's report:
1. Generally, the MS is well improved.
2. In the Background, the authors said, there is a shit from short to long-acting
plan from government side, I think this has to be disused well because FP
method is a choose and right of individual users rather a government plan.
3. Reference #13 is an Inter-censual
4. In the method section the authors used multiple of sampling procedures like as
mentioned random selection, pps and quota sampling , this has to mentioned in
the limitation section rather to focus on the well-known cross-sectional caveats.
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 have no competing of interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors affecting women's intention to use long acting and permanent
contraceptive methods in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional
study Mengistu Meskele1, Wubegzier Mekonnen2 1. School of Public Health,
College of Health Science, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, PO Box: 138,
Ethiopia 2. School of Public Health, College of Health Science, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa, PO Box: 9086, Ethiopia Email addresses:
1Correspondence: mengistu77@gmail.com 2 correspondences:
wubegzierm@gmail.com 1Author: Mobile: +251-913-17-79-96 2Author: Mobile:
+251-911-66-86-06 Both two authors contributed equally to this work
Version:9Date:8 August 2014
Reviewer: Berihun Megabiaw Zeleke
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer: Berihun Megabiaw Zeleke
Minor Essential Revisions
Is the writing acceptable?
The writing needs structural and language editions. Eg: Women who had no
myths and misconceptions on LAPMs were found to be (AOR= 1.71; 95% CI:
1.08-2.72) times….the section within () is optional and the sentence doesn`t give
sense without it.
- For previous comment “Interpretation of the odds ratio is not acceptable and
must be re-phrased!” where the OR was interpreted as odds of disease among
exposed/unexposed. My comments were to help authors interpret the OR as the
odds of exposure among cases/control. However, authors preferred interpreting it
like the relative risk which is still acceptable under circumstances. So, now it is
acceptable (though not preferable) way of interpreting the OR.
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Molecular breast cancer subtypes and therapies in a public hospital in
Northeastern Brazil
Version:1Date:4 August 2014
Reviewer: Bodour Salhia
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
The authors describe the breast cancer subtype distribution for a population
situated in NE Brazil.
1) The manuscript is not very novel, even for Brazil, and authors need to point
out the novelty of their manuscript
2) Ki67 hi/low is used to identify luminal B tumors which are HR+ Her2- tumors
(yes it was a reclassification of Luminal A tumors). HR+/Her2+ are always
luminal B regardless of Ki67 status. Check materials and methods.
3) For age associations authors should try below
4) Was all IHC data available for this study from patient archives?
5) Authors need to reference their tables throughout the Results. Also, the tables,
especially table 1, is quite large and perhaps should be broken up into several
tables.
6) The Kaplan Meier curve described in the results should be shown as a figure
7) Provide an explanation as to why lymph node status and metastasis were not
associated to subtype
8) It should be lymph node status (not state).
9) The manuscript is well written but there are several typos and grammatical
errors.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Molecular breast cancer subtypes and therapies in a public hospital in
Northeastern Brazil
Version:1Date:5 August 2014
Reviewer: Madani LY
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The manuscript “Molecular breast cancer subtypes and therapies in a public
hospital in Northeastern Brazil » addresses particularly relevant questions
concerning the breast cancer subtypes in women from a region in Brazil with an
important African genetic background. They show a high frequency of triple
negative (TN) cancers as shown in sub-Saharan Africa and in African- American
women. This message is particularly interesting.
However this manuscript needs few complementary work:
1. It would be important to show the Kaplan Meier curves figuring the 5year
survival for the different subgroups of breast cancer, ie. Luminal
A, B, HER2 and TN.
2. It would be worth to precise the different chemotherapy regimen received by
the patients, particularly did the HER2 patients received Trastuzumab?
3. A minor comment: line 67 Her2 “overexpression” instead of “ receptor”
Reviewer's report
Title:How risky are second trimester clandestine abortions in Cameroon? A
retrospective descriptive study.
Version:2Date:12 May 2014
Reviewer: Ilana G Dzuba
Reviewer's report:
See 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:Evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural therapy programme for
menstrual pain management in young women with intellectual disabilities:
Protocol for a mixed methods controlled clinical trial.
Version:2Date:3 March 2014
Reviewer: Angela Hassiotis
Reviewer's report:
I have read the paper with great interest and I am pleased to see that CBT is
being utilised further in people with intellectual disability. My comments and
recommendations follow below:
1. Very good introduction! However, some caution about reports of pain and
comparisons with peers of normal intelligence is required, given that the study of
parents of women with autism or Down syndrome had only 24 participants.
2. I am uncertain as to whether the study refers to a protocol or a a completed
study as the text oscillates between what is to be done and what has been done,
e.g. see measures/instruments section.
3. The study has misinterpreted the reported sample size in Hassiotis et al, 2011.
This was a feasibility study and was not intended as a suggestion of what an
appropriate sample size for such a trial ought to be. Currently, there is discussion
that feasibility trials ought to include up to 60 individuals. As the study is not clear
about its aims being those of a feasibility trial, the sample size calculation is not
argued for persuasively. It gives the inaccurate perception that it is definitive
which it most certainly is not.
4. The trial does not include randomisation. I am not convinced by the authors
rationale but probably nothing can be done about it at this point. They may wish
to look at the Beeken et al, 2013 (Trials) protocol.
In my view, the protocol needs revision prior to being published and should
include the aims and objectives based on the definition of feasibility or pilot trials
as per NIHR HTA guidelines. In this context, it is also important to use a unified
format throughout the manuscript of what the processes of the study will be.
I declare no conflict of interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural therapy programme for
menstrual pain management in young women with intellectual disabilities:
Protocol for a mixed methods controlled clinical trial.
Version:3Date:28 June 2014
Reviewer: Angela Hassiotis
Reviewer's report:
no further revisions are required in the current format. The statistics appear
sufficiently well thought out.
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:Evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural therapy programme for
menstrual pain management in young women with intellectual disabilities:
Protocol for a mixed methods controlled clinical trial.
Version:3Date:3 July 2014
Reviewer: Lynn Breau
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done an admirable job of addressing my questions and
comments. Their responses were thoughtful and thorough. The additional
information provided allows the reader a better understanding of the rationale for
the study and the methods. The additional background also puts the study into
the greater context of the literature regarding CBT with those who have an
intellectual disability.
There remain several issues to address:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. I understand that the Pain Coping Strategies Questionnaire and the Pain
Coping Scenarios Questionnaire have been used in only one previous study.
However, the authors should include some results from that previous study when
describing the measure to help the reader evaluate their psychometrics. If no
psychometric analyses were conducted as part of the previous study, this should
be stated and a brief description of how they were used should be provided. The
authors indicate in their response that psychometric analyses will be included in
this current project – but none are described in the analyses section. Please
indicate how the reliability and validity will be assessed quantitatively in this
current study. What analyses will be done?
2. I agree with the authors that pain intensity is not likely to be the factor that is
most impacted by this intervention (typically function and coping improve most).
However, those less well acquainted with typical responses to pain treatment
programs may find this counter-intuitive. To help those readers understand the
secondary role of pain intensity as an outcome, the authors should provide a
brief explanation, referring to outcomes that have been reported for other studies
of psychological pain management programs. This will allow the reader to
understand why pain intensity is not the key target of the intervention.
3. The authors now explain that the Brief Pain Inventory will be a modified
version. Thank you. Please explain whether this specific modified version has
been used before, or whether it is being generated for this study.
4. Please provide a brief description of the actual psychometric results for the
Self-Efficacy Scale from the previous study with children by Bursch et al.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The description of the self-efficacy scale is still somewhat vague. The
manuscript now states it will be completed “with participants”. Does this mean it
will be read to them?
Thank you for addressing my previous questions and comments. I am hopeful
that you will be able to make the changes listed above as well, and I believe that
with these, the manuscript is very strong.
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 impact of sexual violence on mental health of Eastern Congolese girls:
associations with daily stressors, stigma, and labeling.
Version:1Date:11 April 2014
Reviewer: Laura Jones
Reviewer's report:
Please see attachment which includes overall comments as well as delineated
revisions
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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:The impact of sexual violence on mental health of Eastern Congolese girls:
associations with daily stressors, stigma, and labeling.
Version:1Date:21 May 2014
Reviewer: Holly Sienkiewicz
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Numerous grammatical errors--I would recommend having a native English
speaker review this manuscript.
Discretionary Revisions
2. The word "impact" in the title does not seem appropriate since this is a largely
descriptive study. I would recommend not using this word in the title.
3. I am not familiar with Bunia, but I am assuming that many people may have
fled this area as refugees? Is it possible that sexual violence may be
under-reported due to many women and girls having already fled to Rwanda or
Uganda?
4. Clarify that the authors are examining mental health in a war-torn region. Since
this study is cross-sectional, there is no way to know if it is sexual violence,
effects of war, or both that is impacting the mental health of these girls.
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:Harnessing Information Technology to Improve Women's Health
Information: Evidence from Pakistan
Version:6Date:19 August 2014
Reviewer: Kathleen Gray
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied that the authors have made a substantial effort to strengthen their
manuscript in response to reviewers’ suggestions.
The research design and methods remain open to critical review but I do not
think this should stand in the way of publication.
With another thorough proof-reading to pick up a few repetitions and typos, I
would consider this ready for publication.
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:Harnessing Information Technology to Improve Women's Health
Information: Evidence from Pakistan
Version:6Date:21 August 2014
Reviewer: Griffin Weber
Reviewer's report:
The authors addressed most of my concerns. In particular, I'm happy to read how
they identified their cohorts.
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
1) In the response letter, the authors wrote that the data are available.
Where/how can I get the data? In the manuscript, please either indicate a
website where readers can download the data or describe how they can gain
access to it.
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
1) The authors added a statement noting that the demographic differences
between the groups are a limitation of their analysis. As before, I would still
encourage them to consider propensity score matching to deal with this.
However, if their data are easily accessible to others, then that at least gives
different investigators a chance to repeat the analysis using different techniques.
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:Huge pyogenic cervical cyst with endometriosis, arising from a
myomectomy scar: a case report
Version:1Date:16 June 2014
Reviewer: Mi-La Kim
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Patients' and physicians' descriptions of occurrence and diagnosis of
endometriosis: A qualitative study from Iran
Version:2Date:19 August 2014
Reviewer: Arnaud Fauconnier
Reviewer's report:
The author made revision asked. The article can be published.I congratulate her
for the quality and the originality of the 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 that I have no competing interests' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of regular mammography use among American Indian women in
Oklahoma: a cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:26 April 2014
Reviewer: Carol Strong
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors’ effort to collect data in a hard-to-reach population.
Below are some of my comments and suggestions:
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS
1. Citations for the first and second sentences.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
2. Have you compared the results for two studies, since you combined the
samples? Are they similar in most of the factors you are interested in?
3. Need more description of the scales you borrowed from others (citation 38, 39,
40 on page 6), such as alpha and whether you used the whole scale or you
revised them? Were these scales designed for AIs? Did you use a sum/average
score? Anyway, much more detail is needed.
4. Need much more detail on the factor analysis of the 82 items. Where did these
items come from? What is “AI beliefs regarding the AI woman’s role in the current
AI society?”
5. Does WHS include all the constructs you mentioned (citation 38-40, plus
WHS)? Need more clarification on that.
6. Since you emphasized the use of theories, it may be clearer if you specify
which theory was used for each construct/measurement. Perhaps categorize all
measurements you used under theories. It may help to clarify.
7. Where does the measurement of subjective norms come from? The same
question for the following measures: normative beliefs, motivation to comply, etc.
8. It seems like you need to pay more attention to the measurement. I truly
appreciate your effort to have tailored or newly-designed measures for this
hard-to-reach population. I think it would be an important contribution if you can
validate all the measures more carefully.
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:Awareness of Pap testing and factors associated with intent to undergo
Pap testing by level of sexual experience in unmarried university students in
Korea: results from an online survey
Version:7Date:15 April 2014
Reviewer: Deborah Helitzer
Reviewer's report:
All revisions have been made to my satisfaction
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 that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Awareness of Pap testing and factors associated with intent to undergo
Pap testing by level of sexual experience in unmarried university students in
Korea: results from an online survey
Version:11Date:14 July 2014
Reviewer: Susanne Blödt
Reviewer's report:
All correction have been made to my satisfaction.
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 that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Women are considerably more exposed to intimate partner violence than
men in Rwanda -due to denial of incidents or gender power imbalance? A
population based study
Version:1Date:26 May 2014
Reviewer: Shirley Randell AO, PhD
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes
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? There seems to be an emphasis on reporting male IPV rather than
exploring female IPV which is so much more serious.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? No
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? No – the title
is curious – it would be better phrased as something like A study of IPV among
women and men in Rwanda with the question part of the introduction – needs
more work
9. Is the writing acceptable? I have suggested improvements In particular the
references need to be presented more consistently
• Minor Essential Revisions
I have commented throughout the text – there is a need for consistency - The
reference list needs major attention for consistency – is there a format for the
journal that should be adhered to
Reviewer's report
Title:Lippes Loop intrauterine device left in the uterus for 50 years Case report
Assoc.Prof., PH.D.Rosita Aniuliene (rositaan@hotmail.com) , Dept.obst/gyn of
LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Migle Gedgaudaite
(migla.ged@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS hospital,Lithuania M.D.Povilas
Aniulis (paniulis@gmail.com), Dept.of urology of LUHS hospital,Lithuania
M.D.Vitalija Druktenyte (vitukee@gmail.com),Dept.obst/gyn of LUHS,Lithuania
Corresponding author : Rosita Aniuliene Dept.Obst/gyn of LUHS hospital Eiveniu
2, Kaunas,LT-50009 Lithuania Email. rosita.aniuliene@kaunoklinikos.lt
rositaan@hotmail.com Tel. +37068778631
Version:6Date:12 July 2014
Reviewer: Norman Goldstuck
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions.
1) English grammar, spelling phraseology. The non-English speakers lack of the
use of the definitive article in sentences does not affect meaning but reads
clumsily.
2) Figures referred to as pictures.
3) not all abbreviations are listed
4) Reference 8 is mentioned in the text but is not in the list of references
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.