JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Perceptions of Iranian women with polycystic ovary syndrome about -health
related quality of life issues: A qualitative study
Version:5Date:20 July 2015
Reviewer: Mandika Wijeyaratne
Reviewer's report:
after detailed re-reading of the manuscript revised as per comments by someone
else
a) There is no originality of the issue addressed as a research article
b) but has importance with relevance to managing affected women in a strict
Muslim society
c) the selection process of the women appears to be biased that affects its
conclusion
Reviewer's report
Title:Perceptions of Iranian women with polycystic ovary syndrome about -health
related quality of life issues: A qualitative study
Version:5Date:30 September 2015
Reviewer: Olga B A van den Akker
Reviewer's report:
see attached
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Exploratory randomized controlled trial of a group psychological intervention
for Postnatal Depression in British mothers of South Asian origin - A post
intervention qualitative study
Version:3Date:12 February 2015
Reviewer: Vivienne Hanley
Reviewer's report:
This was an interesting paper which adds to the body of knowledge on this under
researched area. It would have been interesting to have had a more in-depth
discussion about the attitudes of the mothers to postnatal depression, as it was
interesting to read that some husbands remain reticent about their wives
receiving ‘treatment’. It is believed that some health workers find it difficult to
access the mothers (as outlined in the paper) and although the paper recognises
that the therapists were culturally sensitive and were able to overcome linguistic
barriers, this would pose a problem for the wider community of health workers.
This paper might have added to that knowledge base, particularly as the mothers
found the interventions so empowering.
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 decalre that i have not competing interests below
Reviewer's report
Title:Treatment of Provoked Vulvodynia in a Swedish cohort using
desensitization exercises and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Version:2Date:20 May 2015
Reviewer: Bradford Fenton
Reviewer's report:
Review: Treatment of Provoked Vulvodynia in a Swedish cohort using
desensitization exercises and 2 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions.
This is a well done study of a CBT approach to treating provoked vestibulodynia.
The study population was well defined. A power analysis was done. Appropriate
pre and post-treatment measures were used. Statistical comparisons were
appropriate. Conclusions were appropriate. Strengths and weaknesses were
discussed.
Required changes:
The main problem with the manuscript as written is that there are multiple
statistical comparisons on the same groups. This represents multiple ‘rolls of the
dice’ and weakens the statistical power of the results. To adjust for this requires a
Bonferroni correction to the minimum P value considered to be significant. The
authors will need to either recalculate the minimum P value using a Bonferroni
adjustment, sum the scores of their outcome measure to make it into a single
statistic, or identify a primary and then secondary outcome measures.
The patient population seems to break down into two groups: those with and
without a partner. The data tables should be similarly divided, since a patient
without a partner should have a significantly different motivation (and capability)
than one without.
Line 264: ‘A p-value of #0.05 was assumed to be significant’. ‘Assumed’ is the
wrong word. ‘Considered to be significant’ is more accurate.
Line 329. Grounded Theory: this topic is not introduced or discussed elsewhere.
A better discussion of this topic is required.
Reviewer's report
Title:Treatment of Provoked Vulvodynia in a Swedish cohort using
desensitization exercises and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Version:2Date:24 July 2015
Reviewer: Paul Yong
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions: None
Minor essential revisions:
1) Page 4: Need to indicate why Wilcoxon rank test was used for MFSQ, but
paired sample t-test used for HADS. Was it because of non-normality?
2) Page 7: For treatment, need to state explicitly whether partner attended
sessions (as implied in Discussion). Also, state whether a single therapist did the
CBT as well as the vaginal exams and desensitization exercises (as implied
Discussion).
3) Page 8-9: Need few more details on the densensitization exercises.
4) In Discussion, should note that Education was part of the treatment, not just
CBT and densensitization.
Discretionary revisions:
1) Page 13: Could explain more about "Grounded theory".
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:The contribution of online content to the promotion and normalisation of
female genital cosmetic surgery: A systematic review of the literature
Version:2Date:7 September 2015
Reviewer: Michele MANAHAN
Reviewer's report:
Overall this manuscript does a successful job of attempting to
scientifically approach a topic which might be considered difficult to
characterize. The authors report findings of interest, and they provide
sufficient description of their methods to allow readers to determine
for themselves the merit of the authors' discussion and conclusions.
The topic is very timely and will likely increase in relevance as
procedures in this area continue to increase in frequency.
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:The contribution of online content to the promotion and normalisation of
female genital cosmetic surgery: A systematic review of the literature
Version:2Date:19 October 2015
Reviewer: Els Leye
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary revisions
I believe this paper is of great interest, it is well written and based on sound
methodology. I have only minor comments.
A first remark: it might have contributed to the value of the paper if also French
literature was included
Second comment: I'm wondering what the relevance is of mentioning the paper
from Ashong and Batta, as being from a Nigerian standpoint? This is not
mentioned for the other countries; could the authors be more specific why
emphasis is put on including a paper of limited quality, because it is from an
African perspective? Is it because of the parallels between FGCS and FGM?
Line 22: Europe appears here as a 'country' among the others, but maybe that is
how it was put in the original paper? Does the paper mention what countries are
included in 'Europe'?
Lines 12 and 13, page 7: would it be possible to rephrase and state that two
studies were included from the Netherlands, two from UK and one from
Australia?
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:Living with constant leaking of urine and odour: Thematic analysis of
socio-cultural experiences of women affected by obstetric fistula in rural
Tanzania
Version:5Date:12 September 2015
Reviewer: Lewis Wall
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions: None
Minor essential revisions: None
Discretionary revisions:
1. The authors reference a fistula surgery "success rate" of over 90%; while this
can be achieved, it is rarely done. The authors imply this is the usual rate of
success; Fistula cases that are "closed and dry" usually do not exceed 75% -
8-%
2. The authors imply that there are 225 fistula surgeons in Tanzania, which would
be more than enough meet surgical needs IF: 1) those surgeons were all experts
trained to FIGO expert status, which they are not; and 2) if the medical
infrastructure were able to support them. In fact, to reach FIGO expert status a
single surgeon would have to do the case load performed at CCBRT. There are
not nearly enough expert fistula surgeons in Tanzania, and they are not
supported by the "body politic" in the way that they should be to meet the clinical
needs of the people of Tanzania. The paper would be stronger if they rewrote it
to emphasize such points.
3. I very much like the “three bodies” imagery, but in my view the authors do not
take this far enough. The deal extensively with the first and second bodies, but
start to "lose steam" when they approach the critical "third body," which is the
Body Politic. The Tanzanian “body politic” needs to make maternal health a
major priority. Only when maternal mortality and morbidity are taken seriously at
the national level will this problem be solved. The authors rightly point out that
this problem exists primarily because women in obstructed labor cannot get
timely and effective obstetric care. They need to focus their paper on making this
point more explicitly, for it is only when local activists like them arouse enough
support that the problem will really be solved.
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 have no competing interests with respect to this paper.
Reviewer's report
Title:Perception and satisfaction of cervical cancer screening via Visual
Inspection with Acetic acid (VIA) at Meknes-Tafilalet Region, Morocco: a
population-based cross-sectional study
Version:6Date:13 April 2015
Reviewer: Sabine van den Akker
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1) Spelling: many words are incorrectly written as one word, please split these
apart.
E.g.: Background, second paragraph: usedas, arethose
2) In the final paragraph of the Discussion, the authors included some
reservations regarding generalization of their results. It is advised to add a
comment about the selection of patients (i.e. women already attending a health
center) which makes generalization to the general population problematic.
Discretionary Revisions:
3) It would be of interest to include the participation rate in cervical cancer
screening in Morocco (or in the regions where this is carried out) in the
Background section.
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:Perception and satisfaction of cervical cancer screening via Visual
Inspection with Acetic acid (VIA) at Meknes-Tafilalet Region, Morocco: a
population-based cross-sectional study
Version:6Date:24 October 2015
Reviewer: partha basu
Reviewer's report:
A well designed study to assess the perceptions of the women about cervical
cancer screening and their acceptance of the VIA screening.
Few minor essential revisions are required:
The mean age of the 18 women who refused should be provided
Line 114: Change 'mode of transmission of cervical cancer' to cause of cervical
cancer or something more appropriate
Line 119: 84.5% women knew of the program. The authors have mentioned
subsequently that 69.3% had no or little information of the program. This is
contradictory and should be corrected
It will be interesting to know how many of the women attended the health centres
for VIA test and how many for other reasons
Line 176: The women who refused to get screening due to menstruation should
also be included in the total refusal
No nationwide campaign. How did 85.4% women get the information on TV?
Needs clarification
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:Developing a gender-based approach to chronic conditions and women's
health: a qualitative investigation of community-dwelling women and service
provider perspectives
Version:3Date:21 August 2015
Reviewer: Ingrid Hellstrom
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for being trusted to review this paper once more. It is an interesting
study. The authors have answered my earlier comments sufficiently in this
version and I recommend publication. I have no further points that needs to be
addressed.
Minor Essential Revisions: I have just noted a additional capital letter in reference
#10 in References "MEdical" I suppose it should be Medical.
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:Cross-sectional and longitudinal risk of physical impairment in a cohort of
postmenopausal women who experience physical and verbal abuse
Version:1Date:14 May 2015
Reviewer: Nancy Glass
Reviewer's report:
Research topic is Important public health and women’s health issue,
understudied group of abused women (post-menopausal).
Overall Concerns: The research questions are limited by the use of WHI and the
very simplistic questions on violence against women. The analysis and findings
do little to advance our knowledge on health outcomes among older women.
There is already significant information on the health, economic and social
consequences of violence against women. The authors need to clearly state how
this research advances evidence. In my opinion, for this manuscript to be
published, greater attention on clinical, policy and research implications is
needed. Specifically, perhaps linking the findings Affordable Care Act (ACA)
requirements for preventive care and screening/brief counseling for IPV and
sexual violence.
Major issues:
The terminology used in the manuscript is “sloppy” at best. There are
well-established definitions for verbal abuse, psychological abuse, sexual and
physical violence (see Saltzman, CDC). The use of the terms such as
maltreatment and intimate partner conflict are confusing to this reviewer. The
focus is on abuse and violence of post-menopausal women (define age early on)
– be specific and consistent with language.
The two questions asked in the WHI are broad: Verbal abuse in past year by
family member or close friend. Physical violence in past year by family member
or close friend. Given the broad questions, the manuscript would be
strengthened by focusing more attention on the literature examining the diverse
types of abuse and violence women experience and the potential
perpetrators/locations. There may be very different consequences of the
abuse/violence if it is a caregiver vs. husband/wife for example.
I understand that sexual violence was not asked in the WHI, however, given the
prevalence of sexual violence in women's lives – it is important to note this as a
limitation in the study.
As written, the discussion does little to identify the implications of this research
for clinical practice, policies and future research. The discussion should be linked
with ongoing efforts in health care settings to improve care to survivors of abuse
and violence.
The manuscript needs significant editing as it is challenging to read in parts.
Especially, the results sections, the narrative should be a summary with the
tables providing the details. Further, the methods and the multiple samples used
for the study analysis could be more clearly stated and supported by the figure.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:The Effect of Abortion on Likelihood of Having and Achieving Aspirational
One-Year Plans
Version:2Date:31 August 2015
Reviewer: Frances Doran
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
The reference to Krkman et al (1) needs to be clarified somewhat. The sentence
starting line 92 "A review of the literature" leads to the reader to think that it was
the author's review of the literature when it is a lit review conducted by Kirkman
et al - I would suggest the background information could include a more
comprehensive overview of the studies reviewed.
It was a little hard to glean the main points within the results section. Perhaps
additional minor headings would help.
Re:the aspirational plans that were achieved it would be interesting to note which
areas saw the main achievements (.eg continuing with education)
The conclusion introduces a new point about perceived links to abortion, equal
employment and financial stability and the subsequent reference is missing
information. These are obviously important links/ assumptions. The background
information / literature review I would suggest would be strengthened with some
attention to these assumptions and therefore, why this study is so important. It
needs to be more than a significant point introduced in the second last
paragraph.
Figure 2
writing on the left side of the table needs editing - % of one-year pans
It overlaps with the numbers (0 5 10 15....30)
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:
Nil conflicts of competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The Effect of Abortion on Likelihood of Having and Achieving Aspirational
One-Year Plans
Version:2Date:5 September 2015
Reviewer: Vinoj Manning
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1) Background. Para 5 (127-129)
The paper states that this methodology avoids the weakness of earlier studies as
women undergoing abortions may be systematically different. However the same
bias may be present in the current methodology also as women seeking late term
abortions and therefore the turnaway cohort could be systematically different to
the early seekers of abortion care.
I suggest changing this in the background and also mentioning this as a limitation
of the study
Discussion Para 2 (373)
It was not clear to me from the data presented on the scaling down of
aspirational plans by the turnaway cohort. Therefore this assertion needs further
clarification or specified in the results section.
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of a risk prediction tool for coronary heart disease in middle-aged
women
Version:1Date:27 January 2015
Reviewer: Elizabeth Barrett-Connor
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report:
Interesting, well-written study of 55,802 Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) women
47-74 years of age at baseline; all participants’ height and weight [which is
BMI—a major CHD risk factor] were self-reported, but a limitation of using
self-reported data is that women famously underreport their weight . . .
Discussion Paragraph 4 addresses the misclassification danger of self-reports
but cites 2 refs showing self-reported data [on weight, height, waist
circumference, physical activity, and dietary factors] are valid in this cohort. This
issue should be addressed more in Discussion section and the self-report aspect
of the data emphasized in Introduction and Methods sections . . .
-----------------
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. provide more information on the source of the self-reported data (NHS) and
the potential impact of using nurses as the study subjects. Is there a difference
when studying diet and exercise between a population of nurses vs. a general
U.S. population? What are the implications of the differences?
2. CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the largest
referent U.S. data set but is entirely telephone-based. So how reliable are the
data?
3. Another limitation that is not adequately addressed: Why hasn’t the NHS
updated diet risk factors over time? There have been very large changes in
lifestyle and diet since 1990--not addressed until the last line of the Discussion
section. Puzzling why authors do not look at fact that diet and lifestyle changes
were considerable in the decade the study took place [1994-2004]; this must be
explored/explained . . .
5. Your Disease Risk (YDR) equation does not include individual subject data but
estimates risk based on someone of the same age and sex. Is this ‘someone’
from NHS or the general population? The former might be less confounded?
6. Height loss with aging not known . . .
7. What percentage of the study group were not white?
8. It was surprising that only 1165 CHD events occurred in 10 years. More
discussion of this is needed.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. PrimeScreen ref in first paragraph of Assessment of Risk Factors section is
correctly cited—ref 24? But PrimeScreen is cited as ref 23 in first paragraph of
“Your Disease Risk Tool’ section (line 141, p. 6). Are the PrimeScreen citations
correct?
2. Again in the first paragraph of Assessment of Risk Factors: the sentence that
reads: “Studies have validated self-reported data in the NHS.” Please provide a
citation for this statement, as it is questionable.
3. Main reference cited often—ref #4--is about cancer, not CHD risk prediction
tool [correctly cited in first sentence of first para. of Your Disease Risk Tool. This
should be clarified
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 to report.