JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors associated with the utilisation of postnatal care services among the
mothers of Nepal: Analysis of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011
Version:3Date:4 January 2014
Reviewer: David Doku
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
In response to my comment regarding elaborating on the use of Complex Simple
Analysis Procedure to address cluster sampling, the authors mentioned “We
have included a more detailed description of how Complex Simple Analysis was
used to address the issue of cluster sampling.”, but I did not see this in the
method section contrary to their claim.
I did not see how the results and consequently the discussion were revised
based on the new Table 2.
Page 11, Conflicting time schedule is a better explanation so delete the phrase,
“This heavy workload in combination with”.
Page 13, last paragraph of the discussion section. Replace “rich households”
with “higher socioeconomic households”.
Still minor language editing is needed, especially in the Public health implication
section.
--End
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 declared
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors associated with the utilisation of postnatal care services among the
mothers of Nepal: Analysis of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011
Version:3Date:15 January 2014
Reviewer: Christiana Titaley
Reviewer's report:
I thank authors for responding carefully to each comment given by all reviewers.
Some minor issues that authors might want to incorporate in the final manuscript:
• Authors stated that in Methods Section that "... attendance during delivery,
timing of antenatal care and birth order were left out of the model." In fact, these
variables were not completely left out, but authors have entered them in a
separate model. Authors might want to state this in the Methods.
• It is mentioned that " richer families are also more likely to have achieved higher
education...." Education variable has been controlled in the model when
assessing the relationship between use of postnatal care and household wealth
index and thereby can no longer be a potential reason for this relationship.
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Post-Disaster Health-Related Quality of Life of Female Survivors after
Earthquake: A Comparative Study of Double Tracking of Sichuan Earthquakes
Version:6Date:4 December 2013
Reviewer: Suhua Bi
Reviewer's report:
1. The topic of this article is interesting. It is common sense that women’ health
are weaker than men’s. Sichuan has a large number of populations, and its
residents suffered from the pain due to earthquake. The health of survivors has
become an important issue. BMC Women’s Healthis devoted to concern about
the women’ health. In my opinion, the article may meet the subject of this journal.
2. This article conducted a large-scale sample survey and a panel survey half a
year later in the post-disaster areas. With the time goes, the concern of a
community will gradually weaken, which is a general rule. This article can be very
effective in causing long-termconcern for the health of survivors in Sichuan, and
promoting the research on the health of survivors.
3. The frame of this article is clear. First, the introduction part shows us the
background that Sichuan suffered from lots of earthquakes, the lack of related
literatures and the necessity of this article. The hypothecs also give us an
overview about what are going to be explored in this article. Second, the
methods part tells us that the sampling progress, instruments, and so on. Third,
the results part tells us the gender differences on HQOL and comparisons result
with tracking data. Fourth, the discussion and conclusion part rationalize the
main findings of the article,explain the results and give suggestion on how to
improve women’s HRQOL.
Therefore, I appreciate this article very much. It will be very suitable for
publication n BMC Women’s Health. Some details may be paid attention to. I
recommend “discretionary revisions” for this manuscript.
Comments for the details:
1. The fourth paragraph in the introduction part should describe the concept of
HRQOL.
2. The first paragraph of 2.1 section can be divided into two sections.
3. The tenth paragraph of discussion part could be divided into several points in
order to make the structure more clear.You may use the conjunctions, such as
firstly, secondly, etc.
4. Check the format of references. They are not coinciding with the requirement
of BMC Women’s Health.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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:Reproductive factors and its association with intima media thickness and
carotid plaques in a cross sectional study of postmenopausal women enrolled in
the population-based KORA F4 study
Version: 1Date:18 September 2013
Reviewer: enis ozkaya
Reviewer's report:
First # want to thank you for this opportunity,
In this article authors indicate a possible association between some reproductive
factors and atherosclerosis determined by carotid plaques and intima media
thickness. And authors concluded that the early menarche is associated with the
carotid plaques and ever use of hrt is inversely associated with the carotid
plaques. However they did not show any association between the variables and
the IMT. This is very well designed and written article with appropriate statistical
analyses indicating a data which was not assessed before in this perspective. I
think most important drawback in this paper is the retrospective design of the
study. However authors tried to overcome this problem by the large number of
study population they included in the study.
I would suggest publication
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined:Definition of the problem and
the hypothesis were well defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?:Methods of data collection,
measurements were appropriate.
3. Are the data sound? Gathered data is good enough to draw a conclusion
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? .Manuscript is well written
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? :Authors have discussed all the issues about the subject.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? The most important drawback of the
study was clearly mentioned in discussion section.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes, it is clear.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? yes
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes it is OK
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:Reproductive factors and its association with intima media thickness and
carotid plaques in a cross sectional study of postmenopausal women enrolled in
the population-based KORA F4 study
Version: 1Date:3 October 2013
Reviewer: Waqas Qureshi
Reviewer's report:
Stockl et al reported in their cross – sectional analysis of a population based
study of post menopausal women, the association of carotid intimal thickness
and presence of carotid plaques with reproductive parameters. They
demonstrated that age at menarche and use of hormone replacement therapy
was associated with these outcomes.
Major Revision:
The authors studied the association of carotid IMT/plaques with reproductive
parameters, however this is an old question and as authors very well stated that
this has been studied in the past in quite much detail in regards to the same
findings that the authors found (ref Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007 vol 86,995
– 1002.
Their conclusion that use of HRT was associated with lower risk of carotid
plaques in age and multivariable model also seems overstated as they did not
adjust for multiple comparisons and these findings might be just by chance.
Several of the p- values are missing for carotid plaque associations with the
several of the variables.
The authors used logistic regression for analyzing the associations, however
logistic regression tends to overestimate outcomes in situations where the
outcome occurs in >10% of the individuals. In such situations, generalized linear
regression model using binomial distribution and log link might be appropriate.
This will reduce the effect size even further but may provide a better sense of the
association.
One of the greatest limitations of these data is the missing data for which authors
did not provide adequate methods.
Minor Revision:
It is important to describe the measures of exposure even though they were
described previously for the better readability and understanding of the paper.
Several of the percentages in the table 1 are missing.
Minor discretionary revision:
Scientific writing needs improvement.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and its association with intima media thickness and
carotid plaques in a cross sectional study of postmenopausal women enrolled in
the population-based KORA F4 study
Version:4Date:1 December 2013
Reviewer: Samar El Khoudary
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the authors for being responsive to the reviewer’s comments. The
manuscript has considerably improved. Few comments and questions still need
more clarification:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods, Subjects: Should the total number for those who were eligible for F4
be 3866 instead of 3867? Subtracting all exclusions did not result in 3080.
2. Table 1: Please be consistent in what was presented for categorical variables.
Both n and % were provided for the “total” column. Only % was provided for the
other two columns (presence or absence of plaque).
3. Did the authors tested for interaction between current use of HT and time
since menopause? Although each of these two variables were not significantly
related to the outcome, this did not imply that the interaction is also not
significant.
4. Please justify why total cholesterol and TG, which would be expected to be
highly correlated, were included simultaneously? What about LDL-C and HDL-C?
Also please provide methods for each of these measures.
5. In statistical section, please provide details about including the new measures
in multivariable analysis.
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:Reproductive factors and its association with intima media thickness and
carotid plaques in a cross sectional study of postmenopausal women enrolled in
the population-based KORA F4 study
Version:4Date:12 December 2013
Reviewer: Waqas Quresh
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered queries adequately
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and its association with intima media thickness and
carotid plaques in a cross sectional study of postmenopausal women enrolled in
the population-based KORA F4 study
Version:5Date:16 January 2014
Reviewer: Samar El Khoudary
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all my 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:Smoking habits in relation to the clinical picture of women with microscopic
colitis compared to controls
Version: 2Date:29 August 2013
Reviewer: Johan Bohr
Reviewer's report:
1. The manuscript is interesting and needs no compulsory revisions.
2. References are a not quite satisfactory. There are more publications on
smoking in MC (eg. Vigren et al) and they should be included.
.On page 7, l. 4 "one episode of severe diarrhoea" is mentioned. What is severe
diarrhoe, and how long is the observation-period. This is a very important point, i
think, because the authors build their arguments for the MC1/MC2 dichotomy on
this.
on page 10, 2.para, it is stated that 35.9% were current smokers. How does this
agree with the statement that 13% were current smokers and 27% used tobacco.
+ alcohol. In general, I think that data are a little difficult to grasp from the text.
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:Characteristics of sexual violence against adolescent girls and adult
women
Version: 1Date:9 February 2013
Reviewer: Lydia O'Donnell
Reviewer's report:
The article focuses on the important issue of sexual violence. Using surveillance
data from 1994-99, patterns of violence are characterized, comparing
victimization of female adolescents and adults. It is difficult to determine whether
the findings are unique and informative without more information on what other
reports (if any) on similar populations have been published. A clearer statement
of contribution to the field is needed, along with acknowledgement of the fact that
the data used are from about 15 years ago. At minimum, there needs to be some
discussion of whether the numbers of youth/women reporting violence overall
has significantly changed (as might be the case if stigma about reporting has
been reduced--overall, or for certain segments, e.g., acquaintance rape, child
rape).
In addition to the need to place the study more in context of what else is
known/has been published, there are some writing and structural issues.
Copyediting to address English translation issues is needed. The discussion
section reports on the data--this information should be moved to results. The
discussion then needs to underscore what findings are new as well as limitations
of the data. Are there more recent data available? Might some patterns--like use
of condoms--be different today? What about differences in reporting over time?
These weaknesses in the current manuscript are significant and need to be
addressed in a revision; thus, they are compulsory changes.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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 competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Characteristics of sexual violence against adolescent girls and adult
women
Version: 2Date:9 May 2013
Reviewer: Polona Selic
Reviewer's report:
By my opinion authors haven’t addressed comments provided by both reviewers
thoroughly enough, e.g. there are several uses of the term “author” instead of
“perpetrator as advised (minor but puzzling inconsistency). The texts still lacks
“limitations to the study” part.
Authors are advised to follow reviewer’s recommendation and comments more
strictly. In case of disagreement with those, explanation is to be provided in the
cover letter.
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:Characteristics of sexual violence against adolescent girls and adult women
Version:6Date:21 December 2013
Reviewer: Polona Selic
Reviewer's report:
Characteristics of sexual violence against adolescent girls and adult women
MS #8927231458197885
Reviewer's report
Major Compulsory Revisions
All done.
Minor Essential Revisions
All done.
Discretionary Revisions
All done
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.
What next?
----------
Accept without further revision – however, the MS needs language editing.
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:Gastrointestinal symptoms before and during menses in healthy women.
Version: 1Date:21 March 2013
Reviewer: Monica Jarrett
Reviewer's report:
The researchers state that little is known about gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms
during the pre-menses and menses phase of the menstrual cycle in health
control women. This manuscript describes five GI symptoms, psychological
symptoms and fatigue in a healthy control group. The healthy controls were
originally recruited as a comparison group for a study of women with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) using a cross-sectional design.
A notable limitation of this paper is the use of a recall period over three menstrual
cycles and the lack of any measure of severity. Prior research using daily diaries
with symptom severity ratings have provided more useful data e.g., mild
abdominal pain is not often clinically significant, but percent of time with
moderate to severe symptoms often is. I can appreciate the focus on the
pre-menses and menses phase, but it is hard to know what that means outside
the context of the whole menstrual cycle or at least the other menstrual phases.
The use of a design with minimal burden does not equal useful data.
The term emotional or psychological symptoms might be better choice of terms
to describe the symptoms of depression, anxiety and ‘other emotional symptoms’
as mood symptoms.
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal symptoms before and during menses in healthy women.
Version: 1Date:12 July 2013
Reviewer: Ma.Luisa Marvan
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
Introduction:
- The last paragraph of the Introduction section (page 4) is too confusing. For
example, the sentence of the second line says: “this healthy sample of women
served as a control group in that study”. It would be helpful if authors rewrite this
paragraph.
Material and Methods:
- Please explain about the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
- Those women with any GI diagnoses were excluded, but what about women
with PMS or psychiatric disorders? My concern is that the objective of the
research was to study healthy women. If authors did not control this variable,
they should comment about it in the limitations of the study.
- I understand that there are no questionnaires to measure GI symptoms in the
premenstrual or menstrual phases, but there are questionnaires that measure
emotional symptoms such as depression, anxiety and others. Therefore, it should
be clarified why the authors did not use one of these questionnaires.
- Please add the reliability of the questionnaire that was developed, as well as
the details about how it was designed. Was it tested before the current study?
- The statistical analyses section is too confusing. Please clarify it.
Results:
- It is not clear which were the statistical tests used to compare the data
described on page 7 (first, the authors compared premenstrual vs. menstrual
phases. Then, they compared women with vs. without emotional symptoms. So,
two different statistical tests should be used).
Minor Essential Revisions:
Results:
- The titles of both Tables are wrong.
The title of the Table 1 says “Characteristics Related to Menstrual History”, and
the table contains the current age of participants.
The title of the Table 2 says “Proportion experiencing GI and mood symptoms”; it
should say “Proportion of PARTICIPANTS who...” or “Proportion of WOMEN
who…
-There are some repeated results in the text and in the Table 2 (for example, the
proportion of women who reported depressive symptoms).
- The p value is not enough; please add the values of the tests and the degree of
freedom.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal symptoms before and during menses in healthy women.
Version: 1Date:14 July 2013
Reviewer: Bo Shen
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
NA
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal symptoms before and during menses in healthy women.
Version: 2Date:15 August 2013
Reviewer: Bo Shen
Reviewer's report:
This is an important topic in gastroenterology and women's health. There are
only scant published article on the topic. The authors conducted the study in a
prospective fashion and yielded some interesting results. Mood swing and GI
symptoms are commonly present hand-in-hand with menstruation. Minor
technical issues
1. METHODS: Please add a flow chart on subject recruitment.
2. DISCUSSION: add a paragraph for "clinical implications of the findings of the
study".
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:
NA
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal symptoms before and during menses in healthy women.
Version:3Date:18 November 2013
Reviewer: Monica Jarrett
Reviewer's report:
Tabke 2 - Mood should be cirrrected to emotional.
I appreciate a professional appearing table; these are not there yet.
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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:Female genital mutilation and intimate partner violence in the Ivory Coast
Version:1Date:14 December 2013
Reviewer: Janet Seeley
Reviewer's report:
This is a short, well written paper on an important topic.
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 interests