JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report 
 What aspects of periods are most bothersome for women reporting heavy menstrual bleeding? Title: 
Community survey and qualitative study 
 2  17 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Mark Shapley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I think that the revisions made are an improvement to the study. I still have some concerns regarding originality but there is a paucity of research in this area and without doubt this study does provide new information. The high proportion of women who have consulted previously about "a period problem" makes 
the sample similar to that studied in the O'Flynn and Britten paper although with further aspects of 
menstruation analysed. The fact that such a large proportion of women had consulted makes it more relevant to clinicians. The consultation rate is high and doesn't concur with their statement in the background "others have commented on how many women with heavy menstrual bleeding to (typo error) 
not consult their doctors (4)". 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached 
The data concerning the number of women who had consulted a GP at some time in the past should be 
incorporated. The following sentences suggested by the authors should be added “Overall, according to 
their questionnaire responses, 12 interviewees had consulted their general practitioner about periods within 
the previous 6 months. Of those who had not reported consulting on the questionnaire, a further 12 said at 
interview that they had discussed periods with their general practitioner at some time in the past”. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 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 I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 What aspects of periods are most bothersome for women reporting heavy menstrual bleeding? Title: 
Community survey and qualitative study 
 2  25 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Sioban Harlow Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
In reference to these two concerns expressed previously the authors simply stated that they had been examined in other publications. However, as the concern about these issues arises as a reader of this article -- discussion of these points are needed in this article also. They can be discussed in the discussion 
section, where you can restate the previous findings succinctly. 
"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." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 of importance 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 
 What aspects of periods are most bothersome for women reporting heavy menstrual bleeding? Title: 
Community survey and qualitative study 
 3  18 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Mark Shapley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I feel that the authors have now answered my concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
 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 
 What aspects of periods are most bothersome for women reporting heavy menstrual bleeding? Title: 
Community survey and qualitative study 
 3  8 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Sioban Harlow Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper is now fine 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) None 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance 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 
 Correlates of Women's Preventive Health Screening and Contraceptive Knowledge Title: 
 1  28 August 2006 Version: Date: 
 haleh sangi-haghpeykar Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
A better explaination of the public health/clinical relevence of the finding is needed in the discussion. 
In Table 5 Please explain which variables are controlled for in each regression model. 
This is a well designed study and a lot of thought has gone into it's implementation. I wonder why it has 
taken nearly 3 years for the authors to try publish the findings. 
A write of the sample size estimation is needed in the methods. Why this sample size selected? 
Knowing differences in knnowledge/attitude by shift of day the participants surveyed would be interesting. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 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 Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 Correlates of Womens Cancer Screening and Contraceptive Knowledge among Female Emergency Title: 
Department Patients 
 2  9 April 2007 Version: Date: 
 Ann Carroll Klassen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The article is much improved. I have no further comments or changes to suggest. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance 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 
 Cost-effectiveness of Preventative Therapies for Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia Title: 
 2  13 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Jonathan D Adachi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I believe that the most important issue is that this study looks at the cost effectiveness in patients with 
osteopenia and not osteoporosis. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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)I am not certain if you included the only 
other relevant population in the osteopenic subset, the subset that has sustained a fracture. In this subset, the risk of fracture is said to be higher than in those with osteopenia alone. It is also known that this is a 
very relevant subset, as the vast majority outpatients who go on to fracture have osteopenia rather than 
osteoporosis and of those with osteopenia it is the subset with fractures that is at the greatest risk of further 
fractures. As a result it might be worthwhile modeling in this subset. This is also true for the alendronate 
analysis. 
Was consideration given to the reduction of non-vertebral fractures in those who have had a crush fracture. 
Delmas, in a post-hoc analysis suggested that in this population, raloxifene might offer benefit in the 
prevention of non-vertebral fractures. In the alendronate studies there were a subset of individuals who 
were osteopenic. In those individuals with vertebral fractures and osteopenia, while insignificant, estimates 
of non-vertebral fractures may have been reported and might be used in estimating the effects of 
alendronate in reducing non-vertebral fractures. 
I believe that it should be acknowledged if these subsets were not included in these analyses, as this would 
probably lead to a more conservative result. 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have been a consultant, conducted clinical trials or spoken on behalf of the following companies: 
Amgen 
Asta Zeneca 
Eli Lilly 
GlaxoSmith Kline 
Merck 
Pfizer 
Procter & Gamble Roche Sanofi Aventis 
Servier 
Wyeth
Reviewer's report 
 Cost-effectiveness of Preventative Therapies for Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia Title: 
 2  14 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Josef Georg G Brecht Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) - NONE 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance 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: 
The reviewer did some studies on a contract basis for Aventis and Procter&Gamble on the efficiency of 
bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Reviewer's report 
 DNA Microarray Data Integration by Ortholog Gene Analysis Revealed Potential Molecular Title: 
Mechanisms of Estrogen-Dependent Growth of Human Uterine Fibroids 
 1  28 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Taisen Iguchi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This article suggests detailed analysis of genes realted to human uterine fibroids based on microarray technology. The authors selected some genes possibly related to fibroids based on 3 data sets of microarray. The present reviewer strongly recommend to accept this article. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) I have no major criticism on this article. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) On page 8, line 13: disctribution should be distribution. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept without revision 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 have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 DNA Microarray Data Integration by Ortholog Gene Analysis Revealed Potential Molecular Title: 
Mechanisms of Estrogen-Dependent Growth of Human Uterine Fibroids 
 1  16 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 James Segars Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript by Wei, et al. describes an in silico analysis with the comparison of DNA microarray results from human fibroid studies and estrogen-regulated genes in the rat. Of the thousands of differentially-regulated genes, the authors have culled the list to 38 genes common to 3 human studies and 
of the 38, 12 were found to be orthologs of genes responsive to estrogen in the rat uterus (12/38=31%). The 
authors conclude that this work ‘provides further avenues of study which could influence the future direction 
of therapeutic intervention for the disease.’ As an in silico analysis, the methods appear justified. There 
have been comparisons of microarray data of human studies published previously, but no direct 
comparison with the rat. It is certainly true that medical treatment for fibroid disease warrants new efforts 
directed to therapeutic intervention. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) Suggestions: 
1. Estrogen, while involved in 12 of the 38, was not apparently involved in 69% of the gene products 
identified by the author’s approach. It would be very interesting to see the list of genes that were NOT involved in estrogen action. While others have published summary data, the list of this paper would be of interest for comparison. 
2. The findings of this in silico analysis provide direction for new direction and may provide hypotheses for 
testing, but the primary limitation is that experiments will need to be performed to substantiate the importance of the findings. This point should be emphasized more strongly in the discussion. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) There are some incorrect verb tenses and grammatical errors. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review:
Reviewer's report 
 DNA Microarray Data Integration by Ortholog Gene Analysis Reveals Potential Molecular Title: 
Mechanisms of Estrogen-Dependent Growth of Human Uterine Fibroids 
 2  23 March 2007 Version: Date: 
 James Segars Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This in-silico analysis will be of interest to researchers in the uterine fibroid field. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
The revised manuscript incorporates revisions suggested. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance 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 
 Trends in Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use by Breast Cancer Survivors: Comparing Survey Title: 
Data from 1998 and 2005 
 2  7 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Eileen Rakovitch Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 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 
 Trends in Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use by Breast Cancer Survivors: Comparing Survey Title: 
Data from 1998 and 2005 
 2  13 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Paul P Shekelle Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper is a revision of a paper I have previously reviewed. It reports the results of a survey of breast 
cancer patients regarding their use of a variety of CAM modalities, and compares these results to a similar 
survey from 1998. 
This paper is responsive to my previous review. I continue to think the authors devote too much space in the 
discussion to speculations about why some CAM therapy use went up and some went down, but I am not 
opposed to proceeding with the paper is it stands. I do note that the methods section contains text about 
performing a logistic regression analysis, but this results have been deleted from the paper and the methods 
section needs to be revised. 
 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 
 Trends in Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use by Breast Cancer Survivors: Comparing Survey Title: 
Data from 1998 and 2005 
 2  23 February 2007 Version: Date: 
 Lynda Balneaves Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have done a careful job of incorporating the reviewers comments into this manuscript. I agree 
with the authors decision not to incorporate a statement in the conclusions regarding the need for 
education/support for patients using or making decisions about CAM during their breast cancer experience. 
The manuscript will offer a much needed longitudinal perspective of the change that has occured in relation 
to CAM use in breast cancer populations. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept without revision What next?: 
 An article of importance 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 I have no competing interests.