JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Cardiovascular response to short-term fasting in menstrual phases in young
women
Version:4Date:15 June 2015
Reviewer: Audra Gollenberg
Reviewer's report:
The author's have done a commendable job in responding to the Editor's and
Reviewers' suggestions. I have no further comments.
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:Risk of menstrual disorders among female registered nurse: a nationwide
retrospective cohort study in Taiwan
Version:2Date:29 March 2015
Reviewer: Ming-I Hsu
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
This is an interesting paper, however, the following are major concerns will
hinder the reliability of this results:
1. The major problem of this study came from study design. The menstrual
disturbances were diagnosed by “ at least two diagnoses of the same menstrual
disorder that occurred with 30 days were considered as a definitive diagnosis”. In
clinical practice, most of patients complained with amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea,
irregular menstrual cycles, and menstrual disturbance were not seeking for help
within 30 days. Actually, this including criteria will contain the wrong studied
subjects. As authors describe in introduction part, the prevalence of menstrual
disturbance was very high in younger women. What is the prevalence of
menstrual disturbances in nurses and controls in this study respectively? If the
prevalence of menstrual disturbances in this study was very different with
previous reports, it will indicate this study might be working in wrong studied
population.
2. This study focuses on the menstrual disorders for nurse and controls; the
study group were licensed nurses who should be working in hospital or clinics.
Menstrual disturbances do not have the major impact on health in younger
women, however, licensed nurses were more convenience to access the medical
help than general population for such a minor disturbance. This may the bias of
this study.
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:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Ambulatory medical services utilization for menstrual disorders among
female personnel of different medical professions in Taiwan: a nationwide
retrospective cohort study
Version:3Date:23 June 2015
Reviewer: Chung-Yi Li
Reviewer's report:
The authors revised their manuscript by adopting other female medical service
workers as references. The authors also taken into account my previous
comments on assessing the assumption of Cox proportional hazard model, which
ensures the validity of relative risk estimates estimated from the research data.
The revised manuscript is now more unambiguous.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Ambulatory medical services utilization for menstrual disorders among
female personnel of different medical professions in Taiwan: a nationwide
retrospective cohort study
Version:3Date:2 July 2015
Reviewer: Elizabeth Bertone-Johnson
Reviewer's report:
The authors have completely rewritten their manuscript in response to reviewer
and editor comments on the first version. The revised paper is very
straightforward and I have no further comments.
Reviewer's report
Title:Difference in blood pressure between early and late menopausal transition
was significant in healthy Korean women
Version:1Date:10 June 2015
Reviewer: José Luis NEYRO
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript can be published without corrections.
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:
Done.
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Influencing Uptake of Contraceptive Implants in the Immediate
Postpartum Period among HIV Infected and Uninfected Women at Two Kenyan
District Hospitals.
Version:2Date:27 March 2015
Reviewer: Charlotte Warren
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This is a well written
paper focusing on a specific postpartum FP issue of interest. Please see my
comments below:
Please either use 'postnatal' or 'postpartum' throughout - these are used
interchangeably: the current thinking from WHO is 'postnatal'
Please check all the references are correct - for example in Line 216 you quote
Roy and Harriet - these are their first names and should be Jacobstein and
Stanley (Ref 10). Refs 6 and 11 are also incorrect
Line 203-208 makes reference to the Kenya FP guidelines which indicate
implants can be inserted at 6 weeks postnatal. These are based on the WHO
medical eligibility criteria (MEC) so please reference the Kenya FP guidelines (it
is in the ref list #7 but not identified in the text), and the WHO MEC - ie it is a
wider issue than just Kenya. Perhaps mention that the new MEC is to come out
this year and hope changes will have been made. It would also be good to make
reference to the minimum package of integrating SRH/HIV developed by DRH
and NASCOP and the integration work done in Nyanza by KEMRI and UCSF
(and possibly Integra Initiative). There has been a lot of integration efforts over
the years.
line 246: it is not surprising that HIV positive clients reported higher order
pregnancies considering they are significantly older than HIV negative women.
please add a sentence to that effect in the discussion.
the conclusion is too long and would put most of it in the discussion as long as it
is not repeated - what is the critical message/conclusion? it seems from line 271 -
279 would be sufficient.
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:Factors Influencing Uptake of Contraceptive Implants in the Immediate
Postpartum Period among HIV Infected and Uninfected Women at Two Kenyan
District Hospitals.
Version:2Date:30 March 2015
Reviewer: Sebastian Eliason
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
Abstract
Line 29 – The objectives as stated are not very clear - kindly make it consistent
with the aims ofg the study (line 59)
Lines 39-40 – not well stated. Kindly consider as follows: Overall, uptake of
contracep0tive implants in the immediate postpartum period was -…………
Lines 40-42 - Could read --- Multivariate analysis revealed or shoed that
………….
Line 42 – Kindly check P value quoted. Is it 001 or 0.001 clarify
Line 43 – PP contraceptive implants are HIGLY ACCEPTABLE – PleaseClarify
on what basis this conclusion is drawn.
Background
Line 48 – there is the need to state what concerted efforts these organizations
have made for which sero – prevalence is still high
Line 51 – Use of unintended pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy in line 54 are
not interchangeable– Current evidence is that these concepts are not the same.
Kindly check the definitions C from literature. Use of unintended pregnancy may
be preferable. Look through the text and correct appropriately.
Line 59 –“We aimed to look at …………..” does not read well. Kindly consider
revising.
Line 61 – Will just identifying acceptability of postpartum contraceptive implants
improve unmet need ?
Consider strengthening the justification for the study
Methodology
Line 76-77 (Study population) - Consider revising – Could read – “One HIV
positive mother was selected for every one HIV –negative mother recruited”.
Data collection and recruitment
Where and how was the questionnaire pre-tested; Were they any challenges
from the pretesting for which revisions had to be made to the questionnaire or
strategies? Were the sites for pretesting and actual study similar in nature? Need
to state
What were the limitations of the study, considering the non –probability sampling
methodology
Results
Reproductive characteristics
Lines 138-139
The authors quoted OR 2.5( …….) and referred to table 2, however, table 2 does
not show any Odds ratios( OR) Please check and update table accordingly
Tables
The logistic regression model does not indicate whether it is bivariate or
multivariate.
If multivariate, the authors did not indicate how they selected the variables into
the model. Need clarification
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of Consistent Condom Use among Female Sex Workers in
Savannakhet, Lao PDR
Version:4Date:12 November 2014
Reviewer: Venkatesan Chakrapani
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed the revised manuscript submitted by the authors as well as their
point-by-point responses. They have mostly addressed the major comments from
the reviewers.
Minor essential revisions:
Only one concern remains. The 'Conclusions' in the abstract seems to be
essentially reworded Findings section of the abstract.
Suggestion:
In the conclusions section, the authors can:
1) state the key findings in one or two sentences (which is currently summarised
in the last sentence of the Conclusions)
2) provide programmatic or practice recommendations in one or two sentences
(for example, HIV intervention to focus equally on both younger [newcomers] and
experienced FSWs, and to provide messages to use condoms consistently with
all types of partners - regular or non-regular); and
3) provide recommendations for future research in one sentence (for example,
research to focus on other types of [non-venue-based] sex workers and need for
qualitative studies to better understand the contexts behind inconsistent condom
use).
The same applies to the 'Conclusions' subsection in the Discussion section of the
manuscript.
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:Determinants of Consistent Condom Use among Female Sex Workers in
Savannakhet, Lao PDR
Version:5Date:11 February 2015
Reviewer: Thanh Bui
Reviewer's report:
Regarding my previous comment #1.1, the authors seem to not understand the
differences in subgroups and in according appropriate statistical methods for
analysis of regular vs. non-regular partners between the Table 1 and Table 5.
However, I've seen that the authors removed explicit statements about statistical
differences between regular vs. non-regular partners in the Table 1; thus, this
point can be dismissed.
Minor essential revisions:
Please correct some p-values in the Table 5 (e.g. in Age or Marital status);
p-values cannot be >1.0.
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:Does Obesity Have Detrimental Effects on IVF Treatment Outcomes?
Version:4Date:9 April 2015
Reviewer: Deirdre Zander-Fox
Reviewer's report:
. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? No. The study was designed
as a retrospective study and some confounding and bias are common in those
studies. Some confounders were not evaluated and other important variables as
abdominal obesity, adipokines or the uterine environment were not considered.
3. Are the data sound? No they are data similar to other previously reported
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?
Yes
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Yes
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Only partially
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
They miss some published papers in this field
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
10. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
This is a very interesting study aimed to determine to investigate the influence of
body mass index (BMI) on in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment outcomes in a
cohort of women undergoing their first IVF. In spite of several researches have
tried assess the effect of obesity in IVF outcomes, but contradictory results have
been reported. So the study aim is interesting but I find some methodological
problems.
First, the study was designed as a retrospective study and some confounding
and bias are common in those studies as the authors stated in their paper, this
design prevented them controlling for other potential confounders, for instance
the evaluation of the role of abdominal obesity or the uterine environment.
-How the sample size was calculate?
-Due to several “standar stimulation protocols” were used, it could be interesting
to report the number of patients included in the different protocol
-What were the criteria for prescribing the gonadotropin start and total dosage?
Due to age, basal FSH and AF were similar in all groups, were only BMI the only
reason to prescribe higher doses of gonadotropins?
-It would be possible to contact to patients in order to know what was the
live-birth rate?
-Table 2 footnote must be rewrite. It is no clear to know if the significant
differences are between obesity and normal weigh, between obesity and
overweight or between normal weight and overweight
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Prevalence and correlates of contraceptive use among female adolescents
in Ghana
Version:2Date:23 March 2015
Reviewer: Kazuyo Machiyama
Reviewer's report:
The paper aims to examine factors associated with contraceptive use among
adolescents in Ghana. It is an important topic especially in the fast changing
country. The author competently analyzed the DHS data and present the results
in a very coherent manner. It is very well-written. However, the study does not
add new unique knowledge in the discipline. We already know that higher
education, older age and marriage are positively associated with increased use
of contraceptive use. The analysis is fairly descriptive. In order to publish a
paper, the author needs to pose a unique research question or hypothesis which
could add new knowledge in the discipline or make a policy or programme
implications.
The minor point.
- Contraceptive prevalence of modern and traditional methods combined do not
give us much information. It may be more interesting to assess the prevalence by
type of methods, rather than estimating overall CPR, or scrutinize use of condom
use which is often the most commonly used method among adolescents in
sub-Saharan Africa.
- It would be helpful if you conduct chi-square test or present crude odds ratios in
Table 1 to present associations between CPR and the determinants.
- The column on CPR Table 1 can be more clearly labelled.
- The author can clearly mention that you carried out multivariate analysis in the
method section and Table 2.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of Menopausal Symptoms among Mid-Life Women: Findings
from Electronic Medical Records
Version:1Date:2 March 2015
Reviewer: Santiago Palacios
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesting paper and I think it should be published with minor revision. My
comments are:
1. In the “Background” paragraph: the Reference 1 is from 1996, therefore I think
the authors should use epidemiological data based in recent references.
2. In lines 135-137 from page 5, the hormonal therapy (HT) contraindications are
mentioned, but there are other contraindications that are not mentioned and I
think all should be mentioned.
3. In page 7, it should be specified what the EMR consists. For example, if the
patients have to fulfilled daily, if they have to specify the symptoms intensity…
4. I wonder why there are only 102 patients selected in several years. Therefore,
it should be indicated which the cadence of selection is.
5. In the “Comparison to literature” paragraph, page 9, it is mentioned that
“difficult to directly compare their results to those from our study”. The authors
should say why there is any difficulty.
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:Prevalence of Menopausal Symptoms among Mid-Life Women: Findings
from Electronic Medical Records
Version:1Date:17 March 2015
Reviewer: NICOLAS MENDOZA
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
Please, change a 6-8 references and put in place a Global Consensus
The article has important limitations, such as the type of HT, severity or intensity
of symptoms VS and the data are only available locally, but the authors have
described correctly in the limitations section
Do you have the written consent of the patients?
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 interest´s below
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal Symptoms among Endometriosis Patients - A Case-Cohort
Study
Version:2Date:5 May 2015
Reviewer: Riadh Sadik
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study showing clinically important results.
Non parametrical tests were used.
However, the authors need to further discuss the limitations of the study.
*Patients with endometriosis and no gastrointestinal symptoms are probably not
included. The reason in many patients to diagnose endometriosis is GI-symptos.
*More than half of the the control group was selected from the hospital staff
which may influence the results.
* As the conclusion is written now one gets the impression that the use of opioids
or GnRH analogs is a factor leading to sever GI symptoms. This is apparently not
the intention of the authors. The conclusion need to be rewritten on this part.
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:
Non
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastrointestinal Symptoms among Endometriosis Patients - A Case-Cohort
Study
Version:2Date:4 June 2015
Reviewer: Valentino Remorgida
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
The question posed by the authors is original and focused on the importance of
differential diagnosis between endometriosis and bowel inflammatory disease.
The study is well designed an scientifically correct but, as the authors said, the
numerosity of the cohort is not enough to draw conclusion.
Weak points of the study are:
-the control group that have different demographic characteristics
-the diagnosis of endometriosis made by TVU or clinically (21 and 1 patient)
might not be “traditionally” correct as it is classically based on histology
-is it unclear if the patient with IBD were excluded or not from the study (line 134
vs 222) and so the conclusion of existing co-morbility between endometriosis and
IBD is an interpretation
-the number of patient menstruating in hormonal treatment is 3 vs 21 non
menstruating explained in line 323
-the use of opioids for endometriosis treatment is not so common and their effect
on bowel function is well known
-English should be revised for example “worse” or “more severe” instead of
“severer”
-several papers (ex. Hum Reprod. 2010 Jan;25(1):94-100 Norethisterone acetate
in the treatment of colorectal endometriosis: a pilot study) have been published
on improvement of GI symptoms in women with bowel endometriosis treated with
hormones , the authors should discuss this discrepancy
Reviewer's report
Title:Early maternal age and multiparity are associated to poor physical
performance in middle-aged women from Northeast Brazil: a cross-sectional
community based study.
Version:1Date:16 March 2015
Reviewer: Stefania D'Angelo
Reviewer's report:
Comments sent in the attached document
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:Early maternal age and multiparity are associated to poor physical
performance in middle-aged women from Northeast Brazil: a cross-sectional
community based study.
Version:2Date:11 June 2015
Reviewer: Rebecca Sear
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied that the authors have addressed my concerns
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:
none