Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 1Date:5 March 2008
Reviewer: Rachel Pauls
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed this paper and felt overall it was a sound research study assessing an
interesting topic. There is a good sample size and statistical analysis seems
appropriate.
I have some minor revisions:
Is it possible to compare demographic and clinical information between non
responders and responders to determine if the groups are different?
Abstract section- results: what do you mean by sexually active to a relevant
extent? I would prefer a more appropriate term or quantification of sexual activity.
-conclusion section:
I prefer to state that 'smoking may be associated with lubrication problems', or 'in
this study, smoking was associated with lubrication problems'.
Introduction: paragraph 2 line 2 add “in” after sexual activity.
Methods: define major comorbidities that were excluded
Is the HADS subscale of >10 a validated cutoff for depression? If so, reference
this.
I am not sure about you stating that your questionnaire is validated since this is
not yet published, but to state that there was an attempt to establish validity,
including test-retest, etc.
It is unfortunate that arousal scores had to be eliminated.
Results:
Sexual function- exploratory analysis: please define what is high, moderate levels
of sexual activity. Is this a number cutoff or what?
Did you correct for multiple testing given the number of exploratory analyses
seen here? What was your hypothesis for the paper overall?
The term is “vaginismus”- not vaginism (seen a few times through the text).
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 1Date:5 March 2008
Reviewer: Rachel Pauls
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed this paper and felt overall it was a sound research study assessing an
interesting topic. There is a good sample size and statistical analysis seems
appropriate.
I have some minor revisions:
Is it possible to compare demographic and clinical information between non
responders and responders to determine if the groups are different?
Abstract section- results: what do you mean by sexually active to a relevant
extent? I would prefer a more appropriate term or quantification of sexual activity.
-conclusion section:
I prefer to state that 'smoking may be associated with lubrication problems', or 'in
this study, smoking was associated with lubrication problems'.
Introduction: paragraph 2 line 2 add “in” after sexual activity.
Methods: define major comorbidities that were excluded
Is the HADS subscale of >10 a validated cutoff for depression? If so, reference
this.
I am not sure about you stating that your questionnaire is validated since this is
not yet published, but to state that there was an attempt to establish validity,
including test-retest, etc.
It is unfortunate that arousal scores had to be eliminated.
Results:
Sexual function- exploratory analysis: please define what is high, moderate levels
of sexual activity. Is this a number cutoff or what?
Did you correct for multiple testing given the number of exploratory analyses
seen here? What was your hypothesis for the paper overall?
The term is “vaginismus”- not vaginism (seen a few times through the text).
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Determinants of female sexual function in inflammatory bowel disease. A
survey based cross-sectional analysis
Version: 1Date:5 March 2008
Reviewer: Rachel Pauls
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed this paper and felt overall it was a sound research study assessing an
interesting topic. There is a good sample size and statistical analysis seems
appropriate.
I have some minor revisions:
Is it possible to compare demographic and clinical information between non
responders and responders to determine if the groups are different?
Abstract section- results: what do you mean by sexually active to a relevant
extent? I would prefer a more appropriate term or quantification of sexual activity.
-conclusion section:
I prefer to state that 'smoking may be associated with lubrication problems', or 'in
this study, smoking was associated with lubrication problems'.
Introduction: paragraph 2 line 2 add “in” after sexual activity.
Methods: define major comorbidities that were excluded
Is the HADS subscale of >10 a validated cutoff for depression? If so, reference
this.
I am not sure about you stating that your questionnaire is validated since this is
not yet published, but to state that there was an attempt to establish validity,
including test-retest, etc.
It is unfortunate that arousal scores had to be eliminated.
Results:
Sexual function- exploratory analysis: please define what is high, moderate levels
of sexual activity. Is this a number cutoff or what?
Did you correct for multiple testing given the number of exploratory analyses
seen here? What was your hypothesis for the paper overall?
The term is “vaginismus”- not vaginism (seen a few times through the text).
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
What next?: Accept after minor essential revisions
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.
assistant