JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of Sexual and Reproductive Health
Assessment Scale for Women with Educable Intellectual Disability (SRH-WIDS): A Sequential
Exploratory Mixed-Method Study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Saghar Khani
Reviewer's report:
This article provides a good overview of the steps to build a sexual and reproductive health
assessment tool  of women with intellectual disabilities.  It is only better to do confirmatory
factor analysis. Please find attached file and consider all comments.
Title: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of Sexual and Reproductive Health
Assessment Scale for Women with Educable Intellectual Disability (SRH-WIDS): A Sequential
Exploratory Mixed-Method Study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting work.  The analysis
has been conducted in a  skillful and careful manner. However there are some questions that
hopefully the authors will be able to address:
1.  The type of rating scale is not clear. It appears as if it is binary or ordinal. If so, SPSS is not
suitable as it cannot analyze categorical data. The authors would then need to redo the analysis
in a software that handles categorical data.
2.  I see no reason to expect your factors not to be correlated. Please use an oblique rotation.
3. A factor with only two items is not desirable and should be retained only id necessary. I
wonder why the last two items should be there. They just reflect the intensity  of the menstrual
symptoms rather than aspects of "Sexual and Reproductive Health ". I strongly advice to omit
those, but of course the developers know best.
4. Two factors have very low reliability. You should check and report  the item total correlations
and the alpha if item deleted. That might help you spot items to be omitted.
In general, in a new scale it is important to be able to see goodness of fit. I suggest to switch
to a software that prints good ness of fit for factor analysis (STATA, R, MPLUS for example).
Also please considered adding a CFA sample.
There is some editing to be done in English, especially when it comes to the items themselves.
Please read carefully, sometimes he appears instead of she for example.
I hope these are helpful comments to the authors.
Title: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of Sexual and Reproductive Health
Assessment Scale for Women with Educable Intellectual Disability (SRH-WIDS): A Sequential
Exploratory Mixed-Method Study
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer
Comments to the Author
Thanks to:  Dear authors
The article has problems in many parts and needs to be completely rewritten.
1. In the introduction, it is not mentioned whether there are standard tools in the field of sexual
and reproductive health or not? What were the disadvantages of these tools?
2. How interview participants were conducted? It is not clear whether face to face or by phone
or email?
3. How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons?
4. Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? Not mentioned in the text.
5. The description of the sample is not mentioned. What are the important characteristics of the
sample?
6. The details of the interviews are not specified. For example, were questions, prompts, guides
provided by the authors? Was it pilot-tested? Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how
many? Did the research use an audio or visual recording to collect the data?....
7. In the second phase of the study or psychometric section, the sampling method and sampling
location are not stated.
8. In the second phase of the study inclusion and exclusion criteria are not stated.
9.
10. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is not used. Which is necessary to confirm the
obtained dimensions.
11. The third table was not necessary to present and writing the percentage of variance was
sufficient in the results section.
12. The discussion section is poorly written.
13. References are often old and are less than 2017.
Title: The Lower Basal Metabolic Rate is Associated with Increased Risk of Osteosarcopenia
in Postmenopausal Women
Version: 1 Date: 06 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
# Review
- English proof-editing is recommended.
- There are many typographical errors (e.g., „sarchopenia”, “post menopaused women”,
“questioner”).
- In the Abstract section, the Authors should clearly explain which „both disorders“:
„Multivariate model was used to consider the common risk factors of both disorders”.
- In the Methods section, even though the Authors provided the reference for the following
statement: “The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study population were published earlier
[9]”, the main criteria should be clearly described in the current study.
- Sample size and power of study need to be addressed.
- Besides the version of the software, complete information on the manufacturer of the statistical
software should be provided.
- In the Statistical analysis subsection the Authors stated that “As certain data, including OC,
HDL, TG did not have normal distribution; a natural log transformation was applied to correct
their normality distribution”. However, there are no data on HDL and TG that are presented in
the current study.
Title: Knowledge, Attitude, Practice towards Breast Self-Examination and Associated factors
among women in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia, 2021: A Community-based study
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors:
The study  “Knowledge, Attitude, Practice towards Breast Self-Examination and Associated
factors among women in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia, 2021: A Community-based study
is an important study to improve KAP of BSE and minimize the burden of breast ca . However,
the paper needs solemn revision. The detail of my issues and comments were found in the main
document so, please found and address it properly.
Title: Knowledge, Attitude, Practice towards Breast Self-Examination and Associated factors
among women in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia, 2021: A Community-based study
Version: 3 Date: 06 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Getasew Legas
Reviewer's report:
Reports
Thanks for your invitation to review this study. Since evidence is related to Knowledge, Attitude,
Practice towards Breast Self-Examination and Associated factors among women in Gondar
town, Northwest Ethiopia Thus, this study added a valuable contribution to the medical field.
So, to make this useful for the general public the authors need to incorporate the comments
mentioned below.
General comment
I advise extensive editing/proof-reading of the written English and re-drafting before the paper
can be considered suitable for publication.
Abstract
1. please add the sampling technique to the method part of the abstract.
2. What do you mean knowledge of breast self-examination is a significant predictor of KAP?
b/se knowledge of breast self-examination is one of your dependent variables?
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
3. Why you have not included women whose age is <20 &>70 years old?
4. Better to delete “women who are living in Gondar town for less than 6-month duration” b/se
exclusion criteria is derived from inclusion criteria.
Sampling Size and Sampling Procedure
3. kinds of literature in line with your title are available in Ethiopia. Why do you take the p-
value from Cameroon?
4. Why you are using 1.5? why not 2 or 3?
Sampling technique and procedures
5. If you have a sampling frame why you are not using simple random sampling other than
systematic random sampling?
6.  How were participants recruited e.g., door-knocking/telephone calls? Could the method of
recruitment have excluded anyone? Where did interviews take place?
Data Collection Instruments
Discussion
7. References are particularly to substantiate statements that could be considered insensitive or
stigmatizing. So, parts of your discussion need to strengthen your justification.
8. Much literature in line with your study was conducted in Ethiopia. So, what new value-added?
Title: Title page Title of Report: A novel nomogram for predicting cancer-specific survival in
women with uterine sarcoma: a large population-based study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. The manuscript is well written and
logically presented.
Question
1. Pg 11 Lines 266 - Given the change in pathology terminology in 2016 in what direction do
you think your findings will move?
2. This list of Chinese based authors report on a database collected on USA women. How would
or should these findings affect care in China?
Minor
Line 49 need a space between vs0.706
Line 79 grahps is likely the word graphs
Line 168 Remove the . prior to the word As
Title: Title page Title of Report: A novel nomogram for predicting cancer-specific survival in
women with uterine sarcoma: a large population-based study
Version: 3 Date: 11 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript wherein a normogram is created to
understand Cancer Specific Survival for women with uterine sarcoma.
I have 3 minor comments
Line 86 - retrsopetive should be spelt retrospective
Line 238-246 Married couples may have disease identified at an earlier stage due to the impact
of the spouse on motivating the other to care after identification of symptoms. Earlier stage is
related to increased survival
Line 262 - what is uLMS?
Title: Title page Title of Report: A novel nomogram for predicting cancer-specific survival in
women with uterine sarcoma: a large population-based study
Version: 4 Date: 20 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
I had limited access to the submitted revisions. I did have access to the highlighted revised
document.
Minor Suggestions
Line 36 - add c to RetrospeCtive
Line 46 - remove i from Prognostic (it is not prognositic)
Line 125 - remove the second "." after the end of the sentence
Title: Title page Title of Report: A novel nomogram for predicting cancer-specific survival in
women with uterine sarcoma: a large population-based study
Version: 4 Date: 08 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed this paper, which proposes a new comprehensive nomogram to predict the cancer-
specific survival for uterine sarcoma based on data extracted from the SEER database.
The authors presented interesting data both because they investigated many different variables
possibly affecting cancer survival and because they suggested a new nomogram with better
predicting characteristics compared to the AJCC staging system.
However, the writing is poor, and some points need to be clarified.
This paper could be interesting for the readers if the Authors would accept to perform the major
revision suggested below.
- All the text needs a language revision by a native English speaker person, in order to improve
its readability.
- From the title page, the authors can delete the words “title page”, “title of report”, “all authors”.
“Correspondence to” must be replaced with “Corresponding author”.
- I would also suggest the authors to check how they spelled many words. Eg. Line 37:
retrospective. Line 47: prognostic.
Background (please type this subtitle for the first section)
- Line 80: What do the authors mean in this sentence? It is not clear.
Materials and methods (according to the guidelines for authors the title for this section should
be “Methods”)
- Line 87-89: I would delete the sentence from “Permission” to “password”. I think the authors
do not need it.
- Line 149-150: From “We did” to “patient data”. What do the authors intend to say? Do you
mean that data were missing or that the number of patients was too small?
- Line 157: Please, provide accurate definition of types of radiotherapy. Do the authors mean
external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy?
Results
- Line 247: Table with Capital T. Moreover, throughout the manuscript the authors should spell
the word Figure- please, do not use abbreviations and try to be consistent (see Line 343 Fig.4).
Discussion:
- Line 447: The authors present age as the second most relevant prognostic factors. I would
suggest the authors not to try to explain the reasons why age is a poor prognostic factor.
- Line 459: I would rephrase this concept about the protective factor of having a partner.
- Line 533: Please, improve the writing. “Distant metastatic” does not work. It should be replaced
with “metastatic disease”.
- Line 537: Why do the authors say “in contrast”?
Title: Effects of vaginal microecology and immunity on the pregnancy outcome of cervical
cerclage
Version: 3 Date: 10 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Adi Y. Weintraub
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript entitled "Effects of vaginal
microecology and immunity on the pregnancy outcome of cervical cerclage".
This article aimed to evaluate the association between vaginal microecology and related immune
cytokines with the success rates of cervical cerclage and pregnancy outcomes.
The manuscript is generally well written. We commend the authors for conducting a study
that combines both basic science and clinical outcomes. While the study shows a correlation
between the vaginal environment and immunological markers and pregnancy outcomes in
women undergoing cervical cerclage, this correlation does not provide causative explanations
for this link. It does not provide an answer to whether the vaginal ecological environment
causes cerclage failure of if there is a different factor that causes both (changes in the vaginal
environment and adverse pregnancy outcomes). The findings in this study are neither surprising
nor new, however their merit is derived from strengthening the observed correlation.
The manuscript could be farther considered for publication after addressing some issues and
comments:
1. In the abstract surgical success or success rate are not defined (they are defined only later in
the methods section). The authors should refrain from using them in the abstract, and rather use
the clinical outcome (fetal demise or liveborn).
2. We are not sure that the acronym CIC is commonly used and acceptable.
3. There are a few places in text where references are missing, please add the relevant reference
(for example: lines 74-75, 233, 239, 244, 275, 289)
4. The inclusion criteria are not totally clear from the text. Please clarify them better. Should all
of the criteria for diagnosis of CIC be met or only one of them? Also, in the exclusion criteria
please describe in detail what other pathological factors causing CIC did you exclude.
5. The experience of the surgeons performing the procedure could affect the outcome. How do
the authors control  for this possible confounder?
6. Criteria for surgical success were defined as full term delivery or survival of preterm infant.
The authors should address because the fact that survival rates depend also on the NICU abilities
as well as on other factors that are not related to the surgical procedure itself. In addition, it is
not clear from the text how long were infants followed after birth.
7. Please elaborate in the text why were LE, NAG and SNA chosen to be studied? And the how
they may influence vaginal microecology and preterm delivery.
8. In general, the discussion section is much too long and should be shortened to address only
issues that are relevant to the current study.
Title: Does the uterine microbiota affect the reproductive outcomes in women with recurrent
implantation failures?
Version: 3 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Hassan S. O. Abduljabbar
Reviewer's report:
Dear sir
Thank you for your response
The manuscript is written in (the English language with few spelling and grammar mistakes.)
The introduction is appropriate.
Methods. The sample I small, but the author mentioned that this was a pilot study.
Results
Statistical method and analysis of appropriate
The length of the manuscript is appropriate and easy to understand
Plagiarism .. described
References.
Good study
Title: Link between unmet need and economic status in Bangladesh: Gap in urban and rural areas
Version: 2 Date: 03 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Aurup Ratan Dhar
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is time-worthy and well-written. I recommend accepting it after some minor
revisions. The comments are as follows:
P. 4, L. 4-6: Explain the reason.
P. 4, L. 21: Introduce the full name at the first appearance.
P. 5, L. 10-18: Add more literature and expand the findings.
P. 6, L. 12: It’s better to use districts and sub-districts.
P.9, L. 12: The mathematical expression of the analyses should be incorporated.
P. 16, L. 17: The conclusion is weak. The take-home message is not clear. How the findings will
help to solve the existing problem in the big picture? What are your specific recommendations?
P. 17, L. 3-4: Text with numerical expression and reference should not be included in the
Conclusion.
Title: Link between unmet need and economic status in Bangladesh: Gap in urban and rural areas
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting research focusing on unmet need and economic status in Bangladesh. The
author (s) attempted to raise the importance of the issue in global  context and to identify what
gaps are exiting in urban and rural Bangladesh. Data used in the research seem to be appropriate
to tease out the important determinants  which have clear policy implications.  The research has
scientific value and worth publishing.
I, however, would like to address two limitations in the manuscript:
1. There is a lack of critical analysis of literature in order to develop a research question.
2. What type of literature review is applied to this research and how the process has been done
for research investigation.
Title: The relationship between attitudes to homelessness and perceptions of caring behaviours:
a cross-sectional study among women experiencing homelessness, nurses and nursing students
Version: 3 Date: 09 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Hadi Tehrani
Reviewer's report:
I applaud the authors for conducting an interesting article. After thorough review, I am
recommending some revisions. In this regard, kindly address the following comments and
suggestions to further improve your manuscript
1. It was better if you wrote some of main finding as quantitative or mean ±SD within the
abstract. The result section in the abstract is poor and immature!!
2. Please write the sampling strategy and date and country of study in abstract
3. The conclusion of the abstract needs to answer the research question and match the study aims
4.
5.  The introduction section is very long. You could summarize this section a bit more for
readers. Write about the problems, the novelty of your study, and your study goals within the
introduction.
6. The research questions are not clearly defined at the end of the literature review. This makes
it difficult to determine appropriateness of the results.
7. The materials & methods section is relatively immature. You could expand it a bit more clearly
for readers. For example, write about the sample size. How did you calculate sample size for this
survey? the validity and reliability of the measurement tool? Furthermore, write about all applied
exclusion and inclusion criteria a bit more clearly by which you selected samples for this survey.
8. What was your sample size formula? What is your expected power? please mention in main
text. It was better if you could show the process of samples selection and methods using a
flowchart with consort format.
9. Mention the possible score (range) for each scales and meaning of it so easier to readers
interpret the results.
10. Discuss more about your sampling strategy? The structure of your sampling is so vague and
understandable. Did you have sampling frame? how did you access to this frame
11. What are the data extract’s center characteristics? is it governmental or private, is it referral
or not referral and so on, discuss more about it
12. In the discussion, you did not include related previous studies in relation to the findings of
the current study. Please search and cite related studies and include them in your discussion. in
sum, the authors need to state how the research fills an identified knowledge gap and how the
new knowledge will be used to improve population
Title: The relationship between attitudes to homelessness and perceptions of caring behaviours:
a cross-sectional study among women experiencing homelessness, nurses and nursing students
Version: 5 Date: 08 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Nouf A Alshamlan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper with the title: (( The relationship between
attitudes to homelessness and perceptions of caring behaviours: a cross-sectional study among
women experiencing homelessness, nurses and nursing students ))
The article is very interesting. However, it needs a revision. I recommend some changes to
improve the manuscript which is as follows:
1. Background:
- This part is very long (around 900 words), I suggest summarizing the paragraphs and focus on
the literature that are related to your subjects, and justification of your study.
2. Methods:
- Methodology section should be reproducible. Many details needed here:
- What was the estimated sample size?
- You mentioned that (The inclusion criteria were Swedish speaking women with experience
of homelessness according to the European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion
(ETHOS) definition), kindly mention the definition here
- In the abstract you mentioned that the study period was (between August 2019 and December
2020). However, in the method section you mentioned different period. Kindly check these parts
- What was the total number of distributed surveys?
3. Results:
- General comments; all tables’ titles must include more details, for eg; study setting, year,..etc
- Kindly mention the response rate
- Was the data normally distributed? If yes, it should be mentioned
4. Limitations:
- Small number in each group is a limitation in this study.
5. The paper requires some English editing.
I hope that this information is useful to the editors and authors.