JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Infertility Treatments and Risk of Breast Benign Diseases: a Case#Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 15 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the researchers evaluated the relationship between infertility treatments and the
risk of breast benign disease. It is a case-control study, and the authors claim it is the first study
on this topic. This issue is a topic of debate among clinicians and most doctors and patients are
worried about that.
Comments
Although the authors mentioned it is the first study on this topic, I think you should explain
similar studies like malignant breast disease and the relationship with infertility treatment in the
introduction section.
Comment2
Methods:
The methods must be explained in detail. The inclusion criteria need to be mentioned accurately,
the age limitation, BMI, and infertility cause should also be added. Additionally, explain how
much drug you started with and add the drug dosage and the brand of the drug that was used. In
my opinion, write the method systemically from the start of the protocol of ART or I/O to the
time patients are sent to the Breast Clinic.
Comment3:
Results:
In Table 1, Are Amenorrhea/Oligomenorrhea, Menorrhagia/Metrorrhagia different from
irregular menstruation? All of these types mentioned above are the same and there is no need
to be mentioned separately.
Why did the infertile women use the OCP? If you mean the use of estradiol or progesterone in
the treatment of infertility, you must mention all the drugs used in the cycle protocol (kind of
drug, dosage, and so on).
I think all the tables on Exogenous Hormone Therapy History are confusing and need to be
clarified or explained in the text.
If you want to assess the impact of infertility treatment on breast benign disease, you must
explain the total number of drugs used and the kind of drugs. I think the results do not follow the
aim of the study and there is too much explanation on the relationship between the characteristics
of patients and the risk of breast benign disease.
In Table 1, it is better to write the male cause instead of the non-female cause. What are the
non-hormonal causes?
In Table 2, the history of previous infertility is the inclusion criteria, in the methods section, it
is explained that all the patients with one or more treatments are included in the study.
Also, does the ART in this table mean both ICSI and IVF?
You do not have any explanation about the IUI in this table.
In the discussion section,
Please write the strengths and limitations of the study clearly.
Title: Infertility Treatments and Risk of Breast Benign Diseases: a Case#Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 12 May 2024
Reviewer:  Malihe Mahmoudinia
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much to the respected authors who answered very thoroughly. Most of the
mistakes in the article have been corrected, but there are still some trivial errors that need
correction.
Firstly, write the full name of COH in the methods section.
Secondly, in the research paper it is mentioned that “In OI cycles, the treatment may include
a single injection of FSH to stimulate the development of ovarian follicles.” However, you did
not give the same dosage of the drugs for all the patients and the dosage is different based on
their ages, BMI, previous response, and reserve test.
Finally, you should clarify this sentence: “Once ovulation is confirmed, either through an LH
surge test or by detecting a dominant follicle via ultrasound, a subsequent injection of HCG is
administered.”
You administered HCG for ovulation, so, you should write when the diameter of the follicle
reached 18 mm, 5000 HCG injected.
I emphasize again that the dosage of the drugs is very important, and it would be better to
mention the total dosage of them. The explanations of the authors in the limitations section seem
reasonable, anyway.
Title: Infertility Treatments and Risk of Breast Benign Diseases: a Case#Control Study
Version: 4 Date: 12 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a case control study regarding the association between benign breast disease and previous
ovarian stimulation in fertility treatment. The manuscript was well written; however, the study
design needs to be clarified.
Introduction
Well written
Material and methods
Figure 1
I wonder whether it was a case-control or retrospective cohort study. Figure 1 is a description of
retrospective cohort style, not case-control. If it was a case control study, the study was initiated
by identifying the case (BBD) and non-diseased (control) first. Then in each group, different
fertility treatment  were identified. Therefore, regarding Figure 1, it was a retrospective cohort,
which started at intervention and looked for the results.
In the text, the method described is exactly the same as the case-control study, so please modify
Figure 1.
Data Collection and Reporting
“ took 6 mg/day of oral Estradiol Valerate (EV)” Please put the manufacturer and country details
in.
“Progesterone injections or vaginal suppositories were initiated” Were there any specific
medication used? Please list all the medications used and manufacturers, as progestins were
associated with breast cancer. Different routes of administration may have different effects on
breast disease. For example, some vaginal progesterone has low serum level, however, other
vaginal progestins have higher serum levels. Different serum levels may affect the results.
“of OCPs pre-treatment” There are similar questions as progesterone. As OCP has different
combinations of progestin which was suggested to be associated with breast diseases. Could you
please specify the OCP used?
Discussion
Well written
Please add contents associated with the points I listed above as well.
Title: Infertility Treatments and Risk of Breast Benign Diseases: a Case#Control Study
Version: 6 Date: 24 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I carefully evaluated the revised version of this manuscript.
The authors have performed the required changes, improving significantly the quality of the
paper.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further concerns.
Title: Incidence and Risk Factors of Pain Following Breast Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective
National Inpatient Sample Database Study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting topic about postoperative pain after breast surgery.
Ensure that you clearly indicate the time frame of the post-operative pain being examined.
Whether it's immediate (within the first 24 hours), short-term (within the first week), or long-
term (weeks to months after surgery), this information is critical for understanding the patient's
pain trajectory and the efficacy of pain control measures implemented.
Title: Incidence and Risk Factors of Pain Following Breast Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective
National Inpatient Sample Database Study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Gustavo Nascimento Silva
Reviewer's report:
Dear Researcher;
I’m pleased to have the opportunity to review your manuscript.. Please find my comments below.
• Overall, the article is well-written, featuring pertinent content and up-to-date information. It
would be beneficial to refresh some of the references, ideally with those from the past five years.
• It is important to include the study design in abstract.
• In the introduction, detailing the physiopathology and immunomodulatory pathways of
breast cancer, including the specific afferent pathways and fibers involved, would enhance the
robustness of your article.
• I’d like to request that you include an assessment of environmental risk factors, habits as
smoking and sedentary lifestyle in your report. Has this data been assessed?
• The tables and graphs are plentiful, leading to an overload of information. It would be beneficial
to condense the table content to key summarized data for easier reading.
• In the discussion section, present the main results sequentially and discuss their implications.
Avoid repeating the epidemiological and theoretical review of the data already covered in the
introduction.
• In the discussion section, present the main results sequentially and discuss their implications.
Avoid repeating the epidemiological and theoretical review of the data already covered in the
introduction.
• English review is necessary.
• Thank you for addressing a relevant topic !
Title: Incidence and Risk Factors of Pain Following Breast Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective
National Inpatient Sample Database Study
Version: 3 Date: 27 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Gustavo Nascimento Silva
Reviewer's report:
Esteemed researcher;
Following thorough revisions, it is apparent that your research meets the criteria for publication.
The pertinent topic has been articulated in a clearer and more succinct manner.
No additional comments.
Thanks for reviewing your article.
Title: Effectiveness of health education intervention on intention not to perform female genital
mutilation/cutting in the future among key decision-makers: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Bashir Bello
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
Kindly remove the identifier from the track changes I made in the main manuscript.
Thank you
Best regards
Prof Bashir Bello
Title: Effectiveness of health education intervention on intention not to perform female genital
mutilation/cutting in the future among key decision-makers: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 20 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Following improvement from previous review, major issues observed have to do with the
following :
The work needs professional editing.
Check this statement. “In the other words, an estimated 68 million girls will undergo FGM/C
before 2030 unless extra action against it is not intensified” “However, other studies pin pointed
that health education intervention alone is enough to brings  behavioral changes related to FGM/
C such as intentions to circumcise daughters in the future [16-20].”
This should be simplified to avoid overgeneralisation of impact, and unrealistic claims. “The
finding will be helpful to develop national and regional policies and strategies to abandon FGM/
C practice. This will ultimately contribute for the achievement of UN SDGs-5 by the year 20230,
eradicating FGM/C globally”.
Avoid repetition of arguments. Example: This argument is repeated twice. “Although there is
no universal approach to changing “sticky” social norms such as FGM/C, some studies seem to
suggest that there is a need for multi-dimensional interventions [19, 57].”
Title: Effectiveness of health education intervention on intention not to perform female genital
mutilation/cutting in the future among key decision-makers: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 25 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for this beautiful work. Below are mu only few suggestions
The title seems odd. It may be better to rephrase it as: “Effectiveness of health education
intervention on the willingness of stakeholders to refuse female genital cutting in the future
among key decision-makers: A systematic review and meta-analysis” or something similar but
avoid the “.....on intention not to perform female…..”
The English in the manuscript needs some improvement. An example is the description under
the “Definition of FGM/C intervention” subheading.
I look forward to seeing this revised version of the manuscript published
Title: Determinants of Suboptimal Birth Spacing among Reproductive-Age Women in Adama
District, Ethiopia: A Community-Based Unmatched Case-Control Study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
- Please select keywords from MeSH (Medical Subject Heading). When the term “case-control”
is used as a keyword, the paper will be lost in the ocean of online information that is not relevant
to your research."
- Has the questionnaire used as a research instrument undergone validity and reliability testing?
If so, please provide the p-value and Cronbach's alpha.
- All data that were already presented in the table, does not need to be presented in the narrative
section such as data in L199-203 were already shown in table 2.
- Conclusion (L50-51 and L300-301): “Cultural awareness and parental understanding are key
to preventing sex-based birth intervals.” Is this concept proven in this research?
Title: Utilization of modern contraceptives and associated factors among women of homeless
reproductive age in Adama town, Oromia, Ethiopia
Version: 2 Date: 17 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have conducted one of the most marginalized populations.  Although the manuscript
is written well, it lacks coherence, consistency,  clarity, and standard publication formats
including journal criteria. Detailed comment is provided along the attached document for
revision and submission to current or other journals.
Title: Utilization of modern contraceptives and associated factors among women of homeless
reproductive age in Adama town, Oromia, Ethiopia
Version: 2 Date: 18 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Rosemary Ndonyo Likwa
Reviewer's report:
Generally, the article is suitable for publication subject to the following minor corrections or
comments:
1. Abstract: require aligning some statistical findings to the actual methods, e.g Implants (%),
Injectables (%) and pills (%) used. Second-AOR results should be supported by the statistical
probability values (Pvalue) in their interpretation and provide inferences (see Text)
2. Objective or purpose of study:- should include the specific objectives to be phrased
as variables for measurable in methodology, e.g. to determine the socio-demographic
characteristics of women in relation to age, residence, etc.
3. Methodology:
3.1. sampling of study sites- not clear. There is need to reflect on how the study sites were
sampled, and how many women were selected from each selected study site to arrive at the
required sample size estimated.
3.2. Variables:- not clearly stated as independent variables have phrased as factors which should
not be the case,  suggesting  that there are must be a distinction between the dependent and
independent variables, e.g. socio-demographic characteristic as age, education status, residence,
etc
3.3. Data collectors: suggest to use interviewers as opposite to data collectors, as the tool used
was the structured interview schedule questionnaire.
3.4. Data Quality Control: -should include statements on pre-testing tools and training. if the
data collectors were trained or not to support validity of data collected.
4. Results:- Analytical tables need to be reviewed to include statistical significant pvalues for
Tables 2 &3  and provide inferences on the results.
5. Discussion of Findings: clearly elaborated, but should include evidence on the similarities
and differences found from other studies.
With a view of the comments made above, the article can be published.
Thank you
-------------------
Title: Utilization of modern contraceptives and associated factors among women of homeless
reproductive age in Adama town, Oromia, Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 23 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the authors for adding the comments provided.
Here I just rewrote some paragraphs, edited for grammar, and commented. The discussion
section needs reference and paraphrasing in the write-up. Most don't have references.  Please
revise the discussion section and write your manuscript having the comments provided.
Title: Factors influencing abortion care-seeking outside of formal healthcare settings: Lived
experiences from Rwandan young women
Version: 2 Date: 30 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
See my smaller comments in the attached.
Authors present an important study that contributes significantly to our understanding of factors
related to abortion-seeking. The methods are explained well, although authors could summarize
in some places.
One major recommendation is to shift the framing of "unsafe" abortion to reflect current
recommendations by WHO and practice. WHO endorses medication abortion outside a formal
health setting, in cases of early abortion, quality medications, correct information, and access to
follow up care. Authors use old framing of "unsafe" vs "safe" abortion, instead of referencing
WHO newer characterization of abortion as safe, less safe, and least safe. In this the authors
equate abortion outside a healthcare setting as unsafe, when in fact they may be safe or less
safe. Authors should find a different characterization of the abortions reflected in the study -- I
suggest abortion outside the formal healthcare setting.
Recommendation 2 is to break up the findings further into smaller bits than the subthemes,
in order for a clearer paper. For example, confidentiality merits its own "bucket" of theme, as
does the law. Authors should be clear about barriers in the law and cite the law, rather than
collapsing legal requirements with others (such as ID requirements). This is important because
the intervention for change would be different depending if the issue is the law, health facility
policy, or practice.
Lastly, given the small sample size, authors should quantify when possible, replacing numbers
of respondents with "most" and "some", etc, throughout.
Over all important findings that will be very useful with some changes in the presentation.
Title: Factors influencing abortion care-seeking outside of formal healthcare settings: Lived
experiences from Rwandan young women
Version: 5 Date: 10 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper is much improved following revisions.
I appreciate the authors’ shift to include more recent concepts of abortion outside the formal
health care setting. I would recommend that they use care in citing studies of unsafe abortion
specifically and be sure to characterize the studies as quantifying unsafe abortion (rather than
informal). There is a difference between the two, and while the authors do well to provide
some nuance to their findings, it is important to correctly represent the older studies, which
characterize abortion within the old safe/unsafe dichotomy. See the para. At the end of p. 1
– citations 1, 9 both refer to unsafe abortion specifically. Similarly the language referring to
research throughout should be reviewed. When researchers measure “unsafe abortion” authors
should reflect this language.
End of p. 3 should reflect that some informal abortion are the same as those that are deemed safe:
Suggestion: Those who attempt to perform informal  abortions may do so safely with abortion
drugs or through contraindicated procedures such as (1) ingestion of drugs or chemicals…
Consider renaming Structural Challenges to something more specific such as inappropriate or
unacceptable facilities.
Title: Causality of Immune Cells and Endometriosis: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization
Study
Version: 0 Date: 06 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
The aim of this study was to dissect the bidirectional causal relationships between immune cell
profiles and endometriosis.
The authors identified five immune phenotypes inversely associated with endometriosis risk,
providing novel evidence of the potential causal impact of specific immune cells on the risk of
developing endometriosis.
I have the following comments for the Authors:
# Please extensively revise your English and check for typos and tense mistakes.
# Methods: While MR analysis is a powerful tool for investigating causal relationships, it's
essential for the Authors to provide a clear rationale for why this method was chosen over others.
Discuss the limitations of other study designs and explain how MR analysis addresses these
limitations.
# Results: The interpretation of Mendelian Randomization analysis could be more concise and
focused. Highlight the key findings and their implications.
# Discussion: The discussion section provides valuable insights into the implications of the
findings but could benefit from a more critical analysis of the limitations and potential biases of
the study. Discuss alternative explanations for the observed associations and propose avenues
for future research to address these limitations.
Title: Causality of Immune Cells and Endometriosis: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization
Study
Version: 0 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to dissect the bidirectional causal relationships between immune cell profiles
and endometriosis using a two-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR).
The authors reported different immune phenotypes associated with endometriosis risk.
I have the following comments for the Authors:
• Please revise your English and check for typos and tense mistakes.
• Discussion: May the Authors add in the discussion possible mechanisms explaining their
findings, focusing on the possible biological mechanisms underlying the association between
specific immune cell phenotypes associated with endometriosis risk.
• Discussion: May the Authors include in the discussion, in order to stimulate research on this
topic, and possible research ideas based on their observations, like the clinical implications of
the findings reported in the study, and their use as potential diagnostic biomarkers.
• Discussion: May the Authors highlight that their study lacks generalizability since it’s based
on data from European ancestry populations, and prevalence and genetic associations may vary
across different populations.
• Discussion: While the immunological factors revealed in this article have a significant role
in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, focusing exclusively on them is a simplification of the
disease.
Title: The effect of listening to music and drawing on coping with dysmenorrhea complaints in
nursing students: Randomized controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 31 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
It should be stated whether nursing students are university/undergraduate or high school
students.
Introduction
"When the studies were conducted in different countries between 2021 and 2023 were examined,
91.5% in Ireland, 97.7% in Sri Lanka, 91.5% in Pakistan, 75.9% in Zimbabwe, 64.7% in
Ethiopia, 79.4% in Saudi Arabia, 79.4% in Saudi Arabia, 62.4% in Mexico and 76.5% in Turkey,
it was found that the prevalence of dysmenorrhea was high in reproductive age women who
were university students" In this sentence, the references of each country should be specified,
not at the end of the sentence.
Method
The number of universe should be stated (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-year female nursing students).
Since RCT has not been abbreviated before, it should be written as long in second paragraph
“Randomization and Blinding section”
"The researchers prepared the questions in line with the literature, and expert opinion was
obtained after the questionnaire was prepared" references should be stated at the end of this
sentence in instruments section.
Cronbach alpha values of the scales should be stated.
Tables
In Table 2, Who is the person in the family with dysmenorrhea? The word mother should be
corrected.
In table 3, "Variance analysis in repeated measures- Benforenni" may be bonferroni??