JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Sexual assault in Lagos, Nigeria: a five year retrospective review.
Version:1Date:26 June 2014
Reviewer: Olufunmilayo Fawole
Reviewer's report:
Sexual assault in Lagos, Nigeria: a five year retrospective review
Thank you for asking me to review the above named manuscript. The study
assessed survivors’ characteristics, circumstances of assault and treatment
offered with a view to reducing overall incidence of sexual assault as well as
improving evaluation and management.
A retrospective review of 287 survivors’ case records at Lagos State University
Teaching Hospital, Ikeja, was done between January 2008 and December 2012.
The incidence of sexual assault was 0.76%. The study adds to the body of
knowledge on adolescent’s vulnerability to sexual assault and highlights the need
for public enlightenment on the benefits of early interventions and comprehensive
care of survivors with the use of standardized protocols.
The following comments/ corrections are suggested to improve the quality of the
work.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract- Delete ‘more especially so the Lagos State Teaching Hospital’ in the
first paragraph. It comes up in the Methods section. Also delete “overall” in the
last sentence of 1st paragraph.
2. Introduction – There is the need to cite references to the following :-
Page 3 last line
Page 4, 2nd paragraph. True incidences are ……………..
Page 4, last line
Page 5, 1st paragraph. Lagos like other cities……….
3. Methods - Please provide more information on the LASUTH, number of beds,
staff strength etc . Hospital protocol or guidelines for managing sexual assault
cases should come in here.
Insert reference in last line of the subtitle “Setting”
How were the cases identified? What was the case definition of sexual assault?
In the analysis section there is only mention of univariate (descriptive statistics)
analysis, no mention of bivaraite (inferential) analysis which was actually done
Apart from ethical clearance what about confidentiality issues? Mention.
4. Results- Page 7, 3rd paragraph. For the students, where did the rape occur?
Home or school?
Page 8, 1st line, don’t start sentence with numbers.
5. Discussion- Page 8 last line, underreporting was to whom? Why? Discuss.
Page 9, 1st paragraph, include reference. Children 10 years and other
victims……………..
Include reference for 1st two lines of page 10.
And page 10, second paragraph. An official report to the police……
And page 11, 1st two lines put reference. The recommendation is that …….
And page 11, last paragraph of the Discussion
Limitations of the study was not discussed
6. Figures. The figures don’t have titles and figures two should be deleted. It can
be simply reported as text since it has only 2 variables.
Yours Sincerely,
Olufunmilayo I. Fawole
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:Sexual assault in Lagos, Nigeria: a five year retrospective review.
Version:1Date:27 June 2014
Reviewer: Esther O Asekun-Olarinmoye
Reviewer's report:
1. Major Compulsory Revisions:
a. Since one of the major objectives of this study is to describe the rape
survivors' characteristics, the use of a figure (i.e. fig 1) here rather than a table is
not appropriate. Though figures give instant visual aid however a lot of necessary
information cannot be depicted. A table to show victims socio-demographic
characteristics i.e. age-group, gender (this paper has assumed that only females
are victims), occupation(only student cadre (74.2%) was mentioned in the result;
what about the other 25.8%.
b. The data for the bivariate analysis used for the statistical test of significance
for rape during the day versus at among teenagers and non-teenagers should be
supplied.
c. The p value given (p=0000) is incorrect; there is an omission of a decimal
point. It would best be reported as p<0.001 if data supports this since you cannot
have a value of just 0.
d. Inferences should be drawn from results as regards means of accomplishing
one of the aims stated i.e reducing the overall incidence of rape - this has not
been cleared stated and discussed
e. The major limitations of the study should be discussed especially the
limitations imposed by the use of this type of study design (retrospective study)
2. Minor Essential Revisions:
a. In the Background section:
i. Sentence in paragraph 1 needs the reference to be supplied
ii. After the definition of rape, the sentence that followed ... "it involves
lack of consent;..." needs the reference to be supplied also.
b.. Under Results section:
i. Paragraph 4, conventionally, sentences should not start with the use of
a figure, either use a prefix ore spell it out completely
ii. Paragraph 5, the sentence should read thus... "There was neither
referrals for psychotherapy nor was forensic specimen collected..."
c. Under Discussion:
i. The prevalence of 0.76% should be defined as prevalence among
hospital gynecological admissions for the period under review
ii. Paragraph 1, the authors seem to be using incidence and prevalence
interchangeably which should not be so. Then the figure quoted there
is also wrong - 0.72% instead of 0.76%.
iii. Paragraph 3, children 10yrs and < were actually almost 40% (39.0%)
and not 50%
d. Figures and Tables:
i. The figures should be supplied with appropriate titles under them.
ii. Figure 1 has no labels for both X and Y axis
iii. Table 2 - results should be arranged in descending order
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:Sexual assault in Lagos, Nigeria: a five year retrospective review.
Version:2Date:14 August 2014
Reviewer: Olufunmilayo Fawole
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential
Avoid use of "we" , "our" in the discussion section
Case definition and case identification should not be subtitles but embedded
under "study population"
Also "Limitation" can be part of the "Discussion"
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:Sexual assault in Lagos, Nigeria: a five year retrospective review.
Version:2Date:27 August 2014
Reviewer: Esther O Asekun-Olarinmoye
Reviewer's report:
The authors have effected all necessary corrections pointed out in my previous
review. I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication
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:Awareness, use and associated factors of emergency contraceptive pills
among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in Tamale, Ghana
Version:2Date:13 June 2014
Reviewer: Ifeanyichukwu Ezebialu
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. Abstract: ECP is not the only method of emergency contraception as stated by
the author.
2. Results / Tables: It is not clear how the authors assessed ''Availability'' and
''Affordability'' among the respondents. They should specify clearly how these
were assessed.
3. Discussions: The authors should discuss their findings properly, giving
possible explanations for their findings instead of repeating the results.
Minor essential revisions
1. Discussion: The referencing style on lines 253 and 254 are not consistent.
Please, revise.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Awareness, use and associated factors of emergency contraceptive pills
among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in Tamale, Ghana
Version:2Date:19 June 2014
Reviewer: Zelalem Birhanu Mengesha
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. The process of determining the sample size is not described in the methods
section. How did you calculate the sample size (200)? What were the
assumptions made?
2. Confidentiality is one of the ethical principles when conducting a research. You
should describe specifically what you did to keep confidentiality when you were
conducting this study? For example, were the questionnaires anonymous? Have
you interviewed them in a private setting in case utilization of ECs is a sensitive
issue in Ghana?
3. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors
associated to the use of ECPs. But this type of statistical test does not control the
effect of confounding. This makes the conclusion about the independent
association of the exposure variables with the outcome variable difficult.
Therefore you should carry out multivariate analysis using logistic regression to
identify the independent effect each of the exposure variables on EC use.
4. Definition of terms—some of the terms used in the manuscript requires further
definition. For example: awareness –what is mean by awareness in your study or
when do you say that the study participants have awareness about ECPs?
5. You have used knowledge, information and awareness interchangeably
throughout the document. Do they mean the same?
6. Discussion- It would be better to compare your findings first with other similar
studies from Ghana.
7. Some of the references used for this manuscript are out-of-date. For example
Ref No. 1, 8, 22, 23,24,26,26. Therefore it is very good to replace with recent
once(Papers published in the last 10 years).
Minor essential revisions
1. You do not need to write about the exclusion of women aged outside the
reproduction (15-49). By default they are excluded because you do not ask a
woman about contraceptive use if she is not in the reproduction age. In addition,
an exclusion criterion refers to the women who will be excluded from the study
after being selected.
2. The methods section is very brief
Discretionary Revisions
no
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 declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of interval between age at first birth and age at diagnosis on breast
cancer survival according to menopausal status: A register-based study in Korea
Version:3Date:18 May 2014
Reviewer: Patrick Neven
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
Age at breast cancer diagnosis is missing (the terms pre- and postmenopausal
are fine but we need age at diagnosis)/ Did they exclude women who had
neoadjuvant treatment/ primary metastatic disease?
Please provide us with data for breast cancer mortality by breast cancer type
(ER-status) to make these conclusions more understandable. This is important
as reproductive factors affect these different type breast cancers differently.They
describe to have these variables but why were these not included in the
results/outcome apart from being descriptive?
2/3rd of the population had another or other pregnancies after the first one.
-Please provice us with data on the effect of time intervals since last pregnancy
and breast cancer outcome.
-the authors didn't include breast cancer patients who had another pregnancy
after breast cancer treatment/ which proportion and how might this affect results
(is selection bias possible as they mainly include premenopausals in their
analysis)
Please provide us with data on adjuvant breast cancer treatment during /
throughout the study period (did it change?)
How clinically relevant is a significant HR of 1.03 (table 6)
Please explain the large number of premenopausals/postmenopausal breast
cancer diagnosis in this database from Korea. How do they explain 617/14387
non-breast cancer deaths in premenopausals and 440/6761 in postmenopausals
being related with reproductive factors?
Discretionary Revisions
Please shorten the background as there is some repetition in this part of the
paper.
Be consistent when defining early AFP/ Please be consistent with using AFP
(AFB)
Follow-up duration differs between AFP and parity (table 2-3)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below
Reviewer's report
Title:Effects of interval between age at first birth and age at diagnosis on breast
cancer survival according to menopausal status: A register-based study in Korea
Version:3Date:19 May 2014
Reviewer: Ray Lowenthal
Reviewer's report:
This is a nicely presented and well written registry study of the prognostic impact
of reproductive factors on breast cancer outcome. The authors are to be
congratulated on a major piece of work: they studied nearly 30,000 patients.
Although the relationships identified statistically take some concentration to
understand (there are both negative and positive effects), the authors have
chosen their words carefully to explain their findings. The first sentence in the
Conclusion summarises their important findings nicely and clearly.
A statistical review is needed.
Minor points
Methods: please indicate what proportion of Korean breast cancer patients are
registered in the Korean Breast Cancer Society Registry.
Results: first sentence would be better expressed thus: “T1, T2 staged breast
cancer was more frequent in postmenopausal than in premenopausal breast
cancer patients (84.9% versus 82.3%, p<0.001).” And similarly throughout.
Abbreviations should be listed alphabetically.
Authors’ contributions: “Both authors…” rather than “All authors…”
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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 I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a
multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic
sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial)
Version:2Date:28 February 2014
Reviewer: Hans Van Geelen
Reviewer's report:
The only practical question ids the great number of validated questionnaires: total
7 ! . This is perhaps:overdoing.
The reviewer wonders if the partcicipating women will be able to complete all
these questionnaires
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:Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a
multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic
sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial, study
protocol)
Version:3Date:19 June 2014
Reviewer: Robert E Gutman
Reviewer's report:
The authors did a nice job addressing the comments and concerns. Appropriate
for publication in the present form.
I still believe that anterior and posterior wall prolapse should be included in the
primary outcome. Does a patient care if they need to have a reoperation for
recurrent anterior, apical or posterior wall prolapse? Regardless of the
compartment, a reoperation for any prolapse will consider a failure of the primary
surgery since our goal is to fix all prolapse. In the current format, how will they
know if prolapse symptoms are due to anterior, posterior or apical prolapse? I
appreciate the changes and will agree to disagree. At least it is a secondary
outcome that will be reported since it is very important.
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:Development of the Community Midwifery Education initiative and its
influence on women's health and empowerment in Afghanistan: a case study
Version:2Date:16 April 2014
Reviewer: Linda Bartlett
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a concise, informative and accurate account of the
development of the midwifery education program in Afghanistan. The data
collection methods are appropriate given the limitation of the authors to travel to
Afghanistan, nor the resources for a large survey. The paper is very well written. I
found no errors or awkwardly written sentences to suggest revising.
The description, discussion and conclusion’s are interesting and informative, and
useful as both a account of a human resources for health program in
Afghanistan, and provides valuable information for those trying to implement a
similar program elsewhere.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Last para of content section: Page 10 – first paragraph – Last sentence, rather
than “Now”, this could be changed to “as of X date…”.
2. In conclusion section, Last para: Remove first sentence, starting with “As of
2013,…” it is repetitive and not needed.
Minor essential revisions.
3. There are several recent (past 12 months) publications on midwifery or HR in
Afghanistan that can be cited in this paper.
Zainullah P., Ansari N, Yari K, Azimi M, Turkmani S, Azfar P, Lefevre A, Mungia
J, Gubin R, Kim YM, Bartlett L. Establishing midwifery in low-resource settings:
guidancefrom a mixed-methods evaluation of the Afghanistan midwifery
education program. Midwifery, Accepted manuscript (unedited version) available
online:11-NOV-2013 DOI information: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.10.026
Turkmani S, Currie S, Mungia J, Assefi N, Ahmed JR, Azfar P, Bartlett L.
"Midwives are the backbone of our health system": Lessons from Afghanistan to
guide expansion of midwifery in challenging settings. Midwifery. On line
Publication: 3-AUG-2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.06.015Available at:
http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0266613813001885
These can be used to replace reference 35 - the JHPIEGO report on the
midwifery education programme evaluation.
4. Discussion section, para 4, last sentence: The authors mention “Lack of free
midwifery care…”. Midwifery care should be free as a policy of the MoPH. If cost
is an issue then this should be introduced in the results section and some
discourse in the discussion.
Compulsory major revisions: None.
Conclusion: It’s an excellent article and my recommendation is to publish with
minor revisions.
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 received from funding form USAID for various maternal health work in
Afghanistan, but I don't believe that this manuscript would cause and financial
gain or loss the agency. Certainly not to me.
Reviewer's report
Title:Development of the Community Midwifery Education initiative and its
influence on women's health and empowerment in Afghanistan: a case study
Version:2Date:26 June 2014
Reviewer: Ann Thomson
Reviewer's report:
Comments from Ann M Thomson on paper entitled ‘Development of the
Community Midwifery education initiative and its influence on women’s health
and empowerment in Afghanistan: a case study It is good to see a paper
evaluating the re-introduction of midwives into Afghanistan. I have one concern –
that is terminology. A midwife is a midwife is a midwife! Geography does not
define her. Midwives educated to meet the ICM competencies can work
anywhere (where the security is safe). Throughout this paper terms are used
interchangeably eg midwife with 2 weeks’ training and skilled birth attendant. In
the light of the Lancet papers on Midwifery published on June 23rd (well after this
paper was submitted, I know) it is vital that these terms are clarified. Also you
may wish to refer to the latest report on the State of the World’s Midwives, again
published after this paper was submitted. However, Afghanistan features in the
report and it would be good if all literature in the paper was as current as
possible.
Two ‘nit picks’ – data is a plural word and both tables are actually ‘boxes’.
Reviewer's report
Title:Attitude, myths and educational status of women affect women's intention to
use long acting and permanent contraceptive methods in Southern Ethiopia.
Mengistu Meskele1, Wubegzier Mekonnen2 1.School of Public Health,College of
Health Science,Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo,Ethiopia 2.School of
Public Health,College of Health Science,Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa
,Ethiopia
Version:2Date:28 November 2013
Reviewer: Yihunie Lakew
Reviewer's report:
The article need major revisions
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:
I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Attitude, myths and educational status of women affect women's intention to
use long acting and permanent contraceptive methods in Southern Ethiopia.
Mengistu Meskele1, Wubegzier Mekonnen2 1.School of Public Health,College of
Health Science,Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo,Ethiopia 2.School of
Public Health,College of Health Science,Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa
,Ethiopia
Version:2Date:2 December 2013
Reviewer: Berihun Megabiaw Zeleke
Reviewer's report:
please find attached
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests