JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Third delay and associated factors among women who gave birth at public health facilities
of Gurage zone, southern Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 30 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comment on topic:
• Avoid “: a cross-sectional study’
• Was “laboring mother” an ideal target population? How did you see interviewing a woman in
labour? How long was the overall times to complete a questionnaire? I can see a possibility of
repeated interruption now and then. In addition,
• As there are parturient yet to be mothers, “women” may be inclusive than “mothers”
Abstract:
• Background: The time between the onset of an obstetric emergency and definitive care is
critical for the survival of the mother and her baby. However, there is scarce evidence which
indicate the delay level and what factors contribute to delay in receiving care once pregnant
mothers reached the health facility in the study area. This should be the summary of the research
gap that the author relied on to conduct the study……In my option, third delay is a key indicator
for quality of care, mainly the intrapartum phase as this study was focus on labor. I suggest the
author to see the core reason that motivates to conduct the study and explain it briefly with its
implications. No need of putting the objective
• Method: add ‘A facility based’
• Conclusion: The magnitude of the third delay in the study area was comparable with most
Ethiopian studies, but it was higher when compared with other countries. ---I suggest to conclude
given similar context within low income countries frame
Introduction:
• What is the research gap that necessitates the conduct of this study? I cannot see the author
did not address  key points such as the magnitude
Title: Third delay and associated factors among women who gave birth at public health facilities
of Gurage zone, southern Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer:  Abera Mersha
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
Please critically address the below stated comments and suggestion before re-submitting the
revised version to make it more readable and to be considered for publication.
1. This study was conducted three years back.  There is current evidence related with the third
delay and factors affecting in Ethiopia. So, your justification is not convincing.
2. The introduction section is not well organized and there is a problem in follow idea.
3.  In the method section, the study population is not clearly stated and there is re-redundancy
of ideas.
4. How you see this statement: “All postnatal women who visited a public health facility for
delivery services were included in the study” Have you involved mothers who delivered at home
or on the way to health facility and come for postnatal care?
5. Some statements in the sampling procedure section is confusing. Better if you re-write and
incorporate the schematic presentation.
6. How you measure the outcome variable, by only using one question? Is that valid? How you
see the bias or recall bias issue?
7. The data collection method part is not coherently stated. What is the source for the tool?  Please
elaborate and clearly stated the data collection procedure starting from preliminary session (in
logical sequence. How you collect, when and where the data collectors interviewed the women?
The validity and reliability of this study is under caution.  Data quality control??
8. Elaborate the data processing and analysis section. Some important information is missed.
9. You collected both individual and cluster (institutional) level variables, and you stated
differently in the result section. That is good. But I am in doubt regarding the model. How
imputed (treated) those variables in the model? This is very critical and needs justification. The
variables in the model are few. In addition, even the model is not correct. Please, critically cross-
check the results (COR, AOR, model fitness).
10. The discussion section is haphazard. Please take time and start the discussion section by
introducing the problem and your justification in three or four sentences in one paragraph,
critically interpret your finding (compare with other findings and state theory or evidence-
based reasons or justification for the discrepancies), state the theoretical applicability, and put
direction. In the last section of the discussion, summarize your study findings, put the public
health importance of this study, and state strength and limitation of this study.
11. The conclusion and recommendation section needs revision (Please put the key message of
your study, include ideas about the contribution or input of this study for the existing knowledge,
and state the validity and originality of this study). Consequently, the recommendation must be
focused and in line with your findings.
12. In general, the document is full of typo errors. So, must be critically copy edited before
submitting the revised version.
Title: To disclose or not to disclose: an ethnographic exploration of factors contributing to the
(non) disclosure of Ghanaian women’s breast cancer diagnosis to social networks
Version: 1 Date: 01 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
I think it is a very insightful article which allows readers to get a closer look at the community
in Ghana. It has eloquently summarised the barriers to disclosure of diagnosis which is unique
to their community. These observations can be used to formulate strategies to encourage the
patients to embrace the diagnosis of breast cancer and more importantly present at an earlier
stage for effective treatment. So  maybe the author can share with us in the discussion, more
suggestions on these strategies which can potentially be applicable in Ghana.
Title: To disclose or not to disclose: an ethnographic exploration of factors contributing to the
(non) disclosure of Ghanaian women’s breast cancer diagnosis to social networks
Version: 1 Date: 04 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. The title of manuscript is confusing , i think this should be rephrased to reflect where research
Is being conducted
2. I suggest a clarification of what is meant by social network.
Immediate family , distant family , family friends , work mates?
This is because we in Africa have  a different social structure
3. Would like more comparison to studies done In different continents and  other parts of  of
Africa
4. Did not read any relation to educational background or marital status , how did this influence
responses or List as limitation
5. Brings out the sociocultural dilemma in Africa , all the same make suggestions how we can
overcome them at policy  level ?
6. Would like to a local researcher as a coauthor of this document , the first author may have
lost cultural as she even  discusses herself
Overall an important document which will be impactful to policy members
Title: KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE, AND ASSOCIATED FACTOR TOWARDS CERVICAL
CANCER PREVENTION AMONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL FEMALE
TEACHERS IN GONDAR TOWN, NORTH WEST ETHIOPIA, 2022
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Most of the statements written in the manuscript are unclear. Please try to rewrite it. It is too
difficult to understand because of its grammatical error. It needs English language copyediting.
Title: KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE, AND ASSOCIATED FACTOR TOWARDS CERVICAL
CANCER PREVENTION AMONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL FEMALE
TEACHERS IN GONDAR TOWN, NORTH WEST ETHIOPIA, 2022
Version: 1 Date: 11 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Title: knowledge, attitude, and associated factor towards cervical cancer prevention among
primary and secondary school female teachers in Gondar town, north west Ethiopia, 2022
Comments for authors
Introduction:
You need to include the risk factors, diagnostic and prevention methods of cervical cancer
Does not show the gap and why you interested to conduct this study among school teachers?
Methods and materials
Sample size
How did you get your study participants? Did you utilize  sampling frame? Why you needed
to use stratification?
Data collection tools and procedure:
You need to include the data collectors under data collection tools and procedure.
Under data quality section you stated cronbach apha for non-likert scale questions that is for
knowledge. Cronbach alpha is only done for likert scale questions to assess internal consistence
of the data. Does it appropriate for this case?
Results:
Well written but needs editorial correction and adding percentage with numbers.
Discussion:
Lacks coherence and some justifications are not clear re-write.
Limitation
I am not clear with the justification you put for the reason why you did not conduct the qualitative
study. Do you believe that incorporate the qualitative data in your study was important? What
other limitation does this research may have?
What is the strength of your study?
Title: KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE, AND ASSOCIATED FACTOR TOWARDS CERVICAL
CANCER PREVENTION AMONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL FEMALE
TEACHERS IN GONDAR TOWN, NORTH WEST ETHIOPIA, 2022
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Title: KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE, AND ASSOCIATED FACTOR TOWARDS CERVICAL
CANCER PREVENTION AMONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL FEMALE
TEACHERS IN GONDAR TOWN, NORTH WEST ETHIOPIA, 2022 Journal: BMC Women's
Health Authors: Birtukan Atena Negash1 *, Netsanet Habtie Bayu1 and Ashenafi Worku
Woretaw1 1Department of Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing, College of Medicine and Health
Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Report on the revised manuscript
The authors tried to address all the comments forwarded. The manuscript is well edited and
some very important concerns have been addressed. I personally recommend that this work is
potentially publishable after some English language edition.
Title: Retrospective study of pathogens involved in vaginitis among Chinese Women
Version: 0 Date: 06 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted a retrospective analysis and epidemiological survey of vaginal infections
in women in Yunnan, China#which is meaningful but less innovating. Moreover, I still have
some concerns. Here are my comments below.
1.Why do you choose the patients from 2013 which seems too far away from nowadays?
2.This article is only a simple epidemiological investigation and  the clinical implications of the
results are not addressed in the discussion part.
3.As mentioned in  line 61“The occurrence of vaginitis during pregnancy could adversely affect
the perinatal outcome ”#and the patients included were from early years, why not perform a
screening summary of patients with pregnancy outcomes .
4. In addition, as I know, Yunnan is an unevenly developed and ethnically diverse province, is
it possible to compare patients of different economic levels and different ethnic groups in detail.
Title: Retrospective study of pathogens involved in vaginitis among Chinese Women
Version: 0 Date: 09 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Hamid Ali Khan
Reviewer's report:
Comments on the manuscript
This is an interesting manuscript that describes the prevalence of vaginitis among Chinese
females; however, the following comments should be addressed prior to its publication.
• Title may be revised and the suggested title is “Retrospective based study of pathogens involved
in vaginitis among Chinese Women”.
• In Figure#1: The y-axis should be properly labeled.
• Articles published during the last five years may be cited as most of the references are old.
• Inclusion criteria are not clearly defined so does this means all the women/females were
included that are not mentioned in the exclusion criteria i.e.
Pregnant
Lactating,
Menstruating /menopausal
Women with hysterectomies etc.
• Subheading “study design and patients should be replaced with study design and population.
• Latest version of SPPS may be used for statistical analysis.
• A list of abbreviations is mentioned in the result section (Line# 161 and 162) which should be
removed as these abbreviations are already mentioned in the previous sections.
• Discussion needs revision and the authors should compare their findings with the findings of
others with logical reasoning.
• Table#1 is comprised of results representing three different aspects, i.e. age, inflammation, and
diagnosis, it is suggested to split the results. Two aspects can be represented in tables while one
aspect can be represented graphically. Moreover, the results shown in percentages must have
a % sign.
• Conclusion needs revision as to how authors can say that all women in China might (might
show uncertainty) have dysfunctional microecology as their study is based on 15,601 females
while the female population of China is around 689.69 million (2022) thus the sample size
represents 0.0022% of the whole female population which can’t be generalized.
• The language of the manuscript is very poor and has a lot of grammatical mistakes. It is
strongly recommended that the entire manuscript should be thoroughly checked for grammatical
mistakes.
Title: Retrospective study of pathogens involved in vaginitis among Chinese Women
Version: 0 Date: 11 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Ankit Shroff
Reviewer's report:
The authors' Pan et al., have submitted an original research manuscript entitled Pathogens of
vaginitis among 15,601 women in Chinese: a hospital-based study. In this manuscript, they have
described the occurrence and pathophysiological characteristics of patients with vaginitis and the
distribution of the disease occurrence. The study is retrospective and has significant challenges
that need to be overcome before getting accepted. Some of the major comments are:
The statement on lines 31 and 32 about the infection prevalence rate is currently confounding.
It could be revised to describe the results better.
On lines 47 to 49, the risk factors for vaginitis could be mentioned in general. For example, the
phrase "no use of condoms" could be replaced with "lower contraceptive use".
In the Results section on line 143, the authors state that the gynecologic outpatients had abnormal
vaginal microecology. However, no such definition of what constitutes an abnormal vaginal
microecology has been defined in the material or methods.
The authors state that the differences in the age distribution of mixed infection were statistically
significant. However, Table 1 doesn't have any data about eh age-wise distribution of the mixed
infection cases. Also, the significant difference between the single infection cases is not very
evident from the table. It would be helpful if the authors included a graphical representation of
the data or indicated the pair-wise difference between the different age groups.
In cases of degree II inflammation, the authors have described only single infection cases
whereas the majority of the cases were of no infections. The authors need to state both and also
mention their interpretation and conclusion of these results.
In the description for degree III - IV inflammation, the authors describe some results without
infection and also the overall degree III and IV inflammations. Since there is no correlation
between them, the authors could instead describe the results with no infection and infection types
in each degree of inflammation individually.
In Figure 1, the authors have not incorporated the same numbers as in the table. It would be
helpful to include the same numbers and indicate significance in the graph.
Title: Retrospective study of pathogens involved in vaginitis among Chinese Women
Version: 1 Date: 28 May 2023
Reviewer:  Hamid Ali Khan
Reviewer's report:
The changes I suggested for improvement of the manuscript are properly incorporated and I feel
that the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Moreover,  the title has been modified as
suggested in the report but the numbers (15601) are still there in the modified title mentioned
in the revised manuscript which should be removed.
Title: Retrospective study of pathogens involved in vaginitis among Chinese Women
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Ankit Shroff
Reviewer's report:
The authors' Pan et al. submitted a revised manuscript entitled Retrospective study of pathogens
involved in vaginitis among 15,601 Chinese Women. The authors have done a good job of
revising the manuscript as per the various suggestions of the reviewers. However, the authors
could revise it further to make it more scientifically robust:
For the results from Table 1, which are also depicted in Figure 1, the authors could describe them
concerning the inflammation grade. For instance, people with no infection demonstrated grade
II inflammation, while those with single and mixed infections demonstrated grade III and grade
IV infections respectively. The authors could also cite similar analyses from other populations
to show if their result is unique for Chinese women or is in coherence with data from women
across the world.
The authors' discussion about vaginal inflammation and the point that they are trying to make
with their data in the context of pathogen invasion and glycogen utilization is not clear. The
authors should clarify this.
The authors have not clearly defined the novelty or relevance of their findings in context with
already known literature to warrant improvements in how vaginal infections are managed.
Title: Prognostic value of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with vulvar squamous
carcinoma: findings based on the SEER database
Version: 1 Date: 22 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study evaluated prognostic impact of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with vulvar
cancer.  Using the SEER database, the authors analyzed a large number of patients, which is one
merit of this study. However, there are major limitations which should be resolved.
1) The problem of surgical extent
In the SEER database, there are some variables related to the extent of surgical resection:
from biopsy only to radical resection. If the authors try to focus on the role of postoperative
radiotherapy, they should analyze patients who underwent surgical resection of sufficient extent.
However, the information of eligibility criteria was not clearly stated in the original manuscript:
no information of surgical extent, too. They should explore some related variables, and the final
study population should be limited to those treated with sufficient surgical resection.
2) The problem of distant metastasis
If some patients are diagnosed with distant metastasis, systemic chemotherapy is the most
important treatment strategy. Surgical resection with our without postoperative radiotherapy is
usually considered in non-metastatic locally advanced disease status. The authors should exclude
patients with M1 stage and/or "Distant" status according to the SEER stage classification. I think
the role of surgery and/or postoperative radiotherapy in M1 patients may be another research
topic.
3) The need of a flow chart
Regarding the use of population-based database, the definition of final study population should
be clearly stated with an optimal flow chart.
I think an additional review process is possible after the manuscript is appropriately revised
considering the above points of view.
Title: Prognostic value of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with vulvar squamous
carcinoma: findings based on the SEER database
Version: 1 Date: 03 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Prognostic value of postoperative radiotherapy
in patients with vulvar squamous carcinoma: findings based on the SEER database" 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.
-The whole text should be corrected by a native English speaker in order to make the work
clearer and more readable. Typos errors must be corrected.
-Methodology is not accurately reported. It would be interesting if the authors reported additional
information  (for example  what you mean by "large tumor diameter"? What surgical approach
was used? How many patients had positive resection margins?).
-Although it is a retrospective analysis, inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by
extending their description. I think that patients with distant metastases should be excluded from
the study because the gold standard in this group is systemic chemotherapy.
- A flow chart about the criteria used for the selection of the sample analysed would be
interesting.
- Discussions can be expanded and improved by citing relevant articles (I suggest authors to
read and insert in references the following article PMID: 33306289; 34962334).
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: Prognostic value of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with vulvar squamous
carcinoma: findings based on the SEER database
Version: 1 Date: 09 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
I really enjoyed reading this manuscript analyzing the SEER database. Adjuvant radiotherapy is
still a controversial topic and since vulvar cancer is a rare disease retrospecitve cohorts are the
most important data sources to generate hypothesis.
The authors performed a well designed analyses using a PSM approach to reduce selection bias.
I just have a few comments:
Abstract: Fine
Introduction: Fine
Methods: Why did the authors not include age as a matching factor? Especially, regarding
survival analyses it might make sense to include age even though not significant in multivariate
analysis.
Did the authors match each patient only once? Since they were 401 pairs in the end, the authors
should write how they matched in detail and why they decided for their approach.
Results:
Do the authors have any information on kind of radiotherapy ?
Do the authors have any information on recurrences? It would be very interesting to know
whether it was a local, groin or distant recurrence.
I would appreciate seeing a few more survival curves from the matched cohorts. At least it should
be included as supplementary data. The authors should include graphs on nodal status ad stage.
The authors should more focus on the role of radiotherapy depending on lymph node
involvement. Is it useful to perform radiotherapy in patients with one metastatic LN (compare
to CaRE 1).
discussion:
The authors should discuss in more detail how their results may be implemented in the clinic.
should we change management. Which patients should be selected for raditiation therapy?
Lines 190 -197: Please revise the usage of the word radiotherapy. When do the authors really
mean radiotherapy and when  do they intend to write chemoradiation?
Title: Prognostic value of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with vulvar squamous
carcinoma: findings based on the SEER database
Version: 5 Date: 11 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
In my honest opinion, the authors have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers’ criticisms.
The manuscript is well written and falls within the aim of this Journal.