JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Pipelle endometrial biopsy for abnormal uterine bleeding: do patient’s pain and anxiety
really impact on sampling success rate?
Version: 1 Date: 16 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
1. General comment:  The manuscript describes a prospective study of Pipelle biopsy pain and
anxiety associations with success of the procedure and provider experience.  Some of the data
is novel and worth of dissemination.  The paper would benefit from more clarity regarding the
methods and editing of the discussion as noted below.
2. Line 70-71:  Recommend deleting this statement.  Claims of primacy in the literature are
rarely true.
3. Line 112: Why is EMB underutilized in Kazakhstan?
4. Line 116: How will understanding EMB pain and anxiety help spread the usage of the
technique in Kazakhstan?
5. Line 118: Isn’t understanding the role of pain and anxiety during EMB important to all
women?
6. Line 119: Was ethics committee approval obtained for the study?
7. Line 124: Were women provided any pre-biopsy  education on what to expect?
8. Line 131-132: Please define the years of experience more precisely here. Did all of the senior
specialists have more than 35 years of experience? What is the required training for an OB/GYN
practitioner in Kazakhstan?
9. Line 138-39: Was there any standardization of the histological exam? Did multiple
pathologists read the biopsies?
10. Line 148-49: was data on gravidity and parity of the subjects collected and analyzed?
11.
Line 175-76 was there any association between rate of inadequate sampling and provide
experience?
12. Line 209-210: Not sure what this statement means, would eliminate as noted above.
13. Discussion: I would highlight the finding that pain was increased with providers of
less experience. This finding is important for OB/GYN physicians  and education programs
worldwide
Title: Psychological well-being and Death anxiety among Breast Cancer Survivors during the
Covid-19 Pandemic: The mediating role of self-compassion
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Boshra A. Arnout
Reviewer's report:
I read the manuscript very carefully, and found the following:
1. Despite the importance of the objective of the study, the title is not consistent with the
statistical method applied, it was better to use structural equation modeling (SEM) by used Amos
or LISREL, to verify the mediating role and the direct and indirect effects between the study
variables, and therefore the statistical method used by the researcher did not achieve the goal
of the research.
2. I am also afraid that the age differences in the age of the sample from 18 to 65 may affect the
relationships between the study variables, and the researcher should have studied the effect of
these differences by dividing them into age groups and using the analysis of variance.
3. The demographic variables in Table 1 The researcher did not interested to study their impact
on the study variables, so why were they collected from the study sample?
4. It is necessary to study the effect of these variables in Table 1 on the study variables and the
mediating role of self-compassion.
With my best wishes
Title: Psychological well-being and Death anxiety among Breast Cancer Survivors during the
Covid-19 Pandemic: The mediating role of self-compassion
Version: 4 Date: 09 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
Authors addressed previous feedback well. Below are minor additional suggestions that can add
further clarity to the manuscript:
INTRODUCTION
-Participants, sentence 3, [first draft] it “Participants had mean age of and ranging between 18
and 65” the mean age is missing from the sentence. [second draft] "Participants ranged in age
from 18 to 65 on average" A range is not an average; the average age for participants should still
be reported in the sentence and my recommendation would be to keep the original sentence's
phrasing and include the mean age. However, if participants' ages were collected via selecting
an age group and not by providing a specific age, my recommendation would to then be to keep
the second draft's phrasing, but remove "on average" should from the sentence, as a range is
not an average.
METHOD
-Method, Participants, sentence 5, "whether" should be written before "the" to read "whether
the hypothesis..."
-Method, participants, sentence 5, "failed to reject" should be "failed to be rejected"
-For the DAS and example item is needed in the measure description
RESULTS
-Table 1, in the “demographic collection sheet” section it lists that “divorcee” was a marital status
listed, yet it is not listed in the Table—were there no participants that selected this category? If
this is the case, add a section for it and put 0 (0) for consistency.
-Results, last paragraph, ANOVA results in addition to the F statistic and p-value should also
include two degrees-of-freedom numbers to report. First report the between-groups degrees of
freedom, then report the within-groups degrees of freedom (separated by a comma). The write-
up should look like as follows (F(between-groups degrees of freedom, within-groups degrees
of freedom) = F-stat, p = p-value). [both "F" and "p" are in italics]. Example: F(34, 5) = 2.24,
p = .12).
DISCUSSION
-Discussion, paragraph 4, sentence 2, a period is missing between "body image (39, 47)" and "It"
-Discussion, paragraph 4, sentence 3 ("It may be inferred..."), this sentence uses she/her
pronouns, however this is the only time throughout the manuscript in which gender is introduced
as such. Therefore, for consistency, consider neutralizing the sentence by using "themselves"
instead of "herself" and "their" instead of "her" and "they" instead of "she." Since the subject
is "a breast cancer sufferer" the implication is that they could be of any gender, and since
the remainder of the paper uses gendered neutral language, the same application should be
considered here.
Title: Psychological well-being and Death anxiety among Breast Cancer Survivors during the
Covid-19 Pandemic: The mediating role of self-compassion
Version: 6 Date: 02 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Authors did a good job addressing previous feedback. Below are additional suggestions to help
further the manuscript:
INTRODUCTION
-Paragraph 4, sentence, 4, "in previous studies" is not needed, as "in studies" is already
referenced in the sentence; it is implied they were previously conducted.
-Paragraph 4, last sentence, add a period after "et al." before the comma
-Present research section, "Put the other way round, across current studies..." this part of the
sentence is not necessary to include. Consider removing it to keep the phrasing more concise
and scholarly toned.
METHODS
-Participants, add a space between "between18" to read "between 18"
-Procedure, add "the" before "corresponding author"
-Procedure, remove "been" before "received any psychological interventions"
-DAS subsection, end quotation marks are missing for the first sentence (with the last example
item)
DISCUSSION
-Sentence 1, rephrase to "Results in Table 4 indicate..."
-Paragraph 1, add a period to "al" in "Kearney et al" to read "Kearney et al."
-Paragraph 4, sentence 4, change "sufferers" to "sufferer" as the "a" before indicates it is
singular. In the case of gendered neutral language "themselves" can be considered singular, so
an additional "s" on "sufferer" is not necessary.
-Conclusion, change "had" to "has" in "The COVID-19 pandemic had triggered..."
Title: Psychological well-being and Death anxiety among Breast Cancer Survivors during the
Covid-19 Pandemic: The mediating role of self-compassion
Version: 7 Date: 16 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Authors addresses previous feedback well. Below are a few typographical related issues as well
as a question regarding the measures.
-Abstract, sentence 1, add space between “2019” and “(COVID-19)”
-What were the translation procedures for the measures that were translated from English to
Persian? Or did authors use scales that had already been translated? This should be clarified for
those translated scales.
-Results, Line 234-235, between and within subjects degrees of freedom are needed [similar to
how the results are reported in Line 209]
-Discussion, sentence 1, change “Results” to “the results” [then explain which results you are
referring to, based on the previous feedback it appears the results in question are in reference
to Table 4]
-Line 271 and 272 add space before the abbreviation written in parentheses
Title: Improving preoperative breast reconstruction consultations: a qualitative study on the
impact of personalised audio-recordings.
Version: 1 Date: 18 May 2021
Reviewer:  Shelley Potter
Reviewer's report:
This is a randomised qualitative study that aims to explore satisfaction with information in
women audiorecording their breast reconstruction discussion consultations and those receiving
standard care. This is an interesting study that suggests that audiorecordings are acceptable and
a potentially valuable resource for patients being given a large amount of complex information.
My main concern is that the interviews (according to the submitted topic guides) did not focus
on satisfaction with information (the stated primary outcome). The main focus of the interviews
seems to be the acceptability of audiorecording and its perceived value to those receiving them
and those not receiving them. As such the stated primary outcome is not addressed. As this
study is a qualitative study that is not powered for the stated primary outcome,  it would perhaps
be better to redraft the manuscript as a more exploratory study looking at the value of the
recordings rather than as currently stated 'satisfaction with information.'  The main conclusion
of the manuscript that the attitude to audiorecordings is positive.
In terms of other methodological issues, the RCT design is at high risk of bias due to the method
of randomisation (blindly choosing a labelled piece of paper from an envelope at the time of
their consultation).  I was also unconvinced about why a randomised design was needed as there
was no formal hypothesis testing.
Further information is needed about the sample size.  It is a very small study as is acceptable
for a qualitative study, but it is unclear whether patients were recruited until data saturation with
regard to themes was achieved or whether after a year, the study was stopped. Further details
are required.
I was also interested that the interviews took place prior to surgery when the patients were
potentially very anxious and not able to judge whether the information they had been provided
with was adequate as they had yet to have undergone surgery. Further details regarding the
rationale for this timing are required.
Overall, this is a valuable study that suggests a positive role for audiorecording complex
consultations that would benefit from further evaluation, but the manuscript would benefit from
being redrafted with an exploratory focus, justifying the RCT and potentially revising the stated
primary outcome as this does not reflect the work undertaken within this study.
Title: Improving preoperative breast reconstruction consultations: a qualitative study on the
impact of personalised audio-recordings.
Version: 1 Date: 15 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Well designed and well written study. The sample size is small but sufficient to answer the
question on whether it may be beneficial for patients to audio record their consultation with a
specialist. The findings may have implications in other fields than plastic surgery as well and
may give specialists the incentive and confidence to encourage their patients to record their
consultation.
Title: ‘As long as I have a restroom somewhere […], I am fine’: a qualitative study on the
perspectives of peri- and postmenopausal women on the impact of the urinary component
of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM) The impact of GSM-symptoms in
postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 12 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-crafted manuscript describing a thoroughly designed qualitative study. The topic
is important and has not been sufficiently investigated from the women's view. My only concern
is the language in which the surveys and focus groups were conducted. The study was conducted
by researchers from German and Swiss University/Institutions; the participants were recruited
online via Facebook. If survey responses and focus group opinions and experiences were
collected in German language at what point were they translated into English and who did the
translation? If responses and experiences were collected in English language this concern is
obsolete.
Title: ‘As long as I have a restroom somewhere […], I am fine’: a qualitative study on the
perspectives of peri- and postmenopausal women on the impact of the urinary component
of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM) The impact of GSM-symptoms in
postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 15 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript fills the knowledge gap on the impact of urinary symptoms in menopausal
women.  The online focus group is another method that is suitable during Covid-19 era.  The
only thing that I need more clarification is the inclusion criteria.  Why did the author include
only PMW who had both vaginal and urinary symptoms.  Another concern is in the result part of
sexual functioning because there were statements describing the impact of vaginal symptoms.
Therefore, I suggest the author might want to consider adjusting these statements.
Title: ‘As long as I have a restroom somewhere […], I am fine’: a qualitative study on the
perspectives of peri- and postmenopausal women on the impact of the urinary component
of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM) The impact of GSM-symptoms in
postmenopausal women
Version: 2 Date: 28 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The queries are sufficiently answered. The revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.
Title: ‘As long as I have a restroom somewhere […], I am fine’: a qualitative study on the
perspectives of peri- and postmenopausal women on the impact of the urinary component
of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM) The impact of GSM-symptoms in
postmenopausal women
Version: 2 Date: 03 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The author has already provided more information for the inclusion criteria; however, the result
part of sexual functioning has not been adjusted.
Nevertheless, the study is good enough to be published.
Title: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among
Young Females
Version: 1 Date: 22 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript addresses an important theoretical question and this is a timely and interesting
topic. One advantage of this study is the sample, which adds an important element of diversity
to the existing literature  and from online research pools. It is also worth noting that the data
was collected in face-to-face interviews, which adds methodological diversity in a field where
most data is collected via computer.
1- "Questionnaire Development and Structure"
I dont understand #f this questionnaire form has reliability and validy score? How they developed
this form, they should give more information with  referances.
2-In prevalance study probability weight should use as specifying the sampling design.
"The probability weight is calculated as N/n, where N = the number of elements in the population
and n = the number of elements in the sample. After corrections have been made on the data, all
calculations in the study have been made according to sampling weight."
They should use this sampling weight and after calculate all data again.
Title: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among
Young Females
Version: 2 Date: 09 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Ambigga Krishnapillai
Reviewer's report:
Dear author in future please quote the page number and paragraph number you have made the
amendments in the manuscript in the author response to reviewers.
Comments to author:
2. In terms of inclusion criteria, they refer to “and having menses during the past six month” this
criteria should be justified by including a bibliographic citation of previous studies on primary
dysmenorrhoea using the same criteria
Author Response: We have added a bibliographic citation of a previous relevant study using the
same inclusion/exclusion criteria, as follows: “The inclusion criteria consisted of under or post-
graduate university female students, aged between 18 to 30 years and having menses during the
past six months.
My comment: i disagree with the author response on point number 2
My suggestion: The inclusion criteria consisted of under or post-graduate university female
students, aged between 18 to 30 years and having menstrual pain at least once in the past
6 months with no pelvic pathology based on our study definition (quoted under operational
definitions in the manuscript)
Whereas the exclusion criteria consisted of females having any of the following conditions: [1]
pathological pelvic conditions including endometriosis, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease,
adenomyosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometrial fibroids/polyps or sexually transmitted
diseases; [2] history of pelvic or abdominal surgery; and [3] receiving anti-depressants or
anxiolytics since they modulate pain sensation (20).”
Reference 20 definition on primary dysmenorrhea inclusion criteria is unclear.
It is advisable to follow your own operational definitions mentioned in the manuscript.
Use reference 20 for exclusion criteria
I accept the other corrections done by the author
Title: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among
Young Females
Version: 2 Date: 25 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
I believe that this study is full of flaws.
Introduction:
1: Failing to cite previous research.
2: Failing to justify your research.
Methods:
1: Vague definition of dysmenorrhea.
2: Inadequate method of assessing the exposures and the outcomes.
3: High possibility of misclassification bias.
4: Several covariates were lacking
Title: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among
Young Females
Version: 2 Date: 18 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
1.Questionnaire Development and Structure : Apart from the scales and questionnaires which
author cited by references, other researcher made questionnaires which they mentioned they
made based on other relevant studies, need to be checked for validity and reliability of the
questionnaire by CVI.
2. in page 9 they wrote P-value<=0.05 which is incorrect.
3. Please rewrite the conclusion.
Title: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among
Young Females
Version: 4 Date: 29 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript provides important new data on dysmenorrhea in an under-studied population
of women. The manuscript is of strong quality. The authors have removed study results from
the discussion and have retained comparison data from other studies which is necessary for
interpreting their study results. These changes to the discussion are correct and appropriate. No
additional revisions are needed.
Title: Exploring education preferences of Australian women regarding long-term health after
hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a qualitative perspective
Version: 2 Date: 11 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
This article reports findings from an important and somewhat neglected area of women's health.
The article has been well written and highlights important implications for improving clinical
care for women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. A few suggestions for improving the
article are outlined below:
It would be useful for the reader if further detail was provided on the method of recruitment and
the sample of women who were invited to participate, rather than referring to another article to
source this information.
The qualitative approach taken in this study is appropriate and has been adequately described.
Line 139 could be revised to better describe the process of indexing data using the developing
framework, i.e. assigning data to a code or group of codes. It could also be beneficial if further
detail was provided to clarify whether all data was attended to in the initial coding process, how
iterative the process of developing the framework was, and how deviant data was dealt with or
data that did not fit the framework.
In the results section, it would be useful to include (if available) the ethnic background of the
sample, particularly as this has been raised as a weakness to the study with an opportunity for
future research. It could be useful to include a thematic map or a table to help illustrate the data or
add a sentence under each theme/category sub-heading to summarise the sub-themes included.
Could the authors please expand on sentence on line 181.
Title: Exploring education preferences of Australian women regarding long-term health after
hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a qualitative perspective
Version: 2 Date: 14 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
- Very interesting article that can definitively help those of us who are setting up postpartum
clinics for HDP women. Confirmation here of our general experience regarding items that matter
for women.
- Well written.
- 3900+ words: need to be shortened significantly
1. Introduction: Well written, pertinent information given in an appropriate sequence.
- First paragraph: I suggest removing definitions of HDP that are well defined and easily
retrievable as needed.
- Line 79: need a reference that women do not attend postpartum follow-up.
2. Methods:
- Line 120: a short recall on how participants from the first study (ref:23) were selected would
help understand better the population.
3. Findings:
- Line 165: understanding?
- Although very interesting to read the verbatim of participants, some quotes can be removed to
shorten the manuscript. Suggest removing those that can be summarized easily.
4. Discussion:
- Well organized discussion linking findings of the current study with the literature on similar
topics. However, could be shortened globally.
- Line 369-372, sentence not clear.
- I would remove lines 378-381. Not really helpful and repetitive.
- Limitations well recognized: Highly selected population of interested, well educated,
implicated women already well aware of HDP + very small sample (n=13) so selection bias very
important here. Not generalizable.
Title: Knowledge of Cervical Cancer Risk Factors among Palestinian Women: A National
Cross-sectional Study
Version: 0 Date: 29 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
In the manuscript, you report using validated questionnaire Cervical Cancer Awareness Measure
(CeCAM). However, looking at the CeCAM questionnaire, it contains questions not only on
risk factors, but also on warning signs and  screening/vaccination programmes.
While knowing the risk factors for cervical cancer indeed is important to prevent it, it is even
more important that women are aware that regular screening, and (for young girls) receiving the
human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, are the most effective ways to prevent cervical cancer.
Practical value of this manuscript would be much higher if the results of complete CeCAM
questionnaire were reported, including answers on symptoms and screening/vaccination
awareness.
As the sampling of participants was stratified convenience sampling, please explain the meaning
of calculating p-value in the table reporting the baseline characteristics of study participants.
The median age of total population in the Table 1 is 32 (24,42), while in the text, Results section,
line 6, it says 34.0 (24.0, 42.0).
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Title: Knowledge of Cervical Cancer Risk Factors among Palestinian Women: A National
Cross-sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
In my opinion your study has many limitations that have not been resolved by previous revision
(like not using all point of the Likerts scale, CeCAM questions, etc).
In addition, on the page 4, line 13 you have wrote "...the definite cause of CC is unknown",
which arises many question about fundamental understanding of the subject.
Main strength of the study is definitive large sample.
Hope you will conduct a new study on this large sample that will have less limitations.