JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: A risk prediction model mediated by Genes of APOD/APOC1/SQLE associates with
prognosis in cervical cancer
Version: 2 Date: 08 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
The article reported that a risk prediction model mediated by Genes of APOD/APOC1/SQLE
associates with prognosis in cervical cancer. The study is interesting, but there are many
problems at this stage that are not suitable for publication, so the author should make major
revision.
1. It should be explained how to identify these three genes for research.
2. The risk prediction model  did not include basic information such as age and so on.
3. The expression of these three genes(APOD/APOC1/SQLE ) should be demonstrated and
verified in Online database and Clinical specimen.
4. The writing level of the article is too poor, and there is too much unnecessary discussion in
the result part.The author should refine the language. In addition, English expression ability is
too poor, you should seek help from professional institutions.
Title: A risk prediction model mediated by Genes of APOD/APOC1/SQLE associates with
prognosis in cervical cancer
Version: 2 Date: 18 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “A risk prediction model mediated
by Genes of APOD/APOC1/SQLE associates with prognosis in cervical cancer” (ID
e10b3378-5d3e-43d4-98f4-1fe40c1b9d0a), which falls within the aim of this Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest clarifying these points
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives
- To date, several lines of evidence support the possibility to use specific biomarkers to identify
early-stage cervical cancer and, in this way, offer a better prognosis to the patients. This point
deserves to be discussed, referring to: PMID: 33152105; PMID: 28918603.
Title: The effectiveness of intrauterine antibiotic infusion vs oral antibiotic therapy in the
treatment of Chronic Endometritis in patients during IVF (in vitro fertilization) procedures
Version: 2 Date: 04 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Paolo Giardina
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
-       Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- please follow the guidelines for article editing.
- Introduction: please adjust format of paragraphs, if you cite CD-138 you should aldo cite
MUM-1 (please refer to PMID: 34791588).
-Material and methods: you cited several studies using >1 plasma cell for diagnosis but you refer
only to [25] (which, however, has been updated in https://doi.org/10.3390/
- how do you distinguish chronic from acute endometritis when considering exclusion criteria?
- the number of patients collected must be collocated in the results section.
- conclusion: please be careful of the phrase "is superior". This article can only provide evidence,
and this is not a guideline recommendation.
Title: The effectiveness of intrauterine antibiotic infusion vs oral antibiotic therapy in the
treatment of Chronic Endometritis in patients during IVF (in vitro fertilization) procedures
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Giorgia Grecchi
Reviewer's report:
I have appreciated the article, since I found this theme very useful to be studied, sure for patients
who are going to do an IVF or with RIF, but also for patients with recurrent endometritis.
In my opinion it would have been better to not permit patients to chose the therapy, but
to randomize them, to achieve an higher scientific value.  How strange is that without
randomization it has been found 2 similar groups in terms of number of patients.
There is an important difference between the antibiotics used in the oral and in the intrauterine
administration, that could be significant for the different response.
Discussione well done.
Title: Partner involvement in abortion trajectories and subsequent abortion safety in Nigeria
and Côte d’Ivoire
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Shelly Makleff
Reviewer's report:
It was a pleasure to read this well-written manuscript about the association between partner
involvement and access of unsafe abortion. The manuscript is clear, reads well, and presents the
data clearly. The background section presents the existing literature well and shows the gap in
literature that the study aims to address. I have some minor suggestions for the discussion that
I believe would help the reader make the most out of engaging with this research.
Line 388 and 391. It would be preferable to word your findings in the same way rather than
having one stated as a percent and the other as an OR.
Line 402:  "More" might be more suitable than "most" as it is used for comparison.
Line 407-409: use of "multiple ways" is a bit confusing as there were just two ways you assessed.
Could you say "both ways" or "the two ways".  I also think that in this paragraph somewhere
you could remind us of what the two ways are that you assessed - to make it easier for the reader.
Lines =414-420: Where did these hypotheses come from? Are they derived from or related to
the literature? What is it about Nigeria vs Cote d'Ivoire that makes you think these are plausible?
Please add some contextual information or justification for proposing these, citing external
literature if relevant.
Line 422 "This may indicate differential risk of unwanted pregnancies among adolescents in
these two countries and relate to the quality, strength, and duration of partnerships captured in
each sample." This sentence is hard to follow. Can you please reword or add explanation for
what you mean and why you suggest this.
Lines 436-7: "This may reflect a preference for non-disclosure of the pregnancy among
unmarried people who want an abortion." There is ample literature about non-disclosure and
stigma among unmarried (and young) abortion seekers, which I suggest you engage with or at
least cite here.
Paragraph beginning on Line 441: It would be useful to have a topic sentence  to say not just
what analysis you did, but to add some meaning about why this matters/ why the reader should
care about this paragraph.
Lines 441 and 445: you say "in the discussion" - but because this is in the discussion section
it can be confusing. Please specify what discussion- discussion about XYZ among partners or
something like that.
Paragraph starting at line 454: The opening sentence describes well what the paragraph is about
(other sources), but then  the next sentence talks about partners – so not “other sources”. Try to
edit this a bit so the paragraph flows more logically.
Line 545: "are shifting". How are they shifting? What about these shifts is relevant to
acknowledge in further research? Be explicit so the reader doesn't have to guess what you are
saying.
Conclusion: Well articulated, just a quite note that the last sentence is 6.5 lines long - if there
was a way to divide it up into two it might be a bit easier on the reader.
Title: Partner involvement in abortion trajectories and subsequent abortion safety in Nigeria
and Côte d’Ivoire
Version: 1 Date: 06 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this important study about partner involvement.
Recommendations:
1. Background should include the definition of most unsafe abortions and the legal status of
abortion in both countries. The latter should be mentioned as another obstacle in obtaining safe
abortions.
2. It is unclear why the samples of these countries were chosen considering the different
demographics of the survey respondents, particularly age and marital status which would impact
partner involvement.
3. Terminology:
consider alternative to the term abortion trajectory;
be consistent about the use of the word 'women' instead of 'pregnant people' as those surveyed
identified as women and is shown in table headings
Will readers know what the painterly term " landscape" means in regard to providers?
4. Phrasing and general writing:
p 11, 232: rephrase 'doing more than one thing'.
p 1, 43,44: indicate that both types of partner involvement are associated with lower risk.
avoid run on sentences, eg, p 19 l 422.
Conclusion:
Will readers be concerned how and in what context  to educate men about abortion when it is
illegal? Where could that be done?
While important in avoiding the most unsafe methods of abortion, and improving other
outcomes,  the education of partners might be a minor factor in reducing maternal morbidity
and mortality overall.
Title: Partner involvement in abortion trajectories and subsequent abortion safety in Nigeria
and Côte d’Ivoire
Version: 3 Date: 07 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Raffaela Schiavon
Reviewer's report:
I strongly congratulate the authors for the thorough analysis and answers to the reviewers´
comments and suggestions, that contributed to a much clearer and readible paper.  The paper
is very well written, the information presented  in the text, the Tables and the Supplementary
materials is ample and updated, and the contributions of the research are novel and interesting.
I  have two general comments, however:
1)  the paper is still long, and might  benefit of some cuts (particularly, of a  somewhat shorter
introduction). This is NOT, in anyway, an  observation that should condition its publication, and
it depends on the criterias and rules of the Journal.
2) a second general but  more substantial comment: your final multiple logistic regression
analysis models (Tables 5 and 6) clearly show the strong statistical association  between partner
´ involvements  (of any kind) and abortion "safety", but  surprisingly find no association at all
with any other "classical determinants" consistently described in the abortion litterature:  age,
level of education, rural/urban residence,  except for economic wealth.  Please,  consider adding
a  comment in the discussion section, to help interpreting this  finding.
Title: Partner involvement in abortion trajectories and subsequent abortion safety in Nigeria
and Côte d’Ivoire
Version: 3 Date: 09 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been significantly improved and is much clearer in its main findings/
conclusions.
My only remaining minor edit is to present State of Interview as row percentages in Tables 3
and 4 for consistency with the rest of the covariates presented.
Title: Partner involvement in abortion trajectories and subsequent abortion safety in Nigeria
and Côte d’Ivoire
Version: 5 Date: 23 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Raffaela Schiavon
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to this article peer review process, and thanks for
acknowledging it.
I  think the article has significantly gained in clarity: it now strongly  contribute  to the field,
with its novel findings.
Congratulations
Title: Progestins in the symptomatic management of endometriosis: A meta-analysis on their
effectiveness and safety.
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
thank you to giving me the chance to review this interesting meta-analysis.
despite good overall merit, I have some comments:
- please discuss about extra abdominal localization of the disease in the introduction section ( doi
10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.005), which will be removed for the studies inclusion;
- please discuss about new insights on pathophisiology for endometriosis (doi 10.23736/
S2724-606X.21.04788-2; 10.1007/s43032-020-00370-9)
- please update references with recebnt ones regarding morbidity of surgery for endometriosis, in
particular for deep lesions (doi 10.1080/01443615.2017.1349083; 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.05.012;
10.1111/ajo.12358)
- in the conclusion section it should be highlighted that several medical and surgical treatments
demonstrated comparable benefits in pain control and QoL improvement, therefore, therapy
must be personalized for the patient and depends on the woman’s goals (doi 10.1186/
s10397-021-01096-5)
Title: Progestins in the symptomatic management of endometriosis: A meta-analysis on their
effectiveness and safety.
Version: 0 Date: 30 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled ‘The Effectiveness of the Use of
Progestins in the Symptomatic Management of Endometriosis: A Systematic Review’ by Jon-
Benay Mitchell et al.
The aim of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of progestogens for the treatment of
symptomatic endometriosis.
The overall topic is very interesting, the abstract is well structured, and tables and graphs are
detailed easily understood.
Authors respected the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.
Though, despite the meticulous methodology, there are several criticisms, therefore the paper
requires a major revision to be suitable for publication in ‘BMC Women’s Health’.
Comments:
• Some issues, both in the abstract and in the paper, are weakly expressed and hinder
understanding. Furthermore, there are several typing errors along the text. Therefore, a revision
by a native-English speaker is needed.
• In the Background, Authors mention several risk factors and concomitant events associated
with endometriosis. A significant association with autoimmune diseases was reported in the
Literature. Please, consider this factor in the text and add more detailed references.
• Table 1 reports the type of lesions in different stages of Endometriosis. A more specific
classification is that of the ASRM, reporting the international recognized stages (I-IV), according
to extension and depth of lesions and presence of adhesions. Please mention the ASRM
classification, or deepen the data reported in Table 1.
• Authors discuss the impact of endometriosis-related pain on Quality of Life (QoL), everyday
life and work activity. However, several studies report a considerable improvement in QoL
during and/or after treatment with progestogens and this topic should be discussed. For example,
a prospective cohort study published in 2021 reported a significant improvement of both physical
and mental health parameters after 3 months of daily Dienogest 2mg, further improved after 6
months of treatment. See the article entitled ‘Dienogest versus continuous oral levonorgestrel/EE
in patients with endometriosis: what's the best choice?’ by Piacenti I. et al. (Gynecol Endocrinol.
2021 May;37(5):471-475. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2021.1892632.).
• When reporting the beneficial effects of medical treatment, Authors state that it is aimed
at controlling pain. However, both scientific evidence and guidelines recognize several other
goals of the medical treatment, such as preventing relapses, preserving fertility, maintaining the
anatomical integrity, and improving QoL. Please, report these aims and relative references.
• Authors concentrate on a detailed introduction, with strong support to the evidence reported
in the background. On the other hand, the Discussion is poorly exhaustive. Please, deepen the
Discussion.
Title: Progestins in the symptomatic management of endometriosis: A meta-analysis on their
effectiveness and safety.
Version: 3 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I carefully reviewed the revised version of the manuscript entitled 'Progestins in the symptomatic
management of endometriosis: A meta-analysis on their effectiveness and safety' by  Jon-Benay
Mitchell et al.
The Atuthors made all the required changes, updated the references and improved the quality of
the text, therefore the Article is now suitable for publication in BMC Women's Health.
Title: Pregnancy-related Factors May Signal Additional Protection or Risk of Future
Cardiovascular Disease
Version: 0 Date: 11 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Agnieszka Dory#ska
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, Reddy et al. report the results of a study aimed at examining the association
of selected pregnancy-related factors with CVD risk. Data come from the NHANES study,
with current analysis performed in a group of 3,758 women without CVD at baseline who
were followed for 12 years. The study has an appropriate design and the paper is well written;
however, there are some issues that must be considered before resubmitting the manuscript.
I. Major issues:
1) The title of the manuscript gives the impression that more than two factors related to
pregnancy were assessed in the study.
2) The results obtained demonstrate that there are no significant estimates of the relationship
between pregnancy-related factors and CVD. The presentation of the results for breastfeeding
provides 95% confidence intervals that do not clearly show the direction of the relationship, and,
moreover, they are not significant, while the authors interpret them as showing a reduction in
CVD incidence risk.
3) The conclusion is not supported by the results obtained – there is no significant association
between pregnancy-related factors and CVD.
4) In my opinion, it would be a good idea to estimate and present the results of the primary
analysis (prepared without adjustment for any covariates), and then show the results with one-by-
one adjustment of the covariates that significantly differ between the characteristics compared
(which are presented in Table 1). As these covariates do not show the same differences by LBW
and breastfeeding categories, the analyses should be performed separately. This approach would
allow for identification of the characteristics that explain the primary relationship (if such exists).
5) Another idea that may be worth considering is not using data estimated by the ACC / AHA
PCE risk model, which restricts the age range of the study population included in the analyses.
I suggest that the authors adjust for the variables of which this model consists. However, I am
not sure whether this approach would be applicable with data collected in such a race-diverse
study sample, as the risk estimates were calculated using pooled cohort equations.
II. Minor issues:
1. Results:
a. Line 230: the statement “representing 25,964,134 women in the US” is not the result of the
analyses performed.
b. Line 239: there is a discrepancy between 190 (3.2%) in the text and the numbers in Table
2 (190 (3.0%)).
c. Line 268: there is a discrepancy between 3.7% in the text and 3.1% in Table 2.
d. Line 278: Instead of 'where the hazard ratio approached the null', I would suggest: 'where the
hazard ratio did not show any difference in risk'.
2. Table 1: there are 3 p-values for differences in PCE risk categories in LBW yes/no categories.
Title: Pregnancy-related Factors May Signal Additional Protection or Risk of Future
Cardiovascular Disease
Version: 0 Date: 14 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting idea but too many limitations as bellow,
1. Only female resulting in successful delivery were included in this study.
2. The result should not be applies to the very wide  prediction ager from 40 to 70  years old,
instead of  child-bearing age.
3. The uncontrolled confounding factors include the LBW and breast feeding , the environment
condition, economic status,  and ethnic situation .
Title: Emotional dysregulation in women with endometriosis with cyclical and non-cyclical
chronic pelvic pain
Version: 1 Date: 11 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Interesting study in an area difficult to research.
Sample - Are the people who volunteered for the study any different from the rest of the clinic
population with CPP. Are they in fact persons who are more anxious about their pain ?
Methods
Measuring pain - Would the timing of pain measurement (recall) in relation to the experience
of pain in the cyclical CPP group affect measurement, given that the non cyclical group may be
recalling an event closer to time of reporting, the concern here being that measurement error if
any would affect one arm of the study and not the other. Although it is said that the pain rating
scale  using the VAS  has been shown to be effective "for most patients with endometriosis
(64%) during the painful experience and indeed, one month after the experience" there is 36%
for whom it may not be valid. Therefore it would have been useful to give a range for the period
between the pain experience and reporting it, especially in view of the small sample size.
A large battery of self reporting tools are used.  Were they completed one after the other in
a given sequence or randomly over a limited period of time, at the clinic or at leisure, under
supervision or without. Have the instruments being translated  to the local language and validated
in the local setting ?
statistics
Table 2 - There should only be one p value for the variable parity. (It is not clear  if the individual
with the diagnosis of infertility is included in the nulliparous group or not.
The paper presents a series of tests of hypothesis on individual variables. An appropriate method
to decrease the chance of a type one error needs to be adopted. The use of Bonferroni's correction
or other appropriate method is recommended.  This is an area with much controversy. Statistical
assistance is advised.
Table 4 - it is stated that an asterisk represent significant relative risks. They are as I understand
odds ratios. There are also errors in the identification of statistical significance eg. 1st column
under depression suggests that  patients with non cyclical pain  are 2.5 times at increased risk
of reporting depression compared to  those with cyclical pain.  the CI  (0.82-7.54) shows us that
1 is included in the CL range. The table indicates an  asterisk against the CL which is wrong,
There are several others in the table.
(Cyclical spelt wrong in Table 4)
Conclusion - "non-cyclical CPP present a higher emotional dysregulation"
This study does not provide evidence of causation therefore it is more appropriate to say " non-
cyclical CPP is associated with a higher emotional dysregulation"
Title: Emotional dysregulation in women with endometriosis with cyclical and non-cyclical
chronic pelvic pain
Version: 1 Date: 21 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Ali Mansoor Alameri
Reviewer's report:
A very interesting subject to deal with, which is the state of anxiety and depression among
women with endometriosis suffering from cyclical and non-cyclical pelvic pain. However, it is
better in the abstract to refer more clearly to the gap of knowledge (research question) and aim
of the study. In addition, a short notice to the tool of data analysis is mentioned in the abstract.
The methods, result and discussion sections are very well written, but only one note which is
the presence of confounders like disabling pain and menorrhagia. These are found to be more
common in women with non-cyclical pelvic pain. This will represent an important bias that
affect the frequency and level of anxiety and depression in these women. So, better to refer to
this fact as a possible confounder. Please, consider the comments in the attached word file. All
the best for success.
Ali Mansoor