JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Ovarian Adenomyoma: A case report
Version: 2 Date: 05 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revised submission. In general, the aforementioned concerns are addressed;
however, it is important to exercise caution due to the possibility of malignant tumors. I am
grateful for the authors' efforts to reduce misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment by issuing
warnings to a greater number of gynaecologists. I trust that the contribution will be beneficial
to the scientific community.
Title: Ovarian Adenomyoma: A case report
Version: 3 Date: 20 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for their efforts in rewriting the case report. Ovarian adenomyoma
is an uncommon benign gynecological tumor characterized by a significant incidence of
misdiagnosis. As a principal discovery This report emphasizes the potential for extrauterine
adenomyosis when a patient exhibits recent lower abdomen pain or dysmenorrhea, has a history
of endometriosis or myomectomy, and MRI data reveal irregular bleeding patterns in a pelvic
mass. The findings can assist future research and program planners. Thank you very much.
Title: Effects of sexual counseling and education based on self-efficacy theory on the sexual
function of women with breast cancer
Version: 2 Date: 01 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
First of all, thank you very much for your effort
Randomization should be more understandable in the study and the justification for block
randomization should be written.
It is stated in the study that pre-test, post-test and follow-up were performed, but this process is
not understood in the consort flow, this needs an arrangement.
The pre-test, post-test and follow-up time intervals should be explained on what basis this period
was determined and this process should be given more understandably in the consort.
The conclusion section needs to be expanded.
Title: Association of female genital schistosomiasis with human papillomavirus and cervical
pre-cancer: a systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Association of female genital schistosomiasis and
human papillomavirus and cervical pre-cancer: a systematic review" which falls within the aim
of the Journal. Nevertheless, the authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion
by citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic:
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the latest advances in HPV cervical lesions: Golia
D’Augè T, Cuccu I, Etrusco A, D’Amato A, Laganà AS, D’Oria O, Bogani G, Di Donato V,
Muzii L, Giannini A. State of the art on HPV-related cervical lesions. Ital J Gynaecol Obstet.
2024 June p.p. 135-137. doi: 10.36129/jog.2024.161.
- The introduction could be studied in depth. Some aspects should be highlighted, in particular,
the importance of adjuvant vaccination should be discussed in deep (I suggest these articles to
get deeper in the topic PMID: 37978580
I think it could be of interest for the readers, and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be
published after minor revisions.
Title: Association of female genital schistosomiasis with human papillomavirus and cervical
pre-cancer: a systematic review
Version: 4 Date: 23 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your detailed point-by-point response and the careful revisions. I just have
one last minor comment: in the supplement section on Kjetland 2010 under "cross sectional
studies" the authors write: "Please see the section above on ‘Cohort Studies’ where the Newcastle
Ottawa scoring for the longitudinal outcomes for “HPV prevalence” and “Cervical pre-cancer”
from Kjetland 2010 are presented. " Here, it should read "HPV persistence" instead of "HPV
prevalence".
Title: Association of female genital schistosomiasis with human papillomavirus and cervical
pre-cancer: a systematic review
Version: 4 Date: 28 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Tina Bech Olesen
Reviewer's report:
The authors have thoroughly responded to the reviewer comments and revised the manuscript
accordingly. I congratulate the authors on their work and I look forward to following their work
in this area of research.
Title: Long-Term Outcomes of Türkiye’s First Population-Based Mammography Screening
Program: A Decade of Breast Cancer Detection and Survival Analysis in Bahçe#ehir
Version: 3 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Víctor Manuel Vargas-Hernández
Reviewer's report:
Mammograms are a simple, standard screening exam to determine the possibility of irregularities
within the breast. They reveal areas too small or deep to feel, which may or may not require
further investigation. Numerous scientific studies suggest that most women begin screening at
age 40 and continue annually for the rest of their lives. It helps determine when to start and how
often you should have a mammogram based on specific medical data from your history.
Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making
by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. For average-risk women,
most guidelines recommended mammography screening for women ages 40 to 74, specifically,
those ages 50 to 69 were considered the optimal age group for screening.
All of the included guidelines recommended mammography as the primary screening modality
for average-risk women. Most guidelines suggested annual or biennial mammographic
screening. The risk factors for breast cancer identified in the guidelines fall primarily into five
categories that can be broadly summarized as personal history of precancerous lesions and/or
breast cancer; family history of breast cancer; known genetic predisposition to breast cancer;
history of radiation therapy to the mantle or chest; and dense breasts. For women at higher risk,
most guidelines recommend that women should have annual mammograms or annual MRIs and
that screening should begin earlier than the average-risk group.
Title: Long-Term Outcomes of Türkiye’s First Population-Based Mammography Screening
Program: A Decade of Breast Cancer Detection and Survival Analysis in Bahçe#ehir
Version: 3 Date: 27 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Sadaf Alipour
Reviewer's report:
I read the article with great interest. The subject is interesting, and it reports part of the results
of a great activity that is being carried out in Turkey.  The manuscript is very-well written and
well-organized; the results are presented in a pleasing format, and the discussion goes through
interesting points.
There are only two points that I would like to mention before considering the manuscript as
acceptable:
1- The result section of the abstract is too long. The authors should only give the most important
findings.
2- It is mentioned that the screening program consists of BSE, CBE, and MG. I would like to
know whether participants in the screening program are educated about BSE (or breast-self-
awareness); and if the answer is positive, how and when this is done. These should be explained
in the method section.
Title: Long-Term Outcomes of Türkiye’s First Population-Based Mammography Screening
Program: A Decade of Breast Cancer Detection and Survival Analysis in Bahçe#ehir
Version: 4 Date: 02 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your answer.
Most of the concerns I raised during initial review still remain (numbers refer to my original
comment):
1. background is not easy to read, original comment how the background could be improved
needs to be considered: a lot of contents about screening
programs and results in Turkey and other countries could be summarized-- current form is
distracting.
2. method, it is still not clear how tumor characteristics are obtained
4.to calculate participation rate, the number invited to participated is needed, while not
mentioned
5. where is it mentioned that these results are multivariable in the paper or the table itself?
7. I still don't understand: Age 50-69, the proportion sums to 108%
8.It is still not clear, you did not present results on BMI and family history not associated with
breast cancer in the results.
9. same as above
11-12 not addressed
Title: Online health information seeking behavior among breast cancer patients and survivors:
A scoping review
Version: 1 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Robin H. Pugh Yi
Reviewer's report:
The article summarizes a well-designed and well-implemented scoping review on an important
topic. A few minor changes are necessary prior to publication: 1) The review does not aim to
"understand." It "explains," "summarizes," "explores" or in some other way helps readers to
understand the results. 2) Be consistent with capitalizing or not capitalizing "internet." Most
current style guidelines are not to capitalize. 3) The phrase "Recent study indicated"  should be
"A recent study indicated," and "Study showed" should be "A study showed." 4) A decrease
from 68% to 49% is not "slight." I recommend acceptance following these changes.
Title: A lack of sexual autonomy is associated with increased loneliness in young mothers
Version: 1 Date: 26 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Very relevant study. In literature review more comparative studies could be included.
It is also important to mention validity of the scale in lines with the population or it would not
provide substantive results.
It is also important to quote certain global studies in discussion part in order to reflect either
support or critic of the results.
Title: A lack of sexual autonomy is associated with increased loneliness in young mothers
Version: 1 Date: 11 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Firstly, I congratulate you all for the efforts you have put into this work. Although the research
topic is quite interesting, there are various major problems throughout the study. Below you
may see my comments.
1)  “Loneliness is the difference between a person’s desired and actual social relationships
(Perlman and Peplau, 1981) and is prevalent throughout society (Beutel et al., 2017)” Which
society? Moldova? Clarify this please.
2) “There is growing evidence that the transition to motherhood, particularly in young women,
is also a period where there is an increased risk of loneliness” give more reference here, it would
be better if you cite meta-analysis (if any).
3) “such as increased rates of depression and child abuse (Kugler and Hansson, 1988)” please
use more recent findings
4) “maternal loneliness” is or seem to be different from loneliness of young mothers, the former
connotes feeling of loneliness only related to maternity but does it so? It sounds like being a
mother is a risk factor for loneliness. Feeling alone as a mother is very different from higher
loneliness because of the changes that motherhood brings. Please clarify the conceptual nuance.
5) “even though they may play an outsized role in motherhood loneliness in young mothers?”
6) more information is needed on “gendered risk factors” (from the beginning of the intro)
7) “But to date, the role of gendered risk factors for loneliness in mothers is largely unclear” to
justify this, first tell the readers about the types of gendered risk factors and then give results of
available empirical researches, then elaborate on what is missing.
8) “The Republic of Moldova was selected as the country of analysis in this study because of its
diversity of responses for gendered variables.” What do you mean by diversity?
9) “In other countries where GGS surveys included these gendered variables, either response
numbers were not sufficient, or responses were homogeneous.” The former can be a reason but
justification of selecting Moldova with the latter reason seems a biased choice. Why did answers
differ with participants from Moldova? Do you have any cultural or other explanations for this?
Please justify your choice of country with more sound rationale.
10) In your hypotheses, you only included “gendered risk factors” but you have more than these
do. Then why did you include them if you do not have any hypotheses about them?
11) How did you measure sexual autonomy?
12) Did you measure gender attitudes casually? No questionnaire or a scale used? How do we
know that these statements are enough to conceptualize and measure gender attitudes?
I will stop there because the manuscript has major problems with methodology, most of which
can not be fixed from now on. My decision is to reject the manuscript.
Title: A lack of sexual autonomy is associated with increased loneliness in young mothers
Version: 3 Date: 19 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to the questions I and other
reviewers have raised in the comments on a previous version of the manuscript. The changes
are reflected in the manuscript and tables, and my overall impression of the revised manuscript
is that it is much improved in clarity, completeness, and sound research design.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I do not see any additional revisions needed at this time.
Title: Loneliness and analgesic overuse among low-dose estrogen-progestin users in Japan
Version: 4 Date: 15 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revised manuscript is substantially improved. The authors
addresses all previous comments. The aim is now clearly articulated, and the study is more
methodologically transparent and focused.The authors have clearly articulated the conceptual
framework, research gap, aims, and hypotheses, and provided a thorough description of
recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and sample size.The Discussion has been strengthened
by presenting the main findings in relation to the study objectives and relevant literature. The
authors have also acknowledged the study’s limitations and provided thoughtful directions for
future research.
The authors are also commended for their rigorous approach to assessing multicollinearity when
performing multiple linear regression analyses, including the use of Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF) and tolerance values.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Minor editorial edits to enhance clarity, at the discretion of the Editor."
Title: Loneliness and analgesic overuse among low-dose estrogen-progestin users in Japan
Version: 5 Date: 05 Aug 2025
Reviewer:  Elena Toffol
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for revising the article and addressing my comments and questions. The
manuscript has definitely improved and the logical flow is now fluent. I do not have any further
comments, except for the two following minor issues:
1. Results, page 8, line 209, “The percentage with PSQI#6, which indicates low quality of sleep
disorder” should probably be “indicates low quality of sleep” or “indicates a sleep disorder”.
2. Discussion, page 12, line 303: please, spell out NSAIDs.
Title: Career Advancement and Fertility Intention among Working Women in Japan: A Cross-
Sectional Survey Study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic—fertility intention among working
women in Japan—and provides novel insights using a large, industry-based dataset. The paper
is generally well-structured and the methodology is sound. However, there are several critical
points that should be addressed to improve the manuscript’s clarity, scientific rigor, and
interpretative depth.
1. Line 41: The manuscript uses the term "Administrative positions" in the abstract, whereas the
body of the manuscript consistently uses "Clerical". These should be unified to avoid confusion.
I recommend using "Clerical" throughout for consistency with the original data coding.
2. The Discussion section is currently underdeveloped. While key findings are reiterated, there
is a lack of interpretative depth. It would strengthen the manuscript to:
- Elaborate on why certain variables (e.g., job type, health proactivity, career motivation) may
influence fertility intention.
- Compare and contrast findings with previous studies
- Discuss possible cultural or structural workplace factors unique to Japan that might explain
the observed patterns.
3. Line 227: The finding that participants in the fertility intention group had a higher rate of
alcohol consumption could be misleading without context. The authors should clarify whether
the measure captures frequency, quantity, or patterns of drinking, and if possible, consider
rephrasing to avoid misinterpretation. An analysis or at least a discussion of problematic or risky
drinking behavior would be more appropriate in this context.
4. The manuscript should clearly acknowledge the limitations of its cross-sectional design. As
it stands, the interpretation of observed associations risks implying causality. Several findings
may reflect reverse causality. This point must be explicitly addressed in the limitations section.
5. Lines 242–244: The policy recommendations are currently presented in a somewhat
mechanical manner, directly extrapolated from statistical associations. The authors are
encouraged to engage in more in-depth discussion. For instance:
- Consider potential unintended consequences of workplace policies.
- Reflect on structural constraints in Japanese corporate culture.
- Discuss the broader socio-cultural dynamics of fertility and career in Japan.
Title: Career Advancement and Fertility Intention among Working Women in Japan: A Cross-
Sectional Survey Study
Version: 4 Date: 25 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your sincere response to my previous comment. Although the study has various
limitations, I believe that this article is a valuable and that its discussion has deepened.However,
some revisions are still necessary as minor points.
[Methods]
#1: I apologize that I did not properly understand the description of the number of participants.
However, Fig. 1 is rather complicated. I would appreciate it if you could add a footnote to explain
what each number of participants indicates or bold the words “Completion group” to make it
easier to understand.
#5: I understand that you could not refuse requests from companies participating in the survey.
Please include the information described in L131~ as limitations rather than in the Methods
section.
[Result]
#1: In the multivariate analysis in Tables 2 and 3, the p-values * should not be described because
the ORs and confidence intervals are calculated.
Title: Global, regional and national uterine fibroid burdens from 1990 to 2021 and projections
until 2050: Results from the GBD study
Version: 1 Date: 13 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors employ the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database to examine worldwide
prevalence, incidence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) due to uterine fibroids, from
1990 to 2021. They calculate corresponding age-standardized rates and identify temporal
trends through average annual percentage change (AAPC). Intriguingly, high-middle SDI
regions show declining trends, while increases are observed in regions with lower SDI. The
manuscript concludes with projections indicating possible stabilization by 2050, underscoring
the importance of socioeconomic factors, lifestyle changes, and diagnostic improvements.
Comments:
Although the analysis draws on GBD data, detail how confidence intervals (CIs) are derived
and interpreted across the prevalence, incidence, and YLD metrics. Clarifying the choice
of statistical techniques and the underlying assumptions would enhance the robustness and
replicability of the findings.
Expand on the practical steps policymakers and health stakeholders could pursue based on your
findings. For instance, highlight possible screening programs, resource allocation strategies, or
interventions aimed at regions identified as having the greatest burden or rapid increases in
uterine fibroids.
Provide additional information about how data are gathered, harmonized, and analyzed within
the GBD framework. Readers will benefit from understanding the sources of input data and how
variations or gaps in regional reporting are managed.
Specify how UIs are computed and how they differ (if at all) from standard confidence intervals.
This information is crucial for interpreting the reliability of reported estimates and facilitating
comparisons across regions or time periods.
Ensure consistent decimal formatting (e.g., one decimal place or two) throughout the text, tables,
and figures. Uniform numeric reporting helps avoid confusion and lends a professional polish
to the manuscript.
Some passages would benefit from careful proofreading to correct syntax, punctuation, and
potential typographical errors. A clear, polished narrative will help readers focus on the scientific
content rather than the presentation.
Though the “Conclusions” portion is present in the abstract, it would be beneficial to move or
restate this within a dedicated conclusion subsection at the end of the discussion. Summarize
major findings, interpret how these findings align with existing research, and suggest actionable
next steps.
Title: Global, regional and national uterine fibroid burdens from 1990 to 2021 and projections
until 2050: Results from the GBD study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Kuan-Ju Huang
Reviewer's report:
Suggestions for the Authors (from a Clinical Perspective):
1. Please clarify the discrepancy observed in Andean Latin America, where the age-standardized
incidence rate (ASIR) shows a positive trend (AAPC), while the prevalence appears to be
decreasing. Further explanation of this divergence would enhance the interpretation of regional
disease burden.
2. Given that the projected global population growth is expected to plateau in the coming
decades, the authors should consider incorporating this trend into their statistical models to refine
future burden projections (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-
projections/).
3. The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health data for 2020 and 2021 should
be addressed, as it may have influenced both disease reporting and healthcare access during this
period.
Overall, the conclusions of this study are consistent with clinical observations. However, I am
unable to comment on the statistical methodology and modeling approach used.