JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Reproductive outcomes among female health care workers
Version: 4 Date: 29 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the article revise.
points  that is still unclear to the reader
1.The introduction needs to be revised. What is a research question? Please write the introduction
according to the research question. You just deleted sentences. What defines research innovation
is still unclear.Please state the changes you made in the response file to the reviewer
2. Explain the random method
with regards
Title: Reproductive outcomes among female health care workers
Version: 7 Date: 03 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
Thank you for the efforts of the respected author in writing the manuscript. A few points are
raised, please note and correct:
• In general, the introduction of the manuscript needs to be improved in terms of a more detailed
description of the objectives and statement of the problem.
• The global and regional/ national statistics of the Occupational exposures and women's
employment, Health workers (especially women), and other risk factors of health care centers
should be mentioned.
• In some parts of the manuscript, including the introduction, in some clauses, its reference is
not specified.
• It seems that the final check of the manuscript has not been done, and some poor writing in
the text is not interesting (for example, two points in a row or not having proper references in
different paragraphs, which is considered a major weakness).
• According to the principles of writing, for the first time the full term of the abbreviation should
be mentioned. For example  CDC, SAB, LBW and etc.
• Regarding the factors of the questionnaire, the details of the indicators should be stated by
mentioning the reference. For example, smoking habits: how many cigarettes a day is considered
a smoker. The rest of the cases are like this.
• Are the questionnaires valid and reliable? If not, please explain the reasons.
• Tables need to improve appearance and content.
• The abstract needs to be organized and completed.
Title: Exploring Barriers to Using Modern Contraceptives and Accessing Safe Abortion Care
in Women who Terminated Unintended Pregnancies in Southern Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Ilaria Cuccu
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Exploring Barriers to Using Modern
Contraceptives and Accessing Safe Abortion Care in Women who Terminated Unintended
Pregnancies in Southern Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study” which falls within the aim of the Journal.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability;
- I would recommend to add further details about the use of etonogestrel (ENG) implant quality
of life, and sexual function in women requiring long-term reversible contraception and its effects
on pelvic pain pelvic pain, quality of life, and sexual function (authors may refer to: PMID:
30074068; PMID: 35683613).
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considered all this points,
I think it could be of interest for the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be
published after minor revisions.
Title: Exploring Barriers to Using Modern Contraceptives and Accessing Safe Abortion Care
in Women who Terminated Unintended Pregnancies in Southern Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Exploring Barriers to Using Modern
Contraceptives and Accessing Safe Abortion Care in Women who Terminated Unintended
Pregnancies in Southern Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study ”, 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 point and improve the discussion citing relevant and
novel key articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Methodology is sufficiently explained but I think it could be better clarified: for example
it would be useful specify why just oral consent had collected even if both written and oral
informed consent have been approved?
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
- In the section "Barriers to using modern contraceptives" it should be reported the percentage
of women that use only traditional contraceptive methods, and not just the number (line 4)
- The authors have not sufficiently highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study, such
as the general population's sample size interviewed. I suggest better clarifying these points.
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives.
- Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research (EQUATOR) network guidelines, more specifically does it respect SRQR and/or
COREQ guidelines for qualitative researches? It would be mandatory to declare about this
element.
Title: Exploring Barriers to Using Modern Contraceptives and Accessing Safe Abortion Care
in Women who Terminated Unintended Pregnancies in Southern Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study
Version: 4 Date: 02 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Exploring Barriers to Using Modern
Contraceptives and Accessing Safe Abortion Care in Women who Terminated Unintended
Pregnancies in Southern Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study", which
falls within the aim of this Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention and the
suggestions provided were respected.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 1 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Jingxian Ding
Reviewer's report:
The author tried to evaluate the relationship between blood flow and glucose metabolism and
histological parameters of primary tumor, normal mammary gland and axillary lymph nodes in
breast cancer patients who underwent F-18 FDG PET/CT.  They found  that  F-18 FDG in tumor
tissue was related to pathological histological parameters of breast cancers, which is  intersting.
The resolution of the figures is poor.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 1 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study involved the application of F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients, and explored
the relationship between blood flow and glucose metabolism of tumor tissue and pathological
parameters.
However, the author did not highlight the key points and clinical significance of the research
well when writing the paper. For example, in the Introduction section, the author mentioned
the issue of tumor microenvironment, but the relationship with this study was not reflected in
subsequent research content and results.
The discussion section can further explore the importance and potential applications of this
research. For example, the application prospects of these blood flow and glucose metabolism
parameters in clinical practice can be discussed, as well as how to further optimize the
measurement methods of these parameters
Therefore, I believe that the author needs to carefully summarize the research objectives and
prospects for future clinical applications, and rewrite the paper
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 1 Date: 03 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the quality of this original study, which aims to
find ways to evaluate the clinicopathologic features of breast cancer, the most common type of
cancer, with PET-CT, one of the current imaging methods.
Nevertheless, there are in my opinion some necessary corrections before any publication. I
present my comments according to the course of the article.
1)Introduction
1-a)In the first three paragraphs, references from the literature should be added in accordance
with the explanations.
1-b)The introduction is too long. It is recommended to write an understandable, shorter
introduction for readers. Sentences that are independent of the subject should be removed.
2)Materials and methods
2.1.Patients section,
a."After FDG-PET imaging, patients with distant metastases were considered candidates
for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and others underwent either breast-conserving surgery or
mastectomy." What is meant by distant metastases? We know that only a carefully selected
group of distant metastatic patients can be candidates for cytoreduction.
b.Is only pet-ct used for staging? Could this create a bias? pet-ct is known to be weaker for
lobular cancers, for example.
3)Results,
Unfortunately, the result section stands out as the weakest part of the study because there is not
enough number of patients.
a.The analyzes for the c-erbb2 value were either continuous or positive/negative. we know that
c-erb positivity is evaluated with sish or fish (when necessary) in the clinic. selected categories
are not suitable for oncology clinicians. reanalysis should be done.
b.What are ki67 1+ and 2+ in Table-3? should be explained.
c.Paragraphs are too long. should be shortened. however, the paragraph "Specht et al. described
the importance ..." is short unlike the others. It should be discussed why the results of the two
studies are different.
4)Discussion
a.The paragraph starting with "The SUVmax of the ipsilateral ..." contains a reference to why
colorectal tumors. References related to breast cancer in the literature should be included.
because this situation disrupts the flow of the article for the readers.
-In addition, it was stated that there was no relationship between histopathological parameters
and ki67. Is there such an analysis in the result section? (for example, ER positivity with ki67).
These sentences should be revised.
b.The weakness of the study is that there are no limitations. this should be revised.
5)Conclusion
a.While there is no prognostic analysis or prognostic evaluation from the beginning to the end
of the study, why is this mentioned in the conclusion and abstract (aim) section?
The study is an analysis of the relationship between clinicopathological features and pet-ct.
Different statistical methods are used to determine the prognosis in breast cancer.
If prognostic recommendations are to be made, it's important to avoid generalizing statements.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Daniel Sat-Muñoz
Reviewer's report:
The idea of the aim needs to be clarified.  PET/CT is a diagnostic tool to evaluate tumor activity
afar primary tumor. It does not influence the biological behavior of the cancer, and the redaction
is unclear in this sense.
A phrase that could better reflect the manuscript’s aim could be: "This study evaluated
throughout F-18 FDG PET/CT the relationship between blood flow and glucose metabolism
and histological parameters of the primary tumor, normal mammary gland, and axillary lymph
nodes in breast cancer patients."
In the abstract conclusion section, however, authors must include a profound reflection on the
roles of glucose in the processes of invasion and metastasis and even hypothesize about insulin’s
role in glucose metabolism.
The authors must realize language editing review for wordy phrases.
Authors must describe the role of tumor metabolism and metabolic routes related to glucose
and insulin metabolic relationship. The issue is relevant because the principal conclusion of the
authors in the abstract is centralized in glucose metabolism, and only glucose is an incomplete
metabolic route because the metabolism of carbohydrates involves important molecules and
hormones such as insulin itself, leptin, and adiponectin, among others.
Some authors have proposed throughout the last 20 years that breast cancer is a systemic disease
without macroscopically located distance metastases, so in this case, it could be necessary for
the authors to comment on the systemic nature of the disease at some point in the introduction.
The entire phrase could be part of the discussion, more than the introduction. The words break
the logical fluency of the discourse because they allude to a perception of the author’s results
in the current work.
This reviewer insists on the relevance of mentioning profoundly metabolic routes related to
glucose metabolism, including the theoretical role of insulin and adipocytokines.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 3 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their revisions. But I couldn't see the limitation part, it should be added to
the article. Additionally, the conclusion paragraph should be included separately in the article.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 3 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The author tried to find the relationship between the F-18 FDGPET-CT scan and the biological
behavior of breast cancer through the differences of F-18 FDGPET-CT imaging in the adjacent
tissues , axillary lymph nodes  and carcinoma in the same breast cancer patients.
However, although the final research data found differences in some parameters of PET-CT
between different expression states of HER -2, KI-67, and ER, it actually only reflects the basic
function of PET-CT in tumor staging and determination of tumor invasiveness , and cannot
provide more guidance for clinical practice.
Therefore, my opinion is rejection.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 3 Date: 22 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Daniel Sat-Muñoz
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript's quality is superior to the previous version, and the material and methods section
is straightforward and comprehensive.
Some typos in the manuscript need to be corrected.
The manuscript can be published with minor changes and careful style correction.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 6 Date: 18 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their important revisions and patience.After the revisions, the quality of
the article increased in accordance with the journal.
Title: Evaluation of blood supply and metabolism in tumor, axillary lymph node and normal
breast tissue with F-18 FDG PET/CT in breast cancer: Comparison with pathological prognostic
factors
Version: 6 Date: 18 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Daniel Sat-Muñoz
Reviewer's report:
The authors made the requested changes as part of the previous review. So, the manuscript can
be accepted for publication in its current version .
Title: Efficacy and safety of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 0 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Efficacy and safety of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors
for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials.”  In my opinion, this topic analyzed is interesting enough to attract readers’
attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest the
following recommendations
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- Considering the state of the art of literature, I suggest that authors to evaluate and cite relevant
evidence about possible therapeutic strategies for advanced ovarian cancer. I would be glad if
the authors discuss this important point, referring to PMID: 37314974.
- Considering recent evidence in literature, it would be interesting to highlight the importance
of adequate management ovarian cancers patients, with the aim to improve prognosis and
the possibility of tailored management for these patients. I suggest authors to read and
insert in references the following article: Tullio Golia D'Augè, Andrea Giannini,  Giorgio
Bogani,  Camilla Di Dio,  Antonio Simone Laganà,  Violante Di Donato,  Maria Giovanna
Salerno,  Donatella Caserta,  Vito Chiantera,  Enrico Vizza,  Ludovico Muzii,  Ottavia D’Oria.
Prevention, Screening, Treatment and Follow-Up of Gynecological Cancers: State of Art and
Future Perspectives. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023, 50(8), 160. https://doi.org/10.31083/
j.ceog5008160
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Efficacy and safety of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This paper investigates the therapeutic effect of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors in platinum-resistant
ovarian cancer patients. Combination therapy shows better overall survival/progression-free
survival, improved objective response rates, and higher toxicities related to treatment. With eight
articles included, this study has proper design and methodology, satisfactory results presentation,
and appropriate conclusions, providing evidence for ovarian cancer patient treatment. Minor
improvements include:
1- Figures must be cited correctly throughout (i.e., Figure 3A, 3B) in Line 179-180. Please
modify the entire manuscript.
2- Font size in figures should be enlarged for readability, particularly Figures 5 and Figure S1-S5.
3- Correction to "1442" to "1242" in Line 163.
4- Correcte parentheses in Line 402. It seem they are not for the English context.
Title: Efficacy and safety of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 0 Date: 22 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is described as a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing
monotherapy (cytotoxic chemotherapy or PARPi) with combination VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors
with chemotherapy or PARPi. The authors conducted a rigorous literature search to identify eight
trials that met their inclusion criteria and conducted a meta-analysis demonstrating improved
OS, PFS, and ORR with combination therapy relative to monotherapy. On subgroup analysis,
this benefit was limited to combination therapy with chemotherapy and no benefit was noted
with combination therapy with PARPi.
I recommend consideration of acceptance of this manuscript with major modifications as below:
1) Despite the title of this manuscript, there is no review of the literature in the body of the paper.
There is mention of the AURELIA trial in the introduction but no thorough review of all of the
included trials. It would be of interest to have a review of the specific trial designs and agents
used. Alternatively, you can omit this and remove "systematic review" from the paper though
this would be less appealing.
2) There is duplication of section 3.8 in lines 251-255 which needs to be removed.
3) The beginning of the discussion (lines 261-280) almost entirely recapitulates the introduction
and should be condensed down to 1-2 sentences.
4) The conclusion that this meta-analysis "provides a new treatment option" (lines 355-356) is
overstated as the addition of VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab is a well-accepted approach as it is
FDA approved and recommended in the NCCN guidelines.
5) There are some spelling errors and grammatic omissions that need to be addressed including
line 212 (PRAP instead of PARP), lines 292 and 293 (olapari instead of olaparib), add the word
"be" to the end of line 302.
Title: Efficacy and safety of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 0 Date: 23 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Ryusuke Murakami
Reviewer's report:
The systematic review for platinum resistant ovarian cancer in the manuscript entitled “Efficacy
and safety of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials” collected 8 randomized clinical
trials for meta-analysis and demonstrated the efficacy and TRAEs in combination treatment of
VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors and chemotherapy. n clinical practice, the only treatments available
for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer other than bevacizumab, including PARP inhibitors and
anti-PD-1 therapy, have low efficacy. Therefore, the manuscript will be meaningful. However,
the similar article (PMID: 37185961, Angiogenesis inhibitors for the treatment of epithelial
ovarian cancer) by Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews has been reported. In the article, the
assessments for platinum recurrent ovarian cancer were demonstrated separately in bevacizumab
and TKI with chemotherapy. Therefore, this article seems to be confusing owing to mixture of
bevacizumab and other TKI. In this context, in line 331-336, these sentences of “However, the
trials were included for recurrent OC, which did not focus solely on platinum-resistant disease
and included a subset of patients with platinum-sensitive disease. In addition, the latest clinical
trials were not included. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first meta-analysis that
explored the efficacy and safety of VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors in PROC, which provides new
treatment options.” seem to be misleading because this Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews
have already demonstrated them.