JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report
Title:Perceived control over condom use among sex workers in Madagascar: a
cohort study
Version: 2Date:20 September 2009
Reviewer: Laura Murray
Reviewer's report:
The text is much clearer and I appreciate the authors addressing most of my
questions and concerns. I just have a few further comments and suggestions to
clarify a few sentences and statements that the authors make in the text. The
manuscript does make an important contribution to our understanding to the
vulnerabilities of sex workers in resource poor settings and I would recommend
that BMC publish the piece after the following suggestions are addressed by the
authors:
Introduction
1. In the first paragraph, it would be helpful if the authors cite the studies they
mention regarding perceived control over condom use with sex workers. There is
quite a bit of research available on condom use with sex workers and I am not
sure if I agree that there is not a lot out there --- yet I agree with the authors that
there is little research on this issue in resource poor settings. I would recommend
adding one more sentence about what some of the other research has shown in
other settings, and then add the paragraph regarding sex work in Madagascar
from the discussion (pg 11 of the manuscript) to the introduction. This will provide
the reader with important background information before reading the article.
Methods
2. Thank you for your clarification about all women mentioning trading sex for
money. I think it would be terrific if you could add this into either the criteria, or in
the results section.
Discussion
3. The last few sentences on page 12 are a little confusing. Do the authors know
how many of the condomless sex acts were with the same clients? Could there
be overlap here with regular clients? A second concern is the authors' conclusion
that clients may be more of a risk than main partners. At least in Latin America,
more women tend to be infected by their main partners than casual partners, so I
think that it is a little bit risky given the data in this article and the limitations which
the authors state to conclude that clients may pose more of a risk than partners.
To me, the important point is that prevention with both main partners and clients
be a priority.
4. The last two sentences appear to contradict one another. I think this is just a
simple problem of cleaning up the language.
Limitations
5. I would add to the limitations what was mentioned in the response to the
reviewers -- that a limitation is that the questions reported in Table1 asked 'ever'
for main partners and 'last client' for clients.
Conclusions
6. In the first sentence, I would restate the measures that you found to be
important determinants just to facilitate the reading and emphasize why this
article is an important contribution.
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 I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Measuring the Barriers against Seeking Consultation for Urinary
Incontinence among Middle Eastern Women
Version: 1Date:13 June 2009
Reviewer: Khunying Kobchitt Limpaphayom
Reviewer's report:
1. No major revision.
2. need to clrify the term UDI-6 , in the paper written , there is no place for
clarification of this word. It did appear in the ref. # 2
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Measuring the Barriers against Seeking Consultation for Urinary
Incontinence among Middle Eastern Women
Version: 1Date:22 June 2009
Reviewer: Desireé Mostajo
Reviewer's report:
No major compulsory revisions
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:The prevalence,incidence and risk factors of herpes simplex virus type 2
after delivery amongst Zimbabwean women.
Version: 2Date:6 November 2009
Reviewer: Kenneth Fife
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has been improved significantly. The authors have made most of
the requested changes or clarified points of uncertainty. At this point, I have no
concerns that I would view as major and no revisions that I would consider
compulsory. My only remaining concern relates to my original minor comment #4.
I do not have the original version of the manuscript, so I am not certain if the
authors changed the section in the discussion in which they discuss suppressive
acyclovir therapy, but I am still puzzled by their recommendation. They state: “we
recommend HSV 2 suppressive therapy in pregnant women until an effective
vaccine is developed”. Their study focused on incident HSV 2 infection in the
postpartum period – is their recommendation for pregnancy as stated or for the
postpartum period? Is it for women who have HSV 2 infection or those who are at
risk of acquiring HSV 2? What is the “effective vaccine” that they mention? Do
they mean a vaccine for HIV or HSV 2? Although I do not think this rises to the
level of a compulsory revision, I do think they need to be clearer about what they
mean in this paragraph. From their cover letter, it sounds as if they are still trying
to make the argument that suppressing HSV 2 should reduce the risk of HIV
infection. Although the three (soon to be four) studies refuting that argument are
not perfect, there are no published clinical trials that support the argument.
Because this is the discussion section of the paper, the authors are entitled to
express their opinions. However, suppressing HSV 2 to reduce HIV infection is
an intervention that has no support in the medical literature. I would encourage
the authors to reconsider this suggestion if that is their reason for recommending
acyclovir suppression.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Reasons for Non-Vaccination against HPV and Future Vaccination
Intentions among 19-26-Year Old Women
Version: 1Date:3 March 2010
Reviewer: Loretta Brabin
Reviewer's report:
This paper is clearly written and addresses a topic that is topical and relevant for
countries like the US that are prioritising young women up to the age of 26 for
HPV vaccination ie. not just teenagers. It provides some new data, but the results
are constrained by the low return rate (16%) for the questionnaire and then, by
the absence of an analysis comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated women. The
results are largely hypothetical (likelihood of taking advantage of HPV
vaccination in future).
Major revisions
1. Please state how the sample size of 1375 women per group (vaccinated and
unvaccinated) derived?
2. Is there any reason not to compare the two groups? It would make for a much
stronger paper.
3. Almost all the non-vaccinated women who replied had heard about HPV but
many did not prioritise it – this is quite an interesting result, but may reflect a
selected group of responders who are convinced that they are not at high risk of
cervical cancer. These women may be correct in their assessment. The paper
does not provide any sexual history data that might suggest that they are being
overly optimistic. Therefore the conclusion that educational interventions are
required is a little simplistic. The level of protection afforded by vaccination to
older groups has diminishing returns, and women may decide that the vaccine is
unnecessary because they know that the target group is girls who are not
sexually active and/or because they know they have access to cervical
screening. These issues need to be discussed in more detail.
Minor revisions
4. Please discuss the paper’s limitations in more detail and earlier in the
Discussion.
Discretionary
5. The data were collected in April 2008? How has uptake changed since then?
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:Reasons for Non-Vaccination against HPV and Future Vaccination
Intentions among 19-26-Year Old Women
Version: 1Date:9 April 2010
Reviewer: daniel Levy-Bruhl
Reviewer's report:
This paper presents the results of a survey exploring the reasons for non
vaccination in the context of the HPV catch up vaccination strategy for 19-26
years olds women in the US. The context of the study is well defined as is its
methodology. There are no main issues with the analysis performed and the
discussion is on line with the work done and the results generated. The main
limitations of the studies are stated: the low response rate, the selection bias
induced by the use of a claim database which excludes non insured women.
The paper is well written, very easy to read and the analysis well presented.
Discretionary revisions
- The socio-demographics characteristics of the respondents could be compared
with those of the entire population of the 19-26 years old women in the database,
for such variables existing in the database.
- The fact that more than 80 % of the responders reported being likely to discuss
the HPV vaccine with a doctor is likely to result, at least partly, from a desirability
bias. It should be interesting to document, if possible from the database, the
number of contacts of those women with a physician since the HPV vaccine has
been made available. This would allow a more in-depht discussion about how
much the absence of vaccination can be attributed to the absence of opportunity
for vaccination.
- Even if the results of the survey for vaccinated women are not presented in this
analysis, it would be interesting to test the existence of a statistical association
between the physician recommendation and the women vaccination status
(therefore including results for vaccinated women), or if this analysis has been
already made in the first paper, at least to mention it in the discussion
- The limited value of answers regarding intentions to get vaccinated in the future
should be further stressed.
- Similarly, the representativeness of the population enrolled in the database (e.g
the geographical coverage of the database) could be a bit more detailed.
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:Reasons for Non-Vaccination against HPV and Future Vaccination
Intentions among 19-26-Year Old Women
Version: 4Date:27 July 2010
Reviewer: Loretta Brabin
Reviewer's report:
Queries have been largely addressed.
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:To predict factors associated with Breast Self-Examination behavior in a
sample of Iranian women: An Application of Health Belief Model
Version: 2Date:26 February 2009
Reviewer: Gisela Gastrin
Reviewer's report:
REVIEW ON THE ABSTRACT .
There are differences in Finland an Iran when using the English language to
describe BSE-related circumstancies, but I am sure that we mean the same
things. According to Finnish standards of presentation, BSE is aimed at
DETECTING CHANGES in the breasts, while THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE
CHANGES is carried out by mammograpcic and other clinical investigation. In
Iran, women who performed BSE effectively were those who perceived high
degree of benefits and low degree of barriers; therefore it is important to explain
to large populations the benefits of, and the easy ways to attend comprehensive
BSE programs.
REVIEW ON THE ARTICLE ACCORDING TO GIVEN GUIDELINES
“To predict factors associated with Breast Self-Examination behaviour in a
sample of Iranian women: An application of Health Belief Model”.
Article type: Research on health beliefs, health habits and influence on women´s
breast health.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED
according to my knowledge as a radiologist / oncologist, health educator and
adviser in health education of the WHO:
1. The question posed is well defined. The authors are exploring the concrete
psychological factors, that may predict BSE-behaviour in well defined female
individuals. A written interview according to a certain health belief model (HBM)
is used to ease in a trustworthy manner comparisons to other investigations done
or expected to be done
2. The methods are appropriate and well described
3. The data seem to be sound
4. The manuscript seems to adhere to relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition. I am not an expert on this item, but I think that it is correct.
5. The discussion and the conclusions are well balanced and adequately
supported by the data and by comparisons to other investigations
6. Limitations of the work are not stated or needed
7. The authors clearly report on published work, but not from e.g. the nordic
countries, where the item has also been worked upon and discussed in medical
fora
8. The title and Abstract convey the findings
9. The writing is of great interest, because little is previously known about the
item on a global scale.
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 interestsw
Reviewer's report
Title:Health Belief Mode constructs as factors associated with Breast
Self-Examination behavior in a sample of women in Bandar Abass, Iran
Version: 3Date:23 April 2009
Reviewer: ilknur aydin avci
Reviewer's report:
this article is suitable for publication after revisions
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Prediction of breast self-examination in a sample of Iranian women:
Application of the Health Belief Model
Version: 4Date:20 August 2009
Reviewer: Nursen O Nahcivan
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made nearly all of the changes to their manuscript in response
to my comments. The manuscript is up to the standard of publication for the BMC
Women's Health after the changes made in two points as detailed below:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The word "randomly" should be removed from the methods section in the
Abstract.
2. One of the result of the present study that the authors reported in Discussion:
Page 10, second paragraph,was the rate of woman performed BSE on the
regular basis (7.1% ). This data should be reported in "Results" section.
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:Breast cancer in kurdish women of northern Iraq: incidence, clinical stage,
and case control analysis of parity and family risk
Version: 1Date:4 August 2009
Reviewer: Elsebeth Lynge
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper on breast cancer incidence among Kurdish women in
Iraq, I find the paper well justified and well written. I have only some minor points
which should be addressed by the authors
1 Table 1 the comparison with data from countries should be presented as a
graph instead of in a table.
2 Page 5 line 8 from bottom: the authors should specify the number so the reader
can follow how the 539 cases was reduced to 296
3 Page 5 very last word: it should be only “control subjects”
4 Page 8, last para: the authors should discuss the possibility of a cohort pattern
in the incidence data. Women aged 70 in 2006-2008 were in prime childbearing
age around 1960, where fertility patterns might have been different from those of
today
5 Page 11 second para: mammeography has been found to reduce mortality
from breast cancer for women aged 40-49(moss et al.2006) but less so than
what is found for women aged 50-69.
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:Breast cancer in kurdish women of northern Iraq: incidence, clinical stage,
and case control analysis of parity and family risk
Version: 1Date:2 September 2009
Reviewer: KS S Chia
Reviewer's report:
DISCRETIONARY REVISIONS
Comparison of age-specific incidence rates should be done in the discussion
rather than the results section
MINOR REVISIONS
How was information on BMI collected? Actual clinical height and weight
measurements or self-reported? At time of diagnosis or prior to diagnosis
MAJOR REVISIONS
How complete is the capture of breast cancer cases for the period of 2006-2008
in Sulaimaniyah? For the age-specific incidence in Table 1 to be meaningful,
information on the completeness of capture of incident cases and who is
considered in the population-at-risk is critical.
On page 5, para 1, there was suggestion that age-matching was conducted. How
was this done? How was this taken into account in the analyses? Was
conditional logistic regression performed? How could age at diagnosis be an
independent variable if matching was performed (page 7 para 2)
----------
Based on your assessment of the validity of the manuscript, what do you advise
should be the next step?
- Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded
to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest
-----------------
- An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research
interests
- 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:Breast cancer in kurdish women of northern Iraq: incidence, clinical stage,
and case control analysis of parity and family risk
Version: 3Date:27 October 2009
Reviewer: Livia Giordano
Reviewer's report:
Runnak et al. reported the results on breast cancer rates and clinical stage
related to age in a group of Kurdish women and evaluated the risk associated
with parity and family history.
The study is interesting because is one of the few studies performed to
investigate rates and characteristics of breast cancer lesions in this area and
should be encouraged.
Following the previous revisions, the authors have submitted a new version of
the above mentioned article.
In this version the authors have answered my points sufficient well to allow their
manuscript to be published.
There still remain some minor essential revisions:
Methods Section:
All the points I questioned in my first revision have been well answered.
Results Section:
Page 7: As already indicated in my previous revision, there is still some
confusion between results described in the test and what presented in table 2.
Some clinical characteristics are not reported in the table like the proportion of
women who are pre-menopausal. Or probably the writing is not so clear. Are the
women > 50years old? And if so, the proportion of 59.5% of pre-menopausal
women refers to whom?
Discussion Section:
All the points I questioned in my first revision have been well answered.
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:Physical activity patterns during pregnancy through postpartum
Version: 1Date:4 May 2009
Reviewer: Cheryl Albright
Reviewer's report:
This is a very well written manuscript with a defined question that addresses a
clear need in the scientific literature. The methods for recruitment of women and
assessment of physical activity are clearly described and justified. The analyses
and results are clear and appropriate, other than the omission of p values for the
comparison listed below. The discussion and conclusions about the data are well
balanced and supported by the data; however, an investigation of the
demographic or psychosocial factors that predict the greatest increase in
physical activity following delivery would substantially add to this manuscript and
its conclusions. Also, the authors need to include in their limitations section the
lack of objective measurement of physical activity (via accelerometers).
Major Compulsory Revisions
The authors need to report the p values for the differences between women who
provided postpartum physical activity data and those who did not (top of page 5,
parg. 1, sentence 1).
In the limitations section the authors should mention they did not have an
objective measure of physical activity (i.e., accelerometer data).
Minor Essential Revisions
none
Discretionary Revisions
The authors should consider conducting analyses to predict factors associated
with a larger increase in physical activity during postpartum period (e.g., parity,
BMI, etc.).
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:Physical activity patterns during pregnancy through postpartum
Version: 2Date:24 September 2009
Reviewer: Michelle Mottola
Reviewer's report:
The paper is nicely revised. Thank you.
I do have a few minor revisions.
1) In the abstract I would suggest including the SD along with the means that
have been added as well as putting these SD values into results section on page
6 & 7.
2) On page 4, second par., line 8. To make absolutely clear which version of the
IOM guidelines were used I would just add "to the Institute of Medicine (1990)
recommendations"
3) On pg. 5, par. 2 and 3 are not "Statistical Methods". I would move these two
paragraphs under "Results, Study Sample". Statistical Methods should then start
with paragraph "Poisson regression models".
4) Pg. 8, par 3, line 2. Add "a" between "accurate" and "measurement"
5) Pg. 9, par. 2, line 5. Add "we" before "did"
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.