JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Interprofessional collaboration in the breast cancer unit: how do healthcare workers see it?
Version: 1 Date: 23 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Akemi Kataoka
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity of review the article. I carefully read the article.
The findings are useful to build interprofessional collaborations targeted at enhancing quality
health care in breast cancer units.
The manuscript is well written but I cannot accept the manuscript in the current state. Briefly
listed the minor reason are as follows.
1. Please specify the reason why you excluded resident physicians in this study.
2. The ‘Standard Operational Procedure’ abbreviation should be written first in the text.
3. It's recommended to change the writing style so that we don't know the gender of a particular
participant. For example, ‘he’ or ‘his’ in the following sentences,
‘He must know from the beginning that the cancer treatment needs to be comprehensive so, for
example, if everyone has their own ego to handle it, it won't work.’
For the purpose of team success, every health worker engaging in interprofessional collaboration
must set aside ego from his personality.
Feeling himself a senior
Maybe what needs to be improved is that we want the e-medical record to make it simple to
read his writing or instructions that are not clear.
4. It is not necessary to write the gender of DAKK.
Title: Interprofessional collaboration in the breast cancer unit: how do healthcare workers see it?
Version: 1 Date: 24 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The article presents an interesting issue, the research methods are selected correctly. Results and
discussion is presented clearly.
However, the studied group is extremely small (15 people) and relatively little diversified.
Information on the specialities of the doctors participating in the study was not provided.
From the quotes, I conclude that they were only oncologists. I would suggest conducting a
study with more people and including other specialists: radiologists, radiotherapists, dieticians,
physiotherapists, etc.
In this form, the inference is limited, the results presented are not representative.
Title: Interprofessional collaboration in the breast cancer unit: how do healthcare workers see it?
Version: 1 Date: 09 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review a study that looks at the transition from what
appears to be a traditional, hierarchical model of professional relationships to one involving
interprofessional collaboration.
First of all, I appreciate that your article is easy to read because it involves straight forward
phrasing and structure.  This is a rarity in professional, academic work, so thank you.
Secondly, I think your abstract is more correct in its assertion that this is a qualitative study
than the article is in its assertion that this is a phenomenology.  Aside from inviting examples
of day to day interactions, the article does not really exemplify phenomenology - language such
as 'interview' and statements such as 'all...participants consented to being questioned' is not
consistent with the philosophy of  phenomenology.  Further, the questions that you asked invite
theorizing, speculation, beliefs, and opinions, rather than the concrete sharing of experience.
The data, however, is qualitative, and would suggest that you only use this terminology.
Thirdly, more details about the study and some clarification would be helpful. The abstract seems
to indicate that the interviews/focus groups were audio recorded but I could not find this in the
body of article (field notes are indicated, but not recording).  Were the interactions recorded?
Was participation voluntary?  Were the same questions used in the interviews as in the focus
groups?  How long were the focus groups? one on one interviews?
Fourthly, it seems that the themes could benefit from a deeper dive into analysis because, for
example, health insurance and patient issues look as if they could be one theme (not two); patient
and family-centred approach look as if it could be combined with patient-centred care. Some
quotations seem not to match up with comments (e.g., see 'the need for a clinical meeting' and
'hospital bureaucracy').  Perhaps this is because the comments following the quotations do not
really provide any further information or context or interpretation.  (I am certain that you know
your context very well but many readers will not - tell us about your integrated clinical pathways,
SOPs (how are the quotation and comment related - what is the context), dual positions (what
does this mean in your context?).  Your discussion actually adds some context - the discussion,
however, needs to flow from your findings rather adding findings.
Fifthly, your diagram of the themes is very helpful.
And finally, this could be a helpful article, worthy of publication, with some careful re-working
of methods and methodology.
Title: Factor structure and internal reliability of Breast cancer screening Champion’s Health
Belief Model Scale in Yemeni women in Malaysia: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Sep 2021
Reviewer:  Nilgün Özçakar
Reviewer's report:
Dear author/s,
I reviewed the manuscript titled “Factor structure and internal reliability of Breast cancer
screening Champion’s Health Belief Model Scale in Yemeni women in Malaysia: A cross-
sectional study”.
Validity and reliability studies of scales are important studies that will guide further research
on the subject. For this reason, I think that such studies to be conduct are valuable due to the
importance of the research subject. The most important point in such evaluations is that in the
articles the scale validity and reliability analyzes and the method should clearly state.
In the article, it could be seen the methods appropriate and properly conducted and the
conclusions drawn fully supported by the data can seen.
The paper technically sound well.
The claims fully supported by the experimental data and the statistical analysis of the data sound
good.
The claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature.
Title: Factor structure and internal reliability of Breast cancer screening Champion’s Health
Belief Model Scale in Yemeni women in Malaysia: A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Nilgün Özçakar
Reviewer's report:
Dear author/s,
I reviewed the manuscript titled “Factor structure and internal reliability of Breast cancer
screening Champion’s Health Belief Model Scale in Yemeni women in Malaysia: A cross-
sectional study”.
The fact that your research was conducted in accordance with the purpose of adapting the scale
to society is very valuable in such an important issue. I hope that your results will provide a
suitable tool for your society for breast cancer screening and will be a guide for future research.
Title: Three-year observational study of immediate post-abortion insertion versus menstrual
insertion of etonogestrel contraceptive implant
Version: 1 Date: 25 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is an observational study of women’s use of an etonogestrel implant after abortion.  It
appears that women decided whether they wanted the implant immediately abortion or at the
time of their first menses.  If this is the case, it should be clearly stated in the abstract as this is
an observational study.  It would be good to revise the title as well.
There are multiple instances of awkward, and sometimes incorrect, use of language. I did not
address each one, as some might be eliminated if the content is amended.  If the article is
accepted, grammar needs to be corrected.
Page numbers were not included, and each page and section started line numbers anew.  This
makes it difficult to relate comments to specific places in the manuscript.  I suggest that you
insert page numbers, and use continuous line numbering.
The primary outcome of the study is not stated.  If there are several primary outcomes, then the
statistical test needs to be adjusted to account for multiple outcomes.  As this is an observational
cohort study, relative risk would be a more appropriate statistic than chi-square.
Introduction:
p. 2, multiple places: it would be helpful to distinguish between pregnancy caused by non-use
of contraceptives, and repeat pregnancy after abortion related to contraceptive practice.
p. 2, l. 4-6. Your study population did not include any women below age 20.  Therefore your
reference to teenaged women is not relevant.
p.2, l. 7-8. This statement is not supported.
p. 3,  l.1  “Many clinicians worry….”  What evidence do you have for this statement?
Materials and Methods:
Please describe what women were asked to do for this study?  Were they informed prior to
selecting the timing of implant insertion that they would be recruited into this study?  How
many women had implants after abortion during this time who were not in the study?  Why was
removal considered “not satisfied”?
Results:
Do not duplicate information in tables and text.  Table 3:  Clarify that the removals were done
in the 12 month-period (e.g 1-12 months, 12-24 months, and 24-36 months).
Discussion:
Pregnancy rates during the observation period should be in the Results section.  Do not introduce
new results in the discussion section.  How do you account for the lack of pregnancies?  Did all
women choose another effective contraceptive during that period?
The discussion section is very confused and many of the statements are tangential to the topic
of interest.  This section needs extensive revision and editing.
The Abstract should reflect findings in the test. The difference in continuation rates is not
significant (even if you used relative risk) and the abstract should not imply that the difference
is important.
Title: Three-year observational study of immediate post-abortion insertion versus menstrual
insertion of etonogestrel contraceptive implant
Version: 1 Date: 18 Jul 2021
Reviewer:  Mariane Nunes de Nadai
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study. However, I have some points to mention:
- How was sample size calculated?
- I would suggest english review. For example, using parity instead of gravidy.
- Please describe if you had any inclusion and exclusion criteria, such as heavy menstrual
bleeding and coagulation disorders, since those information could affect bleeding pattern.
- I would suggest describing amenorrea / infrequent / frequent and prolongued bleeding
separately, since we have different treatment options for some of them
- How was bleeding accessed? Daily messages? paper diary? How often was this bleeding
information collected?
- Why did you take so many years to publish it? If you started recruiting in 2013, and had a 36
month follow up, how long did you take to finish your recruitment?
Title: Three-year observational study of immediate post-abortion insertion versus menstrual
insertion of etonogestrel contraceptive implant
Version: 3 Date: 02 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is considerably improved.  My comments are mainly related to grammar and
formatting.  However, the discussion section requires some editing to decrease repetition and
remove speculation.  It will have a stronger impact if it is more concise. The last two lines (l.
147-148) are the summary!
Suggestions:
l. 28-29.  “Immediately post-abortion may be a more appropriate time to undergo etonogestrel
implantation than during menstruation” Your observation did not suggest this.  Instead, your
observation did not demonstrate any adverse effects from post-abortal insertion.
l.39. Suggest re-wording this sentence to: “Unintended pregnancy is the most common reason
for induced abortion.”
l.39-40.  this sentence cannot be documented and should be deleted.
l.44 “contraception” should be “contraceptive”.
l.45-47. Suggest reversing the order of these two sentences to improve readability.
L 47. Suggest replacing “many” with “some”.
l. 66 Delete “strictly”.
l. 69 “  …. Were recorded by participants”.
l. 71-72. I don’t understand this sentence and it could be deleted entirely.
Please add relative risk assessments to this paragraph.
l.88 Either spell out relative risk in the table, or add a footnote.  It does not belong here.
l. 93 Please replace “cases” with “women”.  Please change this throughout the manuscript.
l. 95. “Migration” cannot be a main reason if it only happened once.  Please define migration if
you wish to maintain it as a separate heading in the table.  Does that mean expulsion or partial
expulsion? Movement from the site of insertion?
In Table 3, the inclusion of expiration is confusing, since it has nothing to do with satisfaction
or dissatisfaction.  I would delete this line.
l. 105.  This sentence is redundant, and could be deleted entirely.
l. 113-114.  This sentence appeared, almost identically, in the introduction. l. 47-48.  Please
delete one or the other.
l.11-119. This is repetitive, and could be summed up much more concisely.
l. 120. The sentence beginning “ In this study” should start a new paragraph.
l. 127-129.  Please delete this sentence.  This is referenced in the methods section.
l. 130-135. This portion wanders off into areas that you did not evaluate, and adds
recommendations that seem obvious.  Why would you not inform women of possible side
effects, and why would you not respond to them?
l. 137-146.  This section also contains speculation and could be considerably condensed.
l. 147-148.  Good!
Title: Three-year observational study of immediate post-abortion insertion versus menstrual
insertion of etonogestrel contraceptive implant
Version: 5 Date: 24 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
This revision has greatly improved the manuscript; and I appreciate the careful responses.  My
only suggestion now is to remove then sentences in lines 12--125, which are repetitious.  The
information is conveyed in lines 130-134.
Title: Level of  exclusive breastfeeding and its enabling factors among lactating women who
delivered in health facilities of Asosa town, Ethiopia: A cross sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Dagne Addisu
Reviewer's report:
Level of exclusive breastfeeding and its enabling factors among lactating women who delivered
in health facilites of Asosa town, Ethiopia: A cross sectional study
I would like to thank the editor for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. I read
the manuscript in detail and I raised some minor issues below.
1. The manuscript was well structured and written.  However, there are some minor issues related
to font style (different font style within the manuscript), spacing, and grammatical issue.
2. Extensive literature including systematic review and meta-analysis was available related to
this manuscript in Ethiopia. Besides, there is EDHS data related to the title. So, what new
evidence will add for Ethiopia as well as the scientific communities?
3. Your data collection was face to face interview. However, it is difficult to get some obstetric
variables with this method such as gestational age (GA). So, how do you get GA? Did you
calculate it or collected it from the medical chart?
4. Better to discuss EBF practice by comparing with other countries’ findings.
Title: Age at menarche, age at menopause, reproductive years and risk of fatal stroke occurrence
among Chinese women: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Imke Janssen
Reviewer's report:
The paper “Age at menarche, age at menopause, reproductive years and risk of fatal stroke
occurrence among Chinese women: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study” presents analyses
from a large cohort in China. It examines the impact of reproductive history on risk of fatal
stroke.
A vast array of analyses is presented in 6 tables: overall mortality from stroke, from ischemic
stroke, from hemorrhagic stroke, in the total cohort as well as in the older (born<1940) and in the
younger (born>=1940) subset of woman. Age at menarche, age at menopause, and number of
reproductive years are the predictors of interest. Analyses are repeated after exclusions (removal
of uterus, ovaries or breast masses, HT use).
This could provide useful information and point to identifying women of higher risk of stroke
based on their reproductive history. However, the sample size is limited, as the total number
of strokes was 222 (1.3%). Women born >=1940 comprised 70% of the cohort with 58 strokes
(26% of 222), as one might expect. Therefore, power in all subset analyses is limited, especially
in the younger cohort. Whereas looking at the older (not order) and younger cohort separately is
justified in the background section, but looking at mortality from different types of stroke is not.
As the total number of strokes in women born >=1940 is small (58 or 0.5%), it is not surprising
that there is but one significant relationship in this younger cohort and not consistent for the
unadjusted and adjusted model.
In the methods, a brief description of eligibility criteria for the parent study should be provided,
not just a reference. The cited reference does not provide details on how many women were
initially recruited. It is unclear what the number 22067 represents under Baseline characteristics.
It is unclear how the original sample size was reduced to 20343. Figure 1 presents details on
exclusions from these 20343. This could just be referred to in the description of the baseline
characteristics.
How did the final sample of 16504 differ from those women who were excluded?
For the follow-up time, add the range or interquartile range.  In the comparisons of age at
menarche, age at menopause, and reproductive years, there are only 2 groups (young and old),
so stating that there was a trend seems inappropriate.
Each table should be able to stand on its own.
Table 1: oral contraceptive use – current or ever?
Tables 2 to 7: The groups could be called “Total cohort”, “Born<1940”, and Born>=1940”. What
do the separate analyses for type of stroke mortality add, especially given the much diminished
sample size?
Sensitivity analyses could be moved to a supplement to ease presentation. Exclusion details need
to be added.
Title: Age at menarche, age at menopause, reproductive years and risk of fatal stroke occurrence
among Chinese women: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Authors have addressed the comments I raised and revised the manuscript, tables, and figures
accordingly. I have no further comments, but professional English editing is required as there
are still many grammar and spelling errors.
Title: Characterization of patients that can continue conservative treatment for adenomyosis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The study  was well conducted but it has several limitations that should be considered for data
interpretations and extrapolation.
I would suggest a native English speaker to correct syntax errors.
Not all hormone therapies have the same effects on adenomyosis. The paper needs an extensive
review of the literature on different medical therapies, also citing the newest GnRH antagonists.
Read and cite these papers on this topic: PMID: 27021205 PMID: 26370625 PMID: 34278887
Moreover, alternative therapies on which there is a great debate in the literature should also be
mentioned: for example MRgFUS or the use of embolization of the uterine arteries rather than
radiofrequencies.
I recommend uploading the figures in Jpg format, because I couldn't see them in this format.
In table 1 it should be subclassified what type of hormone therapy all patients did and evaluate
in the results which of these therapies caused an interruption or undergo hysterectomy.
Title: Characterization of patients that can continue conservative treatment for adenomyosis
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
The study aims to evaluate the treatment course of patients with adenomyosis who requested
conservative treatment, and to determine which women can continue conservative treatment.
The Abstract is clear and satisfactorily summarizes the contents of the paper. The study is well
conducted, the Methods are described comprehensively, and the whole article vaunts a good
linguistic accuracy.
As reported by the Authors, there is a significant limitation due to the low number of cases
involved. The results are interesting, but the study should be continued involving a larger sample
of patients to confirm the data.
However, as there is no clear therapeutic address for adenomyosis’ treatment, this study may help
clinicians in the decision-making plan before surgery, therefore the article deserves publication
in BMC Women’s health, after a major revision.
Comments
Authors should better describe the study design.
On page 15, lines 279-281, Authors state that ‘criteria for the diagnosis of adenomyosis are not
yet clear, so it is possible that the patient may not be diagnosed even if she has symptoms’,
but there is evidence in the literature that the combination of both ultrasound and MRI allow
with fair certainty the diagnosis. (Vinci V. et al ‘MRI, US or real-time virtual sonography in
the evaluation of adenomyosis?’ doi: 10.1007/s11547-017-0729-7.; Exacoustos C. et a ‘New
Sonographic Classification of Adenomyosis: Do Type and Degree of Adenomyosis Correlate to
Severity of Symptoms?’ doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.788). This topic should be better discussed
in the text.
Among the relevant factors involved in the classification tree, Authors identify both age at
diagnosis and parity. If, on the one hand, multiparous women fulfilled their reproductive desire,
on the other hand it is well known that symptoms of adenomyosis change at different ages,
therefore identifying a univocal approach is complex and, probably, not possible. To clarify the
different features of adenomyosis in younger and older women (Exacoustos C, et al. Ultrasound
Findings of Adenomyosis in Adolescents: Type and Grade of the Disease. J Minim Invasive
Gynecol. 2021 Aug 28:S1553-4650 (21)00409-X.; Piccioni MG, et al. Sonographic and clinical
features of adenomyosis in women in "early" (18-35) and "advanced" (>35) reproductive ages.
Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun;73(3):354-361.).
Furthermore, each type of hormonal treatment taken by patients should be considered in detail,
as different drugs have a specific target and, even if approved to treat adenomyosis, may be
more/less effective in the short/long term and present several side effects.
Title: Characterization of patients that can continue conservative treatment for adenomyosis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
I have carefully considered the revised version of this manuscript.
The authors made almost all the required changes, significantly improving the quality of the
paper. I think there is some problem with the references [30-32] because they do not reflect what
is stated in the sentence line 244. I also think that the reference is missing PMID: 34278887.