JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Association Between Prior Antibiotic Use and Reduced Chlamydia trachomatis Infection
Prevalence: A Cross-Sectional Study in China
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors on their revisions. The authors have addressed most of the previous
comments satisfactorily. A few minor edits are still needed before I would recommend the
manuscript for publication.
Abstract
Line 36:
"Reduced risk with current chlamydia infection (OR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.14, 1.10).”
# The study design does not allow for causal inference. Please replace “risk” with “association”
and  “prevalence” to reflect the cross-sectional nature of the data.
Lines 38–39:
# Please clarify that the result reflects a trend or tendency, given the relatively small number of
cases and the wide confidence interval for the odds ratio.
The same clarification is also needed in the Discussion, lines 262–264.
Background
Lines 49–50:
"severe reproductive health problems such as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), preterm birth,
low birth weight, and substantial social and financial burdens (7–9).”
# Please update the reference list to include a recent study focusing specifically on PID as a
complication of chlamydia infection. For example:
Alexiou, Zoïe W. et al. Reproductive tract complication risks following Chlamydia trachomatis
infections: a long-term prospective cohort study from 2008 to 2022. The Lancet Regional Health
– Europe, Volume 45, 101027.
Title: Association Between Prior Antibiotic Use and Reduced Chlamydia trachomatis Infection
Prevalence: A Cross-Sectional Study in China
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jun 2025
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: This revised version of this submission on the association between
prior antibiotic use and reduced prevalence of Ct infection in China now reads very well and the
authors have responded to each of the two reviewers comments.  Whilst mine focused more on
interpretability, the other reviewer comments systematically focused on the analysis and a line
by line assessment as well as some clear advice on revising the discussion section.  The authors
have taken all this on board and the paper is substantially improved as a result, with a much
clearer presentation of the central argument.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further revisions to suggest for the authors.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 2 Date: 04 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Totally the manuscript should be revised grammatically.The manuscript has no novelty and does
not add to existing knowledge.
Introduction: please provide more information on TFR in sub-sahars countries and their use of
family planning methods. Also, don't leave lots of sentences without references.
Method: please explain more about sampling and the formula of determining sample size.
Please mention the ethics number code.
References: some of the references are too old. Please update them.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 2 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript of the following as an attachment:
Please add entry and exit criteria.
Add reliability and validity of the tool.
Sampling method and data collection method should be added.
Comparison of different groups should be done in Table No. 2.
Under what conditions were the variables entered into the regression?
The discussion is short and lacks arguments.
Each significant variable in the regression should have at least one paragraph in the discussion.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 4 Date: 15 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have effectively addressed most of the feedback provided in this review, and
the quality of writing has significantly improved. The revised discussion section is now very
informative.
However, a few areas could still benefit from further refinement:
For Table 2, it would be helpful to include the statistical test method used as a footnote to
enhance clarity.
I appreciate the authors' explanation of how the wealth index was categorized. While referencing
the DHS website is useful, explicitly stating the thresholds used to create these categories would
provide additional clarity.
Thank authors for clarifying the meaning of "data leveling." Based on the provided explanation,
it may be beneficial to consider using an alternative term, such as "categorizing variables," to
avoid potential confusion.
Given the large sample size, many variables are likely to reach statistical significance. Expanding
the discussion section to include potential pitfalls of large sample sizes and including practical
significance would add valuable depth to the interpretation.
One minor thing to improve:
It would be beneficial to ensure a more consistent style for the bar plots in Figures 1 and 2.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 4 Date: 17 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
While the topic of this article is interesting and important for promoting family planning uptake
across SSA, the article is written in very poor English, making it nearly impossible to digest. In
its current format it is not suitable for publication. I would recommend having a native English
speaker help edit this manuscript prior to resubmission.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 4 Date: 20 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
-I have added all my comments and suggestions as tracked changes in your document.
-Please revise and edit the entire document thoroughly to address all the feedback provided.
-Several long sentences are without proper references, and grammatical errors are present
throughout the text.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 6 Date: 18 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed lots of the feedback provided in this review, and the quality of
writing has improved.
However, a few things could still be benefit from further refinements:
There are still sentences that require further refinement.
• Lines 156–159: The repeated use of "0" and "1" seems excessive and could be streamlined
for clarity.
• Lines 278–280: The word "respectively" is used repetitively. Additionally, the paragraph from
lines 278–285 could benefit from restructuring, as the sentences feel fragmented.
• Lines 323–324: The word "women’s" appears inappropriate in this context. Similarly, the
authors have misused "women’s" in several other places. Please proofread and correct these
instances.
• Lines 336–337: This sentence requires rewriting for improved clarity and readability.
• Lines 361–365: The sentence is overly long and fragmented, which hinders readability.
Consider breaking it down into shorter, clearer sentences.
• Lines 370–373: Please revise these sentences to enhance their flow and coherence.
There may be additional sentences in need of refinement that I have not listed here. I recommend
conducting a thorough proofreading of the manuscript to address these and other potential issues.
It would be beneficial to clearly explain how the binary variables—community poverty, literacy,
and ANC utilization—were generated. For instance, was community poverty defined using
an income index? If so, how was it dichotomized? Did the authors use the median value
of all communities included in the study as the threshold, or was a threshold established
based on definitions from existing literature? Similarly, please clarify how the variables for
community literacy and ANC utilization were generated, following a comparable level of detail
and rationale.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 6 Date: 23 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
• The document has significantly improved in this revised version but still contains some critical
grammatical errors.
• The word “respectively” is unnecessarily repeated in the Abstract result part. Please consider
rewriting it
• You have utilized sample weighting to ensure that the sample is representative by adjusting for
over-sampling, under-sampling, and non-response, which is commendable. However, I wonder
if you considered design-based analysis, such as clustering effects, during your descriptive
analysis. For example, if you used Stata, you should employ the svy command.
• After using the svy command, please present the unweighted and weighted descriptive results
in Tables 1 and 2, which help for comparison purposes.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 7 Date: 24 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, Table 1 includes the weighted samples for each country, which is good. However,
you again failed to show me the design-based analysis results in Table 2 in this revised version.
Please include them in the table to convince me you used the svy command while performing
the descriptive analysis. Otherwise, this is science, and I can't believe you without seeing your
work on the table.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 7 Date: 25 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for their efforts in revising the manuscript; the quality of the writing
continues to improve.
There are still sentences that require further refinement.
• Lines 27–28: Did authors mean: “Thus, a tactic utilized by nations worldwide to promote
family planning and raise public awareness is the use of mass media.”?
• Lines 31–33: Did authors mean: “with a weighted sample of 48,133 women of reproductive
age.”?
• Lines 33: redundant period before “STATA”
• Lines 36: Missing period before “adjusted odds ratio”.
• Lines 50, 102, 150 and more: “women’s” should be changed to “women”.
• Please proofread and correct the use of 'women's' where appropriate.
• Table 2 is out of the printable area, please adjust table width
• Line 264: please consider changing “among women reproductive age women's “ to “among
women of reproductive age”
• Line 275: “who’s” misspelled as “whose”
• Line 297: “towards” misspelled as “to wards”
• Please left aligned table 4 title and remove redundant line breaker between “multi-” and “level”
• Line 299 – 300:  Did author mean: “In addition, the study done in Nigeria included only
postpartum women, whereas our study included all women of reproductive age, which may
explain the higher exposure to family planning messages.”?
• Line 311 – 317. There are multiple sentences that appear to be missing periods.
I sincerely hope the authors could keep conducting  thorough proofreading, as I have highlighted
numerous problematic sentences above. The fragmented sentences hinder the manuscript from
showcasing its true value.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 8 Date: 25 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors effectively addressed lots of feedbacks provided in this review.
Some parts remain unclear to readers.
For table 2 on page 9:
• Does the abbreviation EFPM stand for Exposure to Family Planning Message? If so, please
clarify this either within the text or in a footnote.
• Please specify the source of the p-values presented in the table. Are they derived from
multivariable models, Cramer’s V, or another statistical test? Providing this information will
enhance clarity
Minor issues:
• Line 238 (page 11) contains text that does not appear meaningful.
• Some text is displayed in blue. For consistency, please format it to black.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 8 Date: 26 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, You should include the design-based descriptive result for Table 2, which consists
of the weighted and unweighted results. This would help us understand the difference between
absolute numbers and percentages of the weighted and unweighted descriptive results. Please
add a new column accordingly. Otherwise, reporting only the weighted frequency minimizes
the credibility of your results. Please refer to other articles conducted using large datasets.
Title: Prevalence and determinants of exposure to family planning messages among
reproductive age women in five Sub-Saharan African countries: A Multilevel Analysis of
2021-2023 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 9 Date: 01 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Some of the issues mentioned in the previous review suggestion remain unresolved.
For table 2 on page 9:
• Please specify the source of the p-values presented in the table. Are they derived from
multivariable models, or statistical test? Providing this information will enhance clarity
• The column widths are misaligned.
Minor issues:
• Line 239 (page 11) contains text that does not appear meaningful. (line above figure 2)
Title: Can promoting compassion and gratitude through a four-week online training program
improve women's mental health? A randomized controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 06 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. I commend the authors on the
work they put into addressing both mine and Reviewer 2's comments. I am satisfied with the
edits that were made and wish the authors the best of luck with their publication.
Title: Can promoting compassion and gratitude through a four-week online training program
improve women's mental health? A randomized controlled trial
Version: 5 Date: 27 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. I commend the authors on the
work they put into addressing both mine and Reviewer 2's comments. I am satisfied with the
edits that were made and wish the authors the best of luck with their publication.
Title: Blood Metabolites, Mitochondrial Biofunction, and Cervical Cancer: A Bidirectional
Mendelian Randomization Study
Version: 4 Date: 10 Jul 2025
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, significantly improving the overall quality, clarity,
and coherence of the paper. Their thoughtful revisions addressed the main concerns raised in
the previous round of review, enhancing both the scientific rigor and presentation of the work.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I do not have further concerns."
Title: Breast carcinoma in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 and huge plexiform
neurofibroma of the contralateral breast: A case report
Version: 1 Date: 01 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors presented a left breast cancer that developed in a 61-year-old patient diagnosed with
Type 1 Neurofibromatosis.
Recommendations;
1. Right breast cancer is mentioned in the abstract section, and left modified radical mastectomy
is mentioned in the case section. The inconsistency should be corrected.
2. What was the tumor subgroup? What was the Ki-67 ratio?
3. How was the healing treatment of the axilla according to the Sataloff classification?
4. Why was the sentinel node study not taken into account?
5. Anastrazole should be added instead of Tamoxifen to Figure 2.
Title: Breast carcinoma in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 and huge plexiform
neurofibroma of the contralateral breast: A case report
Version: 3 Date: 11 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors,
They have made the recommendations I suggested to a great extent.
Recommendations;
1. If they achieved a complete response in the tumor and axilla according to the Sataloff
classification; it should be stated as T-A for the tumor and N-A for the axilla. It should be
corrected as such.
Title: Breast carcinoma in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 and huge plexiform
neurofibroma of the contralateral breast: A case report
Version: 3 Date: 16 May 2025
Reviewer:  Helen Trihia
Reviewer's report:
Requested changes have been  successfully implemented. Nevertheless, there are still some
comments concerning this paper.
- The paper needs extensive editing
- Concerning neo-adjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy treatment, could you please comment
on administration of adjuvant chemotherapy after 'complete response'? I think chemotherapy is
administered upfront and if PCR is achieved, no further adjuvant chemotherapy  is administered.
- line 55: 'benefit from an early start to breast cancer screening', correct to 'from an early start
of breast cancer screening'
- There is a broad difference concerning the size of the tumor by mammogram/ultrasound and
CT. Would you like to comment?
- You are mentioning the presence of a 2X4cm enlarged lymph node in the left axilla. In this
case an FNA is incicated for diagnosis of metastatic disease and staging. Sentinel lymph node
biopsy is indicated in cases of ultrasonographically free axilla.
- Mentioning of exact dates 'November' (line 99), '4th of July 2024' (line 104), is better to be
substituded by number of months, or be omitted. I don't know how necessary the 'timeline table'
is?
- You could use a table concerning the cases of NF and breast cancer, mentioned analytically
in the 'Discussion'
- Line 152, correct to 'molecular subgroup' instead of 'genetic subgroup' (luminal A or luminal B)
Title: Breast carcinoma in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 and huge plexiform
neurofibroma of the contralateral breast: A case report
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Helen Trihia
Reviewer's report:
Most of the changes according to review, have been made. Some minor things:
- In Case Presentation, omit ':' (: A 61-year)
- In Case Presentation (3rd line): 'leftmodified' correct to 'left modified'
- Key Words: you could omit case report and instead add 'co-existence' or 'high risk'
- cT3N1M0, I think it is 'T2N1M0'
- You could omit the sentence concerning 'sentinel lymph node biopsy' as it didn't have any
indication, as long as there was an enlarged lymph node 2X4cm. The indication was for FNA
of the LN.
- As the axillary lymph node was considered positive (N1), without FNA confirmation
preoperatively, and '6 reactive lymph nodes were found', you should confirm that the enlarged
LN was among the excised lymph nodes and comment on possible changes found after
neo-adjuvant treatment in the concerned lymph node, like fibrosis, foamy macrophages, etc.
Otherwise you have no proof of 'N1'
- In Table 1, first case , Outcomes, correct 'Disease free after 1 year (instead of years).
- You should use capital letters homogeneously, like 'Mastectomy followed by...' instead of
'mastectomy...'
- In Table 1, you could align the cases according ## the increasing date of publication (1998,
2005, 2009, etc)
- In Salemis NS, add the date (2010). The same for 'Wilson CH (2004)
- Use molecular 'subtypes', instead of 'subgroups'
Title: MRI and FDG PET/CT Findings for Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the Ovary:
A Case Report and Literature Review
Version: 0 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Xiushan Feng
Reviewer's report:
1. In the "Case presentation" section, it is mentioned that the patient's blood cell count and blood
biochemical indicators including serum calcium level are within the normal range. However,
the importance of relevant indicators in the differential diagnosis of different diseases has been
mentioned many times in the text. Have you considered further analyzing in detail the potential
association or specific manifestations of these indicators with OSCNEC?
2. When describing the MRI examination, what considerations were used for choosing the
parameters (such as the repetition time [TR]/echo time [TE] of Turbo spin echo (TSE), etc.) for
different imaging sequences (such as T2WI, fat-suppressed T1WI, DWI, ADC, etc.)? Do the
choices of these parameters affect the accuracy and repeatability of the results?
3. In the pathological examination part, tumor cells show different degrees of positive
reactions to different markers (such as chromogranin, CD56, synaptophysin, etc.) in
immunohistochemistry. How do these immunohistochemical results specifically assist in
determining the final diagnosis as OSCNEC? Are there some factors that may lead to
misjudgment and need further explanation?
4. When discussing the 18F - FDG - PET/CT results, it is mentioned that there is a similarity in
FDG uptake with primary small cell lung cancer. Then, in actual clinical diagnosis, how to more
accurately distinguish the metastases of OSCNEC and primary small cell lung cancer, especially
when only the PET/CT results are available for reference?