JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Factors associated with uptake of contraceptives among HIV positive women on
dolutegravir based anti-retroviral treatment-a crossectional survey in urban Uganda.
Version: 2 Date: 10 May 2022
Reviewer:  Jonathan Levin
Reviewer's report:
Overall this is a clearly written paper with a relevant message.
I have a few minor comments relating to statistical methodology and sampling
1. In the abstract (line 26 - 27) and the methods (line 126 - 127) the authors refer to a "modified
Poisson regression model" - the authors should justify why they use a Poisson regression model
rather than a logistic regression model since this is a cross-sectional study and also explain in
what way the Poisson regression model is "modified" - I am assuming that the use of a Poisson
model is used since the outcome (contraceptive use) is not rare and the modification is to use
robust estimation of standard errors (I was made aware of this method when I worked in Uganda).
However the authors should explain all of this clearly for the benefit of their readers.   Cummings
P "Methods for estimating adjusted risk ratios" The Stata Journal (2009) 9 No 2 pp175 - 196
gives a good explanation of this approach
In the summary of findings (both in the Abstract and the Results section) when giving the effect
for a particular level of a factor, the authors should highlight what the baseline level was e.g.
"Predictors for contraceptive uptake were parity of 3-4 children (APR=1.48 ....) - the authors
should say what the reference category of parity was
Line 96 - 97 refers to the "Kish Leslie" formula. In fact this is one person first name Leslie and
surname Kish - so the formula should be referred to as the Kish formula and the reference given
as  Kish L. (1965) Survey Sampling , New York: Wiley
Line 98 - 101 - the survey design was in fact a Stratified random sample with proportional
allocation (with the five facilities serving as the strata). The given description is a bit
cumbersome so I suggest that the authors just use a modification of what I have said above
The authors note that only those variables that were found to be significantly associated with
contraceptive uptake are included in Table 2 - that is acceptable, but a list of all the candidate
variables should be given in the methods section and in addition  since Health Facility served
as a stratification variable it forms part of the design and should be included as a categorical
explanatory variable in the final model irrespective   of statistical significance
Title: Factors associated with uptake of contraceptives among HIV positive women on
dolutegravir based anti-retroviral treatment-a crossectional survey in urban Uganda.
Version: 5 Date: 05 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Jonathan Levin
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reacted positively to my earlier comments. A few minor edits are still required
The spelling of "cross-sectional" should be corrected in the title
In line 152 I suggest "...were aware of at least one contraceptive method..." rather than any
In Table 1 leading zeroes in counts should be removed e.g. it should be "54" for the number of
respondents in Facility 3 not "054"
Title: Coping strategies of stress and its associated factors among breast cancer patients in Tikur
Anbesa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia: Institution-based cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Tsegaye Tilahun
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor, here are my comments.
1. General comment: the paper is interesting. It needs a grammatical edition
2. Title
# Let the authors make it SMART. Eg. Add institution based cross-sectional study
3. Abstract
# Avoid abbreviations in abstract
4. Conclusion
# Conclusion under abstract and after the discussion has differences. Look at it
5. Keywords
# Avoid abbreviations in keywords
6. Background
# Paragraphs 2,3 and 4 are about coping mechanisms. Better if the authors merge these three
paragraphs using their own language. The other point in these three paragraphs is the authors
used one reference for one paragraph. This is a form of plagiarism.
7. Study area
# Better if the authors elaborate about the oncology center(when was it established, staffing,
type of services, etc)
8. Study population
# Clearly indicate exclusion and inclusion criteria
9. Sample Size determination and sampling procedure
# The sampling procedure is not indicated in the manuscript. Is that important in this study? If
yes, include. If not, remove it.
10. Operational definition
# ‘Above and below the mean. Let the authors put this mean in the bracket
11. Ethical Consideration
# Remove it under methods and materials. put it under-declaration
12. Ethical clearance
# Include IRB number
13. Result
# Table 1: Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of breast cancer patients in Tikur
Anbesa specialized hospital, 2020(n=264). Table 2: Descriptive statistics of stress coping
strategies of breast cancer patients.  Remove them from here and put them where the table is
located.do the same thing for other tables and figures, too.
# The mean score of response to the overall questionnaire's measuring coping strategies was
found to be 106.85. please correct it
14. Discussion
# Use [] instead of (). Eg. (4)
# Line 8…. This is far comparing. Better if rephrased
# However, the current study comes to oppose with a study conducted in Philadelphia[16].
Rephrase it
NB: In general it needs language edition by language experts or native speakers
15. Strength of the study.
# Better if indicated
16. Funding: indicate the source of funds. Do not say it is not applicable
17. Abbreviations
# Include them next to the conclusion
18. Table 2
# Correct the heading per the standard
19. Table 3
# Indicate the unit of Monthly income. Eg. USD vs. ETB
20. Figure 1
# Correct the heading per the standard
Title: Coping strategies of stress and its associated factors among breast cancer patients in Tikur
Anbesa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia: Institution-based cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Naruto Taira
Reviewer's report:
In this study, coping strategies among breast cancer patients in Ethiopia and factors related to
coping were investigated. The purpose of the research is clear, and the presentation of descriptive
statistical results is of particular significance for grasping the actual situation. However, the
study design is cross-sectional and care must be taken in interpreting the results. My comments
are as follows:
1. Data analysis
The authors stated that binary logistic regression was used to identify independent covariates
for outcomes. In the description of the data analysis, the variables used as outcomes and those
used as explanatory variables should be stated. Also, the key indicators calculated by logistic
regression analysis are the odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval, and these should be
specified in this section. The p-value only indicates the statistical significance, and not the
magnitude of the effect of the factor.
2. Patient background
The patient background for type of treatment shows that 44 patients received chemotherapy only
and 11 had radiation therapy only. For early-stage breast cancer, multidisciplinary treatment
with chemotherapy or radiation therapy, including surgery, is common, whereas for unresectable
advanced or metastatic breast cancer, chemotherapy aimed at prolonging survival and improving
symptoms is often selected. About 20% of cases were treated without surgery. Does this mean
that the subjects in this study include cases of unresectable or metastatic breast cancer? Curability
can affect stress-coping strategies and clinical staging information for the breast cancer should
be stated if this is available.
3. Results
AOR was included in the results for factors that influence the stress-coping strategy, but the
abbreviation was not explained. What does AOR mean? If AOR indicates an adjusted odds ratio,
please specify the adjusting factor. In addition, the outcomes were not specified in the statistical
analysis section, so it was difficult to understand the meaning of AOR.
4. Interpretation of results
It has been shown that the type of treatment influences the stress-coping strategy. However,
in general, cancer treatment options are selected based on the degree of progression. In other
words, could clinical progression of the cancer influence the stress-coping strategy?
Title: Coping strategies of stress and its associated factors among breast cancer patients in Tikur
Anbesa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia: Institution-based cross-sectional study
Version: 6 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Tsegaye Tilahun
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
the authors made significant improvements.
Here are a few more comments:
1. table 3: put income in USD; better if the word 'illiterate' is replaced with 'can not read and
write'
Title: Long-term patient satisfaction and removal rate after Essure sterilization: a follow-up
study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. General comment:  The manuscript describes a retrospective case series of Essure procedures
performed in the outpatient setting.  Patient satisfaction and device removal rate were measured.
The study is significantly limited by the methodology of the questionnaire and the time
administered since the actual procedure.  Despite these limitations, the data is interesting and
would add to the body of literature on hysteroscopic sterilization.
2. Line 50-51:  Effectiveness and safety were not measured in this study, only patient satisfaction
and Essure removal rate.
3. Line 135:  Define what a “1st degree committee” includes.
4. Line 142: Define a “closed type questionnaire”
5. Line 142-143:  How was the questionnaire developed and validated?  Please include a copy
of the questionnaire as an appendix.
6. Line 149:  Were any questions asked about chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea or changes in
menstrual bleeding pattern since the procedure?
7. The mean and median length of time from the Essure procedure until the questionnaire was
administered should be provided.
8. A significant limitation of the study is that the patient has were asked to rate their pain with
the procedure and satisfaction with the procedure several years after it was performed.
9. Line 230:  Please remove the statement about the safety of the procedure as this was not
measured in the data presented.
10. The limitations of the study, including the fact that the questionnaire was administered so
many years after the procedure should be mentioned in the discussion.
Title: Long-term patient satisfaction and removal rate after Essure sterilization: a follow-up
study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This follow-up study was carried to assess the rate and causes for Essure removal and patients
long term satisfaction with the procedure in a single tertiary centre.
Since abdominal pain, heavy/irregular menses, headache, fatigue, and weight gain are the
complaints having significant impact on everyday life after Essure insertion in the present study
only 2 women had Essure removed for pain: have you any data for the other complaints?
Since women satisfaction rate has been very high with low complains the study underlines
appropriate selection, preoperative workup and invitation to return to clinic after the procedure
in case any problems would occur
Title: Disparate Access to Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment
Version: 3 Date: 22 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a good topic, however there are major revisions that are needed for this manuscript to
be suitable for publication in regards to:
- A clearer definition or discussion around patient navigation in the introduction.
- A clear definition and measure of delinquent mammography and what recommendation (ACS
or USPSTF) is being used to guide the analysis.
- A discussion is needed around differences between urban safety-net and suburban centers.
Noting that these differences are mentioned in another paper is not sufficient and the description
offered in the methods section is vague.
- Please provide a clear explanation of recruitment and IRB in the methods section.
- Please briefly define who the patient navigators were in the methods. Who are they as health
care professionals (RNs, NPs, CHWs?) and how were they selected?
- What specific barriers did the PNs address on p. 7? Did they not provide patient education?
- In the introduction, race/ethnicity and income/SES were mentioned as barriers to screening
mammography. Why aren't these measures reported in the results? What about average breast
cancer screening stage - what does this look like among the population?
- Where are your patient demographics based on site, which should be your table 1?
- What accounted for the sample size difference in city vs. county?
- The discussion needs to be more clear. as it is a little lengthy and seems scattered. This needs
to be cut down and separated into sections based on patient demographics, site differences, and
reported barriers. Perhaps using the headings from the results here would be helpful?
- The limitations of potential differences between recommendations among providers (ACS,
USPSTF) is a major one. How does this affect the overall measure of delinquent mammography?
- How did the study authors/PNs attempt to address any study limitations?
- What about other study limitations? Patient self-report? Applicability to other patient
populations/settings?
- Need for social support is mentioned in the conclusion but this is my first time seeing this term
in the paper? More details are needed around this in the results and discussion.
- It would be interesting to see differences in significance of the subcategories of support and
fear which were noted on p. 7.
- What is the "other" category in your tables? The tables need notations at the bottom to better
denote collapsed categories (support, fear, other)?
- Please re-review the submission for grammatical errors which were throughout the text.
Title: Disparate Access to Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment
Version: 3 Date: 06 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- I would suggest to stress the importance of endometrial evaluation during pharmacological
adjuvant treatment for breast cancer (PMID: 31425735), and how this was partially  delayed
during covid-19 pandemic (PMID: 34402585).
- I recommend to highlight, at least briefly, that one of the best moment to raise awareness
for breast cancer screening and prevention is during breastfedding (PMID: 27928522; PMID:
28005135), even in low resource settings.
Title: Disparate Access to Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment
Version: 5 Date: 22 May 2022
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 responded clearly and sufficiently to all the points raised
by the reviewers.  The text, tables, and clarifications were included in the response to the
reviewers and the revised text.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No additional revisions are needed.  The revised version and the response to the reviewers are
adequate and clear."
Title: Is there any association between adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and Dietary Total
Antioxidant Capacity with Bacterial Vaginosis? Results from a Case-Control study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
General comment: Research article entitled “Is there any association between adherence to the
Mediterranean diet and Total Antioxidant Capacity with Bacterial Vaginosis? Results from a
Case-Control study” is an interesting study, with sufficient methodology and discussion of the
results. Some minor corrections are required for the improvement of the manuscript.
Abstract: The Abstract is well written and adequately presents the aim and the basic results of
the study.
-Line 46. Authors should define that total antioxidant capacity by FRAP assay not measured but
used specific database (define the dtabase).
-Could authors add results about the total adherence to the Mediterranean Diet?
Introduction: The introduction section is well-written and covers the basic aim of the study.
-Could authors add a short paragraph with extra references about the mechanism of the
Mediterranean diet effect on oxidative stress and the synergistic effect of the mediterannean
foods?
Materials and Methods:  The materials and methods are adequately presented.
-Line 96. Did authors use specific program to calculate the number of participants? Please define.
-Line 148. Please define the database used for the total antioxidant capacity of the foods.
Results: The results of the study are well presented.
Discussion: The results of study are sufficiently discussed.
-Line 194. Please divide the paragraph to two smaller paragraphs.
-Authors could further discuss the novelty of the study and the need for further research.
References: The references used by the authors cover adequately the relative scientific field and
the aims of the study.
Title: Is there any association between adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and Dietary Total
Antioxidant Capacity with Bacterial Vaginosis? Results from a Case-Control study
Version: 2 Date: 19 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Ayah T. Zaidalkilani
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer Comments – BMC Women’s Health
Title: Is there any association between adherence to the Mediterranean diet and Total
Antioxidant Capacity with Bacterial Vaginosis? Results from a Case-Control study
Dear Authors
Thank you for submitting manuscript Ref: Submission ID
c54496e8-3d73-47bd-99ef-7e021990e064 to the BMC Women's Health.
The manuscript is well written and well organised. This is an interesting study and you
have collected a promising dataset. The paper is generally well written and structured. The
introduction, results, and discussion are clear and concise.
Your efforts are much appreciated. Kindly find the following comments:
2.2. Study population
Line 100: Inclusion criteria, I would advise adding the following statement:
" The participants have no stature problems", as the measures of height were taken standing
straight up. So, any participant with a problem in stature will be excluded.
3. Results
Line 189: (Table 3).
I would advise removing the parentheses and stating: “as shown in Table 3”.
4. Discussion
Line 231: I would advise rewriting the sentence for a better understanding
Line 244 - 257: I would advise having a section titled “Strengths and limitations”. To direct the
reader to the study’s strengths and limitations.
6. References:
Line 312 – 314: consider revising.
Title: Is there any association between adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and Dietary Total
Antioxidant Capacity with Bacterial Vaginosis? Results from a Case-Control study
Version: 3 Date: 07 May 2022
Reviewer:  Ayah T. Zaidalkilani
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
You have done great efforts in the revised manuscript. Well Done.
Every comment was taken into consideration and care.
Kindly consider the following:
Line 282:  changing the MED to MD;  to unify the abbreviations used throughout the manuscript.
Great efforts
Title: Spatial distribution and predictors of intimate partner violence among women in Nigeria:
Evidence from 2018 Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer Comments:
This paper discusses the spatial prevalence of IPV in Nigeria. It makes great contribution to
existing literature and should be built upon for future research of spatial analysis and trends of
IPV by regions. My comments are as follows and organized by section:
Background-
1. I don’t think the word choice “relatively superior” makes sense when describing abusive
partners and should be removed.
2. Has the Who published any more recent prevalence estimates since 2013? If so, please replace.
If not, I would make note the influence of COVID-19 and the global pandemic on the increase
of IPV.
3. I like that the authors discuss culture of Nigeria. I wonder if the risk factors sentence is specific
to women in Nigeria or if additional information could be added about risk factors among
Nigerian women specifically.  In general, I’d like at least a few more sentences of previous
literature of IPV/Violence against women in the country for those who are not familiar.
a. Perhaps also the authors could add a background paragraph on previous literature with this
exact dataset as I imagine there have been other violence against women NDHS from other years
or the 2018 exactly.
Methods-
1. It might be nice to have a citation for why the individual and community level variables were
selected.
2. If P-value significant and I value close to mean that IPV had clustering effect 24. – This
sentence reads incorrectly I think it is missing a verb or two.
Discussion-
1. It’s important that poverty is mentioned as not just being related to empowerment but also
resources. Women with more income have more options and resources for escaping violence
or minimizing it.
2. I’d like to see something about future research directions and what this means for scholarship
of IPV. I think the authors could repeat this analysis on other South African countries or make
recommendations for future spatial analysis related to IPV.