JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy: a meta-analysis on ovarian cancer
risk and all cause mortality
Version:1Date:22 September 2014
Reviewer: Usha Menon
Reviewer's report:
A meta-analysis was published in 2009. The current meta-analysis extends it to
include risk reductions estimates associated with all-cause mortality in two large
studies. The additional data that has accumulated in the three studies previously
included in the 2009 meta-analysis, also allows for separate estimates in BRCA1
mutation carriers, although numbers of events continue to be insufficient for
BRCA2 mutation carriers. In addition separate risk estimates for those with and
without a prior history of breast cancer are calculated. The differences between
these subgroups are small in a clinical context. Notwithstanding, the
meta-analysis does allow for more individualisation of counselling of mutation
carriers exploring risk-reducing salpingo-oopherectomy.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Replacement of word study (for e.g. in abstract) by meta-analysis
2. The primary end-point used was the risk of developing OC. It needs to be
clarified as to how occult cancers that were detected at surgery were dealt with –
were these excluded or were prevalent cancers included in the risk reduction
calculation
3. Important to clarify that the outcome measure is not primary ovarian but
primary ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancer. This is what has been included
correctly in the statistics though the outcome measure has not been described.
4. Reference 5 and 14 are the same.
Discretionary Revisions
1. Would suggest use of risk reducing rather than prophylactic
salpingo-oopherectomy as the former better describes what can be achieved and
reflects the growing understanding of ovarian cancer origins. Words like
prevention/prophylactic tend to over exaggerate the impact and set unrealistic
expectations in patients, the lay public and nonspecialist clinicians.
2. PSO is not an abbreviation that is in use and would suggest it is replaced by
more common abbreviations such as RRSO or prophylactic BSO (bilateral
salpingo-oopherectomy), if authors wish to persist with use of the term
prophylactic salpingo-oopherectomy.
3. The title does not describe what was done - would suggest ‘- a meta-analysis
on impact on ovarian cancer risk and all-cause mortality’ or some variation of
this.
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Relationship satisfaction in lesbian and heterosexual couples before and
after assisted reproduction: a longitudinal follow-up study
Version:1Date:6 August 2014
Reviewer: Rashmi Gangamma
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
Although the research design seems strong, and there are potential important
contributions this study could make, my main concern with this manuscript is the
lack of a justification for the study and variables included. The manuscript would
benefit from a detailed explanation of the rationale for the study – why compare
female same-sex and other-sex couples? What gap does this fill? What are the
implications of findings of such a study?
Unfortunately, the lack of attention to the “so, what?” question in research
considerably reduces the significance of this manuscript in the current form.
It may help to contextualize experiences of same-sex couples in Sweden. For an
uninformed reader, it is difficult to know whether same-sex couples face systemic
discrimination; what the prevailing laws are regarding adoption and parenting by
same-sex partners; and ease of access to resources. Given the stark differences
in rights of same-sex couples around the world, this information would help the
manuscript reach a wider international audience.
Minor revisions:
1. The Conclusion section in the abstract is unclear. Please consider rewording
the sentence.
2. The entire manuscript would benefit from a thorough proof reading for editorial
and grammatical errors. For instance, please consider rewording the research
questions posed before the methods section.
3. It would also help to provide a rationale for including variables of Education
and Age in the analyses.
4. In the Discussion section, p.12, the paragraph above “Interpretation”, authors
comment on the stability of the couples that were selected for the sample. It
would be worthwhile, I think, to therefore additionally analyze whether there were
any differences in scores in completers versus non-completers. That is, were
there any baseline differences in ENRICH scores among couples who were
together at 3 years compared to those who were not?
5. On p. 14, in the last paragraph before the Conclusion section, the discussion
on gender differences is unclear.
I would also suggest authors use “same-sex” and “other-sex” instead of “lesbian”
and “heterosexual”, unless they have data about the sexual orientation of the
partners.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Secular trends in age at menarche among Chinese women born from 1955
to 1985
Version:2Date:29 September 2014
Reviewer: jie wu
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the overall trend in age at menarche and assessed
differences in the rate of age at menarche change, including urban and rural
populations of southeast China (within the two southeast provinces) in this
manuscript. The results showed that the age at menarche declined by with the
fastest decline in women born in 1966-1975. For the earliest birth cohorts
1955-1965, the age at menarche declined faster in urban vs. rural areas, and a
faster age at menarche decline was suggested for women with high school
education or above vs. primary school or less. As many reports involving this
topic with similar results have been published recently, and the design of this
work is very simple, so this manuscript will be very limited contribution to the
field. Therefore, I suggest this manuscript should be rejected for publication in
BMC Women's Health. In addition, some problems in the manuscript are
summarized as follows:
1) The title and abstract should be revised, because the women included in the
study born in southeast China (within the two southeast provinces).
2) “Menarche age” should be included in the keywords.
3) Please include a statement about institutional ethics committee in Methods
section and informed consent forms should be provided.
4) To update the references is necessary, because many studies involved the
topic have been published in recent years.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Secular trends in age at menarche among Chinese women born from 1955
to 1985
Version:2Date:9 October 2014
Reviewer: Chen Fangfang
Reviewer's report:
In the article “Secular trends in age at menarche among Chinese women born
from 1955 to 1985”, the authors have clearly described the secular trend of
menarcheal age among southeastern Chinese women, and comparisons have
been made between different birth cohorts. The data of this article have provided
important information in pubertal development study domains among Chinese
populations. In this article, I don’t think duplication or plagiarism has occurred.
According to the guidelines for reviewers, I commented as below.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Methods are described clearly, but some detailed information were indicated in
other previously published papers. How the samples was chose should be
clarified in the paper.
3. Are the data sound?
According to the methods, the whole subjects of this study were from two
southeast provinces of China. The PHCSS study include 1 northern and 2
southeastern provinces. Why don’t include the data of that that northern
province? Of all the subjects, what’s the proportion of urban and rural women?
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?
Figures appear to be genuine.
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?
In the discussion, the authors has compared the secular trend of age at
menarche of different regions in the world, and comprehensively discussed about
the possible reason of different change rate in each birth cohort.
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes.
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes.
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Subjects were all from southeast, they can’t represent all the Chinese women.
So, in the title, “southeast of China” should be clearly indicated.
10. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes.
Except all the questions above, I also want to ask the authors according to the
article.
In table I, Cochrane-Armitage Trend test showed that there might be some
obvious difference of the proportion of urban girls between different birth cohorts.
But, we can’t see some trend from the data. Could you explain what does the
result of trend test mean?
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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:Lesbians' attitudes and practices of cervical screening: A qualitative study
Version:4Date:29 August 2014
Reviewer: Erika Laine Austin
Reviewer's report:
Overall this is a strong qualitative investigation of lesbian women’s attitudes
toward cervical cancer screenings. The method is appropriate and described
well, and the data are sound. There is additional literature regarding lesbian
women’s misperceptions regarding STI risk (and the belief that STIs are spread
by men) that could also have been cited, but in general they acknowledge the
existing literature in this field.
Major Compulsory Revisions
With regard to the findings, I was surprised that more attention was not given to
the fact that most of the study participants “had encountered cervical cancer at
some stage of their lives.” What does this mean for the generalizability of these
findings? Are we to conclude that this is unimportant because most women know
someone who has had an abnormal Pap smear at some point? If that is the case
it needs to be stated, or the potential bias created by interviewing women with
personal experience with cervical cancer must be stated as a limitation.
Discretionary Revisions
I’d like to see some estimate of the estimated prevalence of cervical cancer
among lesbian-identified women. I know the data are not conclusive, but the
authors do make reference to this is the conclusion, and I’d like to see it at the
beginning as well.
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:Lesbians' attitudes and practices of cervical screening: A qualitative study
Version:4Date:2 September 2014
Reviewer: Jenny - Munro
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions
1. My suggestion to improve this article is for the authors to explicitly articulate
what is new about these findings, or at least what new directions for further
research or innovations to practice that this research reveals. Coming from a
social sciences perspective there were a number of themes that could have been
handled in a more interesting fashion, such as the association of HPV with
promiscuity, the issues surrounding HPV vaccine, and the medical practitioners
who continue to advise lesbians against pap tests.
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 and determinants of intimate partner violence towards female
students of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Version:2Date:8 November 2013
Reviewer: Katie Edwards
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be commended for their revisions; the paper has significantly
improved. However, several issues still remain.
1. The authors used inconsistent terms throughout (wife beating, IPV,
interpersonal violence). Pick a term most relevant to the current study and be
consistent.
2. In the introduction, cigarette, alcohol use, etc. are still framed as risk factors.
This needs to be tempered as correlates throughout the paper.
3. More is needed in the method on measures, including subscale breakdown,
how measures were scored and used in the different analyses (e.g., composite
yes/no any IPV, frequency of IPV across types, number of types of IPV
experienced). Without this, it is still very hard to make sense of the findings.
4. The discussion is stills somewhat disorganized and lacks logical
flow/cohesion.
5. Along these lines, there remaining typographical and writing style issues
although much improved from the previous draft.
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:Prevalence and determinants of intimate partner violence towards female
students of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Version:3Date:18 February 2014
Reviewer: Katie Edwards
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of my concerns and I have no additional
concerns or comments at this time.
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
Title:Breast cancer risk perceptions of Turkish women attending primary care: a
cross-sectional study
Version:4Date:9 September 2014
Reviewer: Guzel Discigil
Reviewer's report:
Minor revisions
Suggestions to authors:
Overall high risk women underestimated their risk of cancer is the most
prominent finding of this study. I suggest authors to highlight this finding and
discuss in more detail.
There are few more suggestions which I have mentioned on the text and
“..cancer concern” may be more appropriate than “..cancer worry”.
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:
No competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:5-Year data analysis of patients following Abdominal Wall Endometrioma
surgery
Version:3Date:31 July 2014
Reviewer: Vorapong Phupong
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The citation in the introduction (Reference no 3) was not correct. The content
in ref no 3 was stated regarding adolescents with endometriosis. The authors
please recheck.
2.For more interest in this journal, the authors should give the details of
histopathology in the result and discussion.
3. The discussion should be concise and concentrate on pathology.
Minor Essential Revisions
-throughout the manuscript: the word caesarian should be changed to
caesarean.
- column in Table 1: mean should be changed to mean +/- SD
- Did there have cases with malignant change in abdominal wall endometrioma?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:5-Year data analysis of patients following Abdominal Wall Endometrioma
surgery
Version:3Date:7 August 2014
Reviewer: Fernando Reis
Reviewer's report:
Major Revisions
1- Abstract: The concluding sentence of the Abstract should be reformulated and
all conclusions must be supported by the study results. If the study had a control
group and showed that caesarean section (CS) was a risk factor to abdominal
wall endometriosis (AWE), than it would be possible to conclude that more CS
will increase the incidence of AWE. Without a control group, the only possible
conclusion is that there was a high prevalence of previous CS among the women
with AWE.
2- The Discussion only repeats the results and compare them to previous
publications, without any critical interpretation of the data. This section must be
thoroughly improved and pass clear messages on the main research questions
and answers provided by the study.
Minor Revisions:
1- Line 40, Results: Insert here like in the abstract: "We found a previous history
of caesarian section in all 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 interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:5-Year data analysis of patients following Abdominal Wall Endometrioma
surgery
Version:5Date:8 September 2014
Reviewer: Fernando Reis
Reviewer's report:
This new version of the manuscript is partly improved and minor issues have
been solved. However, the Discussion remains chaotic and difficult to follow. The
whole Discussion should be rewritten, focusing on main questions that could be
addressed by the present data: e.g. the association of abdominal wall
endometriosis with surgical scar and in particular with cesarean section, and how
it supports the transport theory; whether this condition is often symptomatic or
not, and whether symptoms are cyclic; diagnostic pitfalls; etc.
The Discussion should avoid repetition of the results and refrain from simple
comparison of numbers, which pollute the text. It does not have to be long, only
logical and clear.
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:5-Year data analysis of patients following Abdominal Wall Endometrioma
surgery
Version:6Date:27 October 2014
Reviewer: Fernando Reis
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was quite improved with the present revision and the Discussion
is now consistent with the results.
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:Piloting a computer assisted telephone interview: The FUCHSIA Women's
Study
Version:3Date:8 September 2014
Reviewer: H. Irene Su
Reviewer's report:
The investigators describe the development of a computer-assisted telephone
interview for female young adult cancer survivors. The manuscript is clear and
well-written. This information makes a contribution to researchers in their field.
Major revision:
- Table 2 was not submitted
Discretionary revision:
- As the authors report challenges from interpretation to finding the range of
experiences, but were able to provide a small number of examples, consider
adding the questionnaire as an online appendix.
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 interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Piloting a computer assisted telephone interview: The FUCHSIA Women's
Study
Version:4Date:17 October 2014
Reviewer: Richard Kwok
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing the revised manuscript which details the steps necessary
to design and pilot a questionnaire for a research study. This draft adequately
addresses all of this reviewers initial comments.
One minor discretionary revision that authors may wish to address is the use of
the term "CATI" in the abstract and paper. "CATI" is typically a non-specific
acronym for "Computer Assisted Telephone Interview." However, the authors
seem to be using the acronym to refer specifically to the FUCHSIA Women's
Study CATI. When describing the acronym, the authors should either consider
using a more specific acronym throughout the paper (e.g. FWS CATI) or defining
their use of the acronym "CATI" as referring specifically to the FUCHSIA
Women's Study. This would prevent some confusion among some readers.
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:1Date:5 August 2014
Reviewer: Antonella Zucchetto
Reviewer's report:
Although affected by selection bias (due to the low participation of women
contacted at home, which are usually more representative of the general
population) study results are appreciable, also in consideration of the difficulties
of the setting, and they could be useful to improve screening attendance in
Bhutan and in similar countries.
I only have a couple of comments.
1. In the Methods, please better clarify the study procedures (unless the
reference to Tshomo et al. has become available in the meantime). In particular,
it is not clear how and how many women were recruited by the two approaches.
Furthermore, please better clarify how information was gathered on previous
screening among non participants.
2. As reported in Table 2, the “place of invitation” (home vs. clinic) seems to
affect less the proportion of screened women than “study participation”. However,
it would be interesting to see whether additional adjustment of logistic regression
models by recruiting method (or stratification) would affect the results reported in
Table 1.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Methods: Please define JDWNRH
2. Figure 2 should be similar to Figures 1 and 3 (i.e. Bar-chart)
Discretionary Revisions:
Table 1: ‘Student’ category is not informative (eliminate it or include it in another
category)
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 hereby declare to have collaborated in the past five years with Silvia Franceschi
in collaborative studies, by conducting statistical analyses and by writing several
papers. Nonetheless, I have never had a direct working relationship with her or
with her Institution that may constitute competing interests.