JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's report 
 Melatonin effects on luteinizing hormone in postmenopausal women: A pilot clinical trial Title: 
NCT00288262 
 2  26 March 2006 Version: Date: 
 Josephine Arendt Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The authors have addressed my concerns with the previous text ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
It is very difficult to see on the Figs where individual data are superimposed. Could the authors 
please modify such that these data points can be seen separately (for example by putting identical 
points side by side)------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
Member of the Sleep Advisory Board, Alliance Pharmaceuticals, a company developing melatonin 
towards registration
Reviewer's report 
 Understandings of reproductive tract infections in a peri-urban pueblo joven in Lima, Peru Title: 
 1  28 February 2006 Version: Date: 
 Fred Nuwaha Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
1. Page 16 last line under competing interests: delete is this in US? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
1. Tables 2 and 3 can be deleted and incorporated in text. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Understandings of reproductive tract infections in a peri-urban pueblo joven in Lima, Peru Title: 
 3  18 April 2006 Version: Date: 
 George Schmid Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
None 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Female Genital Mutilation of a karyotypic male presenting as a case of female with delayed Title: 
puberty 
 2  5 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Ken Zucker Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This paper is succinct. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Abstract 
What does “aggressive” FGM mean? 
Introduction 
p. 3: Regarding “psychological” complications, does it matter who performs FGM? 
p. 4: Regarding the patient’s shyness about sexual feelings, is this typical for the cultural 
background? 
Can one comment on whether the patient was given any feedback about the medical evaluation? 
How would one address issues of fertility in such a patient? 
If this patient has a female gender identity, is her psychological situation any different from normal 
biological females who experience FGM? 
Fig. 4 seems unnecessary. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 Female Genital Mutilation of a karyotypic male presenting as a case of female with delayed Title: 
puberty 
 2  15 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Amy Wisniewski Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. This case report is of interest to two groups (1) those who are concerned with the practice of 
female circumcision in phenotypically normal females and (2) those who are concerned with genital feminization in individuals affected by disorders of sex differentiation. The authors suggest that 
female circumcision is problematic not only due to the harm that it entails on girls and women, but 
also because it makes it difficult to pick up cases of i46,XY ntersexuality where presumably the external genitalia are ambiguous at birth. My major problem with this is that we do not know if the 
reported case exhibited ambiguous genitalia, and depending on the etiology of their condition (for 
example complete AIS, Swyer syndrome) they may very well have had normal appearing female 
external genitalia at birth. The authors seem to suggest that if the genitalia in such cases were not 
altered by practices of female circumsision, then an accurate diagnosis might by possible. However, 
it is generally accepted that the external genital phenotype is not adequate to make such diagnoses 
as over-masculinied female pseudohermaphrodites can appear no different from 
under-masculinized male pseudohermaphrodites. Therefore, the claim that female circumcision 
precluded proper diagnosis of such cases is unjustified. 2. My second point of disagreement is that these authors suggest that a missed diagnosis lead to 
incorrect sex of rearing. However, it is stated that this case sees herself as female. In summary, this 
is an interesting case that I believe should be reported. I disagree with the authors on why the case 
should be reported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Female genital mutilation of a karyotypic male presenting as a female with delayed puberty Title: 
 3  15 February 2006 Version: Date: 
 Amy Wisniewski Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Please check on grammar. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with Title: 
critical review of methodological issues 
 1  11 July 2005 Version: Date: 
 Johann Steurer Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
no 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) in the methods section the authors write ... and 66 were excluded due to generation of confusing 
sets unsing ICD-10 (see discussion). They refer to this point in table two and not in the discussion. 
what is meant by the term "active diagnosis" vis a vis passive diagnosis? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below
Reviewer's report 
 Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with Title: 
critical review of methodological issues 
 1  23 September 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ying Cheong Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
Reviewer's report 
This is an unusual paper examining whether care in obstetric and gynaecology in a UK tertiary unit 
was evidence based. The authors based their results on an audit performed in 1998 and 1999. The 
objective of this study is interesting and important. My critical appraisal of the paper is as follows: 
1. Major Compulsory Revisions 
1. The study was based on an audit performed in 1998 and 1999, in 1 UK hospital. Practice may 
have changed since, thus it is not particularly up to date. Practices in 1 hospital may not be generalized for all. The authors should clarify that. 
2. There were 85 and 67 cases excluded due to ‘admissions without intervention’. If the patient 
warrants admission, should this not be assessed as to whether the admission was appropriate and 
necessary? If not, the authors should explain. 
3. ‘Medical literature was searched and examined by two of us’ – had there been conflicts between 
opinions as to the appropriateness of diagnosis and intervention? The authors should make this 
clear. We all know that even with the best evidence, there will still be disagreement between 
experts, the authors should state how they resolved these issues and was there a moderator? 
4. The authors stated that there were no significant differences in pattern of care amongst the 
patients sampled in 1998 and 1999’. This is not surprising given the time difference between the two 
years. It will be interesting to see what the difference is between then and now. 
5. ‘Our study showed that the majority (90%) of care……………well supported by research evidence’ – this is too general and may not be true for all as this is a local audit, not a national one, 
thus the authors have to be careful not to generalize. 
6. The authors stated in the discussion ‘ ….audit and feedback can be effective in bringing about 
improvements in care…..’ but they have not completed the feedback loop of the audit. Perhaps the authors should consider completing their audit loop. 
This is an audit which has an important objective for the individual hospital, however one cannot 
generalized its results, and hence the paper bear little significance for the wider audience. 
Level of interest 
average 
Quality of written English 
acceptable 
- Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'.
Reviewer's report 
 Is general inpatient obstetrics and gynaecology evidence-based? A survey of practice with Title: 
critical review of methodological issues 
 3  28 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ying Cheong Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
ok to publish ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 limited interest Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report 
 Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in type 2 Iranian diabetic women : a cross sectional study Title: 
 1  18 June 2005 Version: Date: 
 Ottavio GIAMPIETRO Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper details a matter of relevance in diabetology, which is on the other hand so far not yet 
solved: namely if diabetics have more or similar rate of urinary infections as compared to the general
population. Further, not yet definitively cleared is the role of the metabolic control and/or metabolic 
complications on the urinary tract infection. While the paper concerns a small number of patients, it 
anyway has been correctly conducted,responds to aims, is simple. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
The chief remark concerns the fact that, while in Methods has been reported the in patients were 
measured both blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinin, in effects they have not been presented in the Results or in the Tables. This may be of relevance to the general understanding of results as 
well of the paper as a whole. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report 
 Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in type 2 Iranian diabetic women : a cross sectional study Title: 
 4  9 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 Wendy A Davis Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
The authors continue to describe the cross-sectional associates of ASB as "risk factors" in the 
abstract, the introduction, and the discussion. The term "risk factors" needs to be replaced with 
"associates" or similar in these instances. 
Under Methods, "ordinary variables" should be "ordinal variables". 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Since the authors prefer to use mean for duration, median duration can be removed from Table 1. 
Remember to be consistent with decimal points. If it is zero, print it i.e.56.0 not 56 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report 
 Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in type 2 Iranian diabetic women : a cross sectional study Title: 
 5  13 December 2005 Version: Date: 
 Adriana Perez Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This manuscript presents the results of investigating four aims: (i) the prevalence and, (ii) the 
associated risk factors in diabetic patients for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) in Iranian diabetic 
women, as well as (iii) assessing the organism responsible for urinary tract infections and (iv) the 
antimicrobial sensitivity patterns of such organism. The authors provide a good description and the 
need for this research. Authors lacked to incorporate the answers to the reviewers in the new version 
of the manuscript. The concept of validity and reproducibility of the questionnaire was not 
appropriately approaches within the context of instrument measurement, which indicates that the 
author’s instrument was not validated in their properties and that its reproducibility in other 
populations may raise questions. The current version of this manuscript lacks o describe what is Z 
within the formula and the explanation from were each term come from needs to be explain to the 
readers, including the description of the pilot study conducted. Authors still have a & sign at the first 
sentence of the methods section. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical Level of interest: 
journal
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 The routine management of locally advanced cervical cancer with concurrent radiation and Title: 
cisplatin, five-year results. 
 1  24 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 John Green Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The main weaknesses is the results including the Kaplan Meier curves are not broken down by stage,whihc could be grouped into I and II vs III/IV and the DFS curve should be presented as well as overall survival 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached)As above. I do not understand what the legend in Table 5 means by % per patient. The legend in Table 6 does not make clear the table also describes the breakdown by stage in the 
various trials, and this repeats data given in Table 1 
Is the mean Hb stated in Table 1 at presentation or throughout treatment? 
This paper provides no data on the use of carboplatin or gemcitabine in chemoradiation, and this 
recommendation should be removed from the conclusions 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
Label precentages in Table 1, Table 4 is unnecessary and could be stated in the text,the selection of 
patients by node status eg by CT scan should be stated - were any excluded on this basis? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Is there any data on late toxicity? 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report 
 The routine management of locally advanced cervical cancer with concurrent radiation and Title: 
cisplatin, five-year results. 
 1  29 November 2005 Version: Date: 
 Peter Rose Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
I think this manuscript is worthy of acceptance pending response to the following questions. 
The authors report their single institution experience with the use of weekly cisplatin with external 
and intra-cavitary radiation in a non-protocol setting. Overall, the majority of patients received 
external and intracavitary radiation with at least 5 courses of weekly chemotherapy administered to 
approximately 90%. In contrast to the published randomized trials the patients in this report 
underwent only clinical staging. The 3 year survival rates are difficult to interpret due to the different 
percentage of patients with a given disease stage in each of the five trials reported. It would be more 
convincing if the authors could report the survival of their 68 patients with IB2 as compared to GOG 
123 for example. 
Specific Comments: 
Page 2, second to last line: replace routinely with routine 
Page 4, 1st paragraph: What the rational for excluding patients with hepatic insufficiency? 
Page 9, 2nd paragraph, line 1: replace en with in
Reviewer's report 
 Routine management of locally advanced cervical Cancer with concurrent radiation and Title: 
cisplatin. Five-year Results. 
 2  16 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 John Green Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
A much improved manuscript 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
The discussion is a bit long and the paragraphs long as well - shortening it to what they really want 
ot say would improve the message 
 Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare I have no competing interests