JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and associated factors of anemia among non-pregnant women
of reproductive age in Bangladesh: Multilevel logistic regression analysis
Version:3Date:25 March 2015
Reviewer: Hanh Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
To the authors:
1. Method: The authors only wrote that the sample used in the study was taken
from Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey and described the sampling
technique of BDHS but did not mention how 5293 married non-pregnant
Bangladeshi women were taken out of 17842 in the survey.
2. Result: By using logistic regression, the authors identified several factors
considered predictors to anemia. But according to the statistics showed in the
paper, some of the predictors should be checked. For example, regarding the
independent variable “staying in the rural areas”, with OR=0.0854, it is hard to
say staying in rural areas is among the most predictors to anemia. More over,
with 95%CI and p=0.057 (>0.05), it can be seen that the result is statistically
insignificant. The same or other kinds of problems happens to some other
predictors which need to be reconsidered.
3. Discussion: There were so much information given in the result part but only
some of which were mentioned in the discussion. There are some significant
factors which are expected to be discussed like age, being Muslim or non-
Muslim, using of unhygienic toilet, education level of the husband etc.
In additionally, some parts of the discussion are just like repeating the result.
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening?
Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Version:2Date:15 November 2014
Reviewer: Peter H. Schwartz
Reviewer's report:
See attached MS Word document, which I prefer to send rather than pasting into
this field, since that preserves the formatting.
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:Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening?
Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Version:3Date:8 June 2015
Reviewer: Haryana Dhillon
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on revisions to this manuscript. The
authors have provided detailed responses to comments from all authors, and
where possible have made changes in line with the recommendations.
I have no further suggestions to make regarding this manuscript and feel it is
ready for publication.
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:
No competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening?
Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Version:3Date:7 June 2015
Reviewer: Peter H. Schwartz
Reviewer's report:
I support publication of the paper. It describes a reasonable approach for
evaluating a decision aid in this area. Questions remain regarding the disclosure
of quantitative information and the proper evaluation of decision quality, but the
authors cannot be expected to settle such thorny and even conceptually complex
topics.
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:Predictors of modern contraceptive methods utilization among married
women of reproductive age groups in Western Ethiopia: a community based
cross sectional study
Version:3Date:20 November 2014
Reviewer: Björn J Oddens
Reviewer's report:
The reviewers report is attached as attachment.
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 am employee of a company that develops and markets contraceptive methods
(such as oral contraceptive pills, injectables and implants) - this paper describes
the utilization of contraceptive methods in West Ethiopia.
Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of modern contraceptive methods utilization among married
women of reproductive age groups in Western Ethiopia: a community based
cross sectional study
Version:3Date:24 November 2014
Reviewer: Iñaki Lete
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Tha main concern I have is about the representativeness of the sample. We do
not know if the Etiopia population is represented: i.e. is the Orono ethnic group a
74% of the overall population of the country? Is the half of Etiopian people
protestant?
A Table comparing the characteristics of the sample with the characteristics of
the general population could be useful to answer my questions.
This is a cross-sectional study aimed to assess factors associated with the use of
modern contraception.
The design of the study is adecquate and the conclusions are already well kown
worldwide. The higher the socio-economic level of women the higher the use of
modern contraception.
There are some typo throughout the manuscript. The authors should to explain
the meaning of the abbreviations used.
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 interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of modern contraceptive methods use among married women of
reproductive age groups in Western Ethiopia: A community based
cross-sectional study
Version:6Date:27 March 2015
Reviewer: Björn J Oddens
Reviewer's report:
No further comments - my comments have been addressed adequately.
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 am employed by a pharmaceutical company that promotes contraceptive
products.
Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of modern contraceptive methods use among married women of
reproductive age groups in Western Ethiopia: A community based
cross-sectional study
Version:6Date:17 March 2015
Reviewer: Iñaki Lete
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all the questions we had related to the manuscript.
Now, it can be published but the given information is already known and poorly
relevant
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Predictors of modern contraceptive methods use among married women of
reproductive age groups in Western Ethiopia: A community based
cross-sectional study
Version:6Date:4 April 2015
Reviewer: Tefera Belachew
Reviewer's report:
The authors have accommodated all my comments.
The manuscript is now edited in a better way.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competting interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Unmet need of Long-Acting and Permanent Methods of family planning
services among women in the reproductive age group who uses modern family
planning in Shashemene Town, Oromia region, Ethiopia.
Version:7Date:28 November 2014
Reviewer: Yihunie L Lakew
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory comments
1. The study tried to describe the level of unmet need of LAFPMs. However, what
if the participants met their need with other methods? How this can be
complimented?
2. The authors did not clearly state the procedures or assumptions for sample
size determination. How they arrived at n=382? In addition the sampling
procedure same, how they selected health facilities and specific respondents in
each HF are not clearly stated, for example, the application of strata, proportion
to population size (pps) and random methods.
3. More details on how the unadjusted and adjusted regression models were built
are needed. Controlling for confounding? What variables were dropped from your
models? How did you ensure that they were not confounders? This needs
clarification and a reference.
4. The authors used three variables including Implants, IUCD and tubal ligation
as an outcome measures. However, how they come up with one outcome
variable of LAFPMs to apply binary logistic regression? If they did for each of the
three, they have to show us in detail of the results.
5. In Table 5, there are unnecessary things including yes vs no and CI vs
p-value. Usually in statistics to use yes and CI is sufficient.
6. The manuscript should be rewritten in scientific language style. There are a lot
of typology errors, very long sentence and duplication of information.
7. There are incorrect issues and things need reference, for example, the 2007
Ethiopian population was not 79,221,000. What does it mean 20011? What do
you mean by Demographic growth?
8. I put all the minor comments in the Manuscript
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: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Unmet need of Long-Acting and Permanent Methods of family planning
services among women in the reproductive age group who uses modern family
planning in Shashemene Town, Oromia region, Ethiopia.
Version:7Date:2 December 2014
Reviewer: Yibeltal Tebekaw
Reviewer's report:
Minor and discretionary revisions will be part of the second review after the
authors addressed the attached all Major compulsory revisions.
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: 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:Adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy in the "sandwich" method for high risk
endometrial cancer--a systematic review
Version:5Date:14 August 2014
Reviewer: Kenneth Nwankwo
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
Some of the sentences need to be edited or modified in order to present clearer
information, for example the sentences in line '31', 71-74, 120, 127-131, and
170-172. The abbreviation, 'CRC' should be written in full.
The limitations of this review are not well stated.
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 have no competing interest to declare.
Reviewer's report
Title:Adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy in the "sandwich" method for high risk
endometrial cancer--a systematic review
Version:5Date:25 January 2015
Reviewer: Mark Carey
Reviewer's report:
The authors present the literature on sandwich treatment for uterine cancers.
This is an important treatment for women with advanced/metastatic endometrial
cancer.
1) I have asked the editors for assistance as to whether the study format is
acceptable as a Systematic Review. While the relevant studies are examined
there is no synthesis of data to try and build on the conclusions of the individual
studies reported.
Obviously the 3 most interesting outcomes are relapse, survival, and toxicity. The
authors do note the low pelvic relapse rate associated with this treatment
protocol,
Comparing survival rates is a problem in light of the substantial differences
between patient populations selected for each study, however no mention is
made of this point.
2) An interesting outcome to perform some type of pooled analysis from is
toxicity. Radiation details however are lacking and therefore it would be difficult to
interpret even toxicity data in the absence of knowing the radiation doses, timing,
use of brachytherapy.
3) Rather than presenting Table I perhaps an assessment of the individual
inclusion criteria of the studies would be more helpful.
4) In the discussion, the role of chemotherapy and radiation in high-risk
endometrial cancer is controversial yet there is no mention of the current
randomized trials that have been done that might shed light on future specific
directions. Yes future randomized trials are needed however how should such
trials be designed?
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:Adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy in the "sandwich" method for high risk
endometrial cancer--a review of literature
Version:9Date:4 March 2015
Reviewer: Mark Carey
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
1) It would be helpful to elaborate on the pelvic relapse rates in the manuscript
(even though this has been done in Table 5) for the prospective studies. The
authors mention a "low" recurrence rate in the Lupe and Geller papers but it
would be helpful to specify in the manuscript as well the actual rates observed; ie
that they are less than 5%
2) It would helpful for comparing outcomes in the studies to list the median
duration of follow-up if available in the studies. This might be useful to add to
Table 4.
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:Women's experiences of using vaginal trainers (dilators) to treat
vaginismus: A qualitative interview study
Version:2Date:4 September 2014
Reviewer: Harish Thippeswamy
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Reviews:
Page 5 Lines 15-20
Methodology description can be less detailed. Suffices to mention ‘Thematic
Analyses’ methodology was used.
Discussion:
The article describes in depth the difficulties associated with use of VTs. Use of
subject's own fingers in a graded manner as an alternative method needs to be
suggested. This would counter many of the problems associated with VTs. The
authors can allude to an eclectic method in management of vaginismus to end
the article on a positive note for professionals and sufferers.
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:Management of musculoskeletal tumors during pregnancy: a retrospective
study
Version:2Date:23 February 2015
Reviewer: Koji Matsuo
Reviewer's report:
My evaluation for the paper is "Major revision needed". Here is the comments to
the authors;
Thanks for the opportunity to review the article by Postl et al entitled
"Management of musculoskeletal tumors during pregnancy: a retrospective
study." The authors retrospectively searched their institutional database of
muscukoskeletal tumor registry and identified 8 cases of musculoskeletal tumor
during pregnancy. The author claimed that the musculoskeletel tumor during
pregnancy was associated with delay in diagnosis with multiple consultations and
long duration of waiting time.
Cancer during pregnancy is becoming more important topic in the past years.
Cancer during pregnancy often gets delayed for diagnosis, and the current study
is very important if the authors are able to proof this. To do so, the study design
needs to be significantly re-constructed because this study lacks in control group
(i.e., musculoskeletal tumor diagnosed outside pregnancy). Among the 240
cases in the database, 8 were associated with pregnancy. This leaves
232 cases without pregnancy. These 232 cases need to be examined for the
number of consultation, biopsy, and time interval for diagnosis as the same
method for the 8 cases with pregnancy. Statistical comparison can be then made
between the two groups.
Similarly, survival analysis is missing. This is one of the most important outcome
to analyze (pregnancy impacts on survival outcome of tumor?). 240 patients can
be grouped into (1) cases during pregnancy,
n=8 and (2) cases without pregnancy, n=232. The study period was ended in
2010, and it will have a sufficient follow-up length to analyze this.
Additional analysis is needed to see if the delay in diagnosis impacts on survival
outcome of the tumor.
Reason for delay in diagnosis during pregnancy needs to be described more in
depth.
Instead of provide the descriptive table for 8 cases, it is suggested to provide
summary table with number (%), mean (SD), or median (range).
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of musculoskeletal tumors during pregnancy: a retrospective
study
Version:2Date:23 February 2015
Reviewer: molly brewer
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting case series of pregnant women that developed a sarcoma. I
have multiple concerns:
1. With such a small number of cases, this is only a descriptive study and no
statistical analyses are needed except maybe mean is appropriate.
2. They stated that they consented all patients but one of the eight was DOD
within 8 months.
3. It is not clear why they collected medical history data. This was not analyzed
and there were so few patients that it was actually extraneous.
4. Therapy was heterogeneous and the tumors were heterogeneous, thus simply
reporting them is adequate.
5. Calculating mean values of disease free interval seems superfluous.
6. Presentation and tumor size should be included in the results section and not
the discussion. In fact, the results are then repeated in the discussion which
makes the manuscript entirely too long.
7. Most of the discussion and tables are superfluous. I think the important take
home message is that the diagnosis is late, most of the biopsies were not
diagnostic, they should be referred to a referral center and the diagnosis was late
which may have affected outcome. That being said all women except one with
metastatic disease survived which may be better than is commonly seen.
8. The abortion paragraph should be deleted and the chemotherapy/XRT and
imaging should be shortened.
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 I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of musculoskeletal tumors during pregnancy: a retrospective
study
Version:2Date:14 March 2015
Reviewer: Patricia Pautier
Reviewer's report:
Authors described 8 cases of sarcoma arising during pregnancy
It is a descriptive study without comparison to a comparative population
(matching). There is no new information regarding the particularities or the
management of sarcoma during pregnancy
One of the goal of the study is to see if pregnancy affect the evolution of cancer
but there is no comparative group. It would be interesting to match the 8 patients
to patients among the 240 women with sarcoma with the same histologic type,
stage and age.
We would like to know if the pregnancy affect the prognosis in affecting the start
of therapy (delay to start), the therapy and also if it affect the fetus and the baby.
It could be interesting to have information about the children: date of birth
(prematurity or not), obstetrical complications, foetal complications, and
eventually children’s follow-up, in particular if they have been exposed to
chemotherapy.
The information of the delay to diagnosis is of interest but not linked to pregnancy
so do not have some impact in the management of patients.
There is no information (except incidence of sarcoma during pregnancy among a
sarcoma group of childbearing young women) about the specificity of the
pregnancy: for exemple how many treatment have been delayed after birth
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
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:Effect of vaginal self-sampling on cervical cancer screening rates: a
community-based study in Newfoundland.
Version:5Date:11 April 2015
Reviewer: Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory
1) In my previous comment #5 I recommended to adopt also a definition of Pap
test coverage with at least three year interval. This measure will give a more
realistic idea of the health impact than the one year interval.
2) the introduction is still missing the the main point: the issue about comparing
HPV test and Pap test is not the sensitivity, but the ability to prevent cancer. The
two things are related but non directly consequential. This is why the answer
given by the pooled analysis of the European trial is not the same of the
CCCaST. The European trials show that the incidence of CIN3 in the HPV arm is
higher in the first round and lower in the second round compared with Pap, while
the total number is similar in the two arms, meaning that there is no
overdiagnosis related to increased sensitivity. On the other hand the sensitivity
for cancer is very similar between HPV and Pap, but the incidence of cancer in
the follow up is lower in the HPV arm, showing that finding earlier the CIN3
prevented some cancers.
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