JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: A multifaceted menstrual health intervention to improve psychosocial outcomes and
menstrual practices among secondary schoolgirls in Northwest Tanzania: a pilot intervention
study
Version: 3 Date: 11 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised manuscript. After reading both the updated
manuscript and the point-by-point response to reviewers, I recommend that this manuscript
is accepted for publication. The authors did an excellent job at addressing the initial detailed
review, including key clarifications of the study methodologies and expanding on their literature
review.
I have a few minor points to share with the authors, as follows:
(1) Methods, page 7, line 15: I am curious how the 0.075 point difference was determined to
be a meaningful score change. Reference 33 describes development of the MPNS-36 tool. Have
there been other studies reporting on change scores? If so, you can simply cite that here, and if
not, a brief statement that describes how this value was selected would be helpful.
(2) Discussion, page 17, lines 2-5: this sentence is a bit confusing. Please consider revising
as follows: The main strength of the study is the multi-faceted intervention employed, which
was developed by a well-known and experienced NGO, specifically for use in Tanzanian
schools. The intervention was developed using an iterative approach, in collaboration with
key stakeholders, including parents, teachers, and local government authorities and was further
refined using a formative process.
(3) Discussion page 17, Lines 6-8: You can remove the word ‘significant’ and simply describe
that while there was approximately 20% attrition, this was accounted for in the sample size
calculations and did not affect final results.
(4) Discussion, page 17, Limitations: While certainly an adequately powered RCT may be
helpful, it is often difficult to execute such trials in these settings and context. Please do
mention the need for such studies, but also consider factors, such as teacher gender and years of
experience or other potential covariates that may help to improve upon the intervention, optimize
recipients of the intervention, etc. – covariates that you may not have been able to assess in
the present study. Earlier in the Discussion you describe that the intervention solely focused
on teachers’ support for menstruating girls rather than the broader teacher-student relationship.
Perhaps future work could help to understand whether or how this might affect outcomes. I
believe this is an important intervention to improve girls’ health and hope you will continue to
think broadly about this research and optimizing the intervention to scale it.
Title: Cervical Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of TruScreen vs. Pap Smear.
Version: 2 Date: 19 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Ragini Mehrotra
Reviewer's report:
The sample size should be much larger for cervical cancer screening program being it for general
population.
please also explain the need for combining the TS with Pap smear, where the advantage of
a screening program being low cost, quick results and not requiring the technical expertise
becomes null and void.
Title: Cervical Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of TruScreen vs. Pap Smear.
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Pakhee Aggarwal
Reviewer's report:
Since Truscreen is a trade name, its parent company and area of manufacture should be indicated
in brackets the first time it is used, as per standard guidelines.
LEEP is an excsional therapy, not ablative therapy as mentioned in the text.
Title: Cervical Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of TruScreen vs. Pap Smear.
Version: 4 Date: 01 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Dominik Pruski
Reviewer's report:
The authors congratulate the work of an especially large study group. I approach my work with
great sentiment because I tested the old Truscreen console in Poland for many years - almost
17 years ago.
Therefore, I understand how much contribution was made to the creation of the work.  My groups
are much smaller - congratulations.
I have a few comments about the work:
1. Keywords add optoelectronic device.
2. The reference NO 23 to data from Poland is incorrect.
If the authors wanted to refer to data from Poland, I present it below.
Assessment of real optoelectronic method in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia].
Ginekol Pol. 2008 May;79(5):342-6.
Assessment of optoelectronic method and molecular test usefulness for cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia and cervical cancer detection]. Ginekol Pol. 2010 Jun;81(6):426-30.
Optoelectronic method for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer.
Czasopismo: Opto-Electron. Rev. 2011
3. ASC-US is correct.
4. Did the researchers have access to the pNOR parameter in Truscreen, and if so, was there an
attempt to plot a ROC curve?
5. I also suggest writing about SUS - Single Use Sensor.
Recommends publications after taking into account comments.
I congratulate the entire team for their work and I hope that the work will be published. Good job.
Title: Intimate Partner Controlling Behaviour and Intimate Partner Violence among Married
Women in Rural Areas in South Africa
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Ba#kan Burak
Reviewer's report:
In terms of academic contribution, the article addresses a significant topic in the field of
gender studies: intimate partner violence and a specific form of it, intimate partner controlling
behaviour. Therefore, it also makes a normative contribution for the minimisation of gender-
based violence. The study's originality stems from its focus on the connection between IPV and
controlling behaviour among South African rural dwellers.
In terms of methodology, the paper used 2016 South African Demographic and Health Survey
(SADHS). The size and quality of a data set is quite good. Nevertheless, it is questionable
whether the data are sufficiently up-to-date to reflect the situation in 2024. It would be beneficial
to include a brief explanation of this issue.
Reference is required for the controlling behaviour scale. In the theoretical framework section,
reference is made to Stark's concept of 'coercive control'. However, it should be noted that the
concepts of controlling behaviour and coercive control are distinct and have different scales. It
is therefore important to clarify this distinction in order to avoid any confusion.
In terms of writing quality and structure, the article is free of significant errors. However, there
are a few minor mistakes that require revision. Some of these have been noted in other 'comments
document'.
The use of certain expressions and concepts in disparate ways gives rise to inconsistencies in
the internal coherence of the study. To illustrate, in some sections, the term "intimate partner
controlling behaviour" is employed, whereas in other sections, the term "partner controlling
behaviour" is used. In order to guarantee consistency, it is advisable to opt for one of these
terms. A similar situation arises with the words "spouse" and "intimate partner". It is preferable
to utilise a single definer.
The literature review is inadequate. In particular, the section entitled "Discussion of Finding"
lacks a comprehensive comparison of different cases from other studies. The number of studies
compared with the current study is insufficient to fully comprehend the current study's findings
within the broader context of the literature. The article requires a more in-depth discussion of
the findings, rather than merely stating the results and percentages. While some findings include
explanations, these explanations lack sufficient depth.
The conclusion does not present any novel recommendations for researchers and public policy
makers. It would be beneficial to include more sophisticated recommendations in this section.
Additionally, in-text comments can be found in the attached file.
Title: Determinants of Contraceptive Use Prior to Onset of Childbearing Among Ever-Married
Women in Indonesia: A Secondary Data Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 05 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Abdul Wahab
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
1. Line 66: Unique pattern showed ...
Comment: What is “unique pattern” mean?
Introduction
2. Line 85-86: to reduce the national fertility rate from 2·6 in 2014 to 2·1 children per woman
by 2025.2
Comment:
- The most commonly used metric for fertility rate is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR).
- Author refer this statement to reference 2. Listyaningsih et al. (2021), but I can’t find this
statement in this reference. Might be can refer to “the National MediumTerm Development Plan
(RPJMN)” or other sources.
3. Line 94: the first live birth significantly lowered the countries' fertility rates.3
Comment: Author refered to Howse K. (2015), but Howse refered to Gendell (1985). Why you
didn’t directly refer to “Gendell, M. (1985). Stalls in the fertility decline in Costa Rica, Korea,
and Sri Lanka. Washington, DC: World Bank.”?
Material & Methods
4. Line 116: … derived from 2002-2003 and 2007 Indonesia Demographic and Health Surveys
Comment: Why do not use IDHS 2012 and 2017 (the later survey)?
Results
5. Table 1 and Table 3, Variable “Ideal family size”
Comment: It was different category or different labeling; in table 1: <3=41000 and >3=13000
(size 3 include in upper group), but in table 3: >3 and <3 (size 3 include in lower group).
6. Line 212-216 and Table 3
Comment: In table 3, the variable "Age Group at First Union" has interesting results where there
is a difference in OR, namely cOR=0.71 (significant), while aOR=1.03 (not significant), what
does it mean? in the narrative text on lines 212-216 it is not there, it is skipped, from talking about
age groups then jumping to place of residence. Only at the end of the paragraph (lines 117-119)
does it say "...ideal family size and age at first union, there were a more than 10% difference
between crude and adjusted odds ratios, suggesting a confounding effect of the covariates." An
explanation is needed about the meaning of confounding effect in this case.
7. Line 257: …, at 5.9% but increase … 6.6%
Comment: 5.9 or 5.03 (refer to table 2, Overall)
Title: Determinants of Contraceptive Use Prior to Onset of Childbearing Among Ever-Married
Women in Indonesia: A Secondary Data Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 02 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Sarni Maniar Berliana
Reviewer's report:
Major:
This paper used outdated data, which are 2002 and 2007 data, because the authors think that both
sets of data are unique. However, in my opinion, the uniqueness of the data is not relevant to
the issue of contraceptive use among childless women. The authors could actually use the latest
IDHS data for this topic, and they can easily obtain it. For information, Indonesia's fertility rate
based on the 2020 population census is 2.18 children. This figure almost reaches the replacement
level target set by the Indonesian government. Therefore, a study on fertility and contraceptive
use with outdated data is not appropriate, in my opinion, unless there is another phenomenon
that the researchers want to explore.
Furthermore, in my opinion, the issue of contraceptive use among childless women is more
appropriate if it uses women who marry at a young age (for example, 15–24 years old) as the
unit of analysis, considering that there is a safe age limit for giving birth. Meanwhile, this study
used ever-married women aged 15–49 without controlling the age of first marriage.
The authors need to clarify the question in the IDHS questionnaire used in creating the dependent
variable of the study because I think the question used is not appropriate for the dependent
variable of this study.
Minor:
The authors used research data from two enumeration periods (2002–2003 and 2007), but it
is not explained why they need to do this because only one regression model is generated by
combining all data in both enumeration periods with a total sample size of 62,378 ever-married
women aged 15–49.
The authors should have used generalized VIF to check for multicollinearity because the
independent variables in this study are categorical.
The authors stated that they used AIC to select the best model, but it was not clearly explained
how many models were produced, so they needed to choose one.
Detailed suggestions and questions can be seen in the comments on the attached file.
Title: Determinants of Contraceptive Use Prior to Onset of Childbearing Among Ever-Married
Women in Indonesia: A Secondary Data Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 08 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Sarni Maniar Berliana
Reviewer's report:
I greatly appreciate the effort you’ve put into revising this manuscript. The improvements are
noticeable, and the overall quality has significantly enhanced. However, there are still a few
aspects that require further clarification.
1. The manuscript states that "age at first marriage was grouped into two categories: below 21
years and 21 years or older, reflecting the current legal marriage requirements in Indonesia."
However, I noticed an issue regarding the consistency of this statement with the study period
and the relevant laws.
The data used in this study spans the period from 2002 to 2017. During this period, the legal age
for marriage in Indonesia was governed by the Marriage Law Number 1 of 1974, which set the
minimum legal age at 16 for women and 19 for men. It was only after the amendment through
Marriage Law Number 16 of 2019 that the minimum legal age for both men and women was
standardized at 19 years.
Given this context, the grouping of age categories (below 21 years and 21 years or older) does
not align with the legal marriage requirements applicable during the study period. I recommend
revising the rationale provided in the manuscript to reflect the legal framework relevant to the
study's time span or providing an explanation for using this grouping despite the discrepancy.
2. The manuscript states that a condition index of 19.55 indicates "no severe collinearity
concerns." However, this threshold is not commonly cited in the literature. I recommend
providing a reference to support this threshold or revising the statement to align with standard
practices. Additionally, the mention of VIF for "non-intercept variables" is unclear. Please
clarify the method used for assessing multicollinearity and provide appropriate references to
enhance the manuscript's rigor and transparency.
3. Several 95% CI are is (extremely) very wide. A wide CI suggests considerable variability
or uncertainty in the estimate. While the odds ratios for these interactions are statistically
significant, the wide CIs suggest caution in drawing strong conclusions. You should explore
and discuss potential reasons for the wide Cis, such as small subgroup sample size, sparse data
for interaction effects, and high variability within specific group. The findings could still be
indicative of a trend but require further validation in larger or more representative datasets.
Best of luck.
Title: Determinants of Contraceptive Use Prior to Onset of Childbearing Among Ever-Married
Women in Indonesia: A Secondary Data Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 06 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Sarni Maniar Berliana
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your dedication and effort in revising the manuscript. The revisions you made
have significantly improved the clarity and rigor of the paper. I truly appreciate the thoughtful
responses to the feedback provided. The manuscript now demonstrates a high standard of quality,
and I believe it will make a valuable contribution to the journal.
Title: The association between meat consumption and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in Iranian
women: a case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Line 112….. . The ladies
-Please use the word participants instead of "The ladies.
Line 124   - It was unclear why blood pressure and body composition were measured and those
results were not included in the result section.
-There were so many questions in the questionnaire but the results were not presented in the
results.
-The amount of energy intake in the case and control groups should be reported.
-Why were not the case and control groups compared with each other in terms of energy intake,
-  meat consumption,....?
-Table 4- Tertile or Quartiles of meat intake?
-line 237-276   “By reviewing the studies, we found that inconsistency in results of different
studies could be related to the, differences in study design, study population, and the effect of
genetic and racial factors”
-Please provide relevant references.
- How was the sample size calculated?
-Rewrite the conclusion section.
Title: The association between meat consumption and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in Iranian
women: a case-control study
Version: 3 Date: 06 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
"The association between meat consumption and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in Iranian women:
a case-control study"
This investigation focused on an important topic, women's reproductive health. However,
revision is needed in its various parts as follows:
Major comments:
ABSTRACT:
1. Lines 20-21; In the current study, the relation between diet and the odds of PCOS has been
assessed, not the role of diet in PCOS management. Therefore, using the word "management"
is not proper. Please revise.
2. Line 40; The word "incidence" is not accurate in case-control studies. Please, revise.
INTRODUCTION:
1. Lines 48-52; please rewrite this paragraph to increase its readability.
2. The rationales for conducting this study need to be improved in the introduction section.
METHODS:
1. In the "Study design and participants" section:
a. What was the criteria to be defined as a newly diagnosed case?
b. Please elaborate on age and BMI ranges for matching cases and controls.
a. Please provide the Ethics code in the manuscript.
2. In the "Dietary intake assessment", the 168-item FFQ driven from the Tehran Lipid and
Glucose Study has been validated before but was any study conducted to assess the validity and
reliability of the 178-item FFQ used in the current study?
DISCUSSION:
1. Line 263; Please delete ref. 1.
2. Strengths and limitations can be written in more detail.
Minor comments:
1. The manuscript needs to be reviewed for grammar, punctuation, and appropriate word
selection.
2. Throughout the manuscript, some paragraphs lack cohesion. Please revise.
Title: The association between meat consumption and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in Iranian
women: a case-control study
Version: 3 Date: 12 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. In the methodology section of the abstract, include the location and time of the study.
2. In the methodology section of the abstract, it is mentioned that logistic regression was used
for statistical analysis, while the study design utilized matching. Why was conditional logistic
regression not used for data analysis?
3. In the results section, OR and CI should be fully stated for the first time.
4. In the conclusion section of the abstract, mention the need for further studies in this area.
5. More appropriate keywords should be selected, using MeSH terms.
6. In the methodology section, more explanation is needed regarding the matching of age and
body mass index (BMI). Was the matching method used one-to-one, or were other methods
employed? Was age and BMI categorization used for matching?
7. A reference should be provided for the Nut IV software.
8. In the covariates section, was a questionnaire or a checklist used? If a questionnaire was used,
its validation should be mentioned.
9. In the statistical section, what was the criterion for selecting confounders for this study?
10. In the covariates section, the use of medications and supplements is mentioned, but there is
no indication of these variables in the table. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Could they
not be considered as confounders for the findings of this study?
11. What was the reason for analyzing the findings in tertiles? Why was the median, quartiles,
or quintiles not used instead?
12. What is the purpose of Tables 2 and 3? It would have been better to compare dietary intake
between the two groups, and if the analysis was based on tertiles, the dietary intake should have
been analyzed separately by tertile for the case and control groups.
13. It seems that the limitations section could have also mentioned that there are other
confounders that could not be examined in this study.
Title: Association between Gynecological Cancers and Female Infertility: Insights from
Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors should explain in the introduction why they chose these specific types of cancers
for the study.
The time frame of the data source should be clarified, and it is necessary to explain whether the
exposure and outcome are independent. Overlapping samples between exposure and outcome
could bias the results.
The IVW (Inverse Variance Weighted) method shows a positive causal relationship between
breast cancer (BC) and fracture incidence (FI). An additional unit of BC is associated with an
OR of 1.05 for FI (95% CI: 1.00–1.11, P = 0.043). However, the OR value from the simple mode
is 1 , and the OR values from different methods are not consistent. Please explain the definition
of a positive result in the text.
Please add a section on statistical power in the results. It is suggested to calculate and report the
statistical power to ensure the reliability of the results.
The authors conducted multiple experimental tests and should perform multiple testing
corrections.
The data on breast cancer do not specify gender. Breast cancer can occur in both females and
males, and including data from both sexes could affect the results.
The article mentions that the study sample is only from European populations, which may affect
the generalizability of the findings, especially regarding differences across ethnic and racial
groups.
The PhenoScanner website has been unavailable for the past six months. Please explain how the
authors used this website to exclude confounding factors.
Title: Association between Gynecological Cancers and Female Infertility: Insights from
Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 05 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
1.Table 1 Formatting and Clarity: Abbreviations (e.g., FI, BC, EC, OC, CC) must be defined in
the table title or a footnote. Standardize numerical formatting (e.g., use commas for all values
#1,000) and ensure proper column alignment for readability.
2.Statistical Notation Errors: Correct all instances of statistical thresholds (e.g., P < 5×10##
instead of P < 5×10-8). Ensure all P-values are uniformly formatted (e.g., P = 0.043 vs. P=0.043
# use spaces around "=").
3.Methodological Ambiguity: Justify the relaxation of the P-value threshold to P < 5×10##
for FI, EC, CC, and OC due to insufficient SNPs at P < 5×10##. Discuss the potential impact
of weak instrument bias. Clarify the criteria for excluding SNPs linked to confounders (e.g.,
BMI, smoking) via PhenoScanner, providing specific thresholds and listing excluded SNPs in
supplementary materials.
4.Overinterpretation of Weak Associations: Avoid framing the marginal association between FI
and cervical cancer (P = 0.049) as a "weak causal relationship" without stronger corroborating
evidence. Consider sensitivity analyses or replication in independent datasets.
5.Discussion Limitations: Acknowledge the speculative nature of the hypothesis that breast
cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy) drive infertility. Avoid overstating mechanistic
explanations without supporting genetic or clinical data.
6.Repetitive Content: Remove redundant text in the strengths section to improve conciseness.
7.Abbreviations: Define abbreviations at first mention in the abstract (e.g., FI, GC) and avoid
overusing acronyms in the Introduction.
8.Correct minor errors (e.g., "persuasiability" # "persuasiveness"; "MR-PRESO" # "MR-
PRESSO").
9.Address insufficient rigor in addressing reverse causality and pleiotropy. Perform additional
sensitivity analyses (e.g., multivariable MR) to account for shared genetic pathways between
breast cancer and infertility. Discuss the possibility of survival bias (e.g., infertile women
may undergo more frequent screenings, affecting cancer detection rates). Strengthen statistical
support and mechanistic validation for conclusions about breast cancer and infertility.