JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Cervical cancer screening program in Thimphu, Bhutan: population
coverage and characteristics associated with screening attendance
Version:1Date:11 August 2014
Reviewer: Peter Sasieni
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential
1. Please consider revising the abstract. Unclear what the study is. Would
suggest longer "Methods" and shorter "Conclusions".
2. Please provide a CONSORT type diagram of the study. It seems that it
includes 1620 who participated in a study of cervical screening and 500 who had
been invited for but had not attended screening. I am confused as to whether the
500 are included in the 1620. We are then told that information on previous
screening was "therefore" available on 1503. I certainly don't follow the
"therefore".
3. The methods need to be made much clearer. Is this essentially a survey of
previous participation in cervical screening conducted in women attending for
cervical screening as part of a study of HPV prevalence?
4. Unclear who is in Table 2. How do the 1620 in Table 1 link to the 1003 study
participants in Table 2?
Discretionary revisions
1.Since results of HPV test are not given, is the assay relevant?
2. Figure 1 and 2 are not essential.
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:
No financial competing interests.
Know two of the authors.
Reviewer's report
Title:Cervical cancer screening program in Thimphu, Bhutan: population
coverage and characteristics associated with screening attendance
Version:3Date:22 September 2014
Reviewer: Lauro Bucchi
Reviewer's report:
I have no further suggestions to substantially improve the manuscript of I
Baussano et al.
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:Cervical cancer screening program in Thimphu, Bhutan: population
coverage and characteristics associated with screening attendance
Version:3Date:27 September 2014
Reviewer: Peter Sasieni
Reviewer's report:
I assume that the 500 women who did not participate are ALL invited women who
did not participate. If so please make this clear in the Methods section. If not
several of the results become unreliable (eg the proportion of all "home" women
ever screened) - please revise accordingly.
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:A randomised controlled trial of a preconceptional dietary intervention in
women undergoing IVF treatment (PREPARE trial)
Version:2Date:29 August 2014
Reviewer: Zephne M. van der Spuy
Reviewer's report:
I have read the protocol with interest and I think this is a well designed study and
all the assessments and end points are accessible. I certainly support this study
which has considerable potential in giving us information which may improve
ART outcomes.
I have a major concern about the recruitment into the two dietary groups. Who
gets assigned to the control group and what happens if these women already
had a diet similar to the study group , is this then changed to what we
hypothesise as a less advantageous diet.
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 "MENTAL" in maternal health care: Perceptions of postnatal
depression and health care needs in a South African sample.
Version:4Date:27 May 2014
Reviewer: Alexandra Sawyer
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to read the revision of this manuscript. The paper
has benefited greatly from the revision and the manuscript now reads very well.
Minor Essential Revisions
However, I think the results section could still be presented in a clearer format. It
is still not easily apparent which themes are themes and sub-themes. Because
there is so much data I think a table would be useful, which summarises the main
themes and subthemes.
The discussion still needs to be more closely linked to the aims of the study e.g.
to inform the development of a counselling intervention and to identify
appropriate counsellors, For example how do the themes identified (e.g.
psychosocial stressors, symptoms etc) inform an appropriate intervention?
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 "MENTAL" in maternal health care: Perceptions of postnatal
depression and health care needs in a South African sample.
Version:4Date:12 June 2014
Reviewer: oriana vesga
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The clarity of the manuscript is much improved. Although the authors addressed
most of the suggestions made in the original review, the overall cohesiveness of
the manuscript needs to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered
for publication, as this limitation has a significant impact on the quality and
relevance of this qualitative study.
In the introduction the authors note that the purpose of this qualitative study was
to women’s understanding of the causes and treatment options available for their
depressive symptoms, as well as the acceptability of a counselling intervention.
However, the main themes reported in the results section do not seem to
correspond to the stated objectives or the research questions outlined in the
interview guide:
1) How do pre- and postnatal women understand the phenomenon of
depression, particularly in terms of its manifestations and course?
2) What influences do pre- and postnatal women identify as a source of their
depression
3) What interventions do they perceive as helpful?
4) How would these interventions meet the needs of pre- and postnatally
depressed women
The section begins with a description of the psychosocial or adverse life events
associated with depressive symptoms, followed by a very brief description of the
impact of depression; poor coping strategies; depressive symptoms; and mental
health services for postnatal depression.
The results section is not well organized, and it is difficult to follow. It is not clear
which are the major themes, and how quotes are being used to illustrate those
themes. I would suggest the authors use headings and subheadings
(enumerated, bolded, underlined) to organize this section, include a brief
statement summarizing the main findings under each heading and subheading,
and use their research questions as a guide to report the main results of the
study.
For example, the results section on depressive symptoms and impact of
depression needs to be revised, and expanded upon. Are the authors reporting
the most common symptoms in this sample? Why are coping and child abuse
and neglect considered impact? Can the authors organize symptoms of
depression according to major categories of cognitive, behavioral, psychological
symptoms?
Finally, the discussion appears focused on the psychosocial issues associated
with depressive symptoms among this sample on women, rather than being
focused on how the information obtained from this qualitative study will guide the
development of an acceptable and feasible intervention in this setting.
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 below
Reviewer's report
Title:Musculoskeletal sequel in patients with obstetric fistula - a case-control
study
Version:1Date:29 July 2014
Reviewer: Hannah Kuper
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper, presenting the impact of obstetric fistula on
musculoskeletal impairments. The study seems well designed, and this has been
a neglected area of research.
I have some comments which the authors may wish to consider when revising
the article:
Minor Essential Revisions:
- Information is needed in the methods as to who performed the examinations,
and how they were trained and standardised.
- Please present the results on weight, height and BMI in the results.
- The results were not adjusted for age, and so the difference between cases and
controls may have been due to confounding (though the age distribution was
similar between these groups). It would be important to either adjust for age, or
else to explain the potential impact of not having adjusted in the limitations
section of the discussion.
Discretionary Revisions
- Page 5, line 109. This sentence is not clear to me.
- It would be helpful to explain how the cases were recruited to the hospital, if this
is known. Was this through screening camps, or did the women present
themselves?
- In the methods it states that the controls were matched to the cases on age and
years since delivery, yet there were many more controls than cases and so this
does not seem coherent to me.
- Did the live born neonates of any of the controls die in the first week of life
(page 9, lines 202)?
- In the tables - i would suggest reporting result to one decimal place throughout
(it varies a bit) P values should be presented to 2 significant figures.
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:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Musculoskeletal sequel in patients with obstetric fistula - a case-control
study
Version:1Date:8 August 2014
Reviewer: Gill Brook
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1. Within the Results, Socio-demographic characteristics you note a statistically
significant difference between the fistula and control groups in relation to parity,
so I feel this should be discussed.
2. Title (and elsewhere in text). I think it would be more accurate to use the term
sequelae rather than sequel as there are several impairments/changes reported
3. Pain is mentioned under methods in the abstract and throughout the
submission. How was this assessed/measured? Were the women only
questioned about leg pain specifically?
4. Throughout, there is mention of activities of daily living (ADL) sometimes
referred to in the text as daily life activities. Could the terminology be
standardised?
5. How were the women questioned about ADL? Were they asked about
particular, relevant ADLs e.g. lifting?
6. Under Methods, Joint range of movement, there is no mention of ankle
inversion and eversion but this is reported in the results table
7. How were the women questioned about their walking? It would be interesting
to know the line of questioning. Were distances involved?
8. The results under Musculoskeletal findings are confusing when considered
alongside Table 2. The table indicates that 20 women had walking difficulties
after delivery, and 19 at the present time. In the text, it says 4 women reported
spontaneous recovery, and 2 had recently developed difficulty, which would
make a total of 18. I think this needs to be amended or explained differently if I
am misunderstanding the figures.
Discretionary revisions
9. Under Methods, Outcomes, there is brief mention of a preparatory period
using the tests on 12 women. Could this be expanded on a bit? Did this lead to
any changes in the study protocol?
10. Although the number of women with foot drop was low, might there be some
discussion about the fact that they were all right sided?
11. Could there be some discussion about why there might be diminished
reflexes within the control group?
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:Clinical pattern and spectrum of endometrial pathologies in patients with
abnormal uterine bleeding in Pakistan: need to adopt a more conservative
approach to treatment.
Version:2Date:21 March 2014
Reviewer: Remigius Izunwa
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential revision
Please correct the grammar in the last sentence of the third paragraph under
result section. "On the other hand, the "frequencies" of endometrial
hyperplasia and carcinoma "were" quite low, 13.2% and 4% respectively (table
2).
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 interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical pattern and spectrum of endometrial pathologies in patients with
abnormal uterine bleeding in Pakistan: need to adopt a more conservative
approach to treatment.
Version:4Date:29 June 2014
Reviewer: Remigius Izunwa
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1. Under conclusion in the abstract, correct the last statement as follows:
Therefore, the management strategy should be individualized, as in most cases,
a restrictive approach is appropriate in order to avoid unnecessary
hysterectomies. (Omit the phrase " in order to preserve the uterus" because it is
not always necessary to preserve the uterus).
2. Correct the last statement in the 6th paragraph under discussion as follows:
The prevalences of pre-neoplastic conditions (endometrial hyperplasia) and
neoplastic conditions (endometrial carcinoma) were 6.1% and 4.4% respectively.
2. Remove "the" in the 9th paragraph under discussion as follows: These findings
were comparable as we observed that frequency of polyp was higher with
increasing age i.e. 8.4% in reproductive age group, 10.4% in perimenopausal
age group and 35.5% in postmenopausal age group.
3. Correct the last two statements under recommendations as follows:
Therefore, the management strategy should be individualized, as in most cases a
restrictive approach like hysteroscopic removal of the organic lesion or
endometrial ablation is appropriate and sufficient. (Omit the phrase " in order to
preserve the uterus" because it is not always necessary to preserve the uterus).
In this way, over-treatment with hysterectomy and the associated complications,
induction of anxiety and waste of economic resources might be avoided.
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:Clinical pattern and spectrum of endometrial pathologies in patients with
abnormal uterine bleeding in Pakistan: need to adopt a more conservative
approach to treatment.
Version:4Date:22 July 2014
Reviewer: Cyril Dim
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
I am still worried about the study’s discussion which is more of a literature review
rather than a discussion. In my first review, I had suggested thus "Authors may
consider re-writing the discussion section. They are encouraged to discuss their
results and not to present a literature review. They should compare important
findings with relevant local and international reports; as well as discuss the
relevance of important study findings"
I have compared this revised discussion with the original manuscript and it is my
opinion that authors still need to do more work which is very necessary,
considering the readership of this journal.
Unfortunately, as a reviewer, there is a limit to the help I can render to authors, at
this point; I feel I should refer them to the STROBE guidelines for reporting
cross-sectional studies
http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cross-sectional.pdf
It is my hope that it will guide them in this study and future ones.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Authors should refer to the sticky notes attached to 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: 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:Keeping silent about emergency contraceptives in Addis Ababa: a
qualitative study among young people, service providers, and key stakeholders
Version:2Date:24 August 2014
Reviewer: SEIFU GEBREYESUS
Reviewer's report:
The comments are adequately addressed.
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 don't have any competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Keeping silent about emergency contraceptives in Addis Ababa: a
qualitative study among young people, service providers, and key stakeholders
Version:2Date:5 September 2014
Reviewer: Sara S Randall
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s report on revised submission
My previous comments still stand and I still think that inadequate consideration /
analysis is given to gender issues. The changes highlighted by the authors only
amount to 5 lines of description and there is nothing about what they have
learned about couple negotiations, power relations (apart from the one young
man who secretly gave his girlfriend the post-pill). In this highly gendered society
where extra marital sex remains shameful and secretive is the post-pill allowing
women another way of controlling their bodies or is there an extent to which its
availability is facilitating more coercive sex? Do they have any data on how
couples negotiate the use of the post-pill and the different moral dimensions of
use expressed by men and women. The authors discuss the moral perspective of
the providers but there is little from the point of view of the users, and how these
moral perspectives might be gendered. The presentation of ‘users’ remains
largely gender neutral throughout the article yet their sample from both the
questionnaire and the more in depth study includes both males and females. We
are told that young women will talk to female pharmacists – are young men
willing to get information from male pharmacists?
Reviewer's report
Title:Somali women's view of physical activity - a focus group study
Version:2Date:18 June 2014
Reviewer: Amy Eyler
Reviewer's report:
Very interesting topic on a disparate population but the manuscript needs
significant revision if it is to add to the literature on this topic. Major compulsory
revisions:
1. Authors need to include more on the theoretical application of their qualitative
analysis. What theory was the basis of question development and code analysis?
2. More information is needed on the development of the codes.
3. Paper needs to be better organized. Some of the information presented in the
results would actually be better to set the tone of the paper in the Background.
(e.g. Line 294-301.)
4. The discussion of the methods on page 11 is redundant and should be
omitted.
5. Authors need to at least mention if age was a factor in results. There was a
wide age range of women in this study and different life stages may affect
perceptions.
Minor essential revisions.
1. Need better transition from 2nd to 3rd sentence in the Backgruond. The jump
from NCD to obesity is abrupt.
2. Line 77-79. This sentence should be reworded for clarity.
3. Are the words success factors meant to be "enablers"?
4. Were focus groups done over the course of a year? Was seasonality an issue
in these discussions?
5. Grammar line 169.
6. How was the concept of physical activity defined in the question? Was their
difficulty in getting women to know this concept as it was intended to be studied?
6. More concrete recommendations would be helpful.
7. How does this population compare with other immigrant populations in other
(or same) country? Might strengthen the discussion with comments about others.
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:Physical and mental health associated with abuse experience among
women utilizing community health services in Gujarat, India
Version:1Date:4 June 2014
Reviewer: Erin Pearson
Reviewer's report:
Please see attached report.
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:Physical and mental health associated with intimate partner violence among
women utilizing community health services in Gujarat, India
Version:2Date:24 July 2014
Reviewer: Erin Pearson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential
1. Results, paragraph 4 and 5: Please include the coefficients in addition to the
p-values so that the reader can get a sense of the magnitude of the results.
2. Discussion: The Discussion section currently focuses almost entirely on
help-seeking and interventions to address the problem and only includes a
cursory discussion of the actual results of the study (association between IPV
and physical and mental health). Please add a more in-depth discussion of the
results of your analysis.
Discretionary
1. Abstract, Methods, last sentence: Please rephrase to make this clearer, could
be “Analysis is restricted to the married participants who completed the questions
on IPV (n=167).”
2. Discussion, paragraph 4: The first part of this paragraph with the description of
the studies would be better placed in the Background section since your analysis
does not address the question of how the type of IPV impacts health. It would be
helpful in the Discussion section to mention that evidence is mixed on this issue,
and your study was not able to assess physical and mental health status by type
of violence experience due to small sample size and additional research is
needed. I see that you have included this in the Limitations section, but you might
also want to mention it briefly at the end of Discussion paragraph 3.
3. Discussion, paragraph 5: It would be helpful to add a sentence describing the
intervention implemented in the Gujarati community in the U.S. since this is one
of your major conclusions. This will help the reader understand what you’re
recommending.
4. Conclusion: Please edit the last sentence to be more descriptive. Do you
mean implementing both facility-based and community-based interventions?
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.