JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Women in the Streets; their awareness and utilization of modern family
planning methods in Northwest Ethiopia
Version: 1Date:21 May 2012
Reviewer: Petrus Steyn
Reviewer's report:
1. Major compulsory revisions
1. Add references for: on page 3: .., the user's awareness about FP options the
main one. And on page 4: Several studies had been done on the family planning
prevalence (usually modern methods)...
2. Reference to a developed and validated questionnaire on page 2 and 6. Add
references please.
3. Injectables are a LARC method - see page 2 and 10 where the author uses
the classification of long-acting and include sterilisation ( which is unusual).
Discretionary revisions
Reconsider title of the manuscript." Women in the Streets"
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:Women in the Streets; their awareness and utilization of modern family
planning methods in Northwest Ethiopia
Version: 1Date:12 June 2012
Reviewer: Vincent Boama
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions: This article makes an interesting read and covers
contraceptive issues on a section of the population that is largely ignored.
1)It has been fairly well written but has minor gramatical errors in a few places
that the author should address.
2) The Author used the abbreviation 'FP' without first defining it. Can the Author
please define 'FP' before using it.
3) Under Methods, the Author states that 'Informed Consent' was obtained. Can
they expalin to the readers if the informed consent for this research work was a
verbal consent or a written consent. If they did not obtain a written consent for
this research work, can they explain why to the readers.
4) Table 1 section under 'Where do you pass the night ? ' 23.5% of the study
participants Have rented House, 2.9% Own House, 14.2% Government House-
paying for it and 29.4% Government House-camp. Can these women be
classified as 'Street Women?' Can the Author define clearly ' street women ' in
the body of the manuscript.
5) The conclusion from the Abstract and the conclusion from the main body of
the manuscript are at variance to each other.
Conclusion from Abstract: ' The contraceptive prevalence rate among street
women is low.'
Conclusion from Main Article: '' The contraceptive prevalence rate in this group of
women .........is satisfactory'.
Can the Author correct this.
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:Women in the Streets; their awareness and utilization of modern family
planning methods in Northwest Ethiopia
Version: 2Date:12 July 2012
Reviewer: Petrus Steyn
Reviewer's report:
I am happy that the suggested revisions have been adequatly addressed.
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:Women in the Streets; their awareness and utilization of modern family
planning methods in Northwest Ethiopia
Version: 2Date:13 July 2012
Reviewer: Vincent Boama
Reviewer's report:
The author has made satisfactory changes and corrections to the manuscript as
suggested in my initial review.
I agree with Reviewer 2 on the reference to a validated questionnare. I am not
entirely sure that the author can justify the use of the phrase 'validated
questionnare' in this manuscript. I think the use of the term ' a previously piloted
questionnare' would be correct since a simply piloted questionnare does not
make it a validated one.
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:Mammography-based screening program: preliminary results from a first,
2-year round in a Brazilian region using mobile and fixed units
Version: 1Date:24 June 2012
Reviewer: Cheng-Har Yip
Reviewer's report:
This paper describes mammographic screening in a middle income country,
showing that it is feasible. However the biopsy rate is very high with a 6 benign
biopsies to 1 malignant one. Since this is a first round of screening, it reflects the
relative inexperience of the radiologists reporting the mammogram. Over-biopsy
leads to increased cost, and generate anxiety in the women. There is no mention
in the manuscript whether double reporting is practiced.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Mammography-based screening program: preliminary results from a first,
2-year round in a Brazilian region using mobile and fixed units
Version: 2Date:1 September 2012
Reviewer: Alfonso Frigerio
Reviewer's report:
I read the revised version and comments from the Authors and believe they
adequately replied to the various revisions required.
There still remain some weaknesses concerning
* completeness of reported data (eg stage distribution according to age, ...),
* materials and methods description (eg, initially I did not fully realized - as I now
gather from the other Revisor - that women sent to biopsies were actually all
operated upon (which is a huge figure, as the other Revisor pointed out), I initially
considered they were sent to percutaneous needle procedures. In the light of
this, my fulfilled request of extra comments re the preliminary need for
specialized training of the Radiologists looks even more so appropriate.
[* in page 12, at the explanation of low participation,, paragraph (4) was dropped
in the text, please adjust.]
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:Social support for women of reproductive age and its predictors: A
population-based study
Version: 1Date:4 January 2012
Reviewer: XinQi Dong
Reviewer's report:
Major revision
Thank you for the opportunity to review this original manuscript. Authors describe
an important issue from a public health perspective. Despite the initial
enthusiasm, there were a number of issues that reduces the innovation and
significance of this manuscript.
Specific comments are:
1. Introduction should include more systematic analyses of specific mortality
associated with lower levels of social support.
2. Similar concern with the potential over simplification of determinants of
perceived social support reduced to a single sentence and single reference.
3. More background discussion on prior studies of social support in Iranian
populations
4. Multistage cluster sampling strategies needs to be much more detailed to the
reviewers.
5. Response rate for the study population and methods by which it was
determined should be included as well.
6. Please include description and analyses of received social support
7. Please explain with p<0.2 was used as cut for inclusion of the regression
model.
8. Please provide details on model assumption and model fit statistics.
9. Please provide perceived social support median, IQR for actual data, as well
as its specific dimensions.
10. Please explain why backward multiple linear regression was used.
11. Please provide more discussion in the background about Iranian cultural and
importance of the social support from that perspective.
12. Table 1 should have median and IQR
13. It is not clear from Table 3, which variables were in which models. Was the
regression specific to each of the construct? (ie, education only, using university
as reference, and no other covariates included in the analyses?) Were there
systematic approach to construct core model and then addition of potential
confounding factors to examine its relationships to the outcome of interest?
14. Interaction term analyses should be conducted to examine the relationship
between predictors of interest and outcome of interest, specifically relating to
socioeconomic variables of interest.
15. Authors should also construct z-scores to provide summary measures of SES
with respect to the social support outcomes.
16. Why were psychological variables not included in the description and
analyses?
17. Repeat analyses should be conducted for the specific dimensions of social
support measured.
18. Limitation section should be greatly expanded.
19. Cultural relevance of the study findings should be incorporated into the
contemporary society.
20. Practical and policy implications should be discussed.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
no
Reviewer's report
Title:Social support for women of reproductive age and its predictors: A
population-based study
Version: 1Date:22 March 2012
Reviewer: Kristina Orth-Gomer
Reviewer's report:
This interesting report about women in Teheran confirms – or at least supports –
the idea that good health is promoted by social support – whatever the cultural
and societal settings are like.
It is even suggested that support is synonomous with health.
Relating the key variables of social class to the social support dimensions of
”worth”, ”social integration”, ”intimacy”, ”nurturancec” and ”assistance” the
authors find that these women are in general strong in their self perceived
support yielding a sense of own worth , but weak in social integration.This means
that they feel respected and honored by family - but have small social networks.
The expected association between social support on the one hand and social
class indicators on the other, were in the same direction as in any Westernized
society:
the more financial resources one has, and the higher the educational level – the
more social support one receives. Whereas the directon of the support – SES
association is the same in Scandinavia, the gap between extremely low and
extremely high educaton seems much bigger in Iran: about 10 % of women are
illiterate but more than twice as many have a full academic education. To have
examined these women for social support must be seen - in itself - an
achievement.
The report is in general thoughtfully designed and clearly written.
There are a number of minor comments:
Authors are presenting their findings in women – as if they were about to
compare with - men. Unfortunately they dont. Instead they compare dimensons
in women to each other - high scores on worth are compared with low scores on
social integration. It is, however, theoretically problematic to compare the
magnitude of a score on a conceptual idea with the magnitude of the score on
another conceptual idea.
This should be further elaborated both in Methods and Discussion.
Their choice of social support method – among the many methods that have
been used – and documented - is not motivated. One motive could be that this
particular method has been frequently used in highly variable ethnic groups and
therefore offers possibilities for comparison across nations and populations. That
is another interesting line which is mentioned in the Discussion, but could be
further elaborated .
In summary this article is simple and straightforward and represents important
knowledge about young and middle aged reproductive women in Iran. It merits
publication - but needs to be further elaborated in the above mentioned aspects
of the Discussion.
Reviewer's report
Title:Social support for women of reproductive age and its predictors: A
population-based study
Version: 2Date:2 June 2012
Reviewer: XinQi Dong
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revision:
Authors have responded thoughtfully.
I could suggest the authors to hypothesize the potential mechanisms as to why
the lower levels of social engagement in social groups and its specific potential
impact on health and well-being, and how it is counterbalanced by the levels of
respects by others.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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 conflicts
Reviewer's report
Title:Social support for women of reproductive age and its predictors: A
population-based study
Version: 2Date:21 June 2012
Reviewer: Kristina Orth-Gomer
Reviewer's report:
My general view of the statistical issues is that they need to meet basic
standards of simplicity, clarity and transparency. The procedures need to be
correctly used and correctly described, so that the reader – and the authors -
understand how the work has been carried out.
The simpler the methods used the better is the transparency and smaller the
chances of hidden errors
I also think that it is unnecessary to analyze multiple psychological or
psycho-social variables along with social support. Many psychological
characterstics will interact with social support, but this is true for social and
medical characeristics as well.
E.g.depression is typically found to be strongly related to lack of social support,
but the issues of cause or effect are difficult to disentangle. In cross sectional
analyses. depression can be interpreted either as the result of - or as a predictor
of - social isolation.
And there are possible other psycho-social issues, such as low SES.which are
also strongly related to social support. Interestingly many European studies
(Sweden, Great Britain) find a similar relationship to the present one: low SES is
associated with poor social support.
General comment
This is a highly interesting study from a rarely described population and as such
it is an important report. Social supports have been intensively studied and
reported in the US and Western European populations. In these countries lack of
social supports are almost invariably found to be strong predictors of premature
mortality. Little is known, however, about the situation in Eastern countries, in
particular the middle East.
It therefore seems important to publish this ms - inspite of some lack of scientific
statistical sophistication. The authors seem to have performed adequate
analyses - but not described them in sufficient detail Some assistance with the
description of statistical issues may possibly improve the ms.
Assuming that special review competence for statistical procedures and for
concerns about originality of the ms. etc are available to the editorial office, I
conclude that this study merits publication
Reviewer's report
Title:Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A
non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
Version: 1Date:18 March 2012
Reviewer: Hesham Al-Inany
Reviewer's report:
I am confused about the authors' objectives: are they planning to have patient
preferences study, economic analysis study , observing adverse events or all
these will be included in the randomised trial. pls explain
Pls explain why to adopt the non inferiority design . there is no meaning of
"natural cycle is difficult to plan" as mentioned. we should look to which is more
superior
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:
no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A
non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
Version: 1Date:25 March 2012
Reviewer: Ariel Weissman
Reviewer's report:
Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial
(ANTARCTICA trial).
1. Is the question posed original, important and well defined?
The question raised by the study is a very important clinical issue, and a RCT on
this topic is extremely important and long awaited.
2. Are the data sound and well controlled?
Data are sound and well controlled.
3. Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported
by the data?
Conclusions should be valid and might be adapted by the ART community.
Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details
provided to allow others to evaluate and/or replicate the work?
Methods are appropriate and well described. One point which merits
consideration: in the NC-FET arm, patients might ovulate before or without
administration of hCG. According to the study protocol, these will be drop out.
But this is not necessarily the case. If ovulation is well timed retrospectively,
through serial blood tests and ultrasound scans, NC-FET can be carried out
successfully ( Weissman et al., Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Oct;23(4):484-9).
Furthermore, the use of hCG for triggering ovulation prior to NC-FET is
controversial and this point should be discussed (Fatemi et al., Fertil Steril. 2010
Nov;94(6):2054-8).
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methods?
Methods appear to be carefully built and are suitable for the aims of the study.
5. Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved?
No, it is well written and organized.
6. When revisions are requested.
Perhaps only regarding the remarks made above about spontaneous ovulation
without hCG in NC-FET arm, as well as mentioning the debate on the use of
hCG in this context.
7. Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise?
No problems with ethics or conflicts of interest
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A
non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)
Version: 2Date:16 May 2012
Reviewer: Ariel Weissman
Reviewer's report:
no revisions required
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:
no conflicts of interest of any kind
Reviewer's report
Title:Psychometric properties of the Confidence and Trust in Delivery
Questionnaire (CTDQ): A pilot study
Version: 2Date:26 September 2011
Reviewer: Albrecht Jahn
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The recruitment of women into the study is still unclear:
The revised version states: “318 women who attended the maternity ward were
consecutively invited by their midwive to participate in the study”.
Women attending a maternity ward are usually in-patients admitted for a specific
reason and thus a highly selected group. Woman attending an outpatient-unit
(Ambulanz) for routine antenatal care are a different group and according to the
comments to the reviews, it looks that these women were asked to participate
and not those in the ward. Women may also attend antenatal classes in a
hospital or for booking, only. In any case, it should be clarified, why women
asked to participate attended the hospital in the first place, as routine antenatal
care is usually provide in out-patient settings at private offices. Was there a
specific problem or reason for referral, or just routine care?
2. The folowwing first section of the part “study population” in the results should
be moved to the methodology.
…Study population
Of the 318 potential participants, 38 (11.9%) declined, 29 (9.1%) insufficiently
completed the questionnaires and 30 (9.4%) decided to give birth elsewhere. The
final sample included a 8 total of 221 from 318 women (69.5%) ……. There is
also a issue about why women who delivered in another hospital were excluded,
as the study does not refer to pregnancy outcome data or uses any data from
follow up visits.
Discretionary Revisions
Conclusion: With 4 clinically relevant dimensions, a satisfactory internal
consistency and first results on its external validity, the CTDQ is now open for
further studies in the field of labor.
.....would be better to use “ in the field of delivery care”
Minor Essential Revisions
The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures,
the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.
Discretionary 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: 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:Psychometric properties of the Confidence and Trust in Delivery
Questionnaire (CTDQ): A pilot study
Version: 3Date:14 February 2012
Reviewer: Albrecht Jahn
Reviewer's report:
The second revision has taken care of my concerns;
I have no major issues at this stage.
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:Comparing the Analgesic Effect of Heat Pach Containing Iron Chip and
Ibuprofen for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A randomized controlled trial
Version: 2Date:30 September 2011
Reviewer: Yutaka Osuga
Reviewer's report:
The authors tried to compare the analgesic effect of heat patch and ibuprofen for
primary dysmenorrhea. Despite the interesting aim, many flaws in the methods
and data analysis hampered their intent to get any conclusive results.
1. What kind of procedure was used for randomization?
2. It seems that the authors did not use placebos for ibuprofen and for heat
patch. Consequently, this is NOT a blind study and its quality is not so high.
3. Table 2 is confusing. Although the authors measured pain at 2,4,8,12,24 hours
of menstruation, those figures were not presented.
4. Discussion is too long. It should be concise enough to discuss matters directly
related to the result.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.