JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive health and burn-out among female physicians: nationwide,
representative study from Hungary
Version:2Date:22 June 2014
Reviewer: Raymond Lee
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Discuss the conceptual/theoretical rationale for why burnout should be
associated with reproductive health.
2. Discuss whether poor reproductive health is linked to work-life imbalance and
heavy workload, which are then linked to burnout.
3. Discuss the rationale for including the control sample, especially in light of the
significant education level differences between the 2 samples.
4. In the methods, discuss whether follow-up reminders were used to increase
the response rate.
5. In the results, discuss the specific statistical tests to indicate significant
associations between the reproductive health variables and the burnout
dimensions. Tables 3-6 give only the p-values to indicate whether the differences
are significant, but authors should provide information on the statistical test and
the effect size estimate for each significant result.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Discuss how reproductive health may affect the female physician's clinical
practice, and the research evidence that shows its impact on patient outcomes.
2. Discuss why reproductive health was unrelated to emotional exhaustion,
especially in light of other studies showing how emotional exhaustion is the most
critical of the 3 burnout dimensions.
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:Reproductive health and burn-out among female physicians: nationwide,
representative study from Hungary
Version:2Date:15 July 2014
Reviewer: László Kalabay
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written study with high statistical power and well-recognized
limitations. Although only follow-up studies could establish the casual relationship
between reproduction health status and burnout, the authors' assumption is
probably correct.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. Within the inpatient group it would be important to consider the field of
medicine the female doctors pursue. There may be differences between
operational/interventional, conservative and mainly administrative/educational
areas (e.g., number of nightshifts may also matter) (see Rurik et al 25 years
grad).
2. Given the nationwide difference of workload of doctors their location may also
matter not only in terms of counties but also as: capital, large city, small city,
village or no current job.
3. Page 10, rows 208-211: Why did the authors chose a control group that
confers the selection bias originating from different educational level. The aims of
the study, i.e., to highlight the vulnerability and unreasonably high risk of burnout
and reproductive health of female doctors would be served further by a
comparison with equally educated females.
I think the total sample number is high enough to provide statistical power for
these three subgroup analyses.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. A considerable portion of GP -s work as private. In which category were they
put: GP or private?
2. Page 10: There is a contradiction between: "General practitioners were 82.8%
of the sample" (row 197) and "Distribution of the participants’ workplace ... 26.1
% in general practice" (rows 201-202). I assume that in the first case MD-s
should have been used instead of general practitioners. The latter means doctors
working in primary care.
3. Page 10, row 201: correct “participants” to “participants’”.
4. Row 242: use "reported" instead of "beard" (grammatically incorrect, too)
5. Data in the text (rows 213-219) and Table 2 are redundant. Delete from text.
6. Data in the text (rows 222-232) and Table 3 are redundant. Delete from text.
7. Data in the text (rows 244-250) and Table 5 are redundant. Delete from text.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Authors were right to analyze dentists as a separate category. Their favorable
results would be worth to mention in Discussion, too (working private, no
nightshifts).
2. Rows 235-236: delete "during her lifetime".
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:Integrating HIV testing into cervical cancer prevention in Tanzania: an
analysis of routine service delivery statistics
Version:1Date:2 June 2014
Reviewer: Wilson Liambila
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision needed
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:Integrating HIV testing into cervical cancer prevention in Tanzania: an
analysis of routine service delivery statistics
Version:1Date:14 June 2014
Reviewer: Theophilus Nwankwo
Reviewer's report:
Major collections:
1. Abstracts:
a. Objectives: should be structured and made clear.
b. Result: Line 18, please indicate the number of women not referred among
which 60% were offered HIV screening. E.g. three and sixty (60%) of 600 women
not referred from HCT centre were offered HIV screening. Apply this to most
points that that you use only percentages.
c. Conclusion: Shortage of health workers is not reported as your finding in your
result section.
2. Methods:
a. State your parameters for measuring effectiveness and feasibility
3. Results:
a. Indicate Number of clients and the percentages. E.g In line 198, 94% (17,426)
of those offered HIV test accepted and were screened.
b. In lines 200-201: What do mean by (data not Shown), consider deleting.
4. Discussion
a. Consider deleting areas you discussed paucity of human resources as
hindrance to the effectiveness of integration of cancer of the cervix and HIV
screening because it was not reported in your result ( it was not one of your
findings)
b. The assertion from unpublished data in lines 274-277 shall be deleted
5. Table: table 1 appears crowded; I suggest you present the data in two tables
for clarity.
Minor collection:
a. Was the HIV status of those that reported HIV screening in preceding 3
months known? Could it be indicated?
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 interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:The increased trend in mother's hospital admissions for psychiatric
disorders in the first year after birth between 2001 and 2010 in New South
Wales, Australia
Version:1Date:22 May 2014
Reviewer: Colin Binns
Reviewer's report:
Minor revisions.
1. The increase appears to have occurred at a time when community mental
health services were being cut back in Australia. If this was the case in NSW,
please add a comment
2. Comment in more detail on whether substance abuse has declined or
increased during this period.
3. Can a subject be diagnosed as substance abuse and a psychiatric illness
concurrently in this study?
Interesting paper
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:The increased trend in mother's hospital admissions for psychiatric
disorders in the first year after birth between 2001 and 2010 in New South
Wales, Australia
Version:1Date:25 June 2014
Reviewer: Maralyn Foureur
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions - None
Minor Essential Revisions
1. There are numerous issues of sentence structure, grammar, tense,
punctuation and choice of ‘odd’ expressions or words that interfere with the
clarity of the argument presented. These need to be corrected before the article
can be accepted for publication. I have identified 36 lines of text containing errors
and several sentences that need a complete re-write. I recommend the paper is
sent to an editor in order to ensure the content is more clearly articulated and the
English expression is accurate. The errors include the misuse of the terms
‘diagnosis’ and ‘diagnoses’ throughout the paper; the odd way of expressing the
fact that some mothers will be admitted more than once which is why ‘mothers’
as well as ‘admissions’ are presented, needs to be reconsidered; the explanatory
footers on Table 1 and Table 2 need to be re-written to be grammatically correct.
There are two figures labelled Figure 1 so one needs to be labelled Figure 2.
There is a date of 20011 which should be 2011.
Discretionary Revisions
2. The discussion around non-principal diagnoses is somewhat obscure, possibly
the result of the standard of English expression in the paper, but nevertheless
needs further explication.
3. The explanatory footer on Figure 1 reveals that women with more than one
diagnosis in one admission are counted more than once and I am left wondering
how much this contributed to the finding of an overall increase in admissions. A
comment addressing this issue would be a useful addition to the paper.
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:Role of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor polymorphisms (-2578C>A,
-460T>C, -1154G>A, +405G>C and +936C>T) in endometriosis: a case control
study with Brazilians indicates increased susceptibility for the allele -1154A and a
protective effect for the haplotype CCGG
Version:2Date:12 August 2014
Reviewer: Alessandra Trovó de Marqui
Reviewer's report:
Please find attached file.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Role of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor polymorphisms (-2578C>A,
-460T>C, -1154G>A, +405G>C and +936C>T) in endometriosis: a case control
study with Brazilians indicates increased susceptibility for the allele -1154A and a
protective effect for the haplotype CCGG
Version:2Date:22 August 2014
Reviewer: Fuu-Jen Tsai
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes, but some references need to be added in the Background section,
indicating these five SNPs are most common in Brazilian women. In addition,
author should compare the frequency of these SNPS with other ethnic groups.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The taqman PCR method is a commonly used approach and should be no
problem to get reliable results. The statistical analysis is also OK to describe the
data.
3. Are the data sound?
No, because the association between -1154G>A and endometriosis is not new;
in addition, the data in the present study is opposite to data from other groups,
suggesting the impact of this SNP in endometriosis development is minor or even
poor. Functional validation or similar exps done by other groups should be helpful
to reveal the potency of this finding in endometriosis.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and
data deposition?
In general, it is OK. Since the authors declare these SNPs are frequently found in
Brazilian women, the frequency of each SNP in this cohort should be addressed
in TABLE 1.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Not fully described, especially for the conflict results of -1154G>A SNP by
different groups.
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?
Not very consistent for the findings regarding the association of endpmetriosis
with BMI and other clinical gynecological symptoms as in TABLE 2. It would be
interesting to know the impact of these five SNPs on BMI and other clinical
gynecological symptoms.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
yes
Reviewer's report
Title:Independent external validation of cardiovascular disease mortality in
women utilising Framingham and SCORE risk models: a mortality follow-up study
Version:1Date:15 July 2014
Reviewer: Olga Khavjou
Reviewer's report:
This is an important paper that assesses the peformance of three CVD risk score
calculators in a cohort of Australian women. The authors find that all three
calculators perform relatively well in the low risk population but that they
overestimate the risk in the higher-risk group. There is a large number of various
CVD risk calculators available for various populations thus it is important to
identify the ones most appropriate for specific populations and I beleive this study
addresses this issue for the population of Australian women.
I think this is a very well organized and written paper. I only have a few minor
discretionary revisions to suggest.
1. line 49: if that the number of deaths of 45622 in Australia? please specify.
2. line 51: I'd change "or" at the end of the line to "and"
3. line 59: same as above, I'd change "or" at the beginning of the line to "and"
4. line 59: I'd change guidelines to plural
5. line 60: also add "race" to include "race/ethnicity"
6. line 61: change to: "high blood pressure, high cholesterol,...."
7. paragraph starting on page 55: I'd like to see a brief discussion of how the
various risk calculators are different. Do they include different risk factors? Are
they derived for different populations?
8. line 75: "are" should be replaced with "is"
9: line 199: I'd like to see the number of deaths reported as the number (152) and
as percent of total population
10: lines 248-249: please also report the number of deaths by which they were
estimated (in addition to percent)
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:Independent external validation of cardiovascular disease mortality in
women utilising Framingham and SCORE risk models: a mortality follow-up study
Version:1Date:4 August 2014
Reviewer: Ruth Coleman
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. In Background section of the manuscript the authors list various risk scores but
then proceed to only validate Framingham and SCORE without explaining why
they have not taken this opportunity to validate any of the other models
mentioned.
2. The Framingham risk scores are based on a population aged 30-74 (SCORE =
19-80. Were the participants in this analysis aged 20-69 years as these were the
only ages in this cohort or were limits imposed and if so why?
3. The mean age of this cohort is much younger than that used to develop the
risk models, are women aged 20-35 with no history of CVD or diabetes often
given 10yr CV risk profiles? If not, how do we interpret the results of this
manuscript? Would the modified treatment levels for fatal CVD be useful in those
who are regularly given CVD risk profiles?
Discretionary Revisions
1. The discussion makes no comment on the differences in the populations
potentially explaining differences in estimation. One of the most interesting points
in this paper is figure one & yet the only reference to it is the brief paragraph in
the results section.
2. Could the authors discuss whether fatal CVD calculation is more or less useful
than CVD risk estimation in general?
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:Independent external validation of cardiovascular disease mortality in
women utilising Framingham and SCORE risk models: a mortality follow-up study
Version:2Date:28 August 2014
Reviewer: Ivanny Marchant
Reviewer's report:
In the article “Independent external validation of cardiovascular disease mortality
in women utilising Framingham and SCORE risk models: a mortality follow-up
study” by Goh et al., the authors report the findings of an external validation
study designed to evaluate the applicability of three different risk estimation
systems: Framingham, SCORE for low risk regions and SCORE for high risk
regions in a cohort of 4487 Australian adult women (age range 20 – 69 years) by
comparing the risks predicted and the risks observed over ten years of follow up.
The manuscript is well written and adheres to relevant standards.
The authors have rephrased the text and introduced corrections concerning the
methods, discussion and conclusion section. They have answered my points
satisfactorily.
The sole remaining point concerns discretionary revisions that represent indeed
different views about graphic representations and as such they cannot be
considered as an impediment for publication of the manuscript.
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:Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs. uterine curettage in the
uterine artery embolization-based management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a
retrospective cohort study
Version:1Date:14 July 2014
Reviewer: Rong Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
The is a study and analysis of a rather rare complication of pregnancy, which is
cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), an ectopic pregnancy that occurs in the scar of
a previous cesarean section in a subset of patients. The authors report their
experience in this study, which seems to have taken a great amount of effort and
time in both planning and performing the surgery as well as in writing the
manuscript. This is, overall, an impressive piece of work that should be well
received in the surgical-OB-GYN literature.
1. Line 136, what does it mean by "common strategy"? I think it should be
"conventional strategy".
2. Line 205, "control patients with massive bleeding (>400 mL)" Is this a typo?
Because the two individuals who experienced massive bleeding, both had a
blood loss > 1000mL, > 400 mL must not be considered as a status of massive
bleeding. Or, three more patients would be included.(Line 226)
3. Line 228, What the relationship between the five patients who had blood loss >
400 mL and the one who exhibited massive intraoperative bleeding (> 400 mL)
4. Line 228, > 400 mL may not be called massive bleeding, I thought only > 800
mLchould be regarded as excssive bleeding.
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:Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs. uterine curettage in the
uterine artery embolization-based management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a
retrospective cohort study
Version:1Date:24 July 2014
Reviewer: hans Brölmann
Reviewer's report:
see attachment
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:Sexual assault in Lagos, Nigeria: a five year retrospective review.
Version:1Date:6 May 2014
Reviewer: Heidi Resnick
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript addresses the important topic of rape or other sexual assault,
prevalence of reported cases seeking services specific to rape or other sexual
assault? among a hospital population and descriptive charateristics.
On page 2, data are plural so this should be phrased data "were" analyzed and
--similarly if this occurs elsewhere should be similarly phrased On page 3, the
definition of rape or suspected includes penetrative assaults ---much of what the
authors have in their description of the legal definition is correct but then they go
beyond that to include other types of sexual assault (e.g., touching of breasts and
being made to touch another's genitals)--the latter are sexual assault and in
isolation would not constitute rape --so this should be revised.
It would help if the authors are very clear about the prevalence being only those
reporting to the hospital with a sexual assault or suspected sexual assault if that
is the case and this needs to be made clearer. Is there a sexual assault
program? At what point is it determined that a woman has been recently sexually
assaulted?
Do women need to self-identify and self present or is this determined at regular
obstetric/gynecology visits and if so ---the consistency of such screening will
introduce error
Of course with either self identification or screening of routine gynecology
patients this is likely a vast underestimate of actual cases.
The program and how it works should be described.
How do the authors know that no forensic evidence is obtained.
Could the authors describe if there is a protocol in place for what the treatment or
evidence gathering procedures are supposed to be?
Rather than surmising that some tests or procedures might not be done (e.g. HIV
prophylaxis, pregnancy related) due to age or time elapsed --can the authors
control for those factors and then also report on the percentages of those who
would be eligible who received the services ---so for example--controlling for time
in which HIV prophylaxis might be recommended ---or controlling for pubertal
when looking at percent receiving pregnancy prophylaxis?
This might be useful.
There are some places that additional citations might be useful --but generally
the report is well written.