JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Understanding the impact of endometriosis on women’s life: an integrative review of
systematic reviews
Version: 3 Date: 28 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written systematic review of reviews on the impact of endometriosis on quality of
life. However, I have included a few comments and areas for clarification for authors to address.
Abstract:
1. Methods: Please include the data sources searched in the abstract.
2. Methods: Please include elements about data extraction, synthesis, and appraisal.
3. Methods: Please indicate the population/topic of interest (for example, the impact of
endometriosis on quality of life in females with endometriosis)
4. The systematic review registration number should be included.
5. Please note any limitations.
Methods:
6. Please be consistent with the tense. There are two sentences in the Methods that should be
corrected… “Grey literature also will be searched” and “The search terms withing each domain
will include:” should reflect the past tense of what has already been done.
7. Please describe what data elements were extracted from each review.
8. Authors note that the AMSTAR tool was used for review appraisal. Please describe the scoring
for this tool.
Results:
9. What was the quality of each of the included reviews? This was not indicated in the Results
or in Table 1. This needs to be discussed and added to the Results.
10.  Relationship with healthcare: The second paragraph of this section needs to be supported
by citations.
Discussion and Conclusion:
11. Beginning with paragraph 4 (Chronic pelvic pain…), the rest of the Discussion needs to be
better supported with citations.
12. Authors note in the Discussion and Conclusion that positive coping mechanisms can improve
quality of life. However, this is not something that is discussed in the Results section nor is it
cited in the Discussion. Was this statement based on findings from the review? Please clarify this.
Limitations:
13. What about the appraisal of the reviews? Were they any limitations related to poor quality
of a review?
General:
14. In Table 1: The Meta-Analysis column is blank on row 3 (Barbara et al).
15. I am confused about how Figure 2 is depicting the major themes. There are a lot of elements
within this figure that do not reflect the relationship between the elements, like the relationship
with the healthcare system, the boxes listing intimate and sexual relationships, lack of control,
catastrophizaation, etc. There needs to be
Title: A study on improving cancer-related fatigue and disease-related psychological variables
in patients with cervical cancer based on online mindfulness-based stress reduction: a
randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I'm curious about the specific experience and qualifications of the person who led the MBSR
program, because program leaders are critical to the quality of the program.
I was wondering if the entire process of selecting participants, introducing them to the study,
conducting the program, and taking the survey was done exclusively online?
I think it's worth mentioning both of these in the Discussion section.
Title: A study on improving cancer-related fatigue and disease-related psychological variables
in patients with cervical cancer based on online mindfulness-based stress reduction: a
randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Iarlla Ferreira
Reviewer's report:
It is a pleasure to evaluate a study that aims to improve the quality of life of cancer patients by
developing an intervention that can be implemented in the care of these patients;
The study brings a gap in relevant knowledge that is worth further investigation;
However, I present some questions and suggestions to contribute to the study.
Title
- I suggest making clear in the title that it was worked with cervical cancer patients.
- There is no need for geographical location in the title.
- You can specify in the title only the main or primary outcome evaluated with the intervention,
so that it does not become so long.
Abstract
- The objective described is not the same as described in the introduction section (for the outcome
variables analyzed);
- The authors state that there were 102 participants and not 78, as understood in the results;
- In the method the authors mention only the analysis of variance of repeated measures, and the
t-test? And the Bonferroni test?
- Use the term gynecological tumor in the conclusion, but all work was cited only the expression
"cervical cancer".
Methods
- How was the routine nursing intervention received by the control group?
- How was the sample size estimated?
- How was the implementation of the intervention implemented?
- Who was involved in the implementation of the intervention?
- How did the data collection process take place? How and by whom were the instruments
applied? How many researchers were involved?
- Specify in which analyses the t-test was used and which repeated measures analysis of variance
was used.
- Suggest using the CONSORT to guide the writing of the Manuscript https://www.equator-
network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort/
Results
- It was not clear why the researchers considered a final sample of 102 participants if, in fact,
only 78 patients remained in the research until the end.
- Standardize concepts/terms used, such as "facing" and "Yield" with those used in the above
topics.
- The Bonferroni test is not mentioned in the statistical analysis section.
Discussion
- It is not necessary to repeat the data presented in the results, only to explain them through other
studies and to verify the generalization power of their data.
- As for the limitations presented, the authors do not mention in the manuscript the calculation
of the sample size used, as well as it is not clear to the reader the amount of researchers involved
in the data collection process and the application of the intervention analyzed in the intervention
and control group.
- Neither do the authors mention the study loss rate, and the impact of this on their results.
Title: Cervical cancer screening utilization and associated factors among women living with
HIV  in Ethiopia, 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 26 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Awoke Derbie
Reviewer's report:
This particular paper is done by respecting all the fixed rules for such a statistical study
and collecting work. Generating pooled data on the prevalence of cervical cancer screening
practice among HIV+ women seems to be important for tailored interventions. However, I
have witnessed a couple of limitations that should be addressed to enrich the MS. One of the
limitations could be the lack of study in some regions of Ethiopia but, in the totality of the
samples/articles collected, I think the results are sufficient to estimate the outcome of interest
at the national level. The other limitation part of the study is the included studies' publication
year. The authors claimed that they have included articles published in April 2024.  To have a
more precise estimate authors should also consider papers that have been published in the last
5-10 years.
Authors are advised to double-check their searching MeSH terms again in order not to
miss articles on the web. Moreover, Authors are also advised to double-check the MS for
topographical consistency.
Title: Cervical cancer screening utilization and associated factors among women living with
HIV  in Ethiopia, 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 02 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made a good attempt to synthesize evidence on utilization of cervical cancer
screening services among women living with HIV (WLHIV) in Ethiopia.
1. The methodology is sound  and in line with best practices.
2. However, the casting of the results and discussion sections could benefit from a complete
overhaul. I recommend that the authors engage the services of a proof reader (if english is
not their first language/and its not against journal policy) to correct the major deficiencies in
language and casting.
3. The authors should adhere to UNAIDS terminology when referring to people living with HIV
(I have attached the most recent UNAIDS dictionary for reference)
4. other comments and suggestions for edits are contained in the attached  word document (with
tracked changes)
Title: Cervical cancer screening utilization and associated factors among women living with
HIV  in Ethiopia, 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 04 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled “Cervical cancer screening utilization and associated factors among
HIV positive women in Ethiopia, 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis” is deemed to be
of high quality and interest.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest the
following recommendations:
- I suggest correcting a few typographical errors and revising the language.
- Recent evidence on state of the art in this field maybe improving discussion section about
prognosis and tailored management.  I suggest that the authors read and reference the following
article: “State of the art on HPV-related cervical lesions, Tullio Golia D’Augè, Ilaria Cuccu,
Andrea Etrusco, Antonio D’Amato, Antonio Simone Laganà, Ottavia D’Oria, Giorgio Bogani,
Violante Di Donato, Ludovico Muzii, Andrea Giannini, doi: 10.36129/jog.2024.16. “
- Authors should discuss the potential impact of anti-HPV vaccination correlated the findings
presented in this study, considering the complex management of HPV-related lower genital tract
lesions and possible outcomes related. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point,
referring to PMID: 37978580
Considering these minor revisions and after improving these points, the manuscript could have
the priority to be published.
Title: Cervical cancer screening utilization and associated factors among women living with
HIV  in Ethiopia, 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 17 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Sahabi Kabir Sulaiman
Reviewer's report:
There’s a gap in the literature search strategies you provided as a supplement, which implies
the possibility of missing out on some studies. Please, consider consulting someone with more
experience in case of future reviews.
Since the authors indicated they used AI software to prepare the text, let them include this in the
acknowledgment section that they employed AI assistance.
Consider citing a reference supporting the use of “adjusted data” for meta-analysis of
determinants.
There is no evidence in your work to suggest you employed Egger’s test (more appropriate
for meta-analysis involving a small number of studies like yours, 12) to check for potential
publication bias as Egger’s graph is not available in your manuscript.  You should even employ
the LFK index analysis to check for this.
The authors also wrote: “The authors assessed the potential for publication bias in the included
studies using Egger's [25] and Begg's [26]statistical tests and used a funnel plot.” Please, what
is the difference between Begg’s test and the Funnel plot?
References 28 and 29 below, which you cited for your saying “A meta-analysis of cervical cancer
screening was performed using the random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) method to adjust
for the determined variability” are not the actual references for this sentence as you can see.
Please, cite the source.
28. McFarland, L.V., Meta-analysis of probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic associated
diarrhea and the treatment of Clostridium difficile disease. Am J Gastroenterol, 2006. 101(4):
p. 812-22.
29.       Teshome, H.M., et al., The Prevalence of Depression among Diabetic Patients in Ethiopia:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 2018. Depress Res Treat, 2018. 2018: p. 6135460.
Please, create a new column in Table 3 and indicate the number of studies used for meta-analysis
of each determinant.
Please, explain to your reader how/what you used to calculate the “SE in MS Excel” for the
studies that did not “delineate the SE”.
Uner “Measurement of the outcome of interest”, please, explain how you analyzed determinants.
How can 12 studies be said to be a “substantial number of studies” as you wrote in your Analysis
sub-section?
Looking forward to reading the revised version of this manuscript
Title: Cervical cancer screening utilization and associated factors among women living with
HIV  in Ethiopia, 2024: systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 05 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Sahabi Kabir Sulaiman
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the effort.  I can see that the manuscript has now improved more in this
revision. I have no further concerns to raise.
Looking forward to see this published.
Title: Factors Associated with Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
in Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 07 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Kehinde S Okunade
Reviewer's report:
1. This is a well-written manuscript addressing an important public health problem, cervical
cancer, in Ghana by examining the determinants of cervical cancer screening among women of
reproductive age in Ghana using a nationally representative dataset from the GDHS. The authors
demonstrated a good understanding of the topic by clearly elucidating all the critical aspects of
the topic in the paper.
2. The authors should, however, clearly state the study design as a secondary analysis of an
existing dataset derived from the GDHS.
3. The statistical analysis component appears too simplistic without sufficient details to allow
for replication. The authors should indicate how variables that were included in the multivariate
analysis were selected from the bivariate results. Furthermore, it should be added that statistical
significance was reported at 95% CI as your results indicate, but this should appear first in the
statistics.
4. The effect estimates reported in the results should be OR and 95%CI and not OR and p-value.
This should be changed in the abstract section also.
Title: Factors Associated with Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
in Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 06 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Marjan Mardani-Hamooleh
Reviewer's report:
The topic should be changed as follows:
Factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women of reproductive age in Ghana
In the abstract, the method section is very brief. Specify the study design.
The application of the Health Belief Model in this study is not clear. Cervical cancer has been
mentioned in the topic. In the introduction also mentions breast cancer!
Many old references are used in the introduction. Use the references of the last 5 years. In the
introduction, the necessity of doing the work is not clear. In the introduction, you wrote more
about statistics.
In the method section, first specify the study design.
The measures part is very vague.
In general, the method section needs a deep revision.
You used a lot of old references in the discussion.
The manuscript is not written according to the journal format.
Title: Factors Associated with Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
in Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 06 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Method
Please specify inclusion and exclusion criteria
Statistical method
Since this is survey data with complex sampling method, what weighting method was used?
Result
Please include overall number of participants included and overall rate of Screening for cervical
cancer (weighted calculation).
“Bivariate Analysis”
This is not exactly Bivariate, please change it to “univariate logistic regression analyses”
throughout the paper.
For those results, please specify which reference was compared to:
For example “Attainment of secondary education (OR=1.347, p<0.05) compared to no
education,”
Also in Table 2, please add “Reference=” for the readers: Education (Reference=No education)
Please revise Table 2. Title to something more specific like “Univariate logistic regressions
predicting cervical cancer screening among women in Ghana”
“less associated” is not appropriate wording, please revise to “negatively associated”
“Multivariate Analysis”
the analysis done was multivariable analysis instead of multivariate analysis, two of them are
fundamentally different, if authors are not clear about these terms, please refer to this article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518362/
Please change to “multivariable logistic regression analyses” throughout the paper.
Similarly revise the reference level and “less associated” and title of table 3.
Please specify how was the multivariable logistic regression constructed? Was it just included
all predictors in table 2? Should remove those predictors that are not significant in final model
and rerun without them.
Misc: font size is not uniform in some of the paragraphs.
Title: Factors Associated with Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
in Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors
This study investigates the factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women of
reproductive age in Ghana. Using the data from the 2022 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey
(GDHS), the authors employ logistic regression models to evaluate various socio-demographic,
economic, health-related, and geographical determinants influencing cervical cancer screening
uptake. The study found significant associations between higher educational attainment, wealth,
marital status, health insurance coverage, health facility visits, media exposure, and ethnic and
religious backgrounds with increased likelihood of cervical cancer screening. The manuscript
addresses an important public health issue in Ghana and other Sub-Saharan African countries
where cervical cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. The
use of nationally representative data and robust statistical methods strengthens the credibility
and relevance of the findings. The study provides valuable insights that can inform policy
and intervention strategies aimed at improving cervical cancer screening rates in Ghana. Even
though, the manuscript has been written well and in the scope of the journal, there are some points
that should be addressed before acceptance in order to improve the quality and transparency of
the manuscript.
Please try to include more recent statistics and trends in the introduction.
It would be helpful if you would include information on how missing data were handled and
any sensitivity analyses conducted.
Please provide information on how you distribute patients according to their wealth level?
While the study acknowledges certain limitations, a more detailed discussion on the potential
biases and limitations of the cross-sectional design, such as recall bias and social desirability
bias, would be beneficial.
I would suggest providing more context on the current state of cervical cancer screening
programs in Ghana.
Title: Factors Associated with Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
in Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Nicolae Gic#
Reviewer's report:
Dear author’s
I was pleased to review your article entitled “ Correlates of Cervical Cancer Screening Among
Women of Reproductive Age in Ghana” and i have the following comment’s:
- first of all it is clear that the deficient screening for CC in reproductive age  has similarities
with the screening in all women population in this region.
- the study involved a lot of data but is not clear how this data was obtained. Please explain.
- there are some new info that your research brings to the existing literature.
- from medical point of view do you have some recommendations?
- you describe a lot of demographical data. It is not necessary to extensively describe this
information
- the aim of your study is not clear. Please explain
- it is mandatory to highlight the study limitation.
- English and punctuation edits
Title: Vaginal Natural Orifice Transvaginal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) for Benign Ovarian
Cysts is Safe and Feasible in Same-Day Discharge: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
- Correct the title
- The type of study is in the title of the article
- Modify the abstract: in the introduction, you should write a sentence about the importance of
the written topic, then the goal
- In the working method section, you must write in detail how to conduct the study
- You should write the statistics in Taj, it is not mentioned well here
- To be written in the conclusion of the application
- Match keywords with mesh
- In the introduction, write the necessity of the study
- Use the updated epidemiology in 2023 and 2024
-Describe the sampling method in the study method
- Entry and exit criteria should be written
- How to implement should be written more precisely
- Refine data collection
- In the results, you must proceed according to the goals
- Explain the analysis
- At the beginning of the discussion, write the importance of the topic
- The researcher's opinion should be written for all sections
- Compare with similar and contradictory studies
- Weaknesses should be written
- Write the limits
- Uses of the study should be written
- Conclude with comments
Title: Vaginal Natural Orifice Transvaginal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) for Benign Ovarian
Cysts is Safe and Feasible in Same-Day Discharge: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you for this opportunity to review study entitled “Vaginal Natural Orifice
Transvaginal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) for Benign Ovarian Cysts is Safe and Feasible in
Same-Day Discharge: A Retrospective Cohort Study Based on Propensity Score Matching”
Here is my concern and questions:
Abstract:
Method:
Please provide method section in more detail. What is the type of study? Was this study
retrospective/ prospective matched controlled? 93 should be (n=93) and 120 should be (n=120).
How data was collected? Was data gathered from electronic file of patients? how about
postoperatively data? Were patients visited in the clinic? Or data were collected from electronic
file?
What was the outcome/ or calculated variables?
“Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed to limit confounding” what was the
confounding variables?
Why these test were used in the study? Why was not calculated odd ratio?
Methods:
“Before the surgery, each patient was informed of the surgical risks (i.e., bladder, ureter, and
rectum injuries) and benefits, and then signed written informed consent” by whom? Research
team?
Given that this study was retrospective, so this sentences cannot be correct” The exclusion
criteria were as follows:(1) history of rectal surgery, suspected of rectovaginal septum
endometriosis, tumors, or severe adhesions;(2) virgin;(3) pregnant women.” All these patients
were selected to not include in the study, not exclude from the study.
What was the study type?
Was this study matched case control study? If yes, how matching was done?
What was the sample size formula?
What is the primary/ secondary outcomes of this study?
Statistical analysis:
“Continuous variables are expressed as means and standard deviations and analyzed using the
Student’s t-test, the corrected Student’s t-test, one-way ANOVA, or a nonparametric test”
What does mean by “the corrected Student’s t-test”
Why non-parametric test was used?
“and postoperative 6-h pain score was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression.” Why this test
was used? Why repeated tests was not used?
“Covariates were selected according to the variables in the univariate analysis and factors
reported in previous studies that would affect the dependent variable” What were covariates
variables?
“Propensity-score matching was performed to limit confounding, and independent sample t-tests
or Pearson’s chi-squared tests were used to compare outcomes of interest between the matched
groups.” How? Please explain in more detail.
Tables 1 & 2: what testes were used?
What are tables 4 & 5? In statistical section there is no explain about them.