JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Impact of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Concept Process Optimization on the
Perioperative Period of Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 0 Date: 01 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have completed my review of your manuscript titled "Impact of Enhanced Recovery
After Surgery Concept Process Optimization on the Perioperative Period of Gynecologic
Laparoscopic Surgery." This study examines the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery
(ERAS) optimization on managing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures. A retrospective
observational study was conducted at Jiaxing Hospital, involving 60 patients treated under the
ERAS protocol from January to December 2023, compared to 60 patients who did not receive
ERAS treatment from January to December 2022. The ERAS group demonstrated significantly
shorter postoperative recovery times for several aspects, including gas evacuation, return to a
semi-liquid diet, urination, incision pain, and overall hospital stay (all P<0.001). Additionally,
there was a significant reduction in nausea and vomiting (P<0.001). However, both groups
had similar patient satisfaction (p>0.05). These findings suggest that ERAS optimization in
gynecologic laparoscopic surgery improves patient outcomes and reduces complications.
Please address the following suggestions and indicate any modifications made to the main
manuscript:
1. Lines 75-77: The authors state: "Several strategies have been shown to be effective in
accelerating recovery in the gynecologic perioperative setting:[6]." It is recommended that
reference six be placed at the end of this sentence rather than in the current position.
2. Line 122: Explain in detail how the control group was matched with the case group in the
methods section.
3. the inclusion criteria state: “…(4) Study conducted in accordance with medical ethics
requirements, with patients and their families informed about the study objectives and
procedures, and voluntarily signing informed consent forms.” However, lines 130-133 mention
”This study was approved by the Ethic Committee of Jiaxing Hospital of Traditional Chinese
Medicine. Due to the nature of retrospective study, the patients’ informed consent has been
waived by the Ethic Committee.” Additionally, lines 285-287 stated “Due to the nature of
retrospective study, the patients’ informed consent has been waived by the Ethic Committee.”
These statements reveal inconsistencies within the text.
4. Line 164: The authors state "Surveys are distributed to patients at 1 month postoperatively."
However, the study is retrospective and observational if it uses past documents.
5. Please clarify the meaning of "8" in line 232. Is it a reference?
6. The authors state in lines 244-226: "Early mobilization and nutrition: ERAS promotes early
postoperative mobilization and resumption of oral intake, which can contribute to faster recovery
of bowel function and overall patient well-being.[16]" However, reference number 16 is marked
as "INVALID CITATION." Please correct it in the references section.
Title: Impact of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Concept Process Optimization on the
Perioperative Period of Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have completed my review of the revised manuscript titled "Impact of Enhanced Recovery
after Surgery Concept Process Optimization on the Perioperative Period of Gynecologic
Laparoscopic Surgery." I sincerely appreciate the study team for taking the time to address my
previous concerns and suggestions.
I am pleased that the authors have incorporated the recommended improvements in the updated
version of the manuscript. At this time, I have no further comments to add.
Best regards,
Title: Impact of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Concept Process Optimization on the
Perioperative Period of Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate your revised submission of the paper examining the effects of the enhanced
recovery after surgery (ERAS) optimization concept on the perioperative period of gynecologic
laparoscopic surgery. ERAS optimization for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery has been shown
to enhance patient outcomes, decrease complications, and increase patient satisfaction. The
findings are novel, and the authors have revised the manuscript accordingly. I recommend that
the paper be considered for publication in BMC Women's Health. I extend my best wishes to
the authors.
Title: Biochemical, sex hormonal, and anthropometric predictors of non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease in polycystic ovary syndrome
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting this paper. Overall it is well written with a clear background and
context, methods, and discussion.
Can the authors please though however respond to the following:
1) Title: Serological predictors for screening non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in polycystic ovary
syndrome - Does this need to be rephrased to:
Serological predictors of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in polycystic ovary syndrome
or
Serological predictors for screening for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in polycystic ovary
syndrome
?
2) Diagnosis of NAFLD - liver biopsy and MRI has been acknowledged but has limitations
- invasive and expensive. Can the authors please comment on the use of ultrasound and its
accuracy? Is ultrasound more or less accurate than their current proposed use of serological
markers to assess for NAFLD?
3) Lines 127 & 128 - A 3D spoiled gradient-echo sequence was acquired in a single breath-hold
using multiple acquired echoes to generate fat, water, T2*, and R2* images. Can the authors
clarify why T2 and R2 have star symbols beside them?
4) Lines 144 & 145 & 148 -  Continuous variables were tested for normal distribution using
the Shapiro–Wilk test and were represented as the mean±standard deviation (SD) or median
(interquartile range, IQR).
Why both mean and median for all variables?
The results in Table 1 showed both mean and median.
Can the authors please clarify which variables were analysed for correlations using which of the
two tests listed - Peason and Spearman's?
5) Line 186 - similar questions as above - mean and median are both given for every variable
- why?
(but I note at least for Table 2 the authors have indicated which tests they used t-tests and which
ones they used the Mann-Whitney U-test.)
6) Indicators for screening NAFLD in overweight or obese patients with PCOS
consider changing to Indicators for screening for NAFLD in overweight or obese patients with
PCOS?
7) Lines 292-294
This multi indicator model can be used to screen for NAFLD in patients with PCOS prior to liver
biopsy and MRI, providing clinicians with valuable insights for early detection and intervention.
Can the authors please comment how does this compare to ultrasound which is not invasive and
not expensive?
Title: Biochemical, sex hormonal, and anthropometric predictors of non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease in polycystic ovary syndrome
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for asking me to peer review this extremely nice article.
Honestly and briefly, this extremely straight forward easy to evaluate paper based on the
methodology as well as the results obtained by the author.
After dividing the patients into two main groups with regard to proton density fat fraction more
or lest than 1.5 into two subgroups he measured all the demographic, hormonal and biochemical
markers extensively and compared them appropriately and even the author  supported his finding
with calculation of the ODD ratio and 95% CI and Pearson correlation coefficient  value, and
lastly with calculation of the cut off value by ROC curve. ALL IT IS CORRECT I AGREE
WITH IT!
Yet, There is very small issue with regard to the title pf the paper?! Maybe my humble knowledge
is incompatible with its understanding! what are those demographic, radio logical,  biochemical
and hormonal predictors of NAFL has to do with the word SEROLOGY? put in the title of the
paper????
I greatly praise appreciate the efforts of the author but I think a question should be sent to him
what the predictors of his paper of non alcoholic fatty liver disease among women with PCO
has to do with SEROLOGY with my best wishes and regards!!!!
Sincerely Yours
Wism Akram
Title: Biochemical, sex hormonal, and anthropometric predictors of non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease in polycystic ovary syndrome
Version: 4 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very ,much for resubmitting this nice article to me for peer reviewing
Indeed, the improvement in the new manuscript are clearly evident. Table 1 and 2 are showing
the main demographic, hormonal, biochemical and radio logical differences among the study
groups.
Table 3 shows the various cut off of various predictors while table 4 is expressing the
characteristics of those predictors of non alcoholic fatty liver  among PCO women!
Above all, the word [SEROLOGY] has been removed from the title!!! Nice indeed.
Decision Accept
Sincerely yours
Wisam Akram
Title: ‘I was eager to do anything I could to improve the situation’: A qualitative study of
patients’ experiences and views of prehabilitation for ovarian cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your qualitative study of patient experiences and views
of prehabilitation for ovarian cancer surgery.
It was excellently written and a pleasure to read. The findings were well summarised
and expressed, making the messaging clear and concise. The study provides an important
contribution to this under researched area and I recommend it is accepted with minor revisions
as follows:
-  the discussion section could be strengthened by exploring how their findings might be used
to enhance the delivery of prehabilitation programs or in identifying new areas where research
is necessary, what other gaps remain. An examination of what is next?
- the discussion section could also be strengthened by examining their findings in relation to
existing evidence. How does it fit with the current knowledge in this area?
Title: ‘I was eager to do anything I could to improve the situation’: A qualitative study of
patients’ experiences and views of prehabilitation for ovarian cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your submission. This is a relevant and timely study. The manuscript is very-well
written. All important methodology is included. The findings are extremely relevant for health
professionals trying to optimise the patient for surgery for ovarian cancer.
Title: ‘I was eager to do anything I could to improve the situation’: A qualitative study of
patients’ experiences and views of prehabilitation for ovarian cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have carefully read your manuscript. I believe the idea of analyzing the role of prehabilitation
in advanced stage ovarian cancer patients before surgery is interesting; moreover understanding
the best approach for each patient could surely improve the management of the disease in a
wider scale.
However, I have to point out some weaknesses that, in my opinion, do not make this paper ready
for publication.
1- Better explain the concept of prehabilitation, and it’s role in oncology. Explain in the main
text what literature evidences brought to. Lines 63 66 67
2- Explain the MILE program: what does it consist on? What is offered to patients?
3- I believe inclusion and exclusion criteria may be exposed in the full text and not only in the
table 1.
4- Results may be exposed in a more “scientific” way. How many patients, among the selected
ones, had a real benefit from the prehabilitation?(specify percentages). And in which extend,
even considering the four categories you exposed? Is it possible to identify sub-cohorts of
patients in order to personalize the prehabilitation procedures (for example pre-operative versus
post-operative prehabilitation, ethnicity etc.? explain)? How do you define the benefits from
prehabilitation in the MILE program? For sure the feelings of patients are important but in
terms of quality of life and survival does it make an advantage? And in which extend are they
important in defining the best approach to each patient? According to the thoughts collected
from the questionnaire which type of patients had a major benefit? The arguments provided only
by patients feelings and thoughts are poor and of little rilevance.
Since the answers to the previous questions in point 4 need an extensive editing of the
manuscript, I am apologetic of rejecting it, but I look forward to reading a more complete work
on the topic soon.
Title: ‘I was eager to do anything I could to improve the situation’: A qualitative study of
patients’ experiences and views of prehabilitation for ovarian cancer surgery
Version: 3 Date: 31 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revised submission. I have re-read your paper and the additions and changes
that you have made have addressed the reviewers' comments and enhanced your paper. Your
additions to the discussion section has strengthened the paper.
You have adequately assessed your research question.
Title: ‘I was eager to do anything I could to improve the situation’: A qualitative study of
patients’ experiences and views of prehabilitation for ovarian cancer surgery
Version: 3 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I note that this manuscript has
already undergone 1 round of reviews. The authors attended to previous reviewer comments
and suggestions, and I agree with their responses to the inappropriate comments of reviewer
3.  The manuscript is well-detailed and provides a solid rationale for the research and adequate
methodological detail. The findings are coherent and well-described, with plenty of quotes to
exemplify the themes and narrative presented. The discussion is appropriate, and the findings
placed in the context of other literature.
Title: Women physicians’ experiences in the workplace in Lebanon: A Qualitative study
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Myrna A. A. Doumit
Reviewer's report:
Dear Colleagues,
Thank  you for giving me the opportunity to review this important manuscript. This work under
review would greatly benefit from the feedback provided to enhance its clarity and impact.
Background
It would be more clear if authors mentioned if the percentages used reflect on  international ,
regional or national percentages.
It would be more precise if authors could give the gender percentage of physicians who left the
country
Methods
This section needs further work as such:
- Authors need to be more precise while mentioning qualitative research . what kind of qualitative
research did they follow?
- Also they need to justify why did they use this approach ( one sentence )
-  The inductive approach is related to content analysis
Data Collection
- First authors need to state how did they identify their sample?  what technique did they follow
in identifying the purposeful sample? (maximum variation sampling ) .
- Line 107 : physicians first need d to make sure that potential participants are in agreement
before volunteering names
-  The interview guide that was used is too long and does not match wit the nature of qualitative
data collection approach. It is too prescriptive and stems from a quantitative set of minds. I did
not see any alluding to probing
- What did authors ensure the accuracy and maintained linguistic equivalence during translation?
Results
- Usually we get one overarching theme followed by themes and subthemes . this overarching
theme refers to a central idea that emerges from the data analysis and ties together the various
themes and subthemes .
- The subthemes are not clearly presented under results.
Discussion
- The authors mentioned the women doctors expressed a strong commitment to their professional
career… however this is not reflected in the results section nor in the themes.
- The discussion section needs revisiting
Limitation
- The limitation mentioned do not commensurate with the nature of the study
Title: Knowledge and Awareness of Endometriosis Among Women in Southwest China: A
Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 11 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Uche Menakaya
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review the manuscript. The authors undertook a cross-sectional study
to assess the knowledge and awareness of endometriosis among women in southwest China.
introduction:
Could the authors provide a reference for the statement: "These delays are partly attributed to
limited awareness and understanding of the disease among women and healthcare providers "
Methodology:
Questionnaire design. Section 4. Questions that assess knowledge of endometriosis is quite
limited in scope. questions that assess the systemic effects of endometriosis - fatigue, bladder
symptoms, bloating, musculoskeletal symptoms were not included. Could this have affected
the participants responses? Did the authors adapt these questions from existing knowledge
questionnaires on endometriosis or did they develop theirs.
Data collection: how did the authors ensure that respondents did not double dip by responding
to both online and paper surveys?
Results: Authors should move discussion of result to the discussion section and avoid repetition.
Title: Knowledge and Awareness of Endometriosis Among Women in Southwest China: A
Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The sample encompasses women in the southwestern region with diverse characteristics such as
different ages, educational levels, and occupations. It has a certain degree of representativeness
and can comprehensively reflect the situation of the female population in this region. The sample
size was calculated using G*Power software to ensure that the study has sufficient statistical
power. However, there are still some issues that need to be improved:
1 Add charts, such as bar charts or line charts, in the results section to visually display the
differences in disease awareness among different age groups, educational level groups, etc.,
enhancing the visual effect of the results and making it easier for readers to understand and
compare. Meanwhile, for the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) in the results of the multiple - factor
logistic regression, further explain its practical significance in the main text. For example, clarify
how the likelihood of having a good disease awareness changes when the age increases by one
unit, to help non - statistical - major readers better understand the research results.
2 Further explore the specific impact of the research results on the formulation of public health
policies in the discussion section. For example, explain how to translate the research results into
practical intervention measures, including the design, implementation, and evaluation methods
of educational programs. At the same time, regarding the limitations of the study, such as recall
bias and social desirability bias that may exist in self - reported data, elaborate in detail on the
extent to which these biases may affect the research results, and propose methods to avoid or
reduce these biases in future research.
Title: Knowledge and Awareness of Endometriosis Among Women in Southwest China: A
Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript describes a large survey of 724 adult women in Southwest China that assessed
knowledge about symptoms and treatments related to endometriosis. Several exposures,
including older age, lower education, being married, and history of abortion, were associated
with “poor” knowledge of endometriosis. Although the authors frame the research question well,
there appears to be some disconnect between the description of statistical methods and the results
presented.
Major Comments and Questions
- In Table 4, we are not told how many participants have overall “good” knowledge of
endometriosis versus “poor.” The column sums for each covariate are not the same.
- Was there any missing data, and if so, how was it handled?
- I assume Table 4 shows the Chi-square and t-test results (as an aside, the tests can be
mentioned in the table). Where are the logistic regression results? Upon rereading the abstract,
I do see aORs reported here. However, these modelling results need to be included in a table,
identifying all variables used in the models and specifying the reference categories for the
exposure and outcome variables. The regression results should be described in the main body
of the manuscript, as well.
Minor Comments and Questions
- Were there any checks to ensure that participants did not submit the questionnaire more than
once, either online or on paper?
- How were participants recruited for both methodologies? Were there any incentives given for
participation?
- Was residence in Southwest China verified for participants who completed the questionnaire
online?
- The authors mentioned interest in urban and rural disparities, which I think is extremely
relevant to this topic. If urban vs. rural residence was not recorded in the questionnaire, it should
be included as a limitation.
- “This underscores the need for targeted educational interventions to improve awareness and
reduce misconceptions in this population.” This sentence and others like it in the Results section
come across as editorializing and should be moved to the Discussion.
- In Tables 1 and 2, are the “100%” cells necessary?
Title: Using a social marketing approach to increase the pap-smear test uptake: randomized
controlled trial among women residing in urban region
Version: 2 Date: 13 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear author:
What is the version of SPSS and Stata software?
Add a date to the abstract.
Add p value results.
Please read the abstracts of other studies and edit them accordingly.
Add no clinical trials to the abstract.
Add Hypotheses at the end of the Introduction.
Make the paragraphs in the introduction properly, 4 paragraphs are enough.
Figure 1 CONSORT how many diagrams as date?
Please test the homogeneity of the experimental and control groups in the analysis with chi-
squared.
What if the groups are already different?
After all, there are numbers, please edit them. Also the font is not right.
Title: The lived experiences of intimate partner violence in Iranian women staying with their
abusive partners
Version: 3 Date: 14 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Amir Moghanibashi-Mansourieh
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is about a important topic. Meanwhile I would like share with you some
comments and hope help to you.
Please mention in introduction about innovation of your paper which is difference with another
same papers.
in Table 1 better is mention violence types that participants experienced.
More than 8 participants are less than 40 years old, but based on period transition of cultural/
social in the country, how you analysis these findings? You know have increasing rate of divorce
in recent decades.
Please utilize the results of a manuscript same as your paper as per below link
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691823002949
Before limitation section, point out the strength of the present manuscript.