JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Long COVID and Endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 06 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Rodrigo M. Rocha
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Long COVID and Endometriosis: A
systematic review and meta-analysis”.
The article consists of a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify a possible
epidemiological correlation between endometriosis and the incidence of what was defined as
“Long COVID".
From the methodological point of view, the research was performed within the recommended
guidelines, using the correct tools and statistical analysis and requires no further comments.
However, some major issues should be clarified. First of all, comprehending the conditions on
which women were considered to be diagnosed with endometriosis is of ultimate importance.
Most population-based or health system registered-based retrospective studies will rely on self-
reported or clinical diagnosis, resulting in a critical source of bias. The inclusion bias could
significantly impact the final results and their interpretation.
Furthermore, it would be relevant to understand what the authors mean by ongoing waves of
SARS-COV infections and the increased number of long COVID cases,  causing additional
burdens to individuals and healthcare systems. In countries such as Brazil, for example, which
has immense territorial proportions and a large population, although considering a likely
underreported situation regarding SARS-COV infections, there have been no evident signs of
additional strain on patients or the care system in the last two years.
Additionally, within large samples and highly prevalent diseases, it would be absolutely
necessary to discuss the magnitude of low RR, usually below the 1.5 figure, in the context of
real clinical relevance.
Although it is an interesting topic, it is possible to argue that discussing the various hypotheses
linking endometriosis with COVID requires filling a long gap and might be considered highly
speculative and potentially outside the review`s scope. The aim of the review was to identify the
epidemiological correlation between SARS-COV infection and the diagnosis of endometriosis.
A broader topic or extensive theme review should be proposed and performed to determine what
is known regarding the potential overlapping mechanisms between both diseases, encompassing
therefore animal models, conference communications, ongoing trials and other relevant recent
technology development data.
At this stage, the usual line-by-line review will be precluded.
Title: A Non-Randomized Study of Sexual Health Education on the Sexual Function of
Primigravid Women
Version: 3 Date: 13 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Mahin Kamalifard
Reviewer's report:
Hello
Although the reason for non-randomization has been explained and it has been mentioned in the
limitations, it would have been better to follow the opinion of one of the reviewers to useTREND
(The Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs guidelines).
Title: A Non-Randomized Study of Sexual Health Education on the Sexual Function of
Primigravid Women
Version: 4 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Caruso
Reviewer's report:
COMMENTS TO A Non-Randomized Trial of Sexual Health Education on the Sexual Function
of Primigravid Women
First of all I have found the article itself to be very interesting, I would like to point out a couple
of corrections
Abstract:
"Sexual function is particularly important aspect of pregnant women’s lives..."
Correction: "Sexual function is a particularly important aspect of pregnant women’s lives..."
"The intervention group underwent six 60-minute sex education lectures..."
Correction: "The intervention group participated in six 60-minute sex education sessions..."
Suggestion: Clarify the difference between "desire" and "arousal" in the abstract for readers
unfamiliar with the FSFI subscales.
Introduction:
"...discontinuation of sexual activity during this period can stem from feelings of guilt or fear
of harming the fetus..."
Suggestion: "...discontinuation of sexual activity during this period often stems from feelings of
guilt or fear of harming the fetus..."
Methods:
"A prospective non-randomized trial was conducted from 2019 to 2020."
Mentioning the exact months could provide better context for seasonal or temporal effects.
“…no chronic medical conditions, 8) no psychiatric disorders in the medical records..."
Correction: "...no chronic medical conditions, and 8) no psychiatric disorders recorded in the
medical history..."
"Women who had not engaged in sexual intercourse during follow-up period..."
Correction: "Women who did not engage in sexual intercourse during the follow-up period..."
Discussion:
"...the observed significant effect of the training in both studies may indeed be linked to
measuring participants' sexual function..."
Correction: "...the observed significant effect of the training in both studies may be attributed
to assessing participants' sexual function..."
Conclusion:
"...highlighting the potential benefits of sexual health education in enhancing sexual function
during pregnancy."
Suggestion "...highlighting the potential role of sexual health education in enhancing sexual
function during pregnancy."
I suggest to end with a strong call for future research to address the study's limitations.
Title: A Non-Randomized Study of Sexual Health Education on the Sexual Function of
Primigravid Women
Version: 4 Date: 03 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Eighty Mardiyan Kurniawati
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. This manuscript is well prepared but some
parts need to be revised.
Introduction:
paragraph 1: definition of decreased sexual function during pregnancy.
paragraph 2: prevalence of decreased sexual function in women
paragraph 3: Complications
paragraph 4: Management options and why sexual education is carried out, include previous
research, so that there are gaps that have not been studied
Method:
low-risk pregnancy detected based on?
stability in marital relationships detected based on the?
please explain the pre-intervention measurement
Limitation
Maybe participants have received previous sexual education
Thank you
Title: Determinants of abortion among women of reproductive age in Ghana: multilevel analysis
evidence from the 2022 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Ali Mansoor AlAmeri
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author
It is a very interesting Subject to investigate about the risk factors of abortion. However, it
is suggested to determine the type of abortion whether spontanious, induced, recurrent.. etc.
Secondly, I was confused about the sample size, pleasure double check about it. All the best
for success.
Ali Mansoor
Title: Determinants of abortion among women of reproductive age in Ghana: multilevel analysis
evidence from the 2022 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is excellent work! It's crucial for us to address this topic, as it has significant implications
for maternal mortality and morbidity. Using GDHS data to study the determinants of abortion
is important due to its comprehensive, high-quality, and representative nature which ensures
the generalizability of the findings and is useful for informing public health policies and
interventions aimed at improving reproductive health outcomes in the country.
I have a few comments which I address in the attachment.
Title: Determinants of abortion among women of reproductive age in Ghana: multilevel analysis
evidence from the 2022 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 2 Date: 26 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Ali Mansoor AlAmeri
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
It is a great job to investigate determinents of abortion in Ghana. You have concluded which of
these determinents correlate more with abortion in your studied group of patients. My suggestion
is to include some details about methodology in the abstract section. Of these details are
sample size and its method of calculation in addition to criteria for patients inclusion/ exclusion.
Another note is to make the study recommendations more specific and consistent with the study
objectives.  All the best for success.
Ali Mansoor
Title: Geospatial inequalities in women’s malnutrition in Pakistan
Version: 2 Date: 18 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript attempts to explore the grospatial inequalities in women’s malnutrition in
Pakistan using Demographic and Health Survey 2017-18 (PDHS) with Bayesian Geo-additive
Quantile regression approach. Though the authors have done a good job in addressing an
interesting topic. Below are some of the concerns, in general to consider, before taking a
decision.
Read second line of the abstract carefully.
Correct the coding of toilet variable.
Discuss the inclusion, exclusion criteria of sample along with limitations
The discussion section provides valuable insights into women’s malnutrition in Pakistan.  By
improving the organization and focusing on key points, you can strengthen the impact of
your research. There are some areas for improvement: The discussion could be organized
thematically, as per the results. Consider structuring the discussion around key themes, such
as factors affecting malnutrition (education, access, etc.), limitations of the study, and future
research directions. You could combine sections on education and wealth into one discussing
socioeconomic factors.
Title: The influence of Gender Norms on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes:
A Systematic Review.
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this important manuscript addressing a
pertinent issue in the field of sexual and reproductive health. To improve the quality of this
manuscript, authors will need to consider the following:
-The title talks about relationship while the body of the manuscript shows that the authors sought
to investigate the influence of the gender roles on the women’s sexual and reproductive health
outcomes. This differs from investigating 'The relation between gender roles as social norms and
the access to sexual and reproductive health of Women'. Therefore, authors will either change
the topic to match the content in the main body or revise the review questions so that they match
the review title.
-The methodology lacks some details and therefore I recommend authors to stick to
PRISMA Reporting Checklist for systematic reviews (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC8007028/) in order to provide the needed level of details needed on methodological
steps executed during the conduct of this review.
-The eligibility criteria set for this systematic review are not clear. More importantly, what type
of studies did this review considers?
-Where necessary, some themes in the results need to be backed by some quotes.
-Authors need to discuss only findings from the review because in some places, findings
discussed are not from the results. In addition, this section needs to be strengthened by
discussion the implications/causes of some findings and further contextualise some of the
findings according to the culture of where studies have been conducted.
Title: The influence of Gender Norms on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes:
A Systematic Review.
Version: 2 Date: 05 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this revised version of this important
manuscript. Compared to the previous versions, the manuscript has improved. However, there
are a few comments that authors need to consider to refine the quality of this manuscript.
1. Looking into the introduction, authors need to provide information about the preliminary
search they conducted to find out if there are any reviews and if any review work available about
the topic, what did it cover and what gaps it left.
2. Authors need to check throughout to ensure that they are using the language of systematic
review. For example, what is the review question? Secondly, rather than saying 'research design'
or 'research objective', they can simply use 'review design' or 'objectives'
3.  The research objective is not clear to me. It will be clearer if authors present the review
questions rather using objectives.
4. Did authors register their review protocol at PROSPERO or at any other repository (JBI)...?
5. Authors will need to provide the rationale for excluding studies that were exclusively focusing
on male participants given that the study was around 'The influence of Gender Norms on
Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes'.
6. It is not clear what study types the review considered and why. I raise this issue because the
results are more qualitative yet there may be some quantitative studies that were included in the
review. Therefore, authors need to clarify on this point.
7. Authors will need to provide a rationale for choosing to include studies published since 2013
onwards.
8. Based on the above comment, how did MMAT quality appraisal checklist applied to solely
qualitative studies/or sorely quantitative studies. MMAT normally applies for appraising mixed
methods studies. There is a need for authors to provide a rationale for using this checklist and
further indicate how they applied it to different study designs that were applied in eligible studies
retrieved.
9.  Regarding the search of studies, to ensure that it was rigorous, did authors perform hand
search  and reference check of the studies? As raised by one of the reviewers, this section needs
to be revisited to ensure that the process of finding studies was rigorous.
Title: The influence of Gender Norms on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes:
A Systematic Review.
Version: 2 Date: 10 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Anna Baleige
Reviewer's report:
The writing quality of the paper has been greatly improved. However, some changes remain
superficial. I share the opinion of my fellow reviewers. Here is some feedback on the points
I raised:
What has been correctly modified :
- The definition of sexual health is in line with that of the WHO, and the subject is properly
framed.
- The term equity was favored in the writing and aligns with the conceptual framework of the
paper.
What appears to require further modification
- A choice of method cannot be limited to a question of editorial form. If the initial synthesis was
produced in narrative form, it cannot become a thematic synthesis simply by changing the turn of
phrase. I had suggested that the authors should discuss their choice, but instead the methodology
is presented as different, without any substantive change. While it is likely that some of these
methods will overlap, the thematic synthesis should result not in a narrative representation of
the data, but in their simplification and organization in the form of a model. However, the paper
does not contain a model, and the presentation of the results, although clearer, remains narrative.
Either the authors decide to move towards a thematic synthesis and adjust their process towards
simplification and highlighting of the hypothesized mechanisms, or they return to a narrative
review and argue their choice and its limits. As it is, this change is too superficial to respect
the research process.
- The same applies to the question of sexual and gender minorities. The text is clearly better
presented, yet the elements are not discussed and a paragraph should be dedicated to discussing
the limits and results, or even hypothetizing, on this subject.
- The concept of empowerment is still present in the manuscript (e.g. l355), and the change
appears to be one of form only. In my opinion, a discussion paragraph on this specific issue and
the intertwining of agency, empowerment, education, & system transformation is missing.
- The wording of the conclusion is much improved, but remains too far removed from the results.
The authors draw conclusions about interventions that do not appear to be linked to the data.
Title: The influence of Gender Norms on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes:
A Systematic Review.
Version: 3 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much to give me the opportunity to review this revised manuscript. I appreciate
the authors' efforts to address the comments I raised in the earlier version. A few comments to
address:
1. In the results section, to make it more appealing, it would be better if authors present the
studies per each country eather using a map or a table. When discussing the results, authors
should bring out the differences between low and middle income countries and high income
settings because the two may be different when it comes to gender differences within these
societies and further discuss the implications of the differences observed across the blocks when
it comes to women's sexual and reproductive health.
2. Still on the discussion section, it will need refinements. As it stands now, readers may not
immediately sense what the finding being discussed is. So, it would be better to reframe the
writing by for example starting: 'The study found that.....' then proceed by discussing the finding
in question to for instance indicate the similarity or difference, its context, and/or the implication
of the finding in the context of women's reproductive health.
Title: The influence of Gender Norms on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes:
A Systematic Review.
Version: 3 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Anna Baleige
Reviewer's report:
Authors have responded coherently to the review's remarks. As it stands, I feel the manuscript
fits in better with current epistemic productions.
Methodological considerations remain debatable, but are consistent with the research work
carried out. Related stakes of empowerment and sexual and gender minorities are more coherent
and, even if they deserve to be addressed, do not form the main framework of the article. The
conclusion is more faithful to the results.
In conclusion, I have no further review comments and would like to congratulate the authors
on their work.
Title: The influence of Gender Norms on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes:
A Systematic Review.
Version: 4 Date: 23 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing my previous comments. Only one issue remains:
PRISMA reflects how the review was conducted and reported. However, the review’s design is
a ‘systematic review’. Therefore, you need to extrapolate here what systematic review means
in the context of your study.
Title: Factors Influencing Family Planning Decisions in Saudi Arabia
Version: 4 Date: 14 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Graham McGeoch
Reviewer's report:
This article reports a survey of women in Saudi Arabia asking about their decisions and barriers
around family planning. The number of subjects is very high which is a strength but they are
self-selected from social media with inevitable bias reducing the generalizability of the results.
The grammar would benefit from minor changes- I have taken the liberty of attaching some
suggestions. The article is clearly written and the tables and figures well presented. I am not a
statistician and have not checked the stats or power calculation.
1. Limitations are not well documented.
• Suggest emphasise more that the subjects are self selected and this may have introduced bias by
education, income, age etc so may not be representative of the population. The sample appears
skewed to older age, for example.
• The way of finding the subjects on social media is not clearly stated ie existing lists, advertising
etc
• Because of the way the survey was conducted online, the participation rate cannot be calculated
• How many surveys were inadmissible? Eg completed by non-residents of SA, infertility,
incomplete
2. I prefer to view the original questionnaire in articles to confirm the questions have been asked
adequately. The editor can advise if this could be a link, pdf or included in the article. I note the
statement the questions were reviewed by university experts
3. List of abbreviations at does not cover all abbreviations used in the article
4. 40% of women reporting side effects of contraception as a barrier to use seems high and
the discussion would be improved by addressing this in more detail. Most women with easily
available clinical advice can find a method that suits them in my experience. Most can vary pill
type and find one that is ok. This high rate may reflect limited local access to primary health
care or it may be a result of the way the question was phrased. If the question asked if women
had ever had any side effects of family planning methods, 40% is realistic or low. Without the
original questions, this reviewer if unable to determine this.
Title: Factors Influencing Family Planning Decisions in Saudi Arabia
Version: 6 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Graham McGeoch
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised article and you have addressed the items
raised in the initial reviews. I enjoyed reading the study and the additional explanations on local
context are most helpful. I have attached a Word file with minor spelling, repetition, and typing
issues that require correction prior to publication.
I remain confused by the inclusion of the sentence at line 414 on Ethical Considerations and
have suggested it can be deleted as informed consent and ethical approval were obtained.
The tense of the article changes a number of times which does not affect  accuracy or readability
but could be corrected for consistency.
In my opinion, your study is ready for publication with the tiny corrections.
Title: Factors Influencing Family Planning Decisions in Saudi Arabia
Version: 6 Date: 21 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors appear to have taken all the reviewers' suggested changes on board, specifying the
scope of their study better, defining their cohort better, accounting for the biases and limitations
of the study, and providing their data both for the reviewers and for publication.
The revised article is much clearer, more specific and betters locates the unique value of this
original and valuable research.
I note thought that the majority of the fields in the excel spreadsheet are  in Arabic and therefore
not readable for the majority of readers. Given the article is published in English, it would seem
beneficial for the data to be translated into English too.
Title: Outcomes following conization and factors on HPV regression among young females in
Wuxi
Version: 1 Date: 31 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Miisa Nanyingi
Reviewer's report:
The authors aimed to evaluate HPV regression in   young females in Wuxi who underwent
conization and were histologically diagnosed  with LSIL or HSIL between June 2018 and
December 2022.  This is  a good paper however, the  issues (detailed in the attached file)  nee
to be addressed.