JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Examining access to benefits and quality sterilization services among Muslim women in
India
Version: 2 Date: 10 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper titled, “Examining access to benefits and
quality family planning services among Indian Muslims”. This is an important and well written
paper. It uses the latest National Family Health Survey data set. The method of data analysis is
not rigorous, and the results are based on selected small samples from the available large sample
without a strong justification. The author concludes that “the findings from the research indicate
that Indian Muslims are less likely to receive compensations for family planning incentives
than non-Muslim Indians”. These findings contradict the well-established findings of numerous
research articles published on this topic in India. Moreover, the findings are not conclusive, and
the results indicate mixed messages.  The findings also imply that there is a systemic issue, and
all the state governments have discriminative incentive policies for Muslims, which is not the
case. If the author believes that the individual government employees discriminate in disbursing
the money to the Muslim beneficiaries in all the health facilities throughout India, then the author
must provide evidence for this. I am not convinced based on the results presented that in all the
health care facilities throughout India ever since the monetary incentives were introduced for
women adopting tubectomies, the Muslim women were discriminated.
For some unknown reason, the results are presented in table 1 for only ten states of India. Out of
ten states, only 2 states indicate that the percentages of compensation for Muslims are smaller
than the non-Muslims. The percentage differences vary from 3 and 1.7. The remaining 8 states
indicate that the percentages of Muslims receiving compensation are larger than non-Muslims
and the differences range from 1.63 to 27.87. The logistic regression adjusted odds ratio in table 2
indicate non-Muslims are more likely to receive compensation than Muslims. But table 3 shows
that the adjusted odds ratio is not significant. Surprisingly both the tables show the same title,
however, the results section indicates that table 3 refers to Mission Parivar Vikas Districts ( I am
not sure why these districts are selected). The results presented in tables 4 and 5 for the quality
of service received between Muslims and non-Muslims show similar mixed messages.
The problem with the paper is in the selection of sample size. If the total sample size is 724,115
women, I do not see problem in selecting only women who underwent tubectomies. Because
of recall bias, if the author would like to select only the tubectomies of last 5 years, the sample
size is 46,811. Out of this, selecting only poor and poorest women from the Wealth quantile
variable does not make sense. The compensation is for all women, and by doing this purposive
selection reduces the sample size significantly and may affect the results adversely especially
in multivariate analysis.
Title: Examining access to benefits and quality sterilization services among Muslim women in
India
Version: 3 Date: 04 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript based on comments on the earlier draft. I suggest the
following comments  on the revised draft submitted for the review:
1. References cited in the main text of the manuscript are still not in the format suggested by
the journal. You have written the author's details as well as the number, please modify as per
the journal requirements.
2. Page 6
Schedule Caste (SC)- replace it with Scheduled Caste
Schedule Tribe (ST)- replace it with Scheduled Tribe
Other Backward Classer (OBC)- replace it with Other Backward Class
Title: Usability of a Smartphone-Compatible, Confocal Micro-Endoscope for cervical cancer
screening in resource-limited settings
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Stephen Kiptoo
Reviewer's report:
My comments:
- Clarity and Focus of the Introduction:
The introduction should be more concise and focused. Consider streamlining the text to
emphasize the key points about the high burden of cervical cancer in East Africa, the limitations
of current screening methods, and the potential of confocal microscopy as a solution.
...... "Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among women..."
should be more focused. Consider: "Cervical cancer is a significant global health issue,
particularly in East Africa where it is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women
due to late-stage diagnosis."   The paragraph on the limitations of cytology-based screening can
be streamlined. Focus on the main points such as the lack of infrastructure and expertise, and
the resulting delays and inaccuracies in diagnosis.
- Context and Justification for SCME:
Provide a stronger rationale for choosing SCME over other existing technologies. Highlight why
SCME is particularly suitable for low-resource settings compared to traditional methods and
other low-cost alternatives like HRME.
- Study Design and Methodology:
Clarify the study design, particularly the cross-sectional nature and how this affects the
interpretation of results. Ensure the description of the population and sampling methods is clear
and detailed.
- Provide more detail on the training of nurses. Was there any assessment of their competence
post-training? Clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria in a bulleted list for better readability.
- Under ...... "Confocal images were quantitatively analyzed using an automated algorithm. ...."
Can you expound more this by highlighting the algorithm name used here, and its accuracy
experimented. (Cite if possible)
-Statistical Analysis:
Expand on the statistical methods used. Explain how the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values
were calculated and interpreted. Discuss the implications of these values in the context of the
study.
Discussion of Findings:
The discussion should be expanded to include a comparison with other studies on similar
technologies. Address the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.
Discuss how the SCME could be integrated into the existing healthcare system in Uganda. What
are the potential barriers and how could they be addressed? Reflect on the user feedback from
nurses. How could the training be improved? What specific features of the SCME could be
enhanced?
-Provider and Patient Experience:
Provide more detailed feedback on the experiences of both the providers and the patients.
Discuss how these experiences will inform future improvements to the SCME device and its
implementation.
- Conclusion:
The conclusion should summarize the main findings and their implications. Reiterate the
potential of SCME for improving cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings and suggest
next steps for research and implementation.
Title: Usability of a Smartphone-Compatible, Confocal Micro-Endoscope for cervical cancer
screening in resource-limited settings
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Stephen Kiptoo
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I am satisfied with the responses provided. However, I would appreciate it if they could
include a snapshot of the MATLAB output demonstrating the accuracy of 83% for detecting
manually-labeled nuclei in SCME images. This would provide clear evidence of the algorithm's
performance.
In reference to this statement:
"The algorithm was tested for 186 manually-labeled nuclei in SCME images, and the accuracy
of detecting manually-labeled nuclei was 83%."
Thank you.
Best regards,
Title: Comparing the Outcomes of In-Vitro Fertilization in Patients Receiving Vaginal,
Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support: A Three-armed
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 0 Date: 01 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a randomized controlled trial, where authors investigated the clinical outcomes,
associated with intramuscular, subcutaneous, and vaginal progesterone delivery in infertile
women undergoing frozen embryo transfer. The authors concluded that vaginal and
subcutaneous progesterone applications are preferable to intramuscular for luteal-phase support
in FET due to the significantly lower rate of complications, greater user satisfaction, and
comparable clinical pregnancy rates.
The idea and the intention of the authors are interesting.
The rationale of the study through the current gap in the literature data should be more rigorously
given.
The sample size calculation should be given with details, for example, the theory that authors
want to prove, and all the numerical data leading to this size. And they should keep in mind, that
that might be altered if they want to include more than one comparison group. For a 2024 RCT,
the sample should be based on the primary outcome, which must be LBR / ongoing pregnancy
rate.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be revised.
There must be a direct link from the methods to results and discussion.
The main findings sections should be revisited.
The final conclusion should be based on the findings and their quality, they should not be
generated.
Title: Comparing the Outcomes of In-Vitro Fertilization in Patients Receiving Vaginal,
Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support: A Three-armed
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 0 Date: 04 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Interesting trial..few points to be addressed please comments on how concealment of allocation
was performed.....the IM group may have received less dose than standard reported (i.e in most
trial in this issue women  usually received  not less than 50mg....could the low daily dose affect
the redults?....please specify the conclusion to represent this and comment on this point in the
discussion...Table 3 is totally not informative nor apprehensive as no benefit from mentioning
the  Odds ratio without confidence interval.
Title: Comparing the Outcomes of In-Vitro Fertilization in Patients Receiving Vaginal,
Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support: A Three-armed
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 0 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Stefano Palomba
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the invitation. However, before to start a formal process of reviewing point-by-point
and in consideration of the study design (three-arm RCT), I suggest to authors revising  the entire
manuscript  according to the new Consort guidelines.
Major concerns regard the definition of the primary endpoint,  the reporting of the results (OR/
RR), the power calculation (performed for a two-arm RCTs), structured discussion, and so on.
Only after extensive revision, I check again the manuscript .
Title: Comparing the Outcomes of In-Vitro Fertilization in Patients Receiving Vaginal,
Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support: A Three-armed
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 0 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Yigit Cakiroglu
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
The manuscript proposes information about the application of different progesterone routes
for luteal support in a randomized controlled trial. Also, the manuscript has been processed in
accordance with the author guidelines of the journal. The writing style is clear and descriptive.
Abstract:
The abstract accurately describes the short-summarized content of the article.
Key words are adequate in quality and number.
Introduction:
Information about luteal phase support and different routes of progesterone administration have
been given in the introduction section.
Aim has been defined in this section.
Methods
Design of the study, selection criteria of the participants, sample size calculation, randomization,
intervention, analysis method, and statistical analysis methods have been defined in this section.
- Were the PGT-A cycles excluded from the study? The authors have mentioned as a limiting
factor, but should also be added as an exclusion criteria.
- All the embryos transferred were cleavage stage embryos? Why didn’t the authors prefer to
transfer also blastocyst stage embryos?
- Did the authors measure serum progesterone levels at the progesterone start or embryo transfer
days?
Results
The result section contains findings and observations in regards of the analysis. Figures and
tables have been explained in detail in this section.
Discussion
The discussion section states the importance and significance of the findings.
- How would the authors speculate the higher incidence of biochemical pregnancy rates in the
IM group? What would be the rationale in regards of increased biochemical pregnancy rates,
but similar clinical pregnancy rates?
References:
The references section contains appropriate and number of references.
Figures:
Figures are so demonstrative and clear.
Tables:
Tables are well-designed.
Title: Comparing the Outcomes of In-Vitro Fertilization in Patients Receiving Vaginal,
Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support: A Three-armed
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 0 Date: 16 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
While thanking for this useful study, the following points should be mentioned Title:
1-It is better that the three methods of progesterone administration (vaginal, subcutaneous and
intra
muscular) are mentioned in the title of the article.
Abstract:
2-The number of patients in each group should be mentioned in the abstract.
3-Confidence interval values should be given along with p-value.
4- It is helpful to get more keywords for a better article search. Like luteal phase
support,outcomes, complications
Background:
1-Studies have been done in the past on various methods of luteal phase support, what was the
novelty of your study, explain in the last paragraph (use of subcutaneous progesterone or...)
Methods:
1-In this section, the registration number is written again.
2-How was allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel done?
3-What was the progesterone support after the positive pregnancy test in different groups.
4-In table one, the number and quality of eggs and embryos of the groups under study are among
the main confounding variables that should be taken into account.
5- Complete definitions of outcomes, including clinical pregnancy rate and... should be provided.
6-The time of conducting the study in the results section (February 2021 to April 2023) is
different from the methodology (December 2020 to March 2022).
7- The number of patients who were followed up in the results section (311) is different from
the number stated in the methodology section (313).
8- In multivariate analysis, there is a need to examine other basic variables, such as the number
and quality of eggs, the number and quality of embryos, and the number of previous IVF failures.
The number of patients who were followed up in the results section (311) is different from the
number stated in the methodology section (313).
9- Ongoing pregnancy rate, which was one of the main outcomes of the study, was unfortunately
not investigated.
Discussion:
10- In the discussion section, it should be discussed about the studies that have been said for or
against the researcher's findings in the past. Unfortunately, there has been no mention of studies
on the Benefits of using injectable progesterone.
Title: Comparing the Outcomes of In-Vitro Fertilization in Patients Receiving Vaginal,
Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support: A Three-armed
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 1 Date: 22 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Yigit Cakiroglu
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for the revision of the MS according to the suggested
recommendations.
Title: Comparing the Outcomes of In-Vitro Fertilization in Patients Receiving Vaginal,
Subcutaneous, and Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support: A Three-armed
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 1 Date: 22 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the corrections you made. I think the necessary changes have been made as much
as possible.
Title: Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of angioleiomyoma of the female genital
tract: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript.
The authors retrospectively studied 89 women with angioleiomyoma in the genital tract from
2008 to 2023 and the primary outcome was symptom remission rate. The authors found that
78.7% women had a history of uterine surgery of whom two patients had removed uterine
angioleiomyoma by laparoscopic myomectomy and abnormal uterine bleeding was the main
clinical manifestation of angioleiomyomas located in the uterine corpus or cervix. The symptom
remission rate was 100% after surgery. Among the 59 women with preserved uterus, 8 showed
multiple uterine leiomyomas during follow-up, but it was difficult to determine whether they
were angioleiomyomas. The manuscript presents a comprehensive retrospective study on the
clinicopathological features and treatment outcomes of angioleiomyoma in the female genital
tract. This is a significant contribution to the field due to the rarity of angioleiomyomas and the
limited existing literature. The study is well-structured and provides valuable insights into the
demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics of this rare condition.
I have following concerns regarding the manuscript.
Correct any minor typographical errors for clarity and readability.
If possible, enhance the quality of the histological and immunohistochemical images for better
visualization.
I would suggest adding a brief mention of the recurrence rate and the significance of the findings
in the conclusion of the abstract.
Try to include a brief mention of the challenges in preoperative diagnosis of angioleiomyoma
due to nonspecific radiological features in the introduction part.
Please provide more information on the ethical approval process and how informed consent was
obtained from patients in materials and methods section.
If you could include a more detailed analysis of the recurrence cases, especially the one case of
recurrence post-hysterectomy, to understand the factors contributing to recurrence, they would
give more strengths to your manuscript.
In the discussion section, try to expand on the potential etiological factors and the role of sex
hormones, as well as the implications of surgical choices on long-term outcomes and recurrence.
And finally, highlight the need for further prospective studies to validate these findings and
explore preventive measures for intraoperative bleeding.
Title: Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of angioleiomyoma of the female genital
tract: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study retrospectively aimed to investigate "Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes
of angioleiomyoma of the female genital tract: A retrospective study of eight-nine patients" on
89 pateints with Angioleiomyoma.
There some flaws which need to adressd.
What is type of this study? descriptive?
Why was this period considered? 2008 to 2023?
What was the exclusion criteria of this study?
What was the outcome of this study?
What variables were considered for this study?
What was the sample gathering tool?
What was the defination of "complete clinicopathological and follow-up data". If there was a
file with 10% incomplete information, how did the authors deal with it #
Abbreviations before usage should be defined. LDH, MRI, ...
Title: Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of angioleiomyoma of the female genital
tract: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Marjan Mardani-Hamooleh
Reviewer's report:
Change the topic to this form:
Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of angioleiomyoma of the female genital tract:
A retrospective cohort study
The introduction does not emphasize the necessity of doing the work. The review of previous
studies has not been done in detail. Review studies to be completed. Then write what was the
weakness of the previous studies?
Write the purpose of the study clearly at the end of the introduction.
The method section is written in summary. Please complete it by emphasizing the important
and practical points.
Title: Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of angioleiomyoma of the female genital
tract: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for the revised manuscirpt. The revised manuscript has
significantly improved in clarity, content, and structure. The authors have made substantial
efforts to address the reviewers' comments, particularly in enhancing the quality of images,
elaborating on the introduction, and including additional details on ethical approval and
informed consent. The study presents valuable insights into a rare condition, and the authors
have adequately highlighted its clinical and pathological characteristics. It seems to me that the
authors have addressed all concerns raised by reviewers. I have no further comments.
Title: Treatment of secondary uterine malignancy following radiotherapy for cervical cancer:
a study based on the SEER database
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
the article presents in a very interesting manner the impact of different therapeutic strategies of
cases diagnosed with a second uterine malignancy after radiation therapy for cervical cancer.
The subjects has not been investigated before,  therefore we consider that the paper should be
considered for publication
Title: Treatment of secondary uterine malignancy following radiotherapy for cervical cancer:
a study based on the SEER database
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you for this opportunity to review study entitled “Treatment for second
uterine malignancy following radiotherapy for cervical cancer: a study based on the SEER
database ”.
Here is my concern and questions:
Abstract:
Method:
Please explain in more detail.
What was the type of study? Who were population? What is SEER? Please before use of
abbreviation, fully describe the words (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program
database). How many patients were identified? What was inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Result:
Please describe the population of study? Age? The average latency to endometrial cancer
diagnosis?
What is SMNs? RT and CT? OPS+CT?
Method
What data/variables were extracted from the databases?
What was the outcome of study?
How data gathered?
How many data are presented in the databases?
What test was used to determine the normality of data?
Statistical analysis: it was written “ Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using
the COX regression model to screen independent prognostic factors affecting OS” What were
prognostic factors? In method section please explain in more detail.
Result:
Three SEER databases, 1975–2020, 1992–2020, and 2000–2020 were analyzed. This sentence
is not correct. Please correct this sentence.
“Figure1 Flow chart of patient selection in SEER database.” Please explain about this flow chart
in method section.
Table 1: what is NRT Group?
Please explain all abbreviation in legend of tables.
Tables: What test were used to analysis the data. Please in the legend table provide the name
of test used.