JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Assisted Reproduction: What factors interfere in the professional's
decisions? Are single women an issue?
Version: 2Date:14 December 2010
Reviewer: Eric Scott Sills
Reviewer's report:
This revised work by Zachia et al addresses an interesting interface within the
assisted reproductive technology arena, namely practitioner bias and
reproductive choice. Regarding content, I feel this manuscript is solid and should
be published but only after the authors consider a few housekeeping issues to
improve their delivery.
Abstract: Change last snetence on results to -- The professionals who decided
not to perform the procedure identified the woman's marital status and the child's
right to a father as the reason to withold treatment.
In the Conclusion -- use "among" not "between" when referring to more than two
entities.
Background: I would delete "hitherto".
Methods: Did all participants complete the online questionnaire en toto? How
was the instrument configured to assure 100% of items were answered?
2d page of Didcussion: Use "influences" not "interferes".
If 24.4% of the sampled fertility service providers in Italy and Germany are
agreeable to doing something prohibited by local statute, this requires additional
comment. The statement "Those who did so did not always justify the decision on
legal grounds" makes no sense. Of course it could not be justified on legal
grounds, because it was illegal!
3d page of Discussion: The authors need to update the readers on the status of
the "bill currently being examined by the Brazillian senate". What, if anything,
does that legislation say about single or same-sex patients obtainng fertility
treatment in Brazil?
"Woman's projects" ? I would seek a different way to express this idea.
If the authors wish to introduce complex ideas like "Right to Motherhood" and
"Right to Gestate", then they should support these concepts (or at least define
them) by way of a reference.
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, 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:Assisted Reproduction: What factors interfere in the professional's
decisions? Are single women an issue?
Version: 2Date:21 December 2010
Reviewer: Lucy Frith
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper, but I am not sure how far it advances the debate on
why and how doctors take the decisions they do in the field.
Major Revisions
1. It is not clear how the questionnaire was generated, on what basis were the
scenarios chosen and why the particular elements for respondents to chose?
2. Page 3 – is it most professionals who think it should be restricted to
heterosexual couples? Or is it the legislators, public opinion? Also useful to state
specifically which countries (or give examples) as this is not the case in the UK
for instance.
3. Why are these matters only relevant since 1990?
4. A Brazilian medical board resolution is mentioned, what did it state and did it
say only heterosexual couples should be treated? This is mentioned later but
could be explained when first brought up
5. P 3-4 ‘as to develop efficacious intervention strategies among professionals in
this field’ – what might these be? More explanation is needed
6. P 5 – ‘their moral and legal values’ – how exactly were these measured? More
explanation here would be useful, as looking at the tables there are listed factors
(child’s right to a father etc) were these elements chosen by the research team
and for respondents to tick yes or no? Or did they arise from the data? I presume
they are the former, so in which case how were they chosen and could it be
argued that they predetermined the responses? So what did the 'moral aspects'
mean? I am not sure how useful a category this is unless it is broken down into
what might be included under this heading.
7. P 10 – the issue of donor anonymity is not specific to single women
8. P 12 – ‘Another aspect made evident by this study is that it is essential that
professionals working in assisted reproduction participate more actively in
debates and in the drafting of laws and regulations on the use of new
technologies.’ This point needs to be further explained – how has the study
demonstrated this?
9. Overall the analysis was rather thin and it would have been useful to include
the responses to the other scenarios as even if they were not statistically
different it would have been interesting. Including the other cases would give the
paper more to consider.
10. It is difficult to make international comparisons and a discussion of the broad
context of infertility treatment in each country would have been useful and
recognition of the problems in attributing different answers to different
demographics.
11. A greater
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:Assisted Reproduction: What factors interfere in the professional's
decisions? Are single women an issue?
Version: 3Date:27 February 2011
Reviewer: Lucy Frith
Reviewer's report:
This is an improved version, but a number of my original comments have not
been adequately responded to.
Essential revisions.
I refer to my original comments here:
Comment 1 - a fine response but should be put in text, as to how the cases were
generated and if there was any piloting etc.
Comment 6 – these issues are at the heart of the paper and still not adequately
explored.
Comment 8 – more consideration of how their findings might influence practice
would be useful.
New comment: A consideration of the limitations of the study would also help, ie
international nature and hence difficulty in comparing countries with different
regulations, and the design of the questionnaire – as I said before if there is a
category of ‘moral aspects’ what does this mean? And how were elements such
as ‘child’s right to a father’ chosen? The literature or previous research? I think
overall to be sure of the validity of the analysis we need more details on how the
survey instrument was designed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Assisted Reproduction: What factors interfere in the professional's
decisions? Are single women an issue?
Version: 4Date:23 April 2011
Reviewer: Lucy Frith
Reviewer's report:
I think the manuscript has addressed my comments adequately.
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 I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Consistency of risk factors for inadequate cervical cancer screening among
immigrants from different regions of origin
Version: 1Date:21 February 2011
Reviewer: Elsebeth Lynge
Reviewer's report:
The paper addresses an important topic. However, given its relatively simple
message, the paper is far too long and has too many tables. The authors do not
find major differences between the ethnic groups. Therefore, text and tables
could be substantially simplified by analysing immigants as one group. Tables 1,
2, and 3 could then be merged to one. Eventually including ethnic group as an
additional independent variable. The text should be abbreviated to no more than
6 pages. Reference 14 seems to be a previous study following a similar
methodology, so probably much of the methodology description can be deleted
by referring to this already published paper.
I miss a discussion of the minor importance of all other variables than patient
enrolment model and female provider.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:The silent cry: Women's status and violence against Young Married
Women by Husbands in Rural Nepal
Version: 1Date:16 November 2010
Reviewer: Gunnar Kullgren
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written, well structured paper. Analyses are straight forward and
adequate and discussion and conclusion overall acceptable. The authors state
that studies on VAW are sparse in low-income countries - a statement that is
actually contradicted by the authors themselves. A significant number of studies
have been conducted in developing countries, many of them actually referred to
in this paper.
In every household, the head of the household (a man?) was asked to suggest
eligible respondents. This might introduce a bias which should be commented
upon.
The items on emotional violence are weak and ambiguous (for example: "the
husband makes the women feel bad about herself"). Some previous papers
using the same WHO-questionnaire have omitted emotional violence from the
analyses. A good idea, in my mind (discretionary revision)
Data on life-time experiences are always less trustworthy than 12-months data -
as illustrated for example by the life-time and 12-months prevalence of degrading
sexual experiences that are basically the same. I suggest that life-time data is
omitted from all analyses. They do not add anything to the results (Minor
essential revision)
The lack of association between educational level among women and VAW could
be explained by findings reported from previous studies that the major point is
discrepancy in educational level between women and her husband?
Overall, the paper does not add new knowledge in this topic apart from the fact
that data from Nepal confirms findings from studies in other countries.
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:Psychological impact, support and information needs for women with an
abnormal Pap smear: comparative results of a questionnaire in three European
countries
Version: 2Date:8 March 2011
Reviewer: Maarit Leinonen
Reviewer's report:
Authors have answered all my points. My major concerns were that the data was
analysed only by country, results were not adjusted and that the severity of the
Pap test was not taken into account. Authors have explained that current
database do not allow exploitation of the data as suggested, and extended the
discussion on the limitations of the study. The reason is acceptable and the
activities done are satisfactory in teh context. However, these concessions made
due to data inevitably decrese the level of interest of the article.
Minor essential revisions:
My previous point number one in discretionary revisions concerning responses
and their corresponding choises in the questionnaire form (eg. Table 2). Authors
have answered that tables have been revised to remove responses with less
than 10 % of patients reporting. They have added this information into the
heading of the Table 2. As there are proportions less than 10% in the table, this
limitations very difficult to see or understand. The text added should be removed
from the heading, put into the Footnotes and clarify properly.
Discretionary revisions:
In the Methods, 1st par. There seems to be an overlap. "Women were free to
refuse to complete the questionnaire" and "Patients were free to refuse
participation in the study. As this was a questionnaire-based study, a decision to
complete the questionnaire can be interpreted as a consent to participate in the
study.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Psychological impact, support and information needs for women with an
abnormal Pap smear: comparative results of a questionnaire in three European
countries
Version: 2Date:27 March 2011
Reviewer: Donna H. H McCree
Reviewer's report:
The purpose is better defined in the revised manuscript. Additional specifics are
provided on the study population, measures and analyses. The Discussion and
Conclusion sections as revised are better supported by the data. The limitations
are articulated. The writing is greatly improved, but several sections lack clarity
and are not well written.
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:The Lactobacillus flora in vagina and rectum of fertile and postmenopausal
healthy Swedish women
Version: 1Date:10 December 2010
Reviewer: Urban Forsum
Reviewer's report:
page 1:
Affiliation of some of the authors are given as “Malmö University” (perhaps
University College of Malmö is meant), however to the best of my knowledge the
so affiliated authors have position at Lund University. The mistake is disturbing
and might suggest that some of the authors have not checked the manuscript
before it was submitted.
page 2, line 7-8:
Compared with page 9 line 2-3 it seems that the authors give different
aims/purpose of the study.
page 2, line 10:
I suggest the authors reconsider the use of “smear” throughout the paper to
describe the sample obtained.
page 2, line 19:
spell out “LD” .
page 3, line 17: By definition postmenopausal women are not afflicted with
Bacterial Vaginosis, sentence must be re-written.
page 4, line 5.
“Twenty healthy fertile women”. this is a problematic statement if not qualified by
explicit reference to observations/examinations (structured clinical data and
results of i.e. Amsel or Nugent scores). If this kind of data was not collected it is a
major weakness in the study design.
page 5, line 14:
PCA, give a reference to the specific method used in applying PCA to the data
set.
page 10, next last and last para.
The discussion on collagenous colitis is speculative and does not add much to
the paper. What is really meant by “Treatment with probiotics may have a benign
effect on the clinical course”?
page 11, line 1:
“amount” change to “number” (and in tables etc.).
Table 1-3.
Reword “… woman did not fulfill the analyzes”
Figures.
Seems to be submitted in duplicates.
Tables and figures:
Presentation could be done in a more compact format; especially the tables
could be condensed without loss of information.
Authors´contributions
Unusual format and wording. Reconsider the wording, contributions are given
individual per individual not task per task which is more easy to read. What does
“financially supported” mean as written for some authors. Financial and other
disclosures should be clearly spelled out per individual author and financial
support to the study by granting organizations (and/or companies) clearly be
spelled out.
General:
The paper does not add much new information to the accumulating body of
knowledge in Lactobacilli in the vaginal and rectum. The lack of data on L. iners
is disturbing and the authors should have seriously considered non-culture
methods for the study.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:The Lactobacillus flora in vagina and rectum of fertile and postmenopausal
healthy Swedish women
Version: 1Date:16 January 2011
Reviewer: Carl Påhlson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures,
the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.
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:The Lactobacillus flora in vagina and rectum of fertile and postmenopausal
healthy Swedish women
Version: 2Date:7 March 2011
Reviewer: Urban Forsum
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsatory revision
Two major concerns remain with the paper:
1.
My critique:
““page 4, line 5.“Twenty healthy fertile women”. this is a problematic statement if
not qualified by explicit reference to observations/examinations (structured
clinical data and
results of i.e. Amsel or Nugent scores). If this kind of data was not collected it is a
major weakness in the study design.””
resulted in the following action by the authors:
“Reply: The subjects were examined by a basic clinical examination to exclude
disease. A
gynaecological examination including PAP smear and smear for a bacterial
culture were
carried out. All patients had normal cytology and a normal bacterial flora. This is
now
mentioned in the manuscript, page 4, line 7-10.”
The reply and action by the authors does not address the real problem that there
are no criteria or other definition in the description of the basic set of patient that
defines the included women as healthy with respect to genital (including STI)
ailments. This is a major weakness of the study that affects the conclusions and
usefulness of the outcome of the study. In fact undermines the statement that the
study concerns “healthy Swedish women”.
2.
In the revised manuscript the following statement is introduced”The present
results did not support that differences in rectal flora could explain the increased
prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in postmenopausal women.” Bacterial
Vaginosis is a condition affecting otherwise healthy women of fertile age
according to most authorities on the subject. The newly introduced statement and
discussion based on the statement in the revised manuscript thus should be
modified or deleted.
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:The Lactobacillus flora in vagina and rectum of fertile and postmenopausal
healthy Swedish women
Version: 2Date:26 March 2011
Reviewer: Carl Påhlson
Reviewer's report:
Since the autors have corrected all my comments I suggest you accept the
paper!
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:Factors affecting knowledge and perception of women about smoking: a
cross sectional study from a developing country
Version: 1Date:26 November 2010
Reviewer: Chizimuzo Okoli
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors state that the study was based on a questionnaire administered to
women attending clinics in three 'slums' of Karachi. Are the slums typical of
Karachi? In other words, do most Urban dwellers in Karachi live in the slums? If
not, it should be noted in the limitations section that the results of the study are
not fully generalizable to the Urban dwellers in Karachi or Pakistan but are more
specific to women living in such situations.
2. Although the author's present the questions to assess knowledge and
perceptions of smoking, we are not told how each question is scored. I'm
assuming each question is based on a 'yes/no' response choice because a
chi-square analysis was used to assess the responses based on different
socio-demographic variables. Could the authors clarify if the response choices
for the assessment of knowledge and perceptions of smoking was on a
categorical (i.e., yes vs no) or some sort of likert scale?
Minor essential revisions
1. There are several grammatical errors throughout the article. I would encourage
the authors to endeavor to have these corrected.
Discretionary revisions
1. Tables 2 and 3 would be clearer if you listed the actual sections in a note
below the tables. This will help the reader not to have to refer back to the text of
the manuscript while looking through the tables.
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:Factors affecting knowledge and perception of women about smoking: a
cross sectional study from a developing country
Version: 3Date:28 January 2011
Reviewer: Brian Flynn
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all concerns noted in the previous review.
Discretionary revision: The full questions could be placed in the column headings
for Table 3. The arrangement for Table 2 is adequate. Some further minor copy
editing may be beneficial.
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 in relation to this paper.