JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of the Female Suicidal Deaths Between 2005-2011 in Van City
of Turkey
Version:5Date:18 September 2014
Reviewer: Evan M. Kleiman
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the authors have responded adequately to my comments from the
previous version and I thank them for doing so. I have several lingering or new
concerns that are detailed below.
General Major Compulsory Revisions
I think the authors need to be careful with their conclusions—I can see that they
are passionate about reform for women’s rights and I agree that this is important.
But the results don’t necessarily justify such strong conclusions. The authors
seem to only focus on the findings that support their case while ignoring others.
For example, there is considerable attention drawn to the age and gender
differences here—they are important, but is not the only significant findings. The
results seem to suggest (I can’t tell fore sure as chi-squares are missing) that
many single women die by suicide as do many without children. So, it could
equally be interpreted that having a child is protective—this is an extreme
example, of course, but the important point here is to be careful to not allow
one’s personal beliefs to influence the results.
Relatedly, I take some concern to lines like “The high rate of childhood and
adolescent female suicides is caused by…” (p. 10, line 15). The authors should
stick to what was measured in the study and others they are referencing. “Cause”
has a specific connotation (e.g., mediation, etc.) and that’s not what was
assessed here. Cause may have been assessed in other studies, and if it has,
the authors should be more explicit about it.
More specific major
- Some English language editing is still needed in the paper.
- There are some missing chi-square values (see page 8, lines 7-14). These are
important to see, because the authors draw conclusions based on these
statistics.
Minor
- I see that the authors now point out that this is a descriptive study, but it might
be better to mention it also in the introduction somewhere. I usually expect to see
the basic description of the study in the intro rather than the first part of the
method section.
- Could the authors say what the SPSS 16 “packet program” is? I’m familiar with
the program, but not the packet part.
- I’d avoid putting “limitations” in the method section—it should probably go later
in the discussion
- There’s some repetition in the discussion (e.g., both of the first two paragraphs
start with female suicides being more common than male suicides)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:A Descriptive Study of Female Suicide Deaths Between 2005-2011 in Van
City of Turkey
Version:6Date:20 January 2015
Reviewer: Evan M. Kleiman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
None
Minor essential revisions:
p. 7, lines 25-27: I’m not sure if the authors mean in these lines as it’s hard to tell
what the specific chi-square comparisons are. The same is true with the other
places where chi-squares are reported (on page 8). Could the authors explain
what variables are involved in each chi-square test? Alternatively, the chi-square
statistics could be either added to or better associated with the tables.
Discretionary revisions:
I agree with the other reviewers in that some of the data (E.g., method) might be
unnecessary. The authors could trim these if needed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Biological factors that place women at risk for HIV: Evidence from a
large-scale clinical trial in Durban
Version:3Date:21 September 2015
Reviewer: Jamila Stockman
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1. Throughout the manuscript, there are minor grammatical errors. The
manuscript should be reviewed in great detail to correct these errors.
2. The authors state throughout the paper that, “the objective of this study is to
assess the risk of HIV acquisition in women who present with symptoms related
to damage of the mucosal linings” but this is not true. This statement implies that
the entire study population has these symptoms but how can this be if the
hypothesis is that “a higher rate of HIV seroconversions will be observed for
women who present with evidence of mucosal damage?”
3. In the introduction section, past and present tense is used when discussing the
literature review. Please be consistent.
4. Page 9, line 186 – It’s unclear what the authors mean by “a larger proportion”
with an estimate of 33%. This doesn’t seem like it’s a “larger proportion”.
5. Page 9, line 187 – Typo in that there is an extra “past” in the sentence.
6. Page 13, lines 275-277 – It’s unclear what the authors mean by “the
disappointing findings from the MIRA trial has limited the testing of this
hypotheses”. Specifically, what are these disappointing findings and how have
they limited the ability to test the hypothesis? Finally, what hypothesis is the
author are referring to?
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: 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:Biological factors that place women at risk for HIV: Evidence from a
large-scale clinical trial in Durban
Version:4Date:27 December 2015
Reviewer: Jamila Stockman
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Background
1) Page 4, lines 70-71: typo present. Please replace “that” with “at”.
Results
2) Page 9, lines 186-188: It’s still unclear why the word “most” has been replaced
with “larger proportion” to describe 33% of women reporting one lifetime sex
partner. Perhaps the authors should use the words, “Approximately one-third of
women….” It is a more accurate description than “most”.
Conclusion
3) Page 13, line 276: please edit “women’s” to “woman’s”.
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:Three-dimensional ultrasonography and power Doppler for discrimination
between benign and malignant endometrium in premenopausal women with
abnormal uterine bleeding
Version:3Date:7 September 2015
Reviewer: Daniel M Breitkopf
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. A rate of 10% for endometrial carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in a
population of premenopausal women seems higher than expected. Were these
patients selected based on certain characteristics for this study or were all
women who presented with abnormal uterine bleeding included? More detailed
description of the setting for the study and selection of subjects are needed.
2. How was endometrial sampling carried out?
3. Who examined the histopathologic samples and determined the final
diagnosis?
4. How was the target number of subjects determined? Was a power calculation
performed?
5. Third paragraph of the discussion: The authors state that the vascular index
(VI) was the best test at discriminating between benign and malignant
endometrium. Were there statistically significant differences in the area under the
curve between the various tests in Table 3?
6. The discussion should be expanded to include a paragraph on the limitations
of the current study (i.e. sample size, study population)
- Minor Essential Revisions
7. I am unable to fully assess the quality of the figures to due the low resolution
of the file supplied with the review. They do add to the manuscript and should be
retained if of sufficient quality for publication.
- Discretionary Revisions
8. The authors did not include data on hysteroscopic diagnosis compared to
pathologic diagnosis. Adding the data on the accuracy of the hysteroscopic
diagnoses might enhance the impact 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: 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:Three-dimensional ultrasonography and power Doppler for discrimination
between benign and malignant endometrium in premenopausal women with
abnormal uterine bleeding
Version:3Date:26 September 2015
Reviewer: Arthur Fleischer
Reviewer's report:
needs 3-5 more representative images
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:Three-dimensional ultrasonography and power Doppler for discrimination
between benign and malignant endometrium in premenopausal women with
abnormal uterine bleeding
Version:4Date:15 November 2015
Reviewer: Daniel M Breitkopf
Reviewer's report:
As best I can tell, the authors have not modified the manuscript in response to
the reviews except to add some figures. I would like to see the manuscript
revised to reflect the authors responses to the review.
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:Three-dimensional ultrasonography and power Doppler for discrimination
between benign and malignant endometrium in premenopausal women with
abnormal uterine bleeding
Version:5Date:8 January 2016
Reviewer: Daniel M Breitkopf
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the review comments in 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:Woman focused smoking cessation programming: a qualitative study
Version:2Date:16 June 2015
Reviewer: Shawn O'connor
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents a sound addition to the area of cessation programming
for women. By using a qualitative approach, the authors are able to capture the
nuances of the lived experience of women in treatment (former and current).
The authors present a cogent argument for refined program structure
components, which will be of interest to the field. The authors also underscore
several research directions arising out of their finding including the impact of an
extended course of NRT and of women-centred communications and interactions
on quit rates.
Discretionary Revisions
1) In the Methods section, Analysis sub-section, the authors mention that coding
discrepancies "were discussed and consensus was achieved." Given the study
employed two coders, was there any inter-rater reliability measures used to
assess agreement or was consensus the focus?
2) I note that 4 focus groups were used. Further, each extract quotation in
Results is labelled FG1, FG2, FG3, or FG4. It may aid the reader if this acronym
was explained/used in the Methods section (or Results), when introducing the
idea of focus groups.
Minor issues not for publication:
- I note that there are several compound adjectives that could use a hyphen to
aid readability.
- References: I note that in some references with a colon ":" a capital is used
after the colon whereas in other instances, lowercase is used.
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:Woman focused smoking cessation programming: a qualitative study
Version:2Date:20 July 2015
Reviewer: Nancy Poole
Reviewer's report:
Please see attached document for explanation of 2 compulsory revisions to make
this article more of a contribution to the field.
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:
I declare I have not competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Woman focused smoking cessation programming: a qualitative study
Version:2Date:30 November 2015
Reviewer: Freda Patterson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Please include Ken Perkins' s work on the pharmacological versus.
non-pharmacological reinforcing value of nicotine in the introduction and
discussion of this study
2. Please add the following to the methods:
(i) A more detailed description of the preparation and conduct of the focus groups
is needed. For example, describe the process for audiotaping and transcription.
What quality control methods were used to ensure the accuracy of the
transcription?
(ii) A theoretical framework used to guide the focus group questions and an
explanation of how the questions were gender specific.
(iii) Justification that a sample size of 23 is sufficient to achieve saturation is
needed.
3. In the limitations section, please consider the limited capacity for this study to
achieve saturation with only 23 participants.
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:Woman focused smoking cessation programming: a qualitative study
Version:3Date:8 February 2016
Reviewer: Nancy Poole
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made the necessary edits and additions to the article based on
my previous review, and I see the article as more helpful to the reader in
understanding sex and gender influences, and in understanding both their
choices in offering programs and women's choices within the smoking cessation
programming parameters.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Woman focused smoking cessation programming: a qualitative study
Version:3Date:20 January 2016
Reviewer: Freda Patterson
Reviewer's report:
There are no further recommendations. This manuscript is publishable as is.
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 interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and its associated factors in
Abay Chomen Woreda, Oromia region, western Ethiopia: Community based
Study ,June 2014.
Version:4Date:6 September 2015
Reviewer: Nega Assefa
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor:
Thank you very much for inviting me to review an article entitled “Intimate partner
violence during pregnancy and its associated factors in Abay 2 Chomen Woreda,
Western Ethiopia: Community based study”. Intimate partner violence is a
common phenomenon in the Ethiopian setting. The outcomes are very serious
when the victim is pregnant. Hence, the work is commendable. The details of my
comments are put in the attachment file using sticker note and yellow highlight on
the pdf version of the manuscript. Please reefer to it for the detailed observation.
Some of the major compulsory and specific points are indicated below.
Major compulsory:
1. Must make distinction between life time violence and life time during
pregnancy violence and violence during the most recent pregnancy. Which one is
your focus? Once decided it should be followed the whole of the document.
2. Look back into your data; because some of the associations are illogical like
(women who has illiterate husband tends to sustain less violence compared to
women who have literate husband)
3. Look into the documents construction of sentences and flow of ideas.
Specific comments:
1. The word woreda is not known internationally, hence use district throughout
the document.
2. The justification of the study is not clearly indicated. It should shade light on
the need for conducting this study.
3. Ethical issues are not adequately addressed. What has been done, if you have
followed the WHO standard of handling ethical issues during violence study was
not mentioned. What kinds of incidents happened, how incidents managed did,
etc should be clearly indicated.
Good luck
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Perceived barriers and benefits of exercise are improved with lifestyle
modification in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a
randomised controlled trial
Version:2Date:22 April 2015
Reviewer: Donna R Chizen
Reviewer's report:
see attached word document
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:Perceived barriers and benefits of exercise are improved with lifestyle
modification in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a
randomised controlled trial
Version:2Date:25 June 2015
Reviewer: Bee Kang K Tan
Reviewer's report:
Well written, interesting article.
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:Perceived barriers and benefits of exercise are improved with lifestyle
modification in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a
randomised controlled trial
Version:2Date:27 October 2015
Reviewer: Binod Neupane
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study, focused on the overweight and obese women with
PCOS who would benefit from reducing weight. Authors did a pretty good job
describing the data.
My main concern is that the intervention group sizes were quite small, therefore
the findings from this study are less reliable and difficult to interpret. For example,
Table 1 shows that all 3 intervention groups were able to significantly lose weight
after 20 weeks. But, it also shows that adding combined aerobic and resistant
components on the energy restricted diet did not have any perceived or real
benefit over diet only intervention, perhaps a questionable finding. If such
patients are under watch (in a control group), they would have lost some weight
in over 4 months period as author hinted. Authors had tried to come up with
different explanations of why such "unexpected results" (in authors words) or
other unexpected/expected results were seen; but such findings are likely to be
observed also due to small group sizes (although p-values were quite
impressive, false negative or false positive findings are quite possible from very
small data sets as shift from the truth caused by random error or chance can be
quite large sometimes). Therefore it is hard to conclude from these findings about
whether these interventions offer any benefit and if so which one does the most
unless more data are accumulated from larger studies. I suggest authors to
clearly acknowledge the small sample size issue in their discussion section.
A minor question: What does it mean by saying "When there was a significant
main effect (treatment by time interaction)..." in Data Analysis section? When
interaction analysis is performed, we generally look at whether interaction term
(not the main effect term) is significant, and the analysis model, interpretation of
the finding, or the further exploration may be all dependent on whether or not the
interaction effect is significant. Next, interaction analysis is not reliable (ie.,
further actions should not be based on whether a term was significant or not,
better to apriori decide) when the sample size is quite small.
Another suggestion for minor changes: I personally do not like "+-" symbol
between mean and SD. This mathematical operators have certain meaning (ie,
mean - SD, mean + SD), and therefore writing this way is mathematically
incorrect. Perhaps authors could choose to present the findings in "mean (SD)"
format.
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:Perceived exercise barriers are reduced and benefits are improved with
lifestyle modification in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary
syndrome: a randomised controlled trial
Version:3Date:10 December 2015
Reviewer: Binod Neupane
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Authors presented the results for continuous data in "mean(SD)" format for most
places in text and tables, but they forgot to make changes for Perceived Barriers
Subscales variables in Week 0 in Table 2. Need those changes.
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