JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Evaluate The Effectiveness of Using Nonpharmacological Intervention During
Childbirth: An Improvement Project in Jordanian Maternity Hospitals
Version: 1 Date: 09 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Vidya Seshan
Reviewer's report:
Introduction:
• To make it more concise, focus on providing a brief overview of non-pharmacological methods
and their significance in managing health conditions.
• Introduce the scope of non-pharmacological interventions, mentioning specific examples to
illustrate the variety of approaches.
• Ensure continuity by smoothly transitioning between the introduction of non-pharmacological
methods and the rationale for studying them in the context of your research.
Methodology:
• Create a table that outlines the research questions and corresponding probing for each question,
enhancing readability and organization.
• Include a discussion on the content validity of the questions, explaining how they were
developed and ensuring they adequately capture the intended constructs.
• Provide a clear description of the data collection process from the initial approach to women
in labor to the procedures followed during and after data collection, ensuring clarity and
transparency.
Results:
• Expand on Theme Two to provide a more comprehensive analysis, including additional
participant comments to better represent the findings from the total participant pool.
• Ensure each theme is thoroughly explored, drawing comparisons with relevant studies to enrich
the discussion and provide context.
Discussion:
• Delve deeper into each theme separately, comparing findings with existing literature to
highlight similarities, differences, and novel insights.
• Discuss implications and practical applications of the findings more explicitly, explaining how
they contribute to knowledge in the field and suggesting potential implications for practice.
• Provide an overall synthesis of the findings, summarizing key takeaways and discussing their
broader implications for theory, practice, and future research directions.
Limitations:
• Clearly outline the limitations of the study, addressing potential biases, constraints, and factors
that may have impacted the validity and generalizability of the findings
Title: Evaluate The Effectiveness of Using Nonpharmacological Intervention During
Childbirth: An Improvement Project in Jordanian Maternity Hospitals
Version: 1 Date: 24 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading your article. Using a theme tree in your article can show you which categories
and codes you created themes with. I recommend reviewing the reporting with the COREQ
checklist. I wish I didn't see the names of the unblinded authors of your article. What precautions
did you take to avoid bias in the methods section? The section on characteristics of the
participants and the method in general should be further expanded.
Title: Evaluate The Effectiveness of Using Nonpharmacological Intervention During
Childbirth: An Improvement Project in Jordanian Maternity Hospitals
Version: 3 Date: 07 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Vidya Seshan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing all the comments.
The discussion section needs further correction, can be wirtten under the theme to make it clear
to the audiance and with good literature support. Presently this section looks very shallow.
Title: Evaluate The Effectiveness of Using Nonpharmacological Intervention During
Childbirth: An Improvement Project in Jordanian Maternity Hospitals
Version: 4 Date: 17 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I appreciate that the authors responded adequately to my suggested
revisions. Their changes reflected my suggested changes. Overall, the manuscript is much
improved and with some minor edits will be a valuable contribution to the available literature
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
“Fear of childbirth pain is among the most important causes of refusing natural vaginal birth.”
This needs a reference
“This issue in the process of childbirth and low awareness of the different ways to reduce labor
pain led to an increase in the rates of cesarean elections.” This needs a reference
The English language is much improved, there are a few minor errors such as “Cesarean Suction”
instead of Cesarean Section but I would actually suggest Cesarean Birth as an alternative
I appreciate that the authors changed the reported approach to a qualitative improvement project.
Suggest that you make sure that all of the “research study” language is changed throughout the
manuscript for consistency
Table 3 – indicate if the apgar score was at 1 minute, 5 minutes or another time
Title: Evaluate The Effectiveness of Using Nonpharmacological Intervention During
Childbirth: An Improvement Project in Jordanian Maternity Hospitals
Version: 5 Date: 30 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors' have responded to the concerns raised in my comments
and made appropriate changes to the manuscript.  The revised manuscript is stronger as a result.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
No further revisions required
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
none.  Only very minor proofing required
Title: Knowledge and Concern towards Endometriosis among Lebanese Women: A Cross-
Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 20 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Anastasia Salame
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the very interesting paper.
Kindly find my comments.
1- Your paper needs to edited for minor mistakes.
2- The discussion section should be more elaborate
3- Kindly provide the actual reference for the Bloom s cut-off as the study provided used the
Bloom s cutoff and not the one that actually introduced it.
Title: Knowledge and Concern towards Endometriosis among Lebanese Women: A Cross-
Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled “Knowledge
and Concern towards Endometriosis among Lebanese Women: A
Cross-Sectional Study.” This is an interesting and important study,
particularly for its educational role in a country where, as the
authors pointed out, there is limited epidemiological data and few
studies on endometriosis, likely contributing to diagnostic delays or
missed diagnoses. However, a few considerations can be made:
Introduction:
L 48-50, the sentence is somewhat unclear and would benefit from
revision for clarity.
L66-69: The cited article reports a statistically non-significant
result regarding the relationship between the use of oral
contraceptives (OC) and endometriosis, which could be misleading in
terms of the actual role of hormonal therapy in this disease.
Considering the educational purpose of the paper, I would suggest
either omitting this data or reformulating the sentence.
L84-85: Regarding "..early referral and detection..", it would be
appropriate to emphasize the crucial role of non-invasive diagnostic
tools, such as transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), for early diagnosis of
endometriosis. The latest ESHRE guidelines (2022) underline that
laparoscopy is no longer the gold standard for diagnosis, a point
worth mentioning here.
Methods: The structure of the methods section is clear and well-constructed.
Results: The study results are presented efficiently, with tables that
complement the text effectively.
Discussion and Conclusion: Based on the reported results, I suggest
adding a comment on the importance of regular gynecological check-ups,
not limited to a state of necessity, to help identify endometriosis in
its earlier stages, particularly during adolescence. Additionally, it
would be valuable to highlight the role of hormonal therapy in
managing the disease and its symptoms.
With the above suggestions, the study could be further improved.
Title: Knowledge and Concern towards Endometriosis among Lebanese Women: A Cross-
Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study aim was to determine the understanding and concerns of Lebanese women about
endometriosis which aids in identifying knowledge gaps and misconceptions so that they can
be addressed. No previous research has been done in Lebanon to assess the Lebanese women's
knowledge about endometriosis, which makes the study interesting and innovating. Still, some
issues should be addressed before publication.
Authors should comment potential biases due to data collection through social media using the
snowballing technique as perhaps only women who were specifically interested in the subject
answered.
Authors presented the inclusion criteria, but were there any exclusion criteria?
In line 142 the words „was“, „also“ and „about“ should be deleted.
Discussion of the available literature and obtained results should be a bit more thorough.
Title: The effect of educational intervention based on the health belief model on the domestic
violence coping skills in women referring to comprehensive rural health service centers
Version: 2 Date: 12 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Some of the analyses mentioned in the Methods section are not included in the results. If the
analyses were used, the results should be added; if not, they should be removed.
2. The scores of the intervention group before and after the intervention were not analyzed.
Title: The effect of educational intervention based on the health belief model on the domestic
violence coping skills in women referring to comprehensive rural health service centers
Version: 3 Date: 26 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Based on two reasons, this article is not accepted:
1. The necessity of using covariance analysis instead of t-test and not correcting this in the new
edition
2. The number of training and intervention sessions is too limited to create long-term changes
many thanks
Title: Intimate partner violence against women among contraceptive users at a primary health
care setting in Southern Ethiopia: a facility-based cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Title: - Women’s experience of intimate partner violence: Facility-based cross-sectional study
among contraceptive users at a primary health care setting in Southern Ethiopia
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. Generally, it’s an important topic. So, I
appreciate the work. For review comments, please see my comments as follows:
Review comment
1 Make sure your title is written correctly; the study design should appear last. The term
experience suggests that your research was of a qualitative nature. please remove it
2   Your work is innovative based on the study population, yet your objective and your conclusion
are not the same. Although family planning users were your study population and you have
discussed IPV in relation to F/P use in the background part, your instrument and results have
nothing to do with F/P utilization. Could you therefore review it and make any necessary
corrections to your result presentation or guidance? Based on your objective I anticipated the
association of IPV and  F/P use.
3   Would you use the tool directly or adapted to your study. How you asked the participant?
4 Decision-making and social support are different thing correct your topic: - revise your result
on social support part
5 In your discussion part, you compared the study done on all women (the study population is not
F/P users or from F/P clinics). Please revise; it’s not correct to compare different populations.
6 Where is the implication of your study?  please write the implication of your study
Title: Intimate partner violence against women among contraceptive users at a primary health
care setting in Southern Ethiopia: a facility-based cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 12 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Now your manuscript shows good progress and almost all my comments were corrected but still
# if you clear these two ideas (which one is yours?): -
1. IVP among contraceptive user or
2. IVP caused due to contraceptive use
# English and grammar throughout need review and revision.
Generally, I consider that the text adequately describes the methodology followed and provides
important results. So, I support publication of this study!!!
Title: Intimate partner violence against women among contraceptive users at a primary health
care setting in Southern Ethiopia: a facility-based cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 22 May 2024
Reviewer:  Khadije Ezzati-Rastegar
Reviewer's report:
Unfortunately, the comments are not modified.
Comments
1- The manuscript language is poor yet. Not academic writing. For example, instead of
procedure, write sample size or sampling procedure and …
2- The method has not been modified. Is the target group women of reproductive age or married
women of reproductive age?
3- How has social support been assessed? If it has a standard tool, be sure to give a reference,
otherwise give a sufficient explanation.
4- The manuscript language is really poor. I am confused. What do you mean by poor social
sport in this phrase" Multivariable logistic regression revealed that women in rural residences,
women having a formal education, partners alcohol drinking, partners Khat chewing, and poor
social sport were significantly associated with IPV among contraceptive-user women”?
5- How are confounding factors controlled in logistic regression?
6- The discussion is still poor. In the studies that are aligned with the current research, only
alignment is mentioned, and in most of the non-aligned studies, cultural and social differences
are emphasized. This is your opinion. What differences? You can refer to the study of the
method, the characteristics of the target group, the tools used, etc. by carefully studying the
related researches.
7-  This conclusion should be made with caution “ We suggested that programs that support
women education, strengthen social support and transforming partners’ behaviors are crucial
to avert intimate partner violence in the southern Ethiopia“. How effective will the education
of women be? When violence is a two-way phenomenon, why don't you think about educating
men?
8- There are many references and most of them are old.
9- Most of the diagrams are redundant and the explanation in the text of the findings is sufficient.
Title: Intimate partner violence against women among contraceptive users at a primary health
care setting in Southern Ethiopia: a facility-based cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 21 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed all of my comments and the paper is
much improved. It is now clearer what the purpose of the study was and what it contributes
to the field of gender-based violence. The paper could still benefit from editing to improve the
English, but otherwise this is now publishable
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Edit to improve the English
Title: Construction of a nomogram for personalized prediction of lower limb lymphedema risk
after cervical cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Nicolae Gic#
Reviewer's report:
Dear author’s
I was pleased to review your article entitled “ Construction of a column chart prediction model
for personalized prediction of lower limb lymphedema risk after cervical cancer surgery” and
i have the following comment’s:
- first of all the study is retrospective and it is very difficult to draw clear conclusions.
- the study in fact assess the risk factors for lymph edema. Please explain.
- there are some new info that your research brings to the existing literature.
- from medical point of view do you have some recommendations?
- it is unclear  what contain this column chart.
- the aim of your study is not clear. Please explain
- it is mandatory to highlight the study limitation.
- English and punctuation edits
Title: Construction of a nomogram for personalized prediction of lower limb lymphedema risk
after cervical cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
“individualized column chart model” As senior statisticians we never heard about this model.
Please specify and provide a reference, or correct the term.
“they were divided into a modeling group of 313 cases and a validation group of 98 cases.”
What method was used to divide cases?
“Statistical analysis and plotting were performed using SPSS 25.0 and R 4.0.2 software.”
Why SPSS was used when R could perform all analysis? Please briefly describe which portion
of analysis was performed in which software.
“aged #60 years, had a BMI #24 kg/m2”
Why age and BMI were dichotomized instead of being modeled as continuous variable, which
is more appropriate in most of logistic modeling. Is there any supporting evidence for the cut-
offs chosen over using continuous values?
“Multivariate logistic regression analysis”
the analysis done was multivariable analysis instead of multivariate analysis, two of them are
fundamentally different, if authors are not clear about these terms, please refer to this article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518362/
Table 3
Please add the names of levels and their reference levels for each variable to be specific and
avoid confusion.
“Constant” in table 3, did author mean “intercept”?
For p-value >0.000 please use correct format, if journal guidelines didn't specify please consult
editor.
“The DCA curve shows that the nomogram model” should be “the logistic model”?
Title: Construction of a nomogram for personalized prediction of lower limb lymphedema risk
after cervical cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 10 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor thank you for giving me this chance to review this study “ Construction of a column
chart prediction model for personalized prediction of lower limb lymphedema risk after cervical
cancer surgery”. This study aims to construct and evaluate an individualized column chart model
for predicting the risk of lower limb lymphedema after cervical cancer surgery.
Here is my questions:
Abstract is too long, please make it short, especially method section.
Abbreviation before usage should be defined. DCA curve? BMI? ROC curve?
What is column chart model?
“The AUC of the ROC curve was 0.890 (95% CI: 0.844~0.936) and 0.876 (95% CI:
0.821~0.930), indicating high model calibration and discrimination.” What does mean by
calibration and discrimination?
Methods:
Why samples were divided in this way? “According to an approximate 3:1 principle, they were
divided into a modeling group of 313 cases and a validation group of 98 cases.”
Then why modeling group was divided in this way? “The modeling group was further divided
based on the postoperative lower extremity lymphedema condition into a lower extremity
lymphedema group with 61 cases and a non-lower extremity lymphedema group with 252
cases.”
Inclusion criteria:
“Meet the diagnostic criteria for cervical cancer” this is an overall term, please determine what
does mean by “diagnostic criteria”
Since this study was retrospective, so all exclusion should convert to negative words and add to
inclusion criteria, exclusion occur after samples were included in the study.
How samples were accessed? Were data gathered from electronic databases?
Outcomes should be clarified by their scale in method section: for instance: BMI in this study
was considered as #24 and #24,…
In abstract section it can be seen there was internal and external validation, but in method section
authors did not mention to this issue, please clarify this: whether 1. Was there any external
validation in this study? 2. If yes, for external validation which databases was considered?
Usually for external validation we need data from external database.
Please provide legend for tables and describe all abbreviations words.
Please specify what analytical tests were used for variables in the tables (please by asterisk make
them determined)
Please add limitation, strength, suggestion and conclusion to this study.