JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:The PRCI study: Design of a Randomized Clinical Trial to evaluate a
coping intervention for medical waiting periods used by women undergoing a
fertility treatment
Version: 2Date:26 July 2013
Reviewer: kleanthi gourounti
Reviewer's report:
In general, the objective of this study protocol is very interesting and the study
design seems very promising. However, the manuscript has some minor
deficiencies that should be revised before publication. I have detailed some
revisions below:
#ntroduction.
1. The background information in general is informative. However there are some
issues that have not been mentioned. The authors should include some
information about the possible consequences of infertility related stress (e.g.
reduction in pregnancy rates, there are many primary studies and some
systematic reviews that have explored the impact of stress on IVF outcome) in
order to demonstrate the necessity of offering an intervention.
Methods
2.1. Do midwives work in fertility clinics in the Netherlands? If yes, this should be
referred in the study protocol. By this way the international readership will be able
to know what type of personnel can offer fertility support in the Netherlands.
2.2. It should be specified which program was used for the sample size
calculation.
2.3. The authors should specify what are they planning to do with not normally
distributed data. It is very possible to have some variables with not normally
distributed data. They can either use non parametric statistical tests and these
tests should be specified or they can make mathematical transformations for
normalizing the data. I think that these should be specified in the section of data
analysis.
I hope that you will find my comments helpful.
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:Diagnosis, treatment characteristics, and survival of women with breast
cancer aged 65 and above: a hospital-based study
Version: 4Date:12 May 2013
Reviewer: Maria Theresa Redaniel
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study looking at the associations of diagnosis and
treatment characteristics with survival among women with breast cancer aged 65
and above. They compared the results for these women with those of women
younger than 65 years of age. My comments are detailed below.
Major revisions:
1.) Background:
The aim of the study was to determine diagnostic and treatment characteristics of
women 65 years and above. However, the study sample included women
younger than 65. This should be clarified.
2.) Methods:
I would like to know more details of the inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g. Did they
only include primary cancers? Did they exclude DCOs? What was the lower age
limit of women included in the study sample?).
The authors included in situ cancers in their study and this could have biased the
results. In situ tumours have a different prognosis and require different
management from malignant cancers. The authors could either remove patients
with in situ cancers from the study sample or at least discuss the implications of
their inclusion.
Perhaps the authors could include information on censoring.
What was the clinical staging used?
Did the authors test the proportional hazards assumptions?
3.) Results
As survival time is often skewed, the authors could also report the median
survival time and the corresponding interquartile range.
The variables with non-significant results could be included in Table 2. Their
detailed discussion in the text could then be minimized.
The authors used the term whole model in the text and final model in Table 4.
Are these the same models? Comorbidities were also not mentioned in the text.
4.) Discussion
A summary of the results could be included as an opening paragraph in the
discussion.
The authors compared their results with that of previous studies, but they could
also include reasons for any differences in the findings.
Minor Revisions:
1.) Results:
The standard deviations should also be reported with the mean survival time.
In the last sentence, the authors mentioned “that the age of 75 is a breaking
point”. Could they clarify this phrase?
The reference category for histologic grade was not indicated in Table 4.
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 have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnosis, treatment characteristics, and survival of women with breast
cancer aged 65 and above: a hospital-based study
Version: 4Date:3 July 2013
Reviewer: Guzel Discigil
Reviewer's report:
Well designed study on breast cancer in the elderly, determining diagnostic and
treatment characteristics and survival. I have few suggestions though;
1. Table 2: Merge 75-79 and >80 years of age columns if possible
2. Table 3: How do authors explain lower survival rate at stage 0-1 than stage 2
in women over 75 years of age?
3. Fig 1 and page 8 line 3-5; conflicts. I suggest authors to review and correct
either Fig 1 or the text
4. Page 9, line 2; hazard ratio of this study was discussed, please mention your
study’s hazard ratio in results section
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:Determinants of serum levels of vitamin D: A study of reproductive history,
life-style, dietary intake, serum calcium, and PTH
Version: 2Date:8 May 2013
Reviewer: Briana Rudick
Reviewer's report:
High level of interest, I'm just not sure if its telling us very much new information,
and I'm not sure what we can do with it clinically.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of serum levels of vitamin D: A study of reproductive history,
life-style, dietary intake, serum calcium, and PTH
Version: 2Date:10 May 2013
Reviewer: Tamar Gur
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
1. The question posed by the authors is well defined, and he authors do a good
job delineating lifestyle and biochemical factors that are related to vitamin D
levels. Furthermore, this cohort has already been characterized, and results
presented in the literature, reflecting the appropriate and well defined methods. In
addition, their samples are well characterized, their data cleanly and clearly
presented, and their interpretations are sound. The authors largely do a good job
discussing each finding, providing relevant citations, and addressing limitations
and contradictions with the literature. The title and abstract are an accurate
reflection of the findings within the paper. Finally the paper is well written and and
easy to follow.
2. However, I would like them to comment on any recommendations that could
be made based on their findings. i.e- should one conclude that OC and moderate
alcohol intake would be recommended based on their findings? Age is not
modifiable, neither is the status of being born outside of Sweden, but some of the
other factors are modifiable (weight, etc). It would be important to broaden their
discussion to include any health or diet recommendations that can (or cannot) be
made based on their findings.
3. It would be useful for the authors to further discuss the findings of an
association of moderate alcohol use and vitamin D, as they do with their other
findings.
4. Sub-optimal should be spelled: Suboptimal (Page 2 and elsewhere in
document).
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:Use of Emergency department services by women victims of violence in
Lazio region, Italy.
Version: 3Date:31 July 2012
Reviewer: Toine ALM Lagro-Janssen
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The author must respond to these before a decision on publication can be
reached. For example, additional necessary experiments or controls, statistical
mistakes, errors in interpretation.
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:Use of Emergency department services by women victims of violence in
Lazio region, Italy.
Version: 3Date:14 November 2012
Reviewer: Elisabeth M Vieira
Reviewer's report:
I did not find any mistake or kind of errors in the text, although my Englis is fluent
I am aware it is not my mother language therefore I suggest some revision to be
made based on this fact.
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 have no competting interest with the publication of this paper.
Reviewer's report
Title:Use of Emergency department services by women victims of violence in
Lazio region, Italy.
Version: 4Date:3 April 2013
Reviewer: Toine ALM Lagro-Janssen
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been improved, it is a very important study on violence at an
ER. The methods are appropriate, much improved and well written, based on
sound data. The title and abstract are according to the content of the study.
Lastly, the discussion can mention more limitations e.g. the validity of the
registration data (EIS) on diagnosis and procedures based on ICD-9-CM.
I also find the tables 2 (why is the number of previous ED visits exactly the same
= 6963 in the women VV and the controls) and 3a and 3b not clear. Table 4:
delete the ICD-9-CM codes to make the table more easy to understand.
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:Furosemide-induced severe hypokalemia with rhabdomyolysis without
dysrhythmia
Version: 1Date:30 October 2012
Reviewer: Florian Mayr
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
Ruisz et al report the interesting case of a 22 year old nurse who presented with
a few days history of myalgias, vomiting and diarrhea and was found to have
metabolic alkalosis, AKI, rhabdomyolysis and severe hypokalemia of 1.1 mmol/L.
This indeed is an interesting case, as potassium values <2 are rarely seen in
hypokalemia.
1. The authors reach their diagnosis surprisingly quickly and find their patient
guilty of diuretic use, since the severe hypokalemia and alkalosis were not
explained by her “gastrointestinal problems”. I wonder if the patient’s urine
electrolytes were measured at any time point, which could have helpful in this
patient’s workup if the patient had not admitted to diuretic intake. In this patient
with increased K excretion, a low to normal blood pressure and elevated serum
bicarbonate, one would expect high urine chloride levels.
2. I recommend that a native English speaker edit the manuscript prior to
publication.
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 no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Furosemide-induced severe hypokalemia with rhabdomyolysis without
dysrhythmia
Version: 1Date:11 November 2012
Reviewer: Chih-Chia Liang
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The authors did not completely make differential diagnoses for hypokalemia
and rhabdomyolysis. For instance, this patient had history of Raynaud's disease
and restless leg syndrome but case presentation did not mention current
medications which might be the etiology of rhabdomyolysis and hypokalemia.
2. The authors may ignore this fact that furosemide alone does not induce
hyponatremia; instead, it leads to hypernatremia, hypocalcemia, and
hypomagnesemia. Therefore, hypokalemia in this patient should be attributed to
multiple factors.
3. It may be not rare to find patients with such low K level is still alive, especially
in the status of chronic hypokalemia. IAcute or chronic status decides the clinical
symptoms of hypokalemia or hyperkalemia.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The authors may misunderstand the term of "dysrhythmia" which broadly
means abnormal electric activity in heart. Therefore, the patient indeed had
dysrhythmia with prolonged QT interval and U wave but no cardiac arrest.
2. This article did not describe other clinical clues including vital signs and
physical examinations (skin turgor) at admission. It is essential to present in case
history.
3. The authors should correct some grammatical errors and redundant sentences
before publication.
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' below
Reviewer's report
Title:Furosemide-induced severe hypokalemia with rhabdomyolysis without
dysrhythmia
Version: 1Date:23 November 2012
Reviewer: Patrick Lacor
Reviewer's report:
This case report describes well known complications of severe hypokalemia and
is thus not very original from this point of view. However, it contains an important
message to the reader being the alertness for disease induced by inappropriate
medication use. Therefore, I read the article with interest.
The text is very well written and easily readable. The information given is "well
dosed" and "just enough" for a short case report. But one could wonder whether
the table might not be reduced somewhat by skipping some columns.
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:Furosemide-induced severe hypokalemia with rhabdomyolysis without
dysrhythmia
Version: 2Date:7 December 2012
Reviewer: Florian Mayr
Reviewer's report:
My previous concerns have been sufficiently addressed.
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Furosemide-induced severe hypokalemia with rhabdomyolysis without
dysrhythmia
Version: 2Date:16 December 2012
Reviewer: Chih-Chia Liang
Reviewer's report:
I think that the merits of this case report are both a very low potassium level (K:
1.1 meq/L) and hypokalemia-associated rhabdomyolysis although many papers
have addressed above situations. However, I still have some comments about
this article.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. The laboratory data are not compatible with typical furosemide-related
hypokalemia - the typical furosemide-associated hypokalemia should be
hypernatremia, hypocalcemia, hypomangnesemia, high urine
potassium/creatinine ratio, high urine sodium excretion, high urine
calcium/creatinine ratio. This case report did not provide enough evidences for
this diagnosis. The only evidence for furosemide-induced hypokalemia comes
from the history, not from objective findings such as blood or urine furosemide
level measured by HPLC or urine electrolyte test.
2. Again, this article did not describe vital signs at admission. It is essential for
clinical diagnoses and case reports.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. I suggest that a native English speaker should edit this article before
publication.
2. Too many references are cited in this manuscript. It is more appropriate to cite
less than 10 references in one case report.
3. Abbreviations should not be shown in the abstract or main documents unless
they are defined in the text at first use.
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:Understanding why women seek abortions in the US in their own words
Version: 2Date:25 February 2013
Reviewer: Lotti Helström
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Not clearly
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
No.
It is not clear how data was collected, which is the main problem with this paper.
3. Are the data sound?
No.
On page 5, last paragraph, the author write that the facilities from which subjects
have been collected perform about 2400 abortions annually. The number of
facilities is not declared.
Women were recruited Between January 2008 and December 2010, ie for two
years, which should account for4800 eligible women.
Under Participants 37,5 % of “eligible” women are said to agreed, which should
result in 1880 included. However only 956 women were called, which is 20%.
With such a low representation alls further calculations seem without meaning.
Complicated multivariate analyses make no sense .
This should strongly be stressed by the authors
If there is any possibility for the authors to compare their study population with
drop outs or at least any other study with similar populations it could help a little
bit.
To me the Participant characteristics seems very uneven which strengthens the
impression of lack of representativity.
However the data are interesting and should be published, but with a high degree
of caution as regards conclusions regarding any general abortion seeking
population.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
No. the Method for data collection is described in Introduction, (p4 , last
prapgraph an so forth) and Results were reported under Methods: Participants.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
NO, See above
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
No, not at all
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yeas, as far as I can see, but my mothe tongue is not English.
Recommendation:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
Best Regards
Lotti Helström
MD PhD
Dep of Clinical Science and Ed
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Understanding why women seek abortions in the US in their own words
Version: 2Date:15 March 2013
Reviewer: anne E burke
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions. This is an interesting paper, and well-written overall.
Please read through for punctuation and consistency. There seem to be some
missing commas, and the formatting of "comment (number)" is not always
completely consistent. Also some typographical errors that look like they were
missed edits during revision (example: a stray "to" in the discussion, an "or"
missing somewhere else)
page 5 line 4: does the line refer to "partner's" drug/alcohol use, or just partners?
Page 12: "For an extensive analysis of partner-related reasons for seeking an
abortion see." - see what?
Page 13: "One in five women (20%) reported that they chose abortion because
they felt a baby at this time would interfere with their future goals...." How does
5% + 14% + 7% add up to 20%?
Page 15, quote that begins on line 4 - are the incorrect "its" and "your" actual
written errors from the respondent, or did the transcriber incorrectly spell these
when she wrote down what the subject said?
Page 18, line 2 = think you mean "predominant", not "predominate"
Page 20 line 5 - should that say "pregnancy intentions SCORE"; line 9 -
pregnancy intentions again - high or low score?
Discretionary: Why was parity a continuous measure? Isn't that measured in
integers? (a woman cannot have 1.5 children, for example)
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:Understanding why women seek abortions in the US
Version: 5Date:14 May 2013
Reviewer: Deborah Billings
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer's report
Title: Understanding why women seek abortions in the US in their own words
Version: 2 Date: 14 May 2013
Reviewer: Deborah Billings
Reviewer's report:
The authors have taken just about all of the reviewers’ comments under
consideration, have provided excellent responses to the comments (including to
comments that they did not agree with), and have revised the manuscript
accordingly. One comment that I did not feel was fully addressed is the following:
Minor essential revision
ORIGINAL COMMENT: How was consent obtained and recorded (eg oral
consent and the interviewer vouched for this)? Were the phone calls recorded?
AUTHORS’ COMMENT: Thank you for your comment. We have added the
following paragraph to the methods section: “Parental consent was obtained from
women under the age of 18 living in states where parental notification or consent
for an abortion is required. In states without parental involvement laws, women
under the age of 18 were screened for their ability to understand the risks and
benefits of the study and, when they were determined to be able, they provided
informed consent on their own behalf.”
MY FOLLOW-UP COMMENT: I was not referring to consent obtained specifically
for minors but for all study participants. I still have the question about whether the
phone calls were recorded (if so, how were the recordings stored?) and whether
consent was oral (and recorded) from all participants.
Level of interest:
This is an important contribution to the literature on abortion and women’s lives.
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.
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:Understanding why women seek abortions in the US
Version: 5Date:15 May 2013
Reviewer: Lotti Helström
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered and made adequate revision of the manuscript.
It is now acceptable for publishing.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no ceompetin interests'.