JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The oncological and obstetric results of a radical trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing
therapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Pietro Serra
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “The oncological and obstetric results of a radical
trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing therapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients” (3e0baa5a-
b37b-4e52-b163-a970e945a50f), which falls within the aim of this Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English.
- Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research (EQUATOR) network guidelines? It would be mandatory to declare about this
element.
- In light of the advanced techniques to detect early-stage disease, to date it is mandatory to
consider even the possibility of fertility-sparing approaches in order to preserve reproductive
potential of women affected by gynecological cancers. I invite authors to discuss this point,
referring to: PMID: 22398708; PMID: 34769256.
- It would be interesting to discuss how to manage difficult cases of cancer in pregnancy,
especially in case of invasive cervical cancer that requires laparoscopic nodal evaluation before
oncologic treatment delay or lymphadenectomy (refer to: PMID: 20460189; PMID: 24424374).
Title: The oncological and obstetric results of a radical trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing
therapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. Unfortunately, the writing in the manuscript is rough in some areas making it difficult to
understand. As a recommendation, you should have your manuscript edited/reviewed by a
professional/native English speaker. Examples: "Cervical cancer ranks fourth among the most
common malignant diseases among women worldwide....",  "Of more concern among doctors
than the occurrence of a miscarriage is the high rate of preterm delivery among pregnant
patients...."
2. In table 1, when you are referring to FIGO stages (eg IA1), the reader does not know what
you refer to. The information is scattered across the manuscript, for example you are mentioning
"IB3 (tumor diameter, 5 cm (both), exophytic) ..." in the manuscript but this information is not
collated in a specific place. Please consider including the information in the table.
3. In table 2,  is the first column (serial number) referring to something? If it is not required can
you please remove it? I would also consider being verbose about column 3 instead of writing
the regimens in abbreviations.
4. In your methods section,  you are mentioning that you performed statistical analysis with
SPSS. Did you find any statistically significant results? If so, didn't SPSS produce forest plots
indicating the significance? It is essential to present those plots to backup your results which is
why I believe you should include them in your paper.
5. Overall this is a very interesting subject and after reviewing the results and the outcome of
the paper I must say that it looks promising. Bigger studies/trials should examine the possibility,
definitely. The paper overall is good, it requires a few amendments as mentioned above before
publishing.
Title: The oncological and obstetric results of a radical trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing
therapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients
Version: 2 Date: 14 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Pietro Serra
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “The oncological and obstetric results of a radical
trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing therapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients” (Submission
ID 3e0baa5a-b37b-4e52-b163-a970e945a50f), which falls within the aim of this Journal.    In
my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Methodology
is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis.
Title: Evaluation of urinary continence status and its influence on quality of life after gyneco-
oncological treatment of female pelvic malignancies at an oncological center
Version: 1 Date: 09 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
In one word - this has to be simplified! Your aim is to further inform interested public -
physicians who treat oncologic patients - with importance of possible consequence of oncologic
treatment - urinary incontinence. But instead of discussing possible causes of your statistical
findings, you manly discus statistical methods, which are completely non-understandable to the
public!
Title: Evaluation of urinary continence status and its influence on quality of life after gyneco-
oncological treatment of female pelvic malignancies at an oncological center
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors have put great effort into
the study, although I am not sure if it adds much to the existing knowledge in this field.
My main issue is that you included little over 120 oncological patients, but 48% had no UI. Still,
you included them in QoL calculations and other analysis. In my opinion, these patients should
be excluded, or two groups should be created and compared.
General comments:
- The manuscript needs some proofreading and grammar editing.
- There is no need for two or more decimal places in percentages.
- Some abbreviations (e. g. UI, ICIQ) are not used consistently throughout the manuscript.
Introduction:
- The introduction is nicely written and reads well.
Methods:
- How was this a retrospective study if you actively recruited the patients?
- Number of eligible patients and included patients is usually written in results. Same goes for
the types of malignancy they had. You do not have to write it in both places.
- Try to better define primary and secondary aims of the study. Some of it is mentioned in the
Statistical Analysis, but it should be stated clearer.
Results:
- Table 2: ICIQ score does not measure just the prevalence of UI. Please correct the title of the
table.
- Table 3: You determined the QoL for all patients and not only those with UI. If any, you should
create two groups (patients with and without UI), as the focus of your study are patients with
UI. The same should be applied to the whole analysis.
- Time period from patients’ primary treatment would be useful.
Discussion:
- You are repeating some data from results (response rate etc.), which in unnecessary.
Title: Evaluation of urinary continence status and its influence on quality of life after gyneco-
oncological treatment of female pelvic malignancies at an oncological center
Version: 5 Date: 09 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Your revised article significantly improve message to the interested public. It is now clear, that
type of the operation (beside some other factors) mostly affect function of the lower urinary
tract and consequently QoL.
Title: Evaluation of urinary continence status and its influence on quality of life after gyneco-
oncological treatment of female pelvic malignancies at an oncological center
Version: 5 Date: 01 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for their work on the manuscript.
One of my major concerns was that patients with and without UI were considered as one
homogenous group. This issue was still not addressed completely. I think this is a major
methodological flaw.
Regarding my other comments, the authors have made all the necessary changes.
Title: Hotspots and determinants of women’s discriminatory attitude towards people living with
HIV; Evidence from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey data
Version: 3 Date: 22 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
To the Authors,
Again, I would like to thank you for the invitation to review the manuscript entitled "Hotspots
and determinants of women’s discriminatory attitude towards people living with HIV; Evidence
from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey data". Hotspots and determinants of women’s
discriminatory attitude towards people living with HIV  is almost un touched area that needs the
attention of the policy makers, scholars and healthcare administrators. The manuscript addressed
a significant public health concern and can be baseline for the scientific community.  The authors
addressed all the previous comments but minor language editions are required.
Title: Hotspots and determinants of women’s discriminatory attitude towards people living with
HIV; Evidence from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey data
Version: 4 Date: 29 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Hotspots and determinants of
women’s discriminatory attitude towards people living with HIV; Evidence from EDHS 2016
data”.
The authors describe a secondary analysis of national survey data to determine discriminatory
attitudes from women of people living with HIV in Ethiopia. They describe which regions are
hotspots for these types of attitudes.
This is the third review of this paper following revisions. The authors have successfully
addressed all comments and have vastly improved the article.
I recommend this move forward for publication.
Title: Hotspots and determinants of women’s discriminatory attitude towards people living with
HIV; Evidence from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey data
Version: 4 Date: 30 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Yet again, thanks for the opportunity of reviewing the manuscript. I hope the manuscript
provides a unique insight into women’s discriminatory attitudes toward people living with HIV,
particularly in an Ethiopian setup.  The authors attended to the previous comments and improved
the language edition.
Title: Social inequalities in women exposed to obstetric and gyneco-obstetric violence in
Ecuador: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 05 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Asieh Moudi
Reviewer's report:
There are numerous strengths point to this study, including its diverse sample and sufficient
sample size.
- section method:
Please, describe relevant dates, including periods of recruitment and data collection.
- section results:
Please, report the type of violence (verbal, physical, or non-consensual care/procedures) and
related factors.
Title: Social inequalities in women exposed to obstetric and gyneco-obstetric violence in
Ecuador: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 13 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Overall I found this paper to be well written and authors have been quite thorough in assessing
the OV and GOV across Ecuador.
Some comments are-
1. The age group 15-25 is having good representation in survey and with this sample size authors
can think of splitting the age group to have better understanding of OV and GOV for adolescents/
minors.
2. Is there any variation in OV/GOV by type of health care facility ?
3. What are the redressal mechanisms available and if data is available for same, authors may
provide some information about it.
4. Given around 10% non-response, authors may provide some analysis for robustness of
findings.
Title: Self-referrals and associated factors among laboring mothers at Dilla University Referral
Hospital, Dilla, Gedeo Zone, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The study is intended to address one of the major health care delivery system in Ethiopia that
is referral. Having said this, I do have a number of comments and suggestions to be addressed
if possible.
General comment: The document needs principal language revision.
Introduction/background
1. The paragraphs are outside of objective of the study, and the information included in this
section is not articulate (from global to Local). Therefore, this section should be rewritten in a
focused, informative, and articulate manner that can indicate the magnitude, and determinants
of the research topic. Self referral percentage and associated factors in a clear manner.
2. Please provide the difference b/n bypassing, self referral and formal refer? With single line
3. In the last paragraph. Do authors think that this conclusion, objective, and topic are in line
with each other? Please provide/add literatures related to self referral?
Methods and materials
1. From the total delivery (3475) how many of there were self referred? How many self-referred
laboring mothers were expected (monthly, and/or yearly)?
2. Please see the study population and source population. All laboring mothers mean it included
whether referred or not?
3. Please proved clear inclusion and exclusion criteria’s?
4. Why every other delivered mother? What was the value of k? And your topic it says laboring
and you collected the data from delivered mother? How it could be?
5. Why authors focused on yes no response, rather than observing referral form?
6. Does distance is measured by minutes? Please see your table?
7. Why median rather than mean? And why you placed mean table 3
8. How monthly income in birr for both urban and rural?
9. All components of methods and materials were not incorporated? One by one.
Title: Trends and Determinants of Adolescent Pregnancy: Results from Kenya Demographic
Health Surveys 2003–2014
Version: 2 Date: 19 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Yohannes Wado
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer comments
Many thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript “Trends and Determinants of
Adolescent Pregnancy: Results from Kenya Demographic Health Surveys 2003–2014”.  It is
a well written manuscript and a great contribution to assess the trends and determinants of
adolescent pregnancy in Kenya.
I have the following questions/comments on the manuscript:
1. Please clarify the definition of adolescent pregnancy used in this analysis.  In the abstract
(result section) and methods section, adolescent pregnancy is described as  “The percentage of
women aged 20 to 24 years who reported their first pregnancy between ages 15 and 19 years”.
Does this mean all pregnancies that occurred before 19 (Example at age 13 or 14) were not
counted?
2. Could the authors elaborate on why they looked at trends from 2003 to 2014 while DHS
data is available from the early 1990s? In addition, I am wondering if the idea of examining
determinants is to understand factors associated with declines over time or for a specific time
point (Example. 2014 DHS). Please describe the purposes of pooled analysis.
3. It would be useful to examine the trends in adolescent pregnancy by geographic areas (region/
province or county)  to examine which areas have not experienced changes in adolescent
pregnancy.
4. It would help to place these findings more firmly in the context of previous literature. There
are several research papers on adolescent pregnancy in Kenya and sub-Saharan Africa. What
new additions/findings can be highlighted from this analysis?
5. Authors should make clear in the limitations sections that the data are only current pregnancies
or previous births, and do not capture adolescent pregnancies that end in miscarriage, abortion
or stillbirth.
6. The analysis of determinants is limited to a few socio-demographic covariates (age, education,
religion, place of residence …).  Have you thought about controlling for effect modifiers, and
determinants such as exposure to media, norms around adolescent childbearing - for instance
age of sexual debut and age of marriage.. etc. I think it is important to explore the literature and
see what key determinants are missing.
7. A discussion on the implication of the finding for policy and programmes would be
informative as how can policy makers and other stakeholders use the information of these
findings?
8. Many of the references listed were not written in standard reference writing standards
(References # 6, 9, 17,18, 23,24…….).
Title: Trends and Determinants of Adolescent Pregnancy: Results from Kenya Demographic
Health Surveys 2003–2014
Version: 4 Date: 10 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript. The authors have done a good job of
implementing the feedback provided by the reviewers. With respect to my previous comments
where the authors have responded, I feel that a could should be further clarified. I have referred
to these below by their original item number.
#2c (shift in urban coverage) - Thank you for providing this explanation. It should be mentioned
in the discussion, and a reference provided for the rationale used to justify the change in
urbanicity. In re-reading the manuscript, I didn't see that this appeared.
#4 (wealth quintile/occupation) - Thank you for your clarifying. The manuscript would benefit
from mentioning that there was multicollinearity between wealth quintile and occupation, given
the general interest in adolescent employment and how this affects outcomes.
Title: Trends and Determinants of Adolescent Pregnancy: Results from Kenya Demographic
Health Surveys 2003–2014
Version: 6 Date: 23 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Gebretsadik Shibre
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their great work.
A few more remarks on this paper:
- I saw that you have elaborated on some sections of the paper and that is great.
-  I continue to kindly suggest that further information be provided surrounding how the wealth
index was constructed in the data.  It is just for clarity and reproducibility reasons. Add some
elaboration on what variables were used in the creation of this index and whether the creation
process varies by urban and rural area.
- I see that you have assessed the trend via regression analysis using the pooled dataset. I have
found this strategy simply better than relying on p-values and  than the mere comparison of
confidence intervals of 2 or more time periods after doing a separate data analysis for each data
point as it would allow you to adjust for other variables. I appreciate this.
- I suggest that, instead of describing “trend analysis” and “Pooled regression analysis” in the
method section separately, I suggest that you describe that you have used pooled regression for
trend analysis. Currently, they are presented separately and this confuses as long as you do not
have other reasons for the use of the pooled regression analysis.
- I would like to cast doubt on the appropriateness of the methods you used to generate VIF. This
method is straightforwardly measured in linear regression, not in non-linear ones like yours.  it
is not mentioned in the manuscript how it has been done so following your logistic regression
model. Moreover, if you find it appropriate to calculate VIF for categorical exposure variables
using logistic regression, I think this should be done for each year separately, unlike what you
did. I would also suggest you put references for this.
- I would like to thank you that you took the complex nature of the data into account. However,
it is still not clearly documented in the paper that the uniqueness of the strata and cluster were
ensured in the pooled data. This is because two different clusters may have the same name
because the data have been derived from the same country in different time periods. So, Stata
would consider these entirely different, but same name cluster, as one and you would be biased
in your results. Second, the type of weight you applied it not clear. Since weights are survey
specific, the analyst needs to make some adjustments to the weight when the data is pooled from
different surveys. I think it would benefit the paper to look at it again and clarify things.
Title: PREVALENCE AND SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF STAGE 3 AND 4 PELVIC
ORGANS PROLAPSE IN JIMMA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, SOUTH WEST
ETHIOPIA
Version: 2 Date: 03 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Authors should consider
the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be revised in order to correct many typos and improve style. I would suggest
a
native English speaker to correct syntax errors.
- In background section it would be appreciable if you may add a topic on laparoscopic technique
for the POP treatment referring to PMID: 31770687
- The staging system is not important to be explained in detailed. Name only the system that you
have used in your manuscript (POP-Q)
Title: PREVALENCE AND SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF STAGE 3 AND 4 PELVIC
ORGANS PROLAPSE IN JIMMA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, SOUTH WEST
ETHIOPIA
Version: 2 Date: 17 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- Accumulating lines of evidence already highlighted that POP has a severe impact on quality
of life and may lead to a significant impairment of sexual functions; for this reason, a
multidisciplinary approach is recommended for an accurate management. I would stress this
point, discussing some key articles: PMID: 28589780; PMID: 28584614.
- Among POP, cystocele represents of the most challenging condition: the prolapse of anterior
compartment, indeed, could be treated by both prosthetic surgery and native tissue repair. I
suggest to discuss pro and cons of these two approaches, referring to: PMID: 26801794; PMID:
21561348.
Title: PREVALENCE AND SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF STAGE 3 AND 4 PELVIC
ORGANS PROLAPSE IN JIMMA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, SOUTH WEST
ETHIOPIA
Version: 4 Date: 08 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have read the revised manuscript
You have analysed 92 patients but you have written that at the time of discharge you have
analysed 97 patients. Kindly clarify.
I still feel that introduction can be more presize. You can add all those details in discussion if
required.
Title: PREVALENCE AND SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF STAGE 3 AND 4 PELVIC
ORGANS PROLAPSE IN JIMMA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, SOUTH WEST
ETHIOPIA
Version: 6 Date: 16 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank for revising the manuscript.
There are few spelling mistakes, Kindly look into that.
Background : I again repeat that it should be consized.
Title: How, when and where? A systematic review on abortion decision making in legally
restricted settings in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean
Version: 4 Date: 03 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The article discusses a sensitive and vital topic for vulnerable women. the first  suggestion: the
title you  could include the words: "some countries in the ..."because not all countries of the 3
regions were included.
The discussion on decision-making is complex and the numerous qualitative studies were
divided into 4 broad themes but as ustedes recognize in page 24 "Relatedly, included studies
concentrated in only a few of the many countries in Latin America and Africa so findings and
recommendations may not be representative of or relevant to the entirety of those regions" my
suggestion would be a paragraph indicating which themes will emerge and can be revised in the
future as you suggest in the conclusions.