JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The Safety and Efficacy of Liraglutide Combined with Metformin in Clinical Treatment
of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 09 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author(s):
Thank you for your detailed revisions and careful consideration of the reviewers' comments.
After reviewing your responses and the revised manuscript, I acknowledge that you have
addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers.
The abstract has been revised using the PICO framework as suggested.
Results presentation has been improved, with clearer descriptions and selection of key outcomes.
Language and grammar have been refined, resolving fragmented sentences and improving
clarity.
The PROSPERO registration number has been provided.
Risk of bias assessment has been appropriately clarified for the included RCTs.
The methodology regarding the choice of random and fixed effects models has been adequately
explained.
Table 1 now includes a more comprehensive description of the compared treatments, enhancing
transparency regarding study design and potential biases.
Abbreviations in headings have been replaced with full terms, improving readability.
Data standardization issues, particularly regarding AMH values, have been addressed, ensuring
consistency in measurement units and data presentation.
The discussion section has been improved, with a clear summary of key findings and elimination
of redundant content.
Limitations have been expanded, including a discussion on heterogeneity due to different
medication dosages.
A sub-analysis including only RCTs has been conducted as recommended.
Overall, the authors have made comprehensive and appropriate revisions that significantly
improve the manuscript. I find the changes satisfactory and recommend acceptance of the
manuscript in its current form.
Title: The Safety and Efficacy of Liraglutide Combined with Metformin in Clinical Treatment
of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and found it to be of high quality. However, I have
provided some suggestions to improve clarity, particularly regarding statistical methodology,
heterogeneity assessment, and consistency in laboratory methods across studies.
Your use of both fixed-effects and random-effects models is appropriate, but further explanation
regarding model selection criteria would enhance transparency. Additionally, a discussion on
how potential confounders were managed in the multivariate models would strengthen the
study's validity.
Another area that could be improved is consistency in terminology. Clear distinctions between
"exposure" and "dose levels" would aid in reader comprehension. Formatting of confidence
intervals should also be standardized to ensure uniformity in statistical reporting.
Despite these minor refinements, I find your study to be robust and highly relevant to the field.
I appreciate the effort and time put into this research, and I support its publication with these
suggested revisions.
I look forward to seeing your final published work and hope my comments contribute to further
strengthening your study.
Best regards
Title: Adolescents, Menstruation, and Physical Activity: Insights from a Global Scoping Review
Version: 1 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Well done on this big piece of work. I understand how resource-intensive scoping reviews are,
and discussing over 80 studies is no easy task. Please note that the feedback provided is intended
to improve the quality of your manuscript. My main concern is that there is no description for
how the data were synthesised in the methods section and as it stands is incomplete. Please find
detailed feedback attached.
Title: Adolescents, Menstruation, and Physical Activity: Insights from a Global Scoping Review
Version: 1 Date: 14 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this interesting and well written and developed scoping review which will make
a valuable addition to the literature. I have some minor comments, and one that I would like to
be considered regards charting of the data.
Suggest including reference to the Gopalan et al  (2024) systematic review (Preventive medicine.
184. 107980. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107980) in the introduction and discussion.
Line 77/78. Sentence refers to general symptoms rather than the relationship with PA and
therefore seems misplaced.
Table 1. Inclusion criteria: for studies with participants <10 yrs, what was the required mean
age or other criteria for inclusion?
Data extraction and charting of the data
a) there is data that you allude to extracting but are not reported, and if this was due to a lack
of data, this is not discussed. This includes reference to theoretical framework used, practice
recommendations and policy recommendations. Can you either include this in the results or
comment on why this is not reported.
b) It would be very useful to have the self-report approach to PA reported, whether these were
researcher developed or existing approaches.
Results general: I found the inconsistent reporting of the qualitative and then the quantitative
studies, or vice versa, across the different subsections confusing. Can you make this consistent?
Line 209. Make clear that the reference to dancing and swimming is the same longitudinal
study (e.g. ‘In this study…’). Also, in this study, what defined ‘dancing’ and ‘swimmers’ – was
this regular dancing and regular swimmers? This information is needed to make sense of these
observations.
Line 269. Clarify if these are cross sectional studies or otherwise.
Check reference list – formatting is inconsistent in places.
Title: Serum Creatinine as a Risk Factor for Endometriosis: Insights from Cross-Sectional
Study, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, and Diagnostic Model Study
Version: 2 Date: 07 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This article presents a novel discovery that serum creatinine is an independent factor in
endometriosis. Has a certain value. But in the discussion, the limitations of this study should
be clarified, as follows:
1. Serum creatinine can be a risk factor for endometriosis, but it is only one of the risk factors
and not a specific indicator. Clinical observation should be combined with other indicators;
2. Serum creatinine is generally used as an indicator to evaluate renal function. If only this
indicator is considered in the examination, how can we distinguish between renal dysfunction
or endometriosis?
3.What is the possible mechanism of serum creatinine in endometriosis?
Title: Serum Creatinine as a Risk Factor for Endometriosis: Insights from Cross-Sectional
Study, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, and Diagnostic Model Study
Version: 5 Date: 30 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Although the authors have incorporated the requested suggestions, the newly added paragraphs
are entirely lacking in citations. The statements and expressions introduced must be supported by
references to scientific literature. It is unacceptable for a scientific article to contain unreferenced
claims.
In particular, regarding the section on metabolomics, I suggest consulting the following papers,
which provide relevant and high-quality insights that could be effectively cited to strengthen
the manuscript  (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57866-4_2   https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jeud.2024.100077 doi: 10.1080/09513590.2023.2227276 )
Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 07 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Samaneh Rokhgireh
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, thanks for your study.
1-How did you calculate the sample size?
2- Please mention the reference of antibiotic treatment in the study method
3-Please identify inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly
4-What was your criteria for choosing laparoscopy or open method for surgery?
Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Major Comments:
Patient Population: Provide more information about the 38 excluded patients to address potential
bias.  
Diagnostic Criteria: Clarify how the diagnostic criteria were applied and how inter-rater
reliability was ensured.  
Treatment Modalities: Provide more detail about the specific surgical techniques used in the
laparoscopic and open surgery groups.  
Prognostic Factors: Discuss the clinical implications of the identified prognostic factors and how
clinicians can use this information.  
Limitations: Expand on the limitations of the retrospective study design and their potential
impact on the findings.  
Minor Comments:
Abstract: Make the abstract more concise by removing non-essential information.  
Introduction: Focus the introduction more specifically on the research question.  
Methods: Provide more clarification about the statistical methods used.  
Results: Simplify some of the tables for clarity.  
Discussion: Focus the discussion more on the clinical implications of the findings.  
References: Correct the formatting errors in the references.  
Additional Comments:
Consider adding a table summarizing the baseline characteristics of the study population.  
Consider adding a figure illustrating the different surgical techniques used.  
Consider adding a section to the discussion about the implications for future research
Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This is a paper that examines the prognosis through various treatment methods for pelvic abscess.
First, the differences in treatment methods do not significantly affect the results, which are
consistent with other studies.
Second, since the choice of treatment is based on the patient's symptoms and the size of the
pelvic abscess, the outcomes are naturally influenced by the abscess pattern.
Finally, the criteria for deciding between laparoscopic and open surgery are unclear, making the
differences in outcomes between these surgical methods less meaningful.
Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the revised submission and the detailed point-by-point responses to the reviewers'
comments. I appreciate the effort you have put into addressing the concerns raised in the previous
review. The manuscript has been significantly improved.
Here are my observations on the revised manuscript:
Methodology: The clarifications in the "Methods" section, particularly regarding the sample
size calculation, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the criteria for choosing between laparoscopy
and open surgery, are very helpful. The addition of Supplementary Figure S1, illustrating the
surgical technique selection process, enhances the transparency of the study design. 
Presentation of Results: The consolidation of prognostic factors into Table 2 improves the clarity
and flow of information. 
Discussion: The expanded discussion on the clinical implications of the prognostic factors
and the limitations of the study strengthens the manuscript. The inclusion of future research
directions is also a valuable addition. 
Overall, the authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewers' concerns. The revised
manuscript is now clearer, more comprehensive, and provides a more robust analysis of the data.
I recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its current form.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Samaneh Rokhgireh
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
Thanks for your response.
Regarding comment number 2, it is better to apply more updated references such as gynecologic
referenced Te Linde's Operative Gynecology 13th 2024.
Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 4 Date: 19 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised manuscript. The authors have made
commendable efforts to address the initial concerns, and the manuscript has been significantly
improved. The study presents a valuable retrospective analysis of prognostic factors in pelvic
abscess management. However, some further refinements are suggested to maximize the
manuscript's clarity, impact, and rigor.
Introduction: The expansion of the introduction to include a clearer statement of the study's
objectives is appreciated.  
Discussion: The enhanced discussion section, with its elaboration on the clinical implications
of the findings, is a positive addition.  
Limitations: The limitations section is well-written, and the additional emphasis on unmeasured
confounding variables and generalizability is noted.  
Weak Correlations: While the authors acknowledge the weak correlations and modest effect
sizes, I recommend strengthening this section by explicitly suggesting specific avenues for future
research to address this limitation.  For instance, please suggest studies with larger sample sizes
or alternative study designs that could provide more definitive evidence. 
Subgroup Analyses: If feasible with your dataset, please consider performing subgroup analyses
to explore specific factors in more detail.  If subgroup analyses were conducted, please present
them clearly. If not, acknowledge the absence of subgroup analyses as a limitation. 
Language and Clarity: The manuscript has generally improved in terms of language and clarity.
However, a final, thorough review for any remaining grammatical errors and to ensure precision
in language is recommended.  Ensuring clarity will further enhance the readability and impact
of the manuscript.
Title: Risk factors for the prognostic effects of patients with pelvic abscesses: a clinical
retrospective study
Version: 6 Date: 22 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript represents a robust and highly valuable retrospective analysis of pelvic abscess
treatment outcomes, providing significant insights into patient stratification and personalized
treatment strategies. The authors have diligently addressed previous feedback, particularly
by integrating the discussion of effect sizes. While they transparently acknowledge several
limitations inherent to their study design (retrospective nature, potential for bias, confounding
variables, single-center aspect, follow-up duration), the overall quality of the data presented and
the rigor of the statistical analysis are commendable.
The study design is appropriate to answer the research question, and the conclusions are well-
supported by the evidence presented. The methods are sufficiently described to allow the study to
be repeated. The use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties is appropriate. The presentation
of the work is clear. Guidance has not been explicitly provided on how overstated claims should
be rewritten in the general sense, as the document's focus is on presenting the study and its
findings. The images are free from apparent manipulation (Not applicable, as no gels/blots are
included).
This revised manuscript is now very close to being ready for publication. The suggested minor
revisions, primarily structural and related to conciseness, aim to further polish an already strong
paper. I highly recommend this manuscript for publication after these minor revisions are
adequately addressed.
Title: Primary Intracranial Immature Teratoma in an Adult Woman: Case Report and Literature
Review
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Interesting case. However, the manuscript in current state has various limitations.
1. The abstract is very vague, especially the introduction section.
2. Why only parietal lobe is mentioned? Would it not be better to mention lobar sites are very
rare?
3. Introduction section is vague and informal. It fails to highlight problem statement and why
this case merits publication.
4. Kindly explain " mid clearing' .
5. How could CT show edema? It cannot differentiate from non enhancing infiltrative tumoral
component.
6. Why were so many tumour markers sent based on clinical presentation? If the radiologist did
not raise metastases as differential, why were so many tumour markers sent?
7. Radiological description is poor and could be mentioned in detail.
8. Preoperative MRI T1 shows possible fat within the lesion: a very important clue for diagnosis.
9. First follow up MRI shows clear residual / recurrent disease. Why was it followed up?
Title: Primary Intracranial Immature Teratoma in an Adult Woman: Case Report and Literature
Review
Version: 0 Date: 16 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Introduction: "but rare primary intracranial teratomas in adults exist, particularly in women" -
Are these acquired? Please provide more literature review.
Case Presentation: "Computed tomography (CT) of the brain revealed a hypodense solitary
lesion in the right parietal lobe, approximately 32 mm × 26 mm in size, well-demarcated borders
with extensive edema around the lesion, compressed lateral ventricles, and a midline shift of 10
 mm" - Was there any calcification or evidence of fat within the lesion on CT?
"T2-weighted images were hyperintense" and "revealed a non-uniform annular enhancement
mass" - Please check grammar.
"whereas the choline and creatine peaks were within the normal range, suggesting that the lesion
was neoplastic." how was this suggestive of high-grade glioma given that choline was normal?
What were the metabolite ratios? It would be a good idea to depict MRS in the figure as well.
"The patient recovered well and was discharged on the 14th postoperative day." - Was an
immediate post-op scan done to check for residual disease? Was gross total resection performed
by the surgeon? More operative details are needed.
"However, MRI performed 13 months postoperatively showed a progressive increase in lesion
size"- What was done for the patient when her recurrence was diagnosed after 8 months of
surgery? Could this be radiation necrosis and how did you establish it was recurrence?
Literature review: "female-to-male ratio was 3:2" - the table shows male to female ratio of 3:2.
Discussion: "However, the results for all tumor markers were normal in our case." - What is the
possible reason for this? Please give some inferences.
"DWI can determine the density of tumor cells, and the movement of water molecules in tissues
reveals the cellularity of tumors."- What do most teratomas show on diffusion imaging?
"The major differential diagnoses include high-grade gliomas" - What about pleomorphic
xanthoastrocytomas, gangliogliomas and pilocytic astrocytomas? What about non-neoplastic
lesions?
"Primary immature intracranial teratomas are rare in adults." - How was it ascertained that it was
a primary immature teratoma of the CNS? Was whole body workup done to exclude metastatic
disease?
Overall comments:
Figure legends need to be improved.
Histology figure needs more detail.
Entire manuscript needs to be checked for grammar.
Title: Primary Intracranial Immature Teratoma in an Adult Woman: Case Report and Literature
Review
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for making necessary revisions.
Following are my comments for the revised document:
1. " radiologist suspected a neoplastic lesion with a high possibility of high-grade gliomas"
- kindly change to glioma. Also, clear presence of fat makes the possibility of preoperative
diagnosis exceedingly rare. If this fat was missed by radiologist, kindly mention so in the
discussion as this was an extremely important clue towards accurate preoperative diagnosis.
the points highlighting the merits of being a case report is a good addition, justifying the case
report.
Title: The massive bladder diverticulum mimicking an ovarian cyst is the diagnosis challenge
of pelvic masses in postmenopausal women: A rare case report
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Sangam Jha
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for reporting a rare case  and highlighting the diagnostic dilemma on imaging.  kindly
respond to following queries:
1. Add  'diagnostic challenge' in the title.
Title: The massive bladder diverticulum mimicking an ovarian cyst is the diagnosis challenge
of pelvic masses in postmenopausal women: A rare case report
Version: 1 Date: 14 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article.
There are some concerns,
What about the vaginal scan ?
What about the role of filling and emptying the bladder  during the scan to asses the change of
size of the mass in relation to micturition ?
On mri , the tract is seen connecting the diverticulum to the bladder which can be seen on
ultrasound and is helping in diagnosis .
What is the cause in the lady and what was the symptoms ?
What are the management for asymptomatic diverticulum ?
Title: WOMEN'S SATISFACTION WITH HEALTH EXTENSION SERVICES AND
ITS ASSOCIATED FACTORS IN HAWASSA CITY, SIDAMA REGION, SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA.
Version: 3 Date: 16 May 2024
Reviewer:  Temesgen Geta
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor, thank you for giving me chance to review this paper or “Maternal satisfaction with
health extension services and its associated factors in Hawassa City, Sidama Region, Southern
Ethiopia,2022”.
Comments to authors
General comments
I. This study needs an extensive revision.
II. Please revise gap of the study. Why you conducted this study or what new findings added
from this study.
III. Your title discusses maternal satisfaction with health extension services. As we know,
there are many health extension services in Ethiopia, such as EPI, FP, ANC, etc. Have you
evaluated maternal satisfaction with these services? Please justify this, or revise your entire
document. Your satisfaction level must be determined based on the specific service they
provided; otherwise, obtaining satisfaction status for all services at once is difficult.
IV. You carried out this study in Hawassa City. This is one of Ethiopia's top high-quality towns,
with the majority of women seeking health care from health facilities (private or public) rather
than waiting for health extension workers. Therefore, it is better to conduct this type of study
in rural areas. Could you please justify this?
V.
Specific comments
Abstract
1. In your background, the gap of the study was not adequately stated. It needs an adequate
reason why you conducted this study.
2. In your method, there is different study period in abstract and methodology part. Please revise
or justify this.
Background:
1. Please revise the gap of this study.
2. Your background needs more revision by adding; (1) magnitude, (2) any previous
interventions have been taken to enhance maternal satisfaction on all HE services.
3. You have to describe about or list health extension services in your background.
Methodology
1.      Your exclusion criteria contradict your study area and population. Did you get a severely
ill mother in your community? You can such as women from a health facility.  Please justify
or edit it.
2. Your study population was reproductive age women. Please revise your title, replacing
maternal by “client or women” B/c there might be unmarried women in study population
3. Your sample size calculation included P from the past 10 years study (study done in 2013).
It is better to use recent data. Please justify this
4. Your sampling technique is poor. There is no visible number on each Keble or health post.
To do proportional allocation, you must put the number in front of each Keble
5. Why have you selected only six kebeles? Because the town has many kebeles.
6. Your study needs a design effect. How could you justify this?
7. Your data collector’s numbers are inadequate. Because a home-to-home visit and face-to-face
interview are exhaustive.
8. Remove the result dissemination plan
9. Data collection instruments, please make it Data collection tools
10. Your satisfaction level in operational definitions should be coded