JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Reproductive Health of Syrian Refugee Women in Lebanon: A Descriptive Analysis of
the Sijilli Electronic Health Records Database
Version: 3 Date: 18 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for the hard work in carefully addressing the major issues raised in
my initial feedback. The article reads more smoothly and the analysis is in alignment with the
study's aims.  This study addresses an important gap in refugee health literature in the area of
reproductive health of displaced Syrian refugees. Specifically, this study compares pre and post-
displacement data. I believe this manuscript is timely and highlights key findings that will be
useful for researchers and policymakers.
Overall, the technical issues I raised as requiring major revisions have been addressed. The
authors summarized the main research question and key findings. The authors identified other
literature on the topic and explained how the study relates to this previously published research.
The authors' conclusions of the increased age of first pregnancy, increased C-section deliveries,
spontaneous abortions, and maternal complications among SR women after being displaced
to Lebanon - are supported by the results/findings. Authors also found that SR women are
less likely to use contraceptives after displacement and mean spacing between pregnancies
and breastfeeding rates have decreased after moving to Lebanon - important findings. While
the authors discuss the limitations of the study, I suggest adding non-random sampling of the
database as a limitation for generalizability although it was a relatively large sample. Overall, I
believe the study demonstrates an advance in the field and that data provides evidence to support
the conclusions.
Minor revisions:
1. There are a number of run-on sentences that could be split into sentences for clarity. These
are just examples:  Line 85, Line 93, Line 215,
2. Grammar/punctuation issues and extra words could be omitted throughout the paper; if authors
could please review one final time.  Grammarly is a free online tool that may be helpful in
tightening up your final paper before publication. These are just examples:
Line 91: Extra period after "refugee women were found to suffer from unmet family planning
needs, in addition to high C-section rates."
Line 244 misspelled word "The number of oveall abortion cases increased"
Line 156: Extra period after "The collected data was coded and exported to SPSS version 26.."
Line 190: No need for a comma here "Table 2, shows the difference of ever pregnant women"
Line 330: Extra period after "forced displacement has led to a major increase in this number"
3. Regarding your tables, you may want to consider removing the detailed "n's" in your tables
and just use % so that it's easier for readers to process the information at a glance.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this important work.
Title: Reproductive Health of Syrian Refugee Women in Lebanon: A Descriptive Analysis of
the Sijilli Electronic Health Records Database
Version: 5 Date: 17 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is the second revision of the manuscript on Reproductive Health of Syrian Refugee Women
in Lebanon. It shows that authors have made an effort to make a range of language corrections
in response to the comments that the text needed editing. While many minor errors have
been corrected and few specific, given instances have improved, the text stills shows several
inconsistencies and blocks of text that are difficult to understand.
Examples of the first include a sentence in the abstract under results: "SR women were shown
to get pregnant in Lebanon at a lower age compared to cases in Syria.", while a sentence in the
abstract under conclusion reads that the age of women that become pregnant while in Lebanon
has increased: "The age of first pregnancy, C-section deliveries, spontaneous abortions and
maternal complications have all increased among SR women after being displaced to Lebanon".
Similarly, 'mean spacing' seems to have been increased in the results and decreased in the
conclusion.
The paragraph in the discussion in the main text on C-section delivery rates is an example of
text that is hard to understand and assess if in fact correct or not.
Title: Reproductive Health of Syrian Refugee Women in Lebanon: A Descriptive Analysis of
the Sijilli Electronic Health Records Database
Version: 6 Date: 02 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript. I have no further
recommendations for major revisions.  Some minor grammar issues remain:
Missing word: Being a particularly vulnerable group, women were prone to lack (of) access to
services.
"Several studies were conducted on the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of Syrian
refugees in the MENA region." - spell out MENA when first using.
This should be a new sentence: "outcomes of all pregnancies: normal delivery, C-section or
abortion, in addition to the type (spontaneous versus elective abortion) and method of previous
abortions. "
This looks like a typo - it supposed to be 300 women, based on Table 1, 1692 was the number
of pregnancies: "1692 women had a history of pregnancy before and after their displacement
to Lebanon"
Obsteric and Antenatal do not need to be capitalized.
Prewar should have a dash between (pre-war)
This sentence should be a new paragraph: "Pregnancy complication were significantly more
common in Lebanon as compared to pregnancy complications in Syria."
Remove "there": "breastfeeding was a more common practice among Syrian women before there
displacement."
Thank you for the opportunity to review this important paper on reproductive health disparities
in refugee populations.
Title: TITLE: Does full HPV genotyping perform similarly well in clinician-collected cervical
samples and self-collected vaginal samples when using the CLART HPV4S assay?
Version: 4 Date: 23 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Mats G Karlsson
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. The authors present
interesting and well-described data concerning HPV genotyping on self-sampling material. As
discussed by the authors there are of course some limitations, mainly the time laps between
professional sampling and self-sampling. The sample size is limited, but there is a power analysis
in a previous paper from the same group using the same material for an initial analysis not
including genotyping.
As described, the concordance between professional and self-sampling concerning hrHPV
genotyping is good and encouraging in a future perspective.
I find the presentation of the results clear, genotyping results are presented both in Table 2 and in
Fig 2, rather similar data except for the inclusion of two cases more among self-sampling where
no professional sampling results were available, this might need to be clarified in the Figure text.
I would also like to have a discussion of the methodological aspects of the present manuscript
and the previous results of the COBAS analysis in Tranberg et al 2018 table 1 and table 1 in
the present manuscript since the number of hrHPV positive samples seems to have decreased in
both the professional sampling and in the self-sampling material.
Thus, I find the manuscript interesting and well written only with some minor issues and
questions that could be addressed in a minor revision.
Title: TITLE: Does full HPV genotyping perform similarly well in clinician-collected cervical
samples and self-collected vaginal samples when using the CLART HPV4S assay?
Version: 4 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Patrick Petignat
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-conducted study in well-defined population “ASCUS and 30-59 years old women”
with the aim to assess performance of self-HPV vs Dr-HPV to assess HPV detection and
genotype.
Results a clearly reported.
Main weaknesses (as reported by the authors) is the small sample size and that it doesn’t allow
to assess  (true) prevalence of HG lesions between the two groups (CIN2+). Nevertheless, this is
a nice paper which add important information to the current knowledge in the field of Self-HPV.
May be the paper could be improved with the following comment:
1. I understand that the investigators used dry sample, but I didn’t see information about the nb
of days between the self-sampling procedure and the test in the lab (what was recommendation
for the lab, are sample more than 20 days still suitable for analysis ?).
2. Did all HPV self-sampling been performed at home by participants  or some of Self-sample
have been performed at the clinic before colposcopy  ?
3. Interpratation regarding "non concordant cases" should consider data from the HITCH cohort
study and  the proportion of incident HPV not attributable to transmission (HPV deposition,
reactivation).
Title: TITLE: Does full HPV genotyping perform similarly well in clinician-collected cervical
samples and self-collected vaginal samples when using the CLART HPV4S assay?
Version: 5 Date: 26 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye
Reviewer's report:
All comments have been addressed. The response to the comments is adequate and improved
the manuscript.
Title: Clinical analysis of 312 patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma
and research on the influencing factors of postoperative recurrence
Version: 0 Date: 08 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The question posed in this study is interesting and may contribute to qualify the treatment and
follow-up of these women. Three major comments:
1- In the tables and in the text (Methods and Results sections), the analyses of data on HPV
viral load, positivity and persistence of HPV infection seemed confusing to me. There are some
variables about HPV infection under analysis: positive/negative HPV, positive HPV 16 and/or
18 versus other high-risk HPV versus negative HPV, viral load, persistence of viral infection
after treatment.  The table 2  refers also to single and multiple infections. Please try to review
and become the understanding easier.
3 - There are no  connections between the question/objective and the conclusion of the study.
The main point of the question is the viral load of HPV infection.
2- The text must be carefully revised. There are phrases that the content is not so clear. I am
attaching the manuscritpt with some comments and suggestions.
Title: Clinical analysis of 312 patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma
and research on the influencing factors of postoperative recurrence
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Mihai Emil C#pîlna
Reviewer's report:
Interesting study.  The discussion part of the article must provide more data from similar
research, in favor or against your conclusions, especially regarding other kits used for HPV
detection. The postoperative HPV samples are not clearly described.
Title: Clinical analysis of 312 patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma
and research on the influencing factors of postoperative recurrence
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "The association between postoperative high-risk
human papillomavirus viral load and the local recurrence of stage IB1-IIA2 cervical squamous
cell carcinoma Running title: High-risk human papillomavirus viral load and recurrence of
cervical cancer" which falls within the aim of the Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Nevertheless, authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and
novel key articles about the topic.
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker to improve clarity and
readability.
-The introduction can be extended. A starting point can be the following work: PMID: 35742340.
- Tables 2, 3 and 4 are unclear.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
- The description of the surgical approach can be improved. A mention to the complications
would be interesting in my opinion (The starting point can be taken from the following examples
that can then be inserted in the references. See PMID: 36141917; 35909005)
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives
- To improve comparison with existing literature, authors should amplify references (see PMID:
35455328; 36141217).
-Conclusions and purpose of the study are unrelated.
Considered all this points, I think it could be of interest for the readers and, in my opinion, it
deserves the priority to be published after major revisions.
Title: Clinical analysis of 312 patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma
and research on the influencing factors of postoperative recurrence
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, thank you for sending me the correct manuscript.
I read your work with great interest and pleasure. The work with the changes made after my
advice and those of the other authors is complete and, in my opinion, ready for publication.
Title: Why do women walk away from maternal health services in Southwest  Ethiopia? A
qualitative study of caregivers' and clients' perspectives.
Version: 2 Date: 20 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have evaluated the manuscript titled "Why do women walk away from maternal health
services in Southwest  Ethiopia? A qualitative study of caregivers' and clients' perspectives".
The researchers have focused on an important issue. I have some comments.
Title and abstract
The authors should provide a title that clearly conveys the topic of the study.
I suggest that the title indicates that the study is qualitative or includes a commonly used term that
identifies the approach (e.g., ethnographic study, grounded theory) or data collection methods
(e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations).
The authors should add the study approach,  sample (number and key characteristics of
participants), and data collection methods in the abstract.
Method
Reflexivity refers to the intentional, systematic consideration of the potential or actual effects
of the researchers on all aspects of the study process. In positivist and post-positivist paradigms,
personal characteristics and perspectives of researchers might be viewed as biases that limit the
credibility of study findings, while in constructivist or interpretivist paradigms the characteristics
and perspectives of the researchers are important contextual factors that are an accepted part of
the study design, data collection, and data analysis. These characteristics and perspectives may
explain how the researcher(s) obtained access to the site or participants included in the study or
may add valuable insight during data analysis.
....
....
...
They should use  SRQR or COREQ guidelines for reporting. You should add a checklist. https://
www.equator-network.org/
You should check all text for spelling and punctuation mistakes.
Best wishes
Title: Why do women walk away from maternal health services in Southwest  Ethiopia? A
qualitative study of caregivers' and clients' perspectives.
Version: 5 Date: 16 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
The authors completed the revision according to my suggestions. The number of cases included
in the study is good. The spelling is nice. I believe that if the journal is suitable for your policy,
it is an acceptable article that can contribute to the literature. Good work.
Best wishes
Title: Why do women walk away from maternal health services in Southwest  Ethiopia? A
qualitative study of caregivers' and clients' perspectives.
Version: 5 Date: 26 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving this chance to review this manuscript the authors revised most sections of
the manuscript in response to the comments. I suggest accepting this submission after the author
check the final version using Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ)
check list.
Comments
1. I recommend that the authors- check the entire section of their final manuscript against the
Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) check list
2. When using the checklist, paying attention to the method sections, particularly the data
analysis, quality control, and reflexivity sections.
3.  Include the checklist that you used while reviewing the manuscript during submission as
additional file. And report evidence of using this check list in your manuscript in method section.
Title: Risk of cardiometabolic outcomes among women with a history of pelvic inflammatory
disease: A retrospective matched cohort study from the UK
Version: 2 Date: 23 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Okoth et al.
Cardiometabolic outcomes - pelvic inflammatory disease.
This is a well-written paper on an important topic. It needs some revision but is otherwise well
suited for publication.
Abstract,:
1. Please point out, what is your main outcome measure Please present that disease first and
for this disease also give the incidence in women with PID and in their controls (I guess it  is
compose CVD and then: were 1.5 and 1.3, respectively ).
I also want the conclusion to first mention the main outcome (I assume it is ”composite CVD”).
Not choosing one main outcome might lead to an increased risk of type 1 error. (multiple chance
findings).
2. I do not think your conclusion is motivated that women with PID are a potential target grop
for cardiometabolic risk assessment. After all, what should really worry us: composite CVD,
IHD, cerebrovascular disease and Heart failure = None of them was associated with PID.
3. I later read in the manuscript that type 2 diabetes and hypertension were both secondary
outcomes. The more important not to draw conclusions from secondary outcomes when all your
primary outcomes were negative.
INTRODUCTION
well written, motivates this paper.
METHODS
4. please say a few words about the THIN database. selection bias? has it been validated? all
over UK or especially certain parts? rural-urban coverage?
5. Has the PID or CVID outcomes been validated in the THIN database? How good are the
relevant Read codes? The French researchers who came up with your PID definition, did they
validate the codes?
6. in your PID sample, what was the proportion of women with probably vs definite diagnosis?
7. when matching women without PID, could the reference women develop PID after matching
date?
8. I think the list of potential confounders is reasonable.  Was smoking self-reported? did you
categorise smoking as yes/no? or current, former, never?
9. how do you define reproductive conditions?
10. what do you mean by ”the most recently recorded variable before study entry was used .
please clarify and give an example.
11. Did you ever adjust for country of birth/ethnicity?
12. In table 2, legend: please clarify what is model 2, it is just adjusting for the confounders
in the legend?
13. It seems the list of covaraites/confounders in Table 2 legend is not the same as the variables
you mention on page 8 (adjustments were made for…)? please harmonise.
DISCUSSION.
14. early in this section you point out the long duration of follow-up, but I cannot see that you
have presented any data on follow-up in the manuscript ?? please provide median fill.
15. if the PID diagnoses and CVD diagnoses in your study have not been validated, please
comment on that in the discussion.
16. Mention that you have multiple outcomes and that there is a risk of false-positive findings
(type 1 error)
17. The discussion otherwise reads well.
Title: Risk of cardiometabolic outcomes among women with a history of pelvic inflammatory
disease: A retrospective matched cohort study from the UK
Version: 6 Date: 05 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations on a nice study!
I think you have done a great job revising it.
I still disagree with the matching procedure ((DExtER) tool) that a person who has "not yet PID,
but may develop it in the future" cannot be selected as control, but I know that excluding these
from the control cohort will not impact on your results at all , so I accept that.
looking forward to seeing the paper in print.
Best regards, Jonas F Ludvigsson
Title: Risk of cardiometabolic outcomes among women with a history of pelvic inflammatory
disease: A retrospective matched cohort study from the UK
Version: 6 Date: 19 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for responding to the questions and concerns that were posed in the
review process. The additions made to the manuscript have provided better clarity. However, I
still have one concern relating to the way the authors match the study population. The authors
replied: "no women with PID (either at index or matching date or at any time point afterwards
up until study end) were included in the comparator group".
When excluding women diagnosed with PID after the index date, the authors are conditioning
on the future exposure, potentially making the exposed and unexposed less comparable and
introducing bias1. Since the incidence of PID is low, it will probably not affect the estimates.
Still, it is correct to include all women without PID at the match date among potential matches
and then censor any woman diagnosed with PID during follow-up.
1. Lund JL, Horvath-Puho E, Komjathine Szepligeti S, et al. Conditioning on future exposure
to define study cohorts can induce bias: the case of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid and risk of
major bleeding. Clin Epidemiol 2017;9:611-26. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S147175 [published Online
First: 2017/12/05]
Title: Spatial distribution and associated factors of dropout from health facility delivery after
antenatal booking in Ethiopia: A multi-level analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
# The background section of abstract lacks the gaps. Is that multilevel is unique feature of your
study.
# In result section of abstract, you have report the pertinent findings and you have to also report
the modifiable factors
# In conclusion section you reported that” The prevalence of dropout from health facility delivery
after ANC booking was high”. What you baseline to say High?
# In conclusion section you repeat (associated) what you said in result. Rather your conclusion
should focus recommendation and implications.
Background
# Please make you background short and informative.
Method
# Why you choice Local Indicator of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) methods for you spatial
analysis
# Why you don’t do interpolation
Figures
Most of figures Lack quality
Title: Spatial distribution and associated factors of dropout from health facility delivery after
antenatal booking in Ethiopia: A multi-level analysis
Version: 0 Date: 20 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments from reviewer
Abstract section:
STATA, ArcGIS: In the first instance of every acronym/abbreviation, you have to write the full
name/phrase.
Background section
Paragraph 2: In the background section, stating a single research may not be as nice as reports
from different organizations, and other reviews. You can write these single research findings in
the discussion section for comparison purpose. [A study conducted in Cambodia indicated that
19% of women dropped from health facility delivery after ANC booking (13).
Another individual studies conducted in Nigeria and Guinea indicated that 38.1% and 74% of
women were dropouts from health facility delivery after ANC booking (22, 23)]
Method section:
On variable measurement, Community-level of female education: “Aggregate respondent level
of education categorized as: <50% = “Low” and 50% = “High” education communities” (28)”.
It needs editorial correction, add the sign “>” on “> 50%”