JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: RNA-seq reveals co-dysregulated circular RNAs in the adenomyosis eutopic
endometrium and endometrial-myometrial interface
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper has been significantly improved. Good job!
Only for my previous comment no. 4 please give accession date for this database - https://
www.genome.jp/
Please write the date (day, month, year) of obtaining data from this database, e.g. 15 May 2022.
Title: RNA-seq reveals co-dysregulated circular RNAs in the adenomyosis eutopic
endometrium and endometrial-myometrial interface
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors for the thorough work they did to improve their manuscript.
I have two minor suggestions.
1. Thank you for clarifying in your response the anatomical area you retrieved as EMI. I would
propose to specify this in your manuscript also (just a mention that you are talking about the
inner 1/3 of the myometrium), as the JZ itself is generally recognizable at imaging but not
histologically (see  Lesny and Killick, BJOG 2004; Brosens et al., Lancet 1995) .
2. Another limitation of the study would be the absence of infomation regarding the ectopic
lesions, which are known to differ from corresponding endometrium in many aspects .
Title: Protein expression profiling identifies a prognostic model for ovarian cancer
Version: 0 Date: 04 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Protein expression profiling identifies a
prognostic model for ovarian cancer”, which falls within the aim of the Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. The
methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion by citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
- OVERALL COMMENTS: - Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker
to improve clarity and readability. I found a lot of English impairment, which is impossible to
list all. I suggest using a professional English writer and correcting them all. Vice-versa, if they
will be present after the first correction, I will raccomand rejection.
- METHODS: - Although it is a retrospective analysis, Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be
better clarified by extending their description.
- DISCUSSION:
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying 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
- To improve comparison with existing literature, authors should better describe the role of well-
known proteins by extending references with the earliest review on the topic (PMID: 33228245)
and (doi: 10.21037/gs-20-544)
Title: Protein expression profiling identifies a prognostic model for ovarian cancer
Version: 0 Date: 26 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Mario Palumbo
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to review this paper: “Protein expression profiling identifies a prognostic model
for ovarian cancer”
The methodology used by the Authors is appropriate for the purpose of the article description.
The English language is fluid and well understood. Nevertheless, minor revision is needed.
The abstract is well defined, the division in background, methods, results, conclusion.
- Add also here the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the enrolment of the patient;
Regarding the introduction, I find this article very interesting, you can add this paper to deepen
the topic.
DOI: I recommend integration with this job: doi: 10.21037/gs-20-544
As regards the paper’s structuring (methods/discussion): There is a good structure of the project.
The Cancer Proteome Atlas (TCPA) database / The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) program
data portal they represent a good option for the structuring of the project.
What precautions did you have in the selection of the samples, in particular on the role of genetics
to avoid bias?
In the literature have you found support on the construction of your project?
Results
- Cite and analyze the limits of the study;
Conclusion
The six proteins and the risk model can open the way for future research.
Increase the number of references
Title: Effectiveness of Life Skills Training Based on Self-Care on Mental Health and Quality
of Life of Married Afghan Women in Iran
Version: 3 Date: 17 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Overall: This is an interesting study and focusing on an important subject area. However, the
study would benefit from some clarification in method section.
Abstract:
- I agree that the first sentence, but would you please support with a reference in introduction
section of the manuscript?
- Method section: Add the word “study” after “this quasi-experimental”.
Use the word “experimental group” instead of “Case group”. Consider this change in related
sections of the manuscript.
Introduction:  Page 3, last paragraph, delete the first line up to the third line (In the
………………….women-headed households). Replace it with “The results of previous studies
revealed that the life skills training…………………...women’s health (16, 17)”
Method: This section is detailed in some respects, but could further details are needed for
clarification:
- Page 4, first paragraph: Please mention the time period for conducting posttest after
intervention.
-  Page 4, Inclusion criteria: Please add the duration of time participants are living in Iran.
- Page 5, first paragraph: Based on the reference No 20, the validity of the GHQ-28 was measured
for Iranian community. Please mention if you validated the questionnaire in Afghan community.
Table 1: Sessions two to five need revision for punctuation.
Sessions three and five: mention the titles of content instead of sentence.
Title: Effectiveness of Life Skills Training Based on Self-Care on Mental Health and Quality
of Life of Married Afghan Women in Iran
Version: 6 Date: 02 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
More correction is needed for using the word “experimental group” instead of “case group”.
Please  consider this change in related sections of the manuscript: line 17, 98, 103, 155, and
157-158 (Table 2:  title and third column/Group).
Title: The association between Healthy Beverage Index and psychological disorders among
overweight and obese women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 27 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript presents interesting and important results. A few issues, however, need to be
addressed:
• You should better elaborate introduction and aim of your study in relation to the literature.
• Insert the response rate to the questionnaires and explatation why you have chosen  exactly
DASS -21 for your study
• What formula did you use to determine the sample size for your study?
• Write a more powerful conclusion for your study.  What are your study's implications for
practice-health promotion and education/ therapy?  write your own conclusion.
Title: Chlamydia Infection, PID, and Infertility: Further Evidence from a Case-control Study
in China
Version: 5 Date: 07 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your comprehensive response to the reviews of the earlier version of this paper.
• The aim of the paper is to investigate whether previous/current chlamydia infection and
previous PID would influence the risk of infertility in the Chinese population.  Given that there is
an extensive evidence base about the relationship between chlamydia, PID and infertility perhaps
the study aim would be better to explore factors associated with infertility. My main comment
is about the relationship between chlamydia and PID.  Given that chlamydia and PID are both
on the causal pathway for infertility and that chlamydia positivity differed between cases and
controls, I feel that chlamydia infection should be part of the adjustment in the models exploring
associations between PID and infertility.  This may alter the effect size, but it is important to
adjust for chlamydia / STIs in when examining the relationship between PID and infertility.
I have some further comments for the manuscript.
• Line 63 and elsewhere through the paper – chlamydia should only be in italics where it refers
to the pathogen Chlamydia trachomatis  and when referring to chlamydia infection should be
in normal font.
• Line 78 – sentence about the 2 child policy, is there a word missing ? years.
• Cases were all women who had their infertility investigated via laparoscopy and/or
hysterosalpingo lipiodol.  Given that the definition of infertility was failure to conceive after 12
months of unprotected intercourse why were only women having laparoscopy / hysterosalpingo
lipiodol included.  Are they potentially different to women diagnosed with infertility by other
means and are they potentially more likely to have chlamydia or a history of PID.  Please justify
why only women undergoing laparoscopy / hysterosalpingo lipiodol were included.
• Line 161 And endocrine disturbance (20%) also worth attention. – is not a compete sentence
• Table 3 – could the authors explain the very large effect for pregnant controls compared with
secondary infertility
• Table S1 and S2  – is somewhat unclear as the positive odds ratios suggest that a precious PID
diagnosis is higher for controls than for cases.  Please consider adjusting to make it clearer.
• Line 230 - I am unclear what is meant by PID testing.  There is no objective non-invasive
diagnostic test for PID as highlighted in the same sentence so this sentence is unclear.  Please
revise what is meant by it.
• The paragraph on policy implications doesn’t quite hit the mark.  While it is true that prevention
of chlamydia can reduce PID, this is important for all women not just those considering
pregnancy.
Title: Chlamydia Infection, PID, and Infertility: Further Evidence from a Case-control Study
in China
Version: 6 Date: 12 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your comprehensive response to the reviews of the earlier version of this paper.
This is my third review of the manuscript and it has improved on each iteration.
I do have further comments and suggestions for clarification.
• Sample size – I am unclear why the extra information about sample size for 36 PID cases was
added.  Is the sample size supposed to be 239 chlamydia cases or 36 PID cases. Could the authors
provide detail about how both the sample calculations are used to derive the final sample.
• Table 2 and the association between chlamydia, PID and infertility – the finding reported is
that past PID confers a higher risk of infertility for cases than controls.  But the odds ratios are
reported the wrong way (eg non-pregnant controls (adjusted OR=2.57, 95% CI: 1.51, 4.39) and
pregnant controls (adjusted OR=6.83, 95% CI: 3.47, 13.43).  Like my comment in my second
review “Table S1 and S2  – is somewhat unclear as the positive odds ratios suggest that a previous
PID diagnosis is higher for controls than for cases.”  Please alter the analysis to show a reduced
risk for controls by altering the reference category or word it differently.  This comment also
applies to table 3 and the supplementary tables.
• Conclusion – while I agree with the statements that accurate diagnosis of PID is needed, I don’t
think this reflects the study findings.
Title: Chlamydia Infection, PID, and Infertility: Further Evidence from a Case-control Study
in China
Version: 6 Date: 20 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I  thank the authors for their comprehensive response. The manuscript has improved
significantly. I only have some minor comments left.
1. Line 23: Please include ‘infection’ after Chlamydia trachomatis
2. Line 139: PID as an exposure is missing. Please include PID as a exposure of interest in this
sentence.
3. Line 219: The denominator of previous chlamydia infections is (I believe) incorrect. The
authors wright: “The number of self-reported prior chlamydial infection was limited (2.2%,
10/460)”, however looking at table 1, this must be 0.8%, 10/1275. Or where does the number
460 come from?
4. Please check numbers in Table 1 for example: PID, non-pregnant women should be 91.0%
instead of 90.1 (same in table 2). And “no previous chlamydia infection” (pregnant-women)
should be 508 instead of 506. And not all numbers add up to either 255 or 510. If these are
missings, please report.
Title: Chlamydia Infection, PID, and Infertility: Further Evidence from a Case-control Study
in China
Version: 7 Date: 18 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the last adjustments following the last review round and I think the
manuscript was adjusted accordingly.
One minor comment about the changed conclusion: “In summary, previous PID was suggested to
be associated with an elevated risk of infertility, especially tubal infertility. And finding sensitive
biomarkers that might predict prior chlamydial infection is also urgently needed.” Specifically
the changed part about sensitive chlamydia biomarkers, I think this is fine following the
discussion in which the authors explained that there is no valid information on prior chlamydia
infection and sensitive and specific biomarkers would solve this. But then “the urgent need” is
based on testing the association between chlamydia and (tubal) infertility I guess?
So I think this is fine, but the conclusion will be stronger if you add ‘why’ the biomarkers are
urgently needed.
Title: Preliminary Application of three-dimensional printing in congenital uterine anomalies
based on three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonographic data
Version: 1 Date: 20 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Preliminary
Application of three-dimensional printing in congenital uterine anomalies based on three-
dimensional transvaginal ultrasonographic data".
However, I have some comments and recommendations:
Comments:
Title:- Is appropriate for the content of the article.
Abstract:- Represents a suitable summary of the work.
Article content:- The methods and results have been explained and are appropriate for the study.
Conclusions:- Are justified on the basis of the study.
Recommendations:
Discussion:- Mention the limitations of the study.
References:- Stick to the format of the journal.
General:- Revise language, grammar and syntax.
Title: Preliminary Application of three-dimensional printing in congenital uterine anomalies
based on three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonographic data
Version: 1 Date: 26 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate this report. The paper is about the feasibility of the
three-dimensional (3D) printing technology as an auxiliary tool for the diagnosis of congenital
uterine anomalies. It is a novel idea. Despite the low number of cases, it may help future studies
on the diagnosis and treatment of the uterine anomalies. I think the paper could publish in the
journal without revision.
Title: Preliminary Application of three-dimensional printing in congenital uterine anomalies
based on three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonographic data
Version: 3 Date: 29 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Preliminary
Application of three-dimensional printing in congenital uterine anomalies based on three-
dimensional transvaginal ultrasonographic data".
Almost all reviewer’s comments and recommendations were considered.
Title: Self-experienced sexual and reproductive health in young women with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder A qualitative interview study
Version: 2 Date: 05 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor and authors,
Firstly, I thank you for my consideration as a reviewer of this manuscript. It is my pleasure to
contribute to BMC Women's Health.
This study contributes to the acknowledgement of the self-experienced sexual and reproductive
health in young women with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Some issues that they should consider addressing before publication are described:
In the introduction section, I recommend including the previous evidence of the relationship
between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the sexual response.
Concerning the methodology section, the name of the cities should be included in the procedure.
Moreover, more information about the participant compensation and the consent of teenagers
in this study should be included.
The authors indicate that the total sample was 15 participants; nonetheless, 12 individual
interviews were carried out in the data collection. Could there be differences between the data
collection by video call or call?
Maybe, the authors could analyze if there were differences in the response by age of the
participants.
In the discussion section, I suggest reviewing this section in terms of association instead of
causality, and the sentence in the lines 418-419. For example, my proposal is that “ the results of
this study indicate that being accepted as different and feeling sexually secure could be essential
for young women with ADHD to experience sexual and reproductive health”.
I recommend including some cites of the previous evidence associated with the results of this
study (lines 420-431). Also, including more information about the influence of gender norms
and their relationship with sexual satisfaction (lines 168-170).
Finally, the authors should include the limitations of their research.
Title: Association of 12-month contraceptive supply policy and months of oral contraception
prescribed by Obstetrics and Gynecology resident physicians: An exploratory cross-sectional
study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a really interesting study and story that highlights the breakdown between policy and
implementation and ultimately impact.  I have a few suggested edits.
1. Consistently say "resident physician" in the abstract and in the paper since that is your survey
population
2. Add information regarding the state policies and  overall dates they were in effect relative to
when the survey was distributed.  Is it possible legislation was passed in July and the survey is
a few months later so residents weren't aware simply because of the recent policy change?
3. Methods Specific Edits:
-Very cool idea to have them complete an Rx as pat of the survey.  Can the authors include a
screenshot of what that looked like for people completing the survey?
-Was the title of the survey an indication of the outcome of interest for this paper?  Like was
there a potential for priming of the subjects if they knew this was about 12mos supplies of OC's?
-What was the response rate of the survey?
-Was compensation offered?
-Approximately how long did it take to complete the survey?
-What months was the survey open to be completed?
-Were there any survey questions regarding the residents education re: prescribing contraception
within their residency (thinking about residents that may have moved to a new state for training
and thus weren't aware of the policy)
-Any survey questions about resident experience with pharmacy pushback on dispensing 12mos
supply that could impact them writing future prescriptions with the same instructions?
- Was there a difference between years in training and the outcome of interest--like residents
with more training had higher rates?
4. Add p-values to Table 1 and to Figure 1 on "bars" that are significantly different
4. Would recommend moving the limitations paragraph (starts on line 125) to the end of the
Discussion section (and prior to the Conclusions).
Title: Association of 12-month contraceptive supply policy and months of oral contraception
prescribed by Obstetrics and Gynecology resident physicians: An exploratory cross-sectional
study
Version: 3 Date: 24 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
It probably would not hurt to train clinicians to write for 12-supplies of COCs, but even in
the 17 states that require that 12-month supplies be dispensed if prescribed, only the insurance
companies based in that state can be regulated by state law. National insurers and those
companies based in other states are not bound by state laws. I believe that point should be
more clearly stressed in the manuscript. Maybe we need national laws. Otherwise, I believe this
manuscript is ready for publication. If the authors clarify this one point, it does not need to be
re-reviewed. I will give it a thumbs-up in advance.
Title: Translation and Validation of Persian Version of Sexual Function -Vaginal Changes
Questionnaire (SVQ) for Women with Gynecologic Cancers
Version: 0 Date: 07 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Comments to manuscript: ID 2b876da8-42c4-439e-a82d-7bd97f3ff334
Translation and Validation of Persian Version of Sexual Function - Vaginal Changes
Questionnaire for Women with Gynecologic Cancers
By
Somayyeh Naghizadeh and colleagues
General comments:
This study reports the translation, validation, and reliability of the Persian Version of Sexual
Functions – Vaginal Changes Questionnaire for Women with Gynecologic Cancers. This type of
study is important and while potential impact may be low, there is a scientific merit in publishing
this type of study to ensure research availability and validity across languages and cultures.
The methods and statistical analysis are solid. The results are relevant and interesting. The
manuscript is well written, and the overarching structure is clear. Below a few specific
comments.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
Overall a good abstract
Comment 1: Background can be shortened
Comment 2: Result section – write out abbreviations at first mention (CVR and CVI)
Comment 3: The word “valid” in the sentence “Validation of the Persian version of the SVQ
proved it a dedicated” is missing compared to the conclusion in the manuscript.
Background:
Overall, a well written background, but can be shortened to help readability
Comment 4: Rephrase this sentence: “These cancers are actually start from different points in
the female pelvic area [1].” - Does the author mean “these cancers can actually….”?
Methods:
Well written – easy to follow and understand. No issues.
Results:
Clear and well presented. No issues.
Discussion:
Overall fine.
Comment 5: A discussion of why this study is clinically relevant is missing. Maybe the authors
can use some of the paragraphs in the introduction to discuss this in this section.
Minor issues
Abstract, result section: Be consistent with number of decimals (75.732) – choose to or three
decimals throughout the manuscript
Method section, under Validity: Think “f validity” should be “face validity”
Title: Translation and Validation of Persian Version of Sexual Function -Vaginal Changes
Questionnaire (SVQ) for Women with Gynecologic Cancers
Version: 0 Date: 25 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
1: In the abstract, method and results of the test re-test is written incorrectly. Pearson correlation
is not used for this method.
2: You are not allowed to do CVR and CVI during the translation process. Content validity
should only be done qualitatively
3: The choice of PCA to evaluate the factor structure of this questionnaire appears somewhat
rudimentary given the increasingly sophisticated statistically methods that have been used to
evaluate the scale since the publication of the original article. You should used maximum
likelihood .
4: Structural validity results, re-write based on maximum likelihood.
5: The Eigenvalues and variance extracted should be mentioned in table 2
6: The reliability result should be in table
7: The authors need to provide a more in-depth discussion about what the constructs in this
measure are supposed to be measuring.