JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Mediating effect of suicidal ideation in the association between child abuse and
premenstrual syndrome among female adults
Version: 4 Date: 11 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you so much for taking the time to provide me with the detailed response and for making
the necessary edits. Your attention to detail is greatly appreciated, and I value the effort you put
into ensuring clarity and accuracy.
Regarding the comment, “How did you calculate this? “A significantly higher percentage of
participants who are single and have a university level of education was found in participants
with PMS.”? The P-values by themselves do not indicate the strength or direction of an effect."
I would like to explain that the direction of the percentages with the p value is not sufficient to
conclude the direction, even though it might be true. I suggest adding the odds ratio.
I recommend adding the survey in Arabic too.
Title: Disparities in treatment modalities and survival among older patients with high-grade
serous ovarian cancer
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Yan Cai, Tong Shu, Hong Zheng,
I want to congratulate you on your important research and report titled,  "Disparities in treatment
modalities and survival among elderly patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer."
While we would all imagine that we tend to be a little more conservative with aggressive
treatment strategies in the very elderly population, this research paper shows the different in
baseline cancer characteristics and cancer treatments for the very elderly (>/=75 year old) when
compared to the elderly  (65-72 year-old) women.
Methods:
I think it would be important to mention whether you compared survival (OS) of the different
age groups while accounting for the differences in cancer characteristics and the differences
in treatment aggressiveness. So was the difference in  OS independent of the other variables
associated with poor survival like advanced stage disease, optimal cytoreduction, neo-adjuvant
or adjuvant chemotherapy?
Is there a way to also pull through Morbidity scores from a SEER database? While it helps
to look at Ovarian cancer specific survival, I wonder if a look at comorbidites scores would
suggest why the very elderly population may not have received chemotherapy or maximum
cytoreductive effort.
Results:
For the results, you state the difference between laterality of tumor and stage of tumors is
significantly different between the two groups but the raw numbers and percentages are actually
quite close.  Is the p>0.001 just because there is a high number of patients in the group. Do you
think the differences in percentages are clinically significant (Table 1)?
Also in Table 2, the percentages of PDS/Suboptimal and  IDS/Suboptimal in both the groups
are nearly identical. The only difference is in Optimal and No surgery. So do you think the we
just don't attempt cytoreduction in very elderly patients that are unlikely to achieve complete
cytoreduction? Is there still a difference if you only look at Optimal/Suboptimal PDS/IDS and
remove the no surgery/unknown arms?
Discussion:
Good summary of results. In the discussion you state, "To reduce treatment disparities, more
knowledge is urgently needed to characterize and identify modifiable factors among older EOC
patients" but there is no mention of what the modifiable factors are and how to improve them.
Can you make suggestions?
Also, given these expected results of less aggressive treatment and lower OS in very elderly
patients, there is no mention regarding how to counsel these patients differently? Maybe the
focus should be on counseling these patients differently? We can let the patients know of
increased complication rates with surgery and chemo and let them know of ways to improve
health at diagnosis and have them get integrated care with geriatrics and palliative care to
improve quality of life and focus on goals of care given the guarded prognosis of advanced
staged high-grade serous mullerian cancer in these patients.
Title: Disparities in treatment modalities and survival among older patients with high-grade
serous ovarian cancer
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Thomas J. Rutherford
Reviewer's report:
Recommendation to define elderly vs very elderly prior to method section.
As patients age - usually weight increases - any correlation between BMI and decrease surgical
aggressiveness.
Otherwise a manuscript that confirms what is seen and worth the publicaiton.
Title: Determinants of Unmet Need for Family Planning Among Currently Married
Reproductive Age Women at Dewa Chefa District of Oromia Special Zone, Amhara Region,
Ethiopia, 2021; A Case-Control Study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Haregeweyn Kibret
Reviewer's report:
Methods and Materials
Study population: should be presented separately for case and controls.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: need to be presented separately for case and control.
Operational definition: you have to put operational definition for unmate need for family
planning.
Currently married RAG women have to be defined.
Sampling procedure: who was your sampling frame? Household or RAG women? If women
how do you give number?
Ethical consideration: include ethical clearance reference number.
Title: Determinants of Unmet Need for Family Planning Among Currently Married
Reproductive Age Women at Dewa Chefa District of Oromia Special Zone, Amhara Region,
Ethiopia, 2021; A Case-Control Study
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revision.  My comments are well addressed. I have one minor comment only.
Abstract
please add ''significant'' on conclusion section.  The associations were statistically significant.
Please briefly mention the limitation of the current study in relation with the method used (study
design)
Title: Determinants of Unmet Need for Family Planning Among Currently Married
Reproductive Age Women at Dewa Chefa District of Oromia Special Zone, Amhara Region,
Ethiopia, 2021; A Case-Control Study
Version: 3 Date: 25 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Haregeweyn Kibret
Reviewer's report:
since all the raised issues were adressed  accordingly i recommend to be accepted
Title: Just in Case: Undergraduate Students Identifying and Mitigating Barriers to their Sexual
and Reproductive Health Needs
Version: 2 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Heidi E. Jones
Reviewer's report:
The authors present pilot data from a sexual and reproductive health intervention known as
the ‘kit’ on an undergraduate campus and use a pre /post design to evaluate the impact of the
intervention.  The paper is well written and I commend the authors on what appears to have
been a collaborative and participatory approach to implementation and research.  Nevertheless
the study design for the intervention is somewhat weak.  The main weaknesses are:
1. The small sample size of the pre and post surveys, and the recruitment strategy, using a
convenience sample.  To make a pre and post comparison requires either following the same
group of individuals longitudinally (to allow you to adjust for baseline measure at time point
two) or two population-representative estimates at both time points.  The design would have
been much stronger if the survey had been sent to ALL students on campus (via, for example, an
office of institutional research) and then weighted to adjust for non-response bias at both points
in time.  It is unclear how to interpret these results, given the small and selective nature of the
individuals who responded.
2. While it is interesting to see which products were asked for together, the first question is
why did such a small group of students ask for the Kit? if I understand it correct approximately
180 kits were sent out for the year (some of which may be to the same individual) – how many
unique individuals were served out of a student population of 1000?  What proportion of the
total student body do they represent?  Was there a specific type of individual for whom the kit
seemed particularly useful (i.e. student characteristics associated with using the kit)?
Again, the paper is well written and the collaboration between students and faculty shown
is inspiring, but based on the flaws of the evaluation study design and the low reach of the
intervention itself, it is difficult to interpret the results shown.  I would recommend that the
authors consider turning this paper into a short research note, describing how the intervention
was co-designed, shortening the preliminary results from the evaluation (especially those related
to co-request for different types of products) and noting the limitations of the evaluation study
design) as a next step.    I think a shortened reseach note will be a great addition to the literature.
Title: Just in Case: Undergraduate Students Identifying and Mitigating Barriers to their Sexual
and Reproductive Health Needs
Version: 2 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this is a well-written and informative manuscript. It needs some revisions, however,
before it is suitable for publication. Please see comments below for feedback on specific sections
of the manuscript.
Introduction: This is thorough and shows a good grasp of the existing literature. In the final
paragraph, please clarify if this study is being done in the context of a student health center
available on campus or not. It is unclear given the background provided in the previous
paragraphs what the context for the current study is.
Methods: Please clarify the recruitment process for both the pre- and post-surveys. Were these
the same samples? What was the response rate for each, i.e., how many contacted vs how many
surveys completed? What was the sampling strategy, was it simply convenience sampling? Also,
please clarify how the Kits were distributed. Once requested, did students deliver them face-to-
face? If so, was any education provided in this interaction? Were they mailed or dropped off at
campus dorms? In Table 3 (which seems to come before Table 2 in the Results?), please clarify
how the antecedent grouping were selected. Why are some of them single items while others
are multiple items? Also, Table 3 seems to be Results, yet it is presented in the Methods (again,
ahead of Table 2).
Results: Table 2 appears to be the frequencies that items were requested, yet the text description
of Table 2 implies support, coverage, and confidence. Later, the text states that Table 2 shows
the percentage of students requesting the Kit who are sexually active (lines 279-281); however,
I didn't find this in Table 2. Please rectify these disconnects. For the post-survey results, please
clarify what proportion of respondents had received a Kit. It is standard practice to provide the
test statistic value along with the p-values when reporting statistical results. Also, please confirm
whether the current format of p-value reporting conforms with BMC standards. In Figures 1 and
2, it is unclear why the text describes 3 barriers - cost, privacy, and confidentiality - while the
figures only show 2 - cost and privacy - with a 3rd "not relevant" category.
Discussion: Overall, this section does a good job situating the results into the context of the
current literature.  The Limitations section refers mainly to situations outside the authors'
control, such as the Dobbs decision. While these are important, it is also critically important
to acknowledge the methodological limitations that exist, such as (potentially) the convenience
sampling strategy, low response rate to one or both of the surveys, etc.
Throughout: Please review carefully for typos - misspellings, missing words - throughout the
manuscript. I am unclear about the blinding of the university for the intervention given that the
IRB institution and author affiliation institutions are provided.
Title: Breast cancer screening and early diagnosis in China: A systematic review and meta-
analysis on 10.72 million women
Version: 0 Date: 12 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Tomio Nakayama
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is a systematic review of articles published from that china to analyze the status
of breast cancer screening in the country and compare the detection rates obtained in a meta-
analysis. In general, many countries have one national breast cancer screening system within a
country, and such data are reported annually. While the use of a systematic review approach to
evaluate national data published as studies in order to evaluate data from a single country is a
unique approach, conversely, it poses a systemic problem in that national data are not available.
The main problems with this study are as follows:
#1 This study analyzes two types of screening style, organized and opportunistic screening,
but the definitions of each are ambiguous. Organized screening refers to the system of cervical
and breast cancer screening programs in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, and is generally
defined as follows (Cancer Screening in the European Union Report on the implementation
of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening, IARC 2017). However, the manuscript
shows that breast ultrasonography, for which no evidence has been established, is referred to
as organized screening, and that screening classified as organized screening is also extremely
diverse. It cannot be called organized screening. The classification should be reexamined based
on the international definitions given above, and at least the term "organized screening" should
not be used here.
#2. Related to #1, this study classified two types of screening, and those classified as
opportunistic screening have low detection rates and problems with follow-up method. The
term "follow-up method" is ambiguous and can mean two things: follow-up from precancerous
lesions with no indication for treatment to a condition for which treatment is indicated (mainly
cervical cancer screening) and follow up the results of diagnosis. In the case of breast cancer
screening, there is no follow-up to diagnosis, and it is not considered to be used as the former,
but clearer wording should be used.
#3. The conclusion is that there are problems with opportunistic screening, but the analysis is
limited to one country, and shouldn't the discussion state which direction the country should
take? The current situation is not organized screening, but rather disparate screening is provided
based on disparate criteria, depending on the region. Cancer screening should be systematized
in all its operations, not just in providing screening tests, and high income countries are moving
in this direction. How about a discussion that is not merely an analysis, but a starting point for
discussion of national issues?
Title: Breast cancer screening and early diagnosis in China: A systematic review and meta-
analysis on 10.72 million women
Version: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors did respond nicely to my comments in the revised manuscript.  Could it be
possible for they to consider to include their valuable analysis of comparison of geographic
and socioeconomic status in China in the supplementary Tables with brief explanation in order
to highlight their scientific contribution in dissecting the heterogeneity and diversity of breast
cancer screening in China?  Thanks.
Title: Breast cancer screening and early diagnosis in China: A systematic review and meta-
analysis on 10.72 million women
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Tomio Nakayama
Reviewer's report:
This revised version is appropriate because the authors have changed the term "organized
screening" to the term "population-based screening" which I noted in the previous original
version. As this paper points out, there are significant challenges in breast cancer screening in
China by global standards, which I believe is important to society.
Title: Number of Children Ever-born and Its Associated Factors among Currently Married
Ethiopian Women: Evidence From the 2019 EMDHS Using Negative Binomial Regression
Version: 2 Date: 31 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript would benefit from an English spelling & grammar check
In the abstract background part, you stated that “The Ethiopia’s multidimensional poverty
emanates from its rapid population growth.” I think currently the population growth is not the
main cause of poverty in Ethiopia. The main problem is civil war in the country. This brings loss
of productive age group and even displacement of the community in their permanent residence.
Finally, brings poverty as it is manifested in the current situation of Ethiopia.
Please clearly indicate the multilevel effect of the variables in the abstract result part. Specifically
state ICC value in this area.
In the abstract result you stated that “being protestant (IRR=1.149, 95%CI: 1.212, 1.316),
being Muslim (IRR=1.239, 95% CI: 1.196, 1.282), and being from other religious group than
Orthodox Christianity (IRR=1.561, 95% CI: 1.219, 1.999) are positively associated with bearing
more children.” This finding is against the “dogma” of the Orthodox Christianity, not utilize
family planning. This may increase the bearing of children in Orthodox Christianity community.
Religion is very sensitive issue in Ethiopian context. Hence what is your recommendation in
this issue. Please see this issue critically.
There have been many studies conducted on this issue in Ethiopia. What new things you add
on this area in your finding?  Even the justifications you give to conduct this study were not
sufficient.
The study design was based on recent EDHS data. But you did not indicate the type of study
design that recent EDHS utilized (whether it uses cross-sectional, case control, cohort or other).
In the result you stated that “age of a woman (IRR=1.057, 95% CI: 1.055, 1.059) increased the
bearing of children. It is obvious that as the age increases the number of bearing of children is
increased. I think instead of putting “age” in the model, consider it as offset variable.
Your study utilized national level data whereas the studies that you used to compared your
finding were localized studies. Is it possible to compare national level data with local level data.
Please check.
Clearly indicate the meaning and implication of your findings in the discussion part.
Title: Number of Children Ever-born and Its Associated Factors among Currently Married
Ethiopian Women: Evidence From the 2019 EMDHS Using Negative Binomial Regression
Version: 4 Date: 17 Dec 2023
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?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
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: A very good effort, and most comments were attended to
satisfactorily.
The authors retained mean, rather than the median advised….. I had stated that "CEB is usually
skewed. So mean is inappropriate, use median and its IQR."
The authors were advised to mention the comparison groups when reporting or interpreting their
results, these were not done
Often, responses are vague…such as  responding “corrected” to questions such as “Table 3: are
these the crude values or adjusted IRRs?”
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Loads of typos have appeared….second to the last lines of the first paragraph under the
discussions….” contraceptive ustilization,……so many others like that
Table 2: likelihood??
Thank you for reproducing Table 1.
Table 1. Can you remove the % signs beside the estimates…it will decongest your Table
Table 1: replace “frequency” with “n”
Change Table 2 title to “Table 2: The parameters of Multilevel negative binomial regression”
Change Table 3 title to “Factors associated with the number of CEB in Ethiopia”
Why can't tables 2 and 4 be merged?
Figure 1: median of what?
Figure 1: Change the title to "The Average Number of Children Ever-born Among Currently-
Married Ethiopian Women by Region 2019."
Delete Figure 2
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
language issues
Title: The association between consumption of red and processed meats with metabolic
syndrome and its components in obese and overweight women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This cross-sectional study assessed the intake of red meat and processed meats with metabolic
syndrome. The topic is interesting but some issues should be addressed in the manuscript.
study design should be added to the abstract.
please add the inclusion criteria in method section.
Why did the authors exclude patient with hypertension and diabetes, while both of them are part
of metabolic syndrome criteria/components?
How FFMI was calculated?
Why did the author include Tuna can as proceed meat?
Abbreviations such as FPG, CHOL, LDL, HDL should be written in whole form for the first
time.
How did the authors classify socioeconomic status? please explain it.
It seems that type of fat and supplements, also sweats, sugar, and refined carbohydrate should
have been considered as confouders.
Did the authors adjust all analysis in table 2 for age and BMI? even  age and BMI themselves?
Title of tables 2 and 3 needs revision. including the term "median" is not suitable.
Please mention the criteria for the confounder selection. Why did not you include simple sugars
or sweat beverages?
What is the purpose for reporting all micro nutrients? It is better to just report the related ones
to the study aim.
Title: The association between consumption of red and processed meats with metabolic
syndrome and its components in obese and overweight women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 12 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
-It is suggested that the method of determining the number of samples and the formula used in
the method be written.
-In this method, it is better to write more completely about how to choose samples.
-In the method, it is better to explain more about choosing health centers and their number.
-Please explain in the introduction, What are your novelty and the gap between other studies?