JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Seasonal variation in the incidence of preeclampsia and eclampsia in
tropical climatic conditions.
Version: 2Date:27 August 2007
Reviewer: Per Magnus
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have now submitted a better paper. I would suggest that the word
tertiary is omitted since it suggests that patients are referred.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept without revision
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 competeing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Breast feeding, breast milk and viruses.
Version: 4Date:1 September 2007
Reviewer: Generoso Bevilacqua
Reviewer's report:
General
The revised form is ok.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept without revision
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.
Reviewer's report 
 Effect of Cough Technique and Cryogen Gas on Temperatures Achieved During Simulated Title: 
Cryotherapy 
 1  27 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Eric Suba Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: This is a well-written manuscript that clearly documents the results of a well-organized study 
looking at the effects of uninterrupted freezing, standard cough technique, and extended cough technique on achieving minimum temperatures required for effective cryotherapy. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached): None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct): None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore): The authors note that the standard cough 
technique was limited in the minimum temperature achieved due to the design of the cryogun internal pulse 
valve. Is this limitation inherent only to the design of the Wallach LL100 cryogun internal pulse valve used in 
the current study, or is this limitation inherent to cryoguns produced by other manufacturers? 
Correspondingly, do the limitations of standard and extended cough techniques documented by the authors 
extend to all CO2 cryoguns, or only to the cryogun studied in the current report? 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of Cough Technique and Cryogen Gas on Temperatures Achieved
During Simulated Cryotherapy
Version: 1Date:1 August 2007
Reviewer: Laurie Elit
Reviewer's report:
General
I would like to congratulate the authors on this well conducted study evaluating
the efficacy of 4 cryotherapy methods. The manuscript is concise and well
written.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
Pg 4 - the authors indicate that the probe was applied to the tissue at an
approximate pressure of 0.7kg. It is not clear to this reviewer whether the probe
was held against gravity or perpendicular to gravity or in the direction of gravity;
was the probe hand held or lowered via a vice system; was the pressure at the
probe-tissue interface messured systematically; is pressure at this interface
important? If the probe to tissue interaction was not applied in a systematic
method then this should be discussed as a limitation of the study in the
conclusions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Pg 3 - Line 4 - Change "," to a "." between "[3], Although"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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:Associations of depression and depressive symptoms with preeclampsia:
Results from a Peruvian case-control study
Version: 1Date:25 June 2007
Reviewer: Marielle van Pampus
Reviewer's report:
Association of depression and depressive symptoms with preeclampsia: results
from a Peruvian case-control study
By Chunfang Qiu et al
1. The question posed by the authors is new and well defines. It is an original
paper.
2. The methods used to answer the question are well described and appropriate
3. The data seems well controlled
4. No problems
5. Discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by
the data
6. Title and abstract are OK
7. The English is acceptable
The manuscript is acceptable without revision
Reviewer's report
Title:Associations of depression and depressive symptoms with preeclampsia:
Results from a Peruvian case-control study
Version: 3Date:10 September 2007
Reviewer: Vilho Hiilesmaa
Reviewer's report:
I have now re-reviewed the article and the authors´ response.
The authors have sufficiently well addressed the issues I raised in my original
review.
The unclear and questionable points are now clarified.
The limitations of the study are adequately pointed out in the Discussion.
I'd be now ready to recommend publication the article.
Reviewer's report
Title:Knowledge and use of emergency contraception among women in the
Western Cape province of South Africa: A cross-sectional study
Version: 3Date:29 June 2007
Reviewer: caroline moreau
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
The authors have responded to the revierwer's questions and have modified their
manuscript accordingly.
There is only one last issue regarding the description of womens' contraception
at last intercourse which could be clarified p6. Indeed as 30% of women in the
sample were attending the clinic for antenatal or postnatal care, they probably
grealth contribute to the 29% of women in the sample who used no contraception
at last intercourse. Even if the timing of this last intercourse in unknown, the
authors could maybe add a sentence describing these women with no
contraception (for example what percentage of these women were pregnant at
the time of the survey). This would partially help understand how many women
may be at risk of unintended pregnancy.
Lastely, just to make sure the numbers are right, the authors report 27% of
women had heard of EC from the clinic (p7) but later on report that only 25%
were ever told of EC by a health care provider. Is that correct?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
A few typos in the text
Abstract, discussion line 4: the word of is missing = knowledge of the method
results p6 line 3 equivalent is misspelled
results p6 line 4 eighty is misspelled
results p7 (4 lines above the end of the page) the word pill is missing in oral
contraceptive pill
discussion p10 line3 the word 'know" is missin in women who know and use EC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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:
Ideclare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Knowledge and use of emergency contraception among women in the
Western Cape province of South Africa: A cross-sectional study
Version: 4Date:13 August 2007
Reviewer: Douglas Ball
Reviewer's report:
All requested changes have been made or addressed.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 Becoming the best mom that I can: Womens experiences of managing depression during pregnancy - Title: 
a qualitative study 
 2  10 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 M Cynthia Logsdon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
1. The reference to PPD in abstract is misleading and should be removed. PPD was not measured in this study. 2. Describe the time since delivery as a possible source of recall error. 
3. Discuss the % of women who receive treatment for mood disorders vs. those that are estimated to suffer 
without treatment. 
4. More information is needed on page 4 in description of symbolic interaction theory and how it applies to 
this study. 
5. Please provide a description of inter rater reliability on page 6. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 Becoming the best mom that I can: Women's experiences of managing depression during pregnancy Title: 
- a qualitative study 
 3  18 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 M Cynthia Logsdon Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Figure 1 is very clear conceptualization of study findings and extends the science of perinatal depression. 
MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS 
Ethics and Recruitment 
How many potential participants were contacted by healthcare providers ? How many women called to indicate interest in study compared to number who enrolled? Data Collection 
Need a description of the interview guide including conversation probes used by researcher.
Reviewer's report 
 Strong decline in female sterilization rates in Norway after the introduction of a new copayment Title: 
system: a registry based study 
 1  21 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Joseph Potter Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1. This is an interesting and solid research report. I believe, however, that it is of perhaps more interest, and has greater implications than the authors let on. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 2. None. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
3. Really minor-- I would say "was used in all analyses" at the bottom of p. 4 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 4. It would be interesting to know something about the circumstances and influences that may have led to 
this substantial policy change. 
5. The influence of monetary price on contraceptive use and choice is a subject about which surprisingly little is known, largely because there are few situations in which the price of a procedure or method is 
suddenly changed by a substantial amount AND there is a complete record of whatever the impact might be 
on use. See, for example, Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies 
Lant H. Pritchett, Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Mar., 1994), pp. 1-55. This paper shows a surprisingly large "elasticity" of the use of sterilization relative to its price, at least from Pritchett's point of view. 
6. As background and context, it would also be useful to know more about the overall place of sterilization, 
both postpartum and interval, in the overall contraceptive mix in Norway. It might even be interesting to 
review the time trend in sterilization as as fertility has shifted to the older reproductive years over the last two 
decades. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Strong decline in female sterilization rates in Norway after the introduction
of a new copayment system: a registry based study
Version: 2Date:27 June 2007
Reviewer: Elina Hemminki
Reviewer's report:
I cannot re-read the paper for a while (leaving for summer holidays), but I
glanced the authors' cover letter. Based on that, the authors seem to have
responded to the criticism, and I recommend:
Accept without revision
An article of importance in its field
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Reviewer's report 
 Women's attitudes towards mechanisms of action of family planning methods: survey in primary Title: 
health centres in Pamplona, Spain. 
 3  18 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Margareta Larsson Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have responded to all the issues raised in my review and amended the manuscript accordingly. 
I do not have any additional comments. 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 Women's attitudes towards mechanisms of action of family planning methods: survey in primary Title: 
health centres in Pamplona, Spain. 
 3  1 June 2007 Version: Date: 
 Melanie Gold Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I have reviewed both the cover letter and manuscript revisions in response to my reviewer's comments for 
the manuscript by Jokin de Irala, Cristina Lopez del Burgo, Carmen M Lopez de Fez, Jorge Arredondo, Rafael T Mikolajczyk and Joseph B Stanford, entitled "Women's attitudes towards mechanisms of action of family planning methods:survey in primary health centres in Pamplona, Spain). 
The authors have done a meticulous and admirable job addressing ALL my comments. Other than a careful 
review by the editors for sporadic 
typographic errors, I think this manuscript is acceptable and ready for publication. 
Bravo to the authors for an excellent revision!
Reviewer's report 
 The information needs of women diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome - Implications for Title: 
treatment and health outcomes 
 1  9 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Cynthia Farquhar Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Overall, it is well written but I feel that the patient population is not representative and as I see many 
adolescents I would encourage you to include some subjects in this age group as they are very needy but not intersted in the fertility aspects. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 The information needs of women diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome - Implications for Title: 
treatment and health outcomes 
 2  1 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Margaret Nusbaum Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)...see note above 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report 
 The information needs of women diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome - Implications for Title: 
treatment and health outcomes 
 2  2 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Cynthia Farquhar Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Acceptable for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) Nil 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) NIL 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 The information needs of women diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome - Implications for Title: 
treatment and health outcomes 
 2  15 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Zephne M. van der Spuy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
The authors have revised this manuscript , taking the reviewers' 
comments into consideration. The results are interesting but are only applicable to the group they investigated, who are not necessarily typical of women with PCOS ,as they had the opportunity of previous 
exposure to a clinical trial, their diagnosis had been made some years 
previously and most of them had tertiary education. 
The authors have , however, commented on this in their discussion and I 
think the information provided by this study warrants publication. 
I would recommend publication without further revision
Reviewer's report 
 What aspects of periods are most bothersome for women reporting heavy menstrual bleeding? Title: 
Community survey and qualitative study 
 1  3 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Sioban Harlow Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a very interesting and useful manuscript that adds to our understanding of how menstrual bleeding impacts women's quality of life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 1. The numbers presented regarding the study sample are not consistent in the abstract (2833), methods (a random sample of 250 (is this 19*250=4750);4610 questionnaires) and results (2833). As written it is very 
confusing. 
2. Please discuss the implications of the 61% response rate for your study results. 3. What is the distribution of heavy versus very heavy? Do the concerns of women with heavy versus very heavy differ? (Please provide table 1 divided by Heavy and Very Heavy). If the distributions differ that would 
be of clinical importance. 
4) Please clarify whether any guidance/definition was provided regarding what was "heavy" versus "Very 
heavy" versus neither heavy or very heavy? Eg does the % that dont report a problem differ across categories? 
5) Does the perception of problem for heavy/veryheavy differ from women who report lighter bleeding? Do 
you have this information. It would be useful to know if 30% of all women see pain as a problem with their period. 6) Do you have information about whether women sought care? Is there a way to understand the linkage 
between your data and what women seek care for? 
7) It is not clear that volume of loss is "rejected" clinically -- volume vs predictability vs gushing does provide 
important information relevant to understanding clincial risk (eg anemia) and type of intervention that may 
be needed to address a woman's concern. Discussion on page 11 is overstated. Lack of information in this 
study about what these women mean by heavy/very heavy is a problem that needs to be addressed in the 
discussion and lessens the value of the research. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 1) define "PMT" 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1) Category of irregularity/duration of period/spotting perhaps should have a different label than "irregularity" 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests