JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Assessment of leukemia inhibitory factor and glycoprotein 130 expression
in endometrium and uterine flushing: a possible diagnostic tool for impaired
fertility
Version: 6Date:7 October 2011
Reviewer: Amolak Bansal
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions only.
The amended report while better remains full of spelling and grammatical errors.
The gels are pretty much the same. The introduction is improved and better
states the reasons for the work. Reading between the lines the work is worthy of
publication but I would suggest that the authors are given help in making the
report more easily understood eg the coagulated fallopian tubes on the top of
page 4 should read the fallopian tubes now occluded by the inflated catheter
balloon. Additionally, the comment on the bottom of page 6 ‘These results are not
conflicting with the observation by Ledee-Bataille et
al., [23] who showed an inverse correlation between uterine flushing LIF
concentration and the likelihood of successful implantation,’ is incorrect and
should be appropriately modified taking into account what is said in the next line.
I wish I had the time to rewrite the report but with help from BMC I’m sure this
possible. I think the report should be published once this has been achieved.
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:Assessment of leukemia inhibitory factor and glycoprotein 130 expression
in endometrium and uterine flushing: a possible diagnostic tool for impaired
fertility
Version: 6Date:18 October 2011
Reviewer: Evdokia Dimitriadis
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Treatment of endometriosis in different ethnic populations: a meta-analysis
of two clinical trials
Version: 1Date:14 March 2012
Reviewer: Felice Petraglia
Reviewer's report:
1. Improve discussion (discretionary revision)
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:Prevalence of IUCD discontinuation and its associated factors: Findings
from a retrospective study with clients of a social franchising network in Pakistan.
Version: 2Date:11 January 2012
Reviewer: Sara Husain
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Methods: Calculation of sample size has not been discussed. This needs to be
addressed clearly stating the assumptions made.
2. Results:A comparison between users and non-users of IUCD is necessary to
compare how the groups are different and identify socio-economic factors which
may influence decision making.
3. Conclusion: Strengthening the counselling component is an excellent policy
option and needs to be better explained with emphasis on existing FP programs
in the country and how these may use the results of the study and build on
counselling skills of healthcare providers. Also, experience of other countries
which have built on counselling services should be added as supportive
evidence.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract: There is no rationale for the conduct of the study. Mentioned in
Methods as “high discontinuation rates” but there is no supporting evidence
indicating exactly how high the discontinuation rate is for IUCDs versus other
contraceptive methods.
Duration of the study is not mentioned.
2. Background:
Para 2: There is no data to prove the “effectiveness” of IUCDs and why countries
should “renew interest in the method”
3. Context:
Table 1: Table title should suggest content of the table. Also reconsider
information being shown in the table. The same in narrative form in preceding
text would be more useful in building a case for contraception need.
4. Rationale:
Para 1: The partnership model is being referred to by different names “MSS
Private Provider network”, “PPP/Suraj network”. These need to be addressed
uniformly throughout the article.
Para 1: Various acronyms FWM, PSPs are used without any explanations.
5. Results:
Para 1: There is no comment on the rising trend of IUCD removal over time and
no attempt to explain this trend. This needs to be explored to understand why
discontinuation continues to rise over time.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Sampling:
Para 1: What is meant by “healthy client flow?”
2. Discussion:
Pare 1: “The method is popular in a group with no formal education”. This is to be
expected in rural areas where the Suraj programme is focused. This sentence
needs to be re-phrased, as it would be more meaningful if it was an urban
setting.
If education status is of interest, education levels between continued users and
those who discontinued IUCDs should be compared instead.
Para 3: How does a similar discontinuation rate among voucher users and paying
clients indicate a “strong voucher distribution mechanism”?
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:Prevalence of IUCD discontinuation and its associated factors: Findings
from a retrospective study with clients of a social franchising network in Pakistan.
Version: 3Date:6 March 2012
Reviewer: Sara Husain
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
The author has adequately answered queries raised in compulsory revisions
Minor Essential Revisions
The author has addressed all suggested minor revisions
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:Prevalence of IUCD discontinuation and its associated factors: Findings
from a retrospective study with clients of a social franchising network in Pakistan.
Version: 3Date:16 March 2012
Reviewer: Ajmal Agha
Reviewer's report:
The authors have comprehensively addressed the major and minor issues
identified in the last correspondence.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Socioeconomic conditions and number of pain sites in women
Version: 2Date:31 January 2012
Reviewer: Haitze Janko de Vries
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors replied to most comments satisfactory, however, I still have a
major concern with the study population(s). I maintain that two research
questions interfere with each other:
a) what is the association between socioeconomic conditions and NPS in
women?
b) is being a gynecological cancer survivor related to more NPS?
These two questions should be answered in two different studies.
-Question 1 can be answered with the General population group (n=493). The
493 subjects in the General population group are reasonably equal distributed
(table 3: 19.7% quartile 1; 24.3% quartile 2; 26.6% quartile 3; 29.4% quartile 4),
so there appear to be sufficient subjects in each category of Socioeconomic
conditions. Without including the Gynecological cancer survivors group, still the
whole range of socioeconomic status is available.
- Question 2 can be answered with the Gynecological cancer survivors group
(n=160) with the General population group (n=493) as control group.
The aim of the study under review was to explore the relationship between
socioeconomic conditions and NPS in women. To investigate this goal, no group
of cancer survivors is needed, but a random selection from the population.
I fully agree with the authors that information on gynecological cancer
survivorship not being associated with NPS is important information for clinicians
and their patients. But that was not the aim of this study. Including the
Gynecological cancer survivors entails a potential bias in answering the question
“what is the association between socioeconomic conditions and NPS in women”.
In ref. 18 (Rannestad & Skjeldestad, 2007) was described in the discussion: “we
found pain to be associated with low income and a history of gynecological
cancer, …”. This raises some doubt about being both groups identical concerning
pain related variables.
In my opinion, in the present study under review, the authors should only use the
General population (n=493). Probably, the results will be the same, but the
credibility of the study will increase.
2. The NPS in the Gyn. cancer survivor group and the General population is not
transparent. In table 2 the authors should have presented the percentages of
NPS in both groups, with p-value.
Discretionary Revisions
Methods, socioeconomic condition, last sentence: change “average to poor” #
poor to average
The authors could consider to use a paper of Miranda et al. (Musculoskeletal
pain at multiple sites and its effects on work ability in a general working
population. Occup Environ Med, 2009) as reference.
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:Prevalence, Symptoms and Management of Uterine Fibroids: an
international internet-based survey of 21,746 women
Version: 1Date:16 November 2011
Reviewer: bruce mclucas
Reviewer's report:
needs discussion of prevelence of myomata with other papers, include a graph.
discuss more of bias of respondants. otherwise ok
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence, Symptoms and Management of Uterine Fibroids: an
international internet-based survey of 21,746 women
Version: 1Date:19 January 2012
Reviewer: Dimitrios Mavrelos
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this interesting article. Please find below my
comments.
Minor essential revisions
Page 2 Methods “...had ever experienced menstrual cycles.” This is unclear
Page 10 Bleeding symptoms “...prolonged bleedings, which 37.3%...” no p value
is included here, was this difference significant
Page 10 “...just every 24 days...” same comment
Page 10 “...there was only slightly higher...” this sentence should be changed, it
is unclear what is meant
Page 11 – 13 95% confidence intervals should be included
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:Prevalence, Symptoms and Management of Uterine Fibroids: an
international internet-based survey of 21,746 women
Version: 1Date:25 January 2012
Reviewer: James Segars
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript by Zimmerman et al. describes the self-reported survey results
for 21,000 women from 8 countries regarding uterine fibroids, symptoms, and
treatments for women aged 15-49 years (except 18-49 years in the US). Results
are analyzed using descriptive statistics, and by presence or absence of
self-reported presence of uterine fibroids. There are many interesting
observations, including the roughly 2 fold increase in heavy menstrual bleeding
and pain in women with self-reported presence of uterine fibroids, compared to
women without. Also unique are the incidences across different countries, as well
as treatment choice, by country. The manuscript is clearly written, the results
believable, and the findings represent a contribution to the field of fibroid
research. The authors cover the relevant elements in the discussion that puts the
work in proper perspective.
Comment: This is a manuscript that is almost certain to be cited, and it
represents an important body of work. Strengths include the large number of
well-characterized respondents, the application of the questionnaire across 8
countries, the design (internet-based) and inclusion of data on treatment and
outcomes in one data set. Obviously, the weakness is that the disease is
self-reported, but that is a minor weakness and should not undermine the
importance of this work.
Minor essential revisions:
1. Figure 2 lacks a label on the y-axis.
2. Tables 3, 4, and 5 include a P-value. Please consider listing the test used
below each table, denoted by an asterisk, or similar for convenience of the
reader.
3. In almost all instances the English grammar is excellent, but there are a few
instances that could use revision. For instance, the term “data” is plural, therefore
on page 4, 4th and 5th sentence should be changed to “The available data
are…”, etc.
Discretionary Revisions:
Was race included on the questionnaires? If so, including the information would
be of interest, given the association of race and ethnicity in the US with uterine
fibroids.
Level of interest: An exceptional article
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:
No competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Are quit attempts among U.S. female nurses who smoke different from
female smokers in the general population? An analysis of the 2006/2007
Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey
Version: 2Date:18 February 2012
Reviewer: Tellervo Korhonen
Reviewer's report:
I have checked the revision and otherwise OK but still in the abstract there is an
error:
The link between lower level of nicotine dependence, as reflected by the longer
time to first cigarette, and lower quit attempts among nurses needs further
exploration.
Correct:
The link between lower level of nicotine dependence, as reflected by the longer
time to first cigarette, and lower FREQUENCY OF quit attempts among nurses
needs further exploration
Reviewer's report
Title:Are quit attempts among U.S. female nurses who smoke different from
female smokers in the general population? An analysis of the 2006/2007
Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey
Version: 2Date:19 February 2012
Reviewer: Alicja Sieminska
Reviewer's report:
The authors have largely addressed the concerns raised in the previous round of
reviewing, and the manuscript reads considerably better as a result.
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:Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Emergency Contraceptive among
Women who Seek Abortion Care at Jimma University Specialized Hospital
Southwest Ethiopia
Version: 1Date:19 November 2011
Reviewer: Annsofie Adolfsson
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes. It is an important paper and the conclusion is important. But the number of
other references and the number of included is small. Therefore I supposed that
this is a short report.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes
3. Are the data sound?
In the study it was 89 women included in the study and only six with previous
experiences of abortion. I don’t lie to say 2 women were equal with 22%. Don’t
use percent when the numbers of participants are less than one hundred.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
It is still a lot of losses in the writing and the manuscript. Some points are showed
in the PFD returned from me.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Need clarification of accessible.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
The manuscript is in need of revision and edition, some point is marked yellow in
the manuscript.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Emergency Contraceptive among
Women who Seek Abortion Care at Jimma University Specialized Hospital
Southwest Ethiopia
Version: 1Date:12 December 2011
Reviewer: samuel O Obi
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for asking me to review the above mentioned manuscript. Below are my
comments.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISION
BACKGROUND:
1. The author should provide information on abortion laws in Ethiopia. Can
women obtain abortion services on demand?
2. You emphasized that only individuals who are above 17 years could purchase
the EC pills. Don’t you think that this will influence the knowledge, attitude and
practice of EC by the adolescent girls less than 17 years in this study?
METHODS:
1. Providing information on the monthly or yearly gynaecological admissions and
what percentages are abortion cases will help readers appreciate the percentage
of the admissions are due to abortion.
2. A study period of 7 weeks is too short more so when only 89 cases of
abortions were reviewed. I suggest extending the study period to at least one
year.
3. Were all the women seen within the period interviewed? Or are those who
could not be interviewed because of logistics like death, refusal etc.
4. What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria?
5. Was the structured questionnaire pre tested? If yes what was the sensitivity
and specificity?
6. In what language were the illiterate respondents in the study interviewed?
Don’t you think the translation of the questionnaire into local language could
influence the responses?
7. In your definition of Practice, the emphasis is on ‘trend of use of EC among
students’ Is the questionnaire addressed to students only?
RESULTS:
1. Conflicting figures for the number and percentage of women that became
pregnant at <18 years for the first time {44 (49.5%) in result section and 48
(48.5%) in discussion section}.
2. Are the pregnancy referred to above ‘wanted’ or ‘unwanted’
DISCUSSION:
1. Too many repetitions of findings already highlighted in the result section.
2. Most of the references quoted in the test did not correspond with the
numbering in the reference section
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Emergency Contraceptive among
Women who Seek Abortion Care at Jimma University Specialized Hospital
Southwest Ethiopia
Version: 2Date:4 February 2012
Reviewer: Annsofie Adolfsson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
all table and figure refered in the text and how´many abortion were performed at
the clinic during the study period as the number in the results was smal.
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' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Emergency Contraceptive among
Women who Seek Abortion Care at Jimma University Specialized Hospital
Southwest Ethiopia
Version: 2Date:11 February 2012
Reviewer: samuel O Obi
Reviewer's report:
Having reviewed the above manuscript for the second time, I think the authors
has addressed most of the issues raised earlier. However, I am still worried
about the number of respondents (89) in the study and the period of the study (7
weeks). The topic is not a rare one so I still insist that the study should be
extended for at least 1 year to remove selection bias and so that information
obtained could be generalized to larger population of Ethiopian people.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Fibroid explants reveal a higher sensitivity against MDM2 inhibitor nutlin-3
than matching myometrium
Version: 1Date:17 February 2011
Reviewer: Gokce Toruner
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?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes, but my only concern is not being able to see MDM2 levels on those tissues.
Granted, it was shown previously that p14 has an impact on MDM2-p53 cycle
and a known MDM2 inhibitor, Nutlin 3, causes increases levels of p53, which in
turn causes increased level of Bax and p21 and therefore the model makes
sense. But lack of data about expression of MDM2 (RNA or protein level)on
these tumor is a serious limitation. I would like to see IHC or RT-PCR data on
MDM2 levels in leiomyoma compared to match normals.
In my opinion, if there are no significant changes of MDM2 levels in those
tumors, it will not be a basis of rejection of the paper, but it will make a better
science and an intriguing discussion. Obviously if there are changes in the
MDM2 levels, then these findings will make the argument stronger.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
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.