JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Sociodemographic Factors Associated with HPV Awareness/Knowledge and Cervical
Cancer Screening Behaviors Among Caregivers in the US
Version: 3 Date: 25 May 2022
Reviewer:  Kanan Desai
Reviewer's report:
1. Can the authors include a comparison to general population? Minority population, women
with low education, and older women, even among general population tends to have lower
awareness of HPV and lower care seeking behavior. Unless there is something characteristically
different for the caregiver population, why is the study finding interesting to report?
2. It is not true that cervical cancer is the most prevalent cancer among US women
3. Wherever you mention USPTF guidelines, please report which year
4. In the results in the abstract- the authors are not clear about the reference category.
5. Also, why are the Hispanics chosen as reference. Given that white population tends to be the
most advantageous in terms of healthcare access, why not chose white as reference?
6. What does Hamong American Immigrants mean?
7. Please check spellings and have article reviewed by native English speaker
8. Why were women never screened excluded? It is such important group of women to
understand disparities
9. How were weighted percentage calculated?
10. Please be more explicit to report the limitations of respondent’s bias and how HINTS handled
it?
11. How were variables selected for multivariable model?
12. P-value 0.05 and alpha 0.05 is one and same thing
13. After complete case analysis approach- what was the final sample size? What was the initial
sample size?
14. Is study in reference no. 49 refers to general population or caregiver population?
15. Shorten the discussion and make it more concise and crisper.
Title: Attempts to Purchase Misoprostol Online in Indonesia: A Mystery Client Study Design
Version: 1 Date: 17 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.  The manuscript provides descriptive
evidence on the availability of misoprostol for online purchase and delivery in Indonesia. The
study design and evidence is timely and novel. However, the manuscript needs to be structurally
overhauled to be more readily understood. Furthermore, there are some ethical concerns about
the study design.
The manuscript would be much more clear if it followed a more typical methods followed by
results structure.  Furthermore, many of the methodological details are too detailed and could be
moved to a technical appendix to enhance readability.  More statistical tests would be valuable
and more rigorous discussion of sampling methods would be helpful. It would also be helpful
to include the actual protocol as an appendix to the manuscript.
The discussion section is long and somewhat rambling -- it would be helpful to contextualize
the results more clearly and say what they mean for policy. It is not clear to the reader whether
the findings indicate that misoprostol is very difficult to obtain or not after conducting this
descriptive exercise. This section needs to be strengthened.
Finally, it would be helpful to understand whether this manuscript went through human subjects
review and to have more discussion of the ethical implications of publishing this work. Is there
a concern that the websites identified in this manuscript would be targeted with legal action and
that misoprostol could become even more difficult to obtain as a result of its publication?
I also have a few more minor points:
- when a sale was not made because the misoprostol was too expensive, what price was quoted?
Is there price data for other purchase? This would be valuable to include.
Title: Attempts to Purchase Misoprostol Online in Indonesia: A Mystery Client Study Design
Version: 1 Date: 19 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper is well written, although some revisions are needed to improve its readability.
Introduction: please give brief context to establish the importance of the issue & relevance to
your study. Focused on how your study might add to the sum of scientific knowledge and better
health policy or practice. There is limited literature study. Please add a literature study and what
is the conceptual framework of this study.
Methods: please describe the study design containing enough detail to allow another scientist
to repeat your study, including the analysis. Give information about population inclusion and
exclusion criteria sample frame, and Sampling procedures. Give information about sample size
calculations (effect, power). Describe the definition of variables that you used.  Describe Data
management.
Discuss Please add some information below:
One sentence repetition of “why this study ”summary of principle findings in one paragraph.
Headline message comparison with previous work. Give specific recommendations for further
work: implications for policy/ practice Describe the limitations of the study, taking into account
sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both the direction and magnitude of any
potential bias in the discussion section.
The conclusion should be concise and emphasize the relevance of the findings for an
international audience. with limited reference. please add more relevant references
Title: How do nurses and midwives perceive their role in sexual healthcare?
Version: 1 Date: 05 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
The author makes an adequate define of the fieldwork, uses adequate literature background and
suitable descriptions of the main topic concepts.
Recruitment and data collection process respect the standards concerning participants agreement
to participate and general ethical guidelines.
Data analysis followed an appropriate process for qualitative research and stages involving the
analysis are well structured and described.
Although it is not necessary it would be useful to include a table or figure summarizing the main
results according to the five themes developed in the finding or results section. Please see this
study as an example:
Chanmekun, S., Zulkifli, M., Muhamad, R., Mohd Zain, N., Low, W., & Liamputtong, P. (2021).
Managing sexual dysfunction for women with breast cancer: The perspective of healthcare
providers in North East Malaysia. Supportive Care in Cancer, 30(1), 401-411.
Title: How do nurses and midwives perceive their role in sexual healthcare?
Version: 1 Date: 21 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
How do nurses and midwives perceive their role in sexual healthcare?
Abstract
# The Abstract is very long.
# Conclusions should be presented based on research findings.
# Modify keywords based on MeSH.
Background
# The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a reference.
# Explaining the necessity of research, especially in this target group, is not clear and the
introduction is very long.
# The fundamental question is whether all nurses in all hospital wards should seek sexual
counseling. Or only clients with sexual behavioral disorders should do so.
# Is the selection of nurses and midwives in this study practical on this issue?
# It would not be better to interview clients or people with sexual problems or sexual behaviors.
Sampling and participants
# What centers / hospitals were the staff at? Did the patients there have sexual problems?
# How were the meetings conducted and held?
# It's not Individual interview, but the way you write it is an expression of Individual interview.
Findings
# The second paragraph, in the sentence "The nurses and midwives who participated in the
study….", It seems to be mentioned in the restrictions section.
# Specify the number of sub and main items and themes.
# How did you get these 5 main codes?
# The results section is also very long, it is suggested that the results in each theme be presented
in the form of tables and one or two items are mentioned in it or that category is explained so
that the results section is shorter.
# In the paragraph: "Appreciating the discussion around the individuals’ sexual…"  According
to the explanations provided, this concept does not seem to fit this theme.
Discussion
# The discussion part is also very long. Offer suggestions
Conclusion:
# Be concise and relevant to your findings
Title: How do nurses and midwives perceive their role in sexual healthcare?
Version: 5 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
We studied and reviewed your corrections and responses.
This is commendable.
It is suggested that the following answer question be mentioned as a suggestion in the text of
the article, at the end of the discussion.
"It would not be better to interview clients or people with sexual problems or sexual behaviors.
You are right.
Definitely, it would have been more enriching if we had the occasion to triangulate with a sample
of participants who complain of sexual problems. We hope that in future research, we can focus
on this aspect.  Yet, our aim was to explore nurses and midwives role in sexual health which is
not limited to patients with sexual problems."
Title: Results from a cervical cancer screening program in Samsun, Turkey
Version: 2 Date: 30 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
To authors:
It looks like a report but not an evaluation, because you did not conduct any evaluation procedure
to evaluate whether the technology, the service provision, and the quality of the tests are proper
to the  gaol of the national program ( to erase cervical cancer in the perspective timeline). You do
not evaluate whether the double sampling for primary HPV and secondary cytology  for none-
HPV16/18 is cost effective or technically effective to increase the coverage? based on the data
you demonstrated,  it seem effective without enough evidence to support. The evidence may
already there but you did not do evaluation.
You did not reveal what HPV assay you used in the project you reported, what is the standards
for "in adequate sample" for cytology examnation .
It is a retrospective analysis for the existing data, thus limits were  there. However, in reading
your manuscript, I believe you can figure out some data or collect further data that facilitate your
evaluation of the screening program. I suggest you to find relevant data to answer the following
questions so as to make your manuscript be an evaluation paper nor just report:
1.     what HPV assay(s) you used, especially how many HPV types each assay covers;
2.    among the HPV16/18 positives, how many cytology normal, to answer the question whether
secondary cytology is necessary and what role cytology plays in a cervical cancer screening
program.
3.    You should be able to specify how many CIN2/3  or HSIL were pathologically found, How
many missed by Cytology and how many missed by HPV TESTING, that is  the primary aspect
for an EVALUATION of the program.
4.  I think you may be able to fig out the total finance of the program. If you can do ,I would
strongly suggest you to evaluate what is the average cost for section of a CIN2/3.
5.   to evaluate a program, you should describe how the data was collected and managed so as
to confirm whether there are much data-error resulted bias.
Overall, I believe this manuscript will be better to be contributive to the programming of cervical
cancer screening program in the LMICs , which is really cost- and technically-effective.
Title: Results from a cervical cancer screening program in Samsun, Turkey
Version: 2 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer:  Diama Bhadra Vale
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors.
Thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript.
Turkey is one of the first countries to provide HPV screening in a population-based program.
All data in this context is important, especially coming from a middle-income setting.
However, my main concern is that your paper did not properly analyze the data. It is only
descriptive work:
1 - I would recommend performing statistical analysis on data.  Data lacks a proper statistic
management. Prevalence and prevalence ratios (a measure of risk) can be determined.
Other issues to be addressed:
2 - There are several mistyping errors. A careful review should be performed.
3 - In the discussion, paragraphs are too long. Should split it to make reading more comfortable.
4 - In the introduction, there are much basic information about cervical cancer natural history,
while few information on HPV screening, elimination of cervical cancer,  and others.
5 - Methods: I suggest including study design, setting, outcomes, subjects, and other
methodologic information.
6 - Should state the criteria to consider samples (HPV and cytology) as “inadequate”.
7 - According to Bethesda 2014 normal and infection should be interpreted as “negative for
lesion or malignancy”. Justify why it was not considered or group them as a single category.
8 - Results, line 134: The total is 979, and not 1,379. What are the other results?
9 - Line 147: CIN 1 is not a precursor lesion.
10 - And how about the final diagnosis after treatment/LEEP?
11 - Line 152: Needs a reference for the statement.
12 - Line 173: HPV positivity in our study decreases with age: You did not show it statistically...
13 - Line 207: Our study could not determine how many of the women in the screening group
did not accept screening.: An important data not highlighted is that screening coverage was very
low. It should be properly discussed.
Best regards.
Title: Results from a cervical cancer screening program in Samsun, Turkey
Version: 4 Date: 09 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I red your modified manuscript carefully and still think there is some problems you need to
clarify:
1.  in line 111-112, you stated that "This study aimed to evaluate the results of the national
cervical cancer screening program conducted in primary health care institutions in Samsun". but
you did not describe in what way you will evaluate the program.
2    Actually I did not read contents in the Method part regarding to Evaluation to the program
interns. It seems you just reported the method you used to conduct the screening program;
3.  in line 125-126, there is content as "b. Sampling Reports: Pap-smears of 10% of HPV
positive and normal cases are evaluated by the same 4 pathologists" . Questions regarding to this
description that should be clarified are: 1) why 10% par-smear of HPV-Positives and normal
were evaluated?  and 2) if the HPV positive cases were positive of Hr-HPV or any type of HPV?
4.  Line 130-144should be divided into 2 sections: HPV DNA analysis and Result reports
5,  Line 151-152, you described that 35 HPV genotypes were  reported, but did not state whether
all the types were referred for secondary screening with cytology, at lease it is not clearly stated.
6. line 161-165. the numbers should be carefully checked.
7.   I can not understand the line 197-198, which says There were 7,865 different types of HPV
genotypes in positive women. The most common HPV genotypes were 16, 51, 31, and 52 (Table
3). ". since you said before that you  just test 35 genotypes.
I am sad that I still not able to find contents that are  evaluative  Most of the content is just report
the detailed of the program. You did give any facts to demonstrate whether sampling for HPV
and cytology at the same time contribute to positive management rate or coverage? whether. it
is worth to do with such sampling arrangement interns of medical and financial resource inputs.
You did not even report, whether cytology for women positive of HPV16/18 still need to do
cytology for referral. More evaluative contents need to be added to contribute the science.
Title: Results from a cervical cancer screening program in Samsun, Turkey
Version: 4 Date: 12 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Diama Bhadra Vale
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors.
Thanks for the opportunity to re-review your article.
It has improved substantially after the extensive revision.
However, I still have some comments.
1) Your statement on the objective is that the study aims to "evaluate the results". As you are
not properly analyzing it statistically to make inferences, I would suggest the term "describe
the results".
2) In table 1 is showed an increase in HPV positivity % over the years. You should use a tendency
test to see if it is a tendency. If this impression is correct, this result should be discussed. I would
hypothesize it is because the invitation could catch the women more vulnerable in the late round
of the program. If so, the strategies used to catch those women should be stated.
3) Results second paragraph: "In our study, HPV positivity decreased statistically significantly
with age (x2 = ...). Did you use the Cochran-Armitage x2 test for tendency to calculate it? If not,
I am not sure if the simple x2 is the correct test for tendency...
4) Regarding the previous comment, this result should be displayed on the table.
5) Table 3: what is "Diger" at the end of the table. Should have a legend.
6) Results third paragraph: The Bethesda system classifies results as negative (and not "normal"),
other, or abnormality.
7) Results third paragraph: The cytologic results of those women HPV-positive should be
presented in a table or figure. They are very important results.
Best regards.
Title: Prevalence and Factors Associated with Loneliness Among Indonesian Female
Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The majority of the comments have been satisfactorily addressed by the authors. There is one
issue that I would want to draw the author’s attention on. This refers to the previous comment
about reporting the results.
In the results the following has been described: “…found among those who used a
psychostimulant drug - amphetamine (50%), had sleep disturbance (37.5%), had trouble from
using alcohol (26.1%), ever drunk alcohol (24.3%), had suicide ideation (21%) or suicide plan
(20.8%), and having no close friend (18.6%). On the other hand, a significantly lower rate was
found among adolescents with parents who understood their problem (5.4%) and those who
perceived that other student were kind and helpful (5.1%).”
This text refers to Table 1 I suppose? If that is the case, why are the other significant factors
not being described?
If it refers to Table 2 instead, authors should consider removing ‘parents who understood their
problem’ as it has no significant AOR.
Title: Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who
report difficulty paying for health-related care?
Version: 2 Date: 18 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Interesting study using a somewhat natural experiment with a pre-intervention control group.
1. On p. 5, the authors mention 340B pricing, that should be explained more for readers that
may not be familiar with this method of purchasing and pricing.  It is discussed in more detail
in the Discussion section, but it should be earlier.
2. Methods-additional information regarding the surveys used (validated questions on income
or method satisfaction?).  Also were participants eligible for no-cost contraception regardless
of their income?
3. Table 4, highlight with (*) results that are significant
4. The following sentence was confusing "And yet, only one LARC method on the market – a
hormonal IUD – is classified as a “low cost” method. " (p. 12)
5. Discussion-can the authors add in some statements about cost-removal and how their results
are different than earlier studies like CHOICE?
6. It may be helpful to talk about how cost barriers can accentuate healthcare disparities and the
role removing costs can enable patient-centered care
Title: Rural-urban correlates of modern contraceptives utilization among adolescents in Zambia:
a national cross-sectional survey
Version: 0 Date: 27 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors examine the factors associated with the use of modern contraceptive among
adolescents aged 15 to 19 years in Zambia using the most recent available nationally
representative dataset.
The abstract suggests that the authors used a multilevel multivariable logistic regression but the
methods section suggests that an ordinary multivariable logistic regression model. Authors need
to clearly highlight, which model was used and the potential benefits of the multilevel analysis
compared to the ordinary logistic regression.  In the abstract, the authors indicate that only age
and having a child were the significant factors for the urban model but Table 2 suggests that there
are more variables significant at 5 percent level (p-value <0.05) in the urban model. Authors
need to review the interpretation of results.
The introductory section needs to provide more country context on the specific policies and
programmes that have been implemented overtime in Zambia to address contraceptive use
among adolescents, also highlighting the challenges being faced. The authors need to clearly
explain the benefit of undertaking analysis by rural-urban location in the Zambian context, what
the key issues of concern?
In the discussion section, the comparison of the prevalence of  contraceptive use in Zambia
with  developed countries in Europe and USA, is inappropriate and better comparisons would
be made with lower-middle income countries. Authors need to also review the country context
and triangulate findings with changes or policies implemented in the country to explain some
of the observed results.
Table 1 should include the characteristics for the total sample (N=1677+1323). The presentation
of table 1 could be simplified. For instance, if 16% of adolescents are exposed to newspapers
then it is obvious that 84% are not, and therefore no need to present  yes and no categories in
Table 1.
Authors recommend the introduction of community health workers in Zambia, and yet these
are readily available in most health facilities, albeit facing a number of challenges in delivering
the services, which may need to be highlighted. Whereas the shortage of skilled staff maybe
critical for the provision of long-term family planning methods, other contraceptive methods
are distributed widely using community health workers (also known as community based
distributors). In general, the paper needs to delve more into the local context to better explain
the results and provide more practical and context relevant recommendations
Title: Therapeutic ultrasound versus injection of local anesthetic in the treatment of women with
chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal myofascial syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.
Version: 3 Date: 21 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Manuel Albornoz-cabello
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author
General comments:
1.    Please clarify the aim and hypothesis
2.    Participants –  why did the authors decide to include a large range of ages in the inclusions
criteria?
3.     Allocation, enrollment, and follow-up are not described
4.      In the results is a lack of interaction effect
5.     Why authors have not included a post hoc analysis?
6.     Please be sure that measurements are consistent throughout the entire manuscript (i.e. SEM)
Title: Therapeutic ultrasound versus injection of local anesthetic in the treatment of women with
chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal myofascial syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.
Version: 5 Date: 16 May 2022
Reviewer:  Manuel Albornoz-cabello
Reviewer's report:
The revised version of the original article entitled “Therapeutic ultrasound versus injection of
local anesthetic in the treatment of women with chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal
myofascial syndrome: a randomized clinical trial", includ the suggestions made a point-by-point
response to the reviewer’s comments.