JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Assessing young adults' menopause knowledge to increase understanding of symptoms
and help improve quality of life for women going through menopause; a student survey
Version: 1 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer:  Alessia Maria Chiara Scaparra Caronna
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Assessing young adults' menopause knowledge
to increase understanding of symptoms and help improve quality of life for women going
through menopause; a student survey”, 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
- Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research (EQUATOR) network guidelines? It would be mandatory to declare about this
element.
- Was this study registered? I could not find any information about this point
- I could not find any information regarding the approval of the Institutional Review Board. Did
author this approval before the study start?
-Accumulating evidence suggests that both transdermal hormone replacement therapy (PMID:
11872198) and non-estrogenic modalities (PMID: 34703415) are able to play a positive role on
symptoms due to urogenital aging. I would add further elements to discuss these points, referring
to the abovementioned articles.
Title: Assessing young adults' menopause knowledge to increase understanding of symptoms
and help improve quality of life for women going through menopause; a student survey
Version: 2 Date: 26 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Ilaria Cuccu
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has improved thanks to the changes made. I think it could be of
interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published.
Title: Family Planning Needs to Limit Childbearing Are Unmet, yet our Parity is high:
Characterizing and Unveiling the Predictive Factors
Version: 1 Date: 17 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study is one that should be considered topical and of interest to public health and public
policy.
A few comments are noted below:
Abstract:
I will suggest that the statement “The identified predictors of UNLC were; age, region, residence,
ethnicity, wealth index, access to FP information from health worker, marital status, family
type, and partner’s/husband’s education” could be rephrased and made more specific. For
instance,when you speak of age as a predictor, are you referring to older age or younger age?
Same applies to the other predictors.
Background
Page 3 line 10: The word “prevalent” should be corrected to “Prevalence”. This should also be
corrected in other sections where it appaered eg page 11 line 3.
Page 4 line 21: “pregnancies” should be corrected to “pregnancy”
Methods
Page 6 lines 2/3: “Women of reproductive age constituted (%) of Nigerian’s population”…
kindly provide the percentage being referred to in this sentence
General comments: Typographical and grammar errors should be corrected
Recommendation: Accept after minor revision
Title: Family Planning Needs to Limit Childbearing Are Unmet, yet our Parity is high:
Characterizing and Unveiling the Predictive Factors
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Amelia Ngozi Odo
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written manuscript and a vital topic in the research field and the general population.
A few comments to  be addressed are below:
Abstract: The sections should be titled. Eg. Background, methods, results, conclusions
Background: Paragraph 2 of the background should be summarized in 2-3 sentences and
subsume into paragraph 1.
Methods: study area; line 3, "...... (%) of Nigerian's population". The sentence is incomplete.
Add the % to complete it.
Description of variables -  Don't itemize or underline the variables. Leave them as minor
subheadings.
Results: 1st paragraph, line 2; Why include the children while they were not part of the study
population?
CEB: Write in full 1st
Title: Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the management of gynecologic cancer: a Spanish
survey. Observational, multicenter study.
Version: 2 Date: 08 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Nadja Taumberger
Reviewer's report:
Line 201: 79,9% of spanish gynecologist oncologist ... does this mean that you took all members
of the SEGO and set this number in relation to the answers you received? Please specify.
Line 241-243: I would discuss this fact briefly due to possible minimized intensive care unit
capacity as this could be a plausible reason for this increase as more radical surgery posssibly
would have been difficult due to the lack of beds in the ICU.
Line 249-252: Is there literature availiable which has been looking at the differences in detection
of recurrence rate or QOL in those patients receiving telemedicine compared to in person visits
for follow up? This could be dicussed here if literature is availiable.
The manuscript is clear and well written and focuses on the results from the survery. The topic
is relevant, as indicated in the strength section, due to possible future outbreaks of pandemics
and can therefore be of use to improve future gynecological cancer patient care in this situation.
The response rate is quite high for a survey which also makes the results representative.
I would have found it interesting also to see the distribuation of sex among the gyneconcologists
in spain, but this was not evaluated in the questionnaire.
Title: Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the management of gynecologic cancer: a Spanish
survey. Observational, multicenter study.
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Rosa Montero-MacÍas
Reviewer's report:
Well written
Minor changes:
Line 81- these disease in the surgeon.   Correct please:  This disease.
Centers or centres, homogenize please.
Line 111 to 118 match better in "Impact of pandemic on practice of gynaecological oncology"
than in - Sociodemographic characteristics
Title: Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the management of gynecologic cancer: a Spanish
survey. Observational, multicenter study.
Version: 2 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on
the management of gynaecological cancer: a Spanish survey. It is (was?) an interesting topic
that is unfortunately a bit outdated at this point. The survey was conducted in June 2021, two
years ago. This data may be important and may have had some impact two years ago, but now
I do not see the point in publishing outdated data on such a specific topic. Also, if we follow
the interpretation of the questionnaire in the manuscript, it shows that the questions are poorly
designed.
The English language needs to be thoroughly revised.
Line 25: The background would need to be rewritten. The authors should add a brief background
and then explain the purpose of their study.
Line 25 and throughout the text: SARS cov-2 or SARS-Cov2...Please use the same
abbreviation...The abbreviation also needs to be explained when it is used for the first time
Results: In the Results section, all data are reported in absolute numbers and percentages; in the
Summary section, subheading Results, data are reported in percentages only. Please standardize.
Line 32: 85.1% of respondents expressed concern ...what concern?
Line 33: The abbreviation SARS-CoV2 PCR is used for the first time
Line 39: The authors use the term COVD 19 pandemic, but in line 25 they use the term SARS-
Cov2 pandemic...please use the same term throughout the manuscript.
There is no substantive connection between the results and the conclusion. A rewording and
restatement is needed.
Line 54: #2, 3, 1#. It is necessary to change the order of references.
Line 55: ...higher risk of SARS-CoV2... Higher risk of SARS-CoV2 infection?
Line 77: The aim of this study is to evaluate if the clinical protocols during the SARS-cov2
pandemic in gynecology oncology assistance were changed and to assess the perception for the
management of these disease in the surgeon. ...Please rewrite the sentence so that it makes sense.
What assistance was changed?
Methods section:
How many members does the SEGO have ? Is the sample of 75 completed surveys
representative? How do you know that a person did not submit the online survey twice?
Results:
Line 118: What does it mean to be concerned about the Covid 19 pandemic?
Line 119: Regarding the impact of the pandemic on the clinical practice of gynaecological
oncologists in Spain, 59 (79.7%) reported this impact, while 16 (21.6%) reported no impact on
their daily practice due to the pandemic... what impact?
Line 170 and line 181: Management of ovarian cancer is one section and management of
endometrial and cervical cancer is another section... what is the basis and goal of this division?
How come there are not three sections (endometrial, ovarian and cervical cancer) if the author
decided to divide management by cancer origin? Is the questionnaire poorly designed?
Title: Pandemic-Induced Increase in Adjustment Disorders Among Postpartum Women in
Germany
Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Pandemic-Induced Increase in Adjustment Disorders among Postpartum Women in Germany
Comments
The subject addressed in this article is worthy of investigation.
Background
Based on the cited literature, the authors hypothesized that there would be a significant increase
in the prevalence of depressive disorders in the “lockdown” sample for general reasons. It was
not considered that the lockdown situation in other countries cannot be transferred one-to-one to
Germany. Especially the situation in China was extremely restrictive and not comparable with
the situation in Germany. The study results on the situation in Germany during the lockdown
are by no means unambiguous. There are even some indications that women in the age group
studied showed a decrease in depressive symptoms (E.g.: Damerow et al., 2022: Health situation
in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Developments over time for selected indicators
of GEDA 2019/2020 – An update. or Hapke et al., 2022: Depressive symptoms in the general
population before and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.).
With regard to the burden on the socially disadvantaged during the Pandemic in Germany, the
results from the National Cohort should be considered. (Dragano et al. (2022) Increase in Mental
Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic – The Role of Occupational and Financial Strains.
An analysis of the German National Cohort (NAKO) Study. Dtsch Arztebl Int).
The introduction and derivation of the hypotheses should be revised to take greater account of
the situation in Germany. In this context, hasty assumptions should be critically examined.
Materials and Methods
Participants
This section lacks a table on the main characteristics of the two samples (before and during
the lockdown), age, education level/social class, living arrangements (with partner/family/single
parent), etc. Instead, the sample characteristics of the 232 “healthy”, PPD and AD are compared
(Table 1). This does not fit the aim of the paper.
Results
The authors write, that the current paper has the aim to analyse the “effect” of the pandemic-
induced lockdown on maternal mental health during the first 12 postpartum weeks in Germany.
… also, the wording our analysis shows a significant (13.2%) “increase” sounds like a
longitudinal study, and not like a comparison of two samples.
Since there is no data on the concrete consequences of the lockdown for the participants, this
implicit premise and at the same time interpretation seems to be speculative.
A lot of material is reported to show differences between PPD and AD. However, this is not the
aim of the paper. It should be shortened and limited to the comparing the two samples.
It would be helpful if the SD in the tables were replaced by CI.
Discussion
The discussion would have to be adjusted accordingly in light of the comments above.
Title: Pandemic-Induced Increase in Adjustment Disorders Among Postpartum Women in
Germany
Version: 1 Date: 13 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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 - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of this study is that it is a solidly designed
inquiry about the relative prevalence of depressive symptoms in perinatal women at different
pandemic time points. I think the authors have a real strength in the design by using clinical
interviews at the beginning and end timepoints, because many studies of this type of question
only rely on self report measures, which are limited. I think that the authors are also meeting
best practice by thoughtfully and clearly describing the approach to missing data used for the
study design. My only suggestion for where the study is not currently meeting best practice is
that the authors seem to have perhaps written the background and conclusion some time ago,
as the wording around the pandemic, along with the references, appear to not include as many
references from the last two years which are an important context for our understanding of the
pandemic impact on mental health. I would encourage the authors to go back and check again
on whether new sources have come out to add to the background and discussion.
Title: Pandemic-Induced Increase in Adjustment Disorders Among Postpartum Women in
Germany
Version: 2 Date: 16 Aug 2023
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: The authors have responded adequately to each of the questions
I raised in my comments, as well as (in my opinion) the comments of the other reviewer.
They have documented substantive changes in the manuscript that help to improve the quality
by addressing the comments of the previous review. My overall impression of the revised
manuscript is favorable, as I believe the authors have addressed fair feedback in a productive
way that improves the paper.
Title: Association of inflammatory markers with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular
mortality in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or osteopenia
Version: 1 Date: 28 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Gullo
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
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:
In my opinion you have to improve the paper refering to the updated literature where has been
demonstrated how these pts treated with  nutraceutical supplementation as inositols and vitamin
D had demonstrated a better result in bone fucntions as well  in menopausal symptoms.
Its important to remeber how these pts have in this period of life urinary incontinence
thsa have negative impact on quality of life  as well has been demonstrtaed how the ovarian
tissue cryopreservation and transplantation in menopause can be helpfull in these pts.
I suggest you to read and cite these articles:
Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation in menopause: new perspective of therapy
in postmenopausal women and the importance of ethical and legal frameworks
The impact of stress urinary incontinence on sexual function and quality of life.
Urinary incontinence and quality of life in high-performance swimmers: An observational study
The role of vitamin D in metabolic and reproductive disturbances of polycystic ovary syndrome:
A narrative mini-review
MYO-INOSITOL: FROM INDUCTION OF OVULATION TO MENOPAUSAL DISORDER
MANAGEMENT.
Myo-inositol and melatonin in the menopausal transition
Title: Association of inflammatory markers with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular
mortality in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or osteopenia
Version: 1 Date: 01 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study is presented appropriate, however, please conclusion section in abstract and entire
manuscript should be written in a practical way, for example, find the correlation (inflammatory
biomarkers were correlated with mortality…) how helps to patients and health service.
Title: Association of inflammatory markers with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular
mortality in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or osteopenia
Version: 6 Date: 02 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The link between low bone mass and CVD is well-established and has been explained
by many pathophysiological hypotheses. Inflammation is one of the key factors in both
diseases, and thus, the role of many inflammatory markers has been highlighted in
these seemingly unrelated disorders. The present study investigated the association of
inflammatory biomarkers or their ratios, including neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet/
lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte/lymphocyte ratio (MLR), neutrophil×platelet/lymphocyte
(SII), neutrophil×monocyte/lymphocyte (SIRI), and neutrophil×monocyte×platelet/lymphocyte
ratio (AISI) with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in women with
postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMOP) or osteopenia. Although the MS is well written, it needs
certain modifications/clarifications.
1. The authors should describe in brief the correlation of inflammatory markers with CVD in
post-menopausal.
2. The authors have included too many variables in the study, making the understanding of the
outcome unclear. They should have excluded lesser important variables like education, marital
status, family income etc from the study.
3. The authors need to show in a pai diagram the number of women with osteoporosis, osteopenia
with CVD and without CVD.
4. Delete ‘Association’ from Keywords
OPG/RANKL/RANK system is implicated in both the process of vascular calcification and bone
loss. Then assays of these factors might help predict CVD and osteoporosis and their associated
mortality. Therefore, the authors need to discuss how the inflammatory biomarker they have
studied is better (ease of measuring, sensitivity etc) than these biomarkers.
Title: Exercise interventions on body composition and quality of life of overweight/obese breast
cancer survivors: a meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 05 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Tengku Muhammad Hanis
Reviewer's report:
I read this paper with much interest. The authors had done an excellent job in writing this paper.
However, there are a few concerns that need to be addressed.
General
- Given the small sample obtained by the paper, the authors should add Google Scholar as one of
the databases and do an additional search on it. This inclusion will ensure that the related papers
will not be missed (or at the very least the probability of missing related papers is very low).
- Standardise the metrics used:
o kg/m2 instead of kg/m2 or kg*m-2
o g/m2 instead of g*cm-2
("2" and "-2" above should be a superscript)
Methods
- I’m just curious, why were studies involving exercise interventions with weight loss as the
primary goal excluded?
Results
- Under “Detailed information for the included studies” the authors mentioned 6 studies were
finally included in the meta-analysis, but in Figure 1 and the abstract, the authors mentioned 8.
References
- The authors missed a possible relevant paper that needs to be discussed - https://
doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S97864.
Title: Exercise interventions on body composition and quality of life of overweight/obese breast
cancer survivors: a meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Giorgio Bogani
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Exercise interventions on body composition and
quality of life of overweight/obese breast cancer survivors: a meta-analysis “.  In my opinion,
this topic analyzed is interesting enough to attract readers’ attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- The authors could extend and improved the discussion by evaluating and citing current
evidence about possible therapeutic strategies to improve the quality of life, symptoms
premature menopause-related and sexual dysfunctions in these patients. I would be glad if the
authors discuss this important point, referring to: PMID 36037664 and 37076125)
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Exercise interventions on body composition and quality of life of overweight/obese breast
cancer survivors: a meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 28 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Tarek Tawfik Amin
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors:
- The authors had made a substantial improvement of the manuscript.
Methods section:
- Selection of eligible studies: the word studies were repeatedly mentioned with every criterion,
please remove to obliterate redundancy.