JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Prevalence of Menstrual Symptoms Change and Influencing Factors among International
Female Students Studying in China during Acculturation Period
Version: 1 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting this manuscript. It contributes to the literature on menstrual health,
and the socio-contextual factors that may influence menstrual symptoms and overall wellbeing.
My comments are listed below, by section.
Background:
- Consider editing your first sentence from “emptying of blood from the uterus” to “shedding
of blood and tissue”
- Please define dysmenorrhea for your reader before introducing it. I also noticed that you used
a variety of terms to refer to menstrual symptoms, from dysmenorrhea, to menstrual function
to menstrual disturbances, etc. Please choose one term, define it for your reader, and use that
throughout, for consistency.
- I think a little bit more space could be spent on why it is important to understand the factors
that may influence international female students’ menstrual symptoms
Methods:
Study Setting and Participants -
- Please cite your claim that 90% of international students are at the 10 universities
- Was previous experience/history of menstrual periods part of your recruitment criteria? For
example, did you limit your sample to students who reported experiencing menstruation the
previous 3 months? If yes, please provide that information. If not, this appears to be a limitation
of the study given that there may be variability in the menstrual status of your participants, which
may impact their reported menstrual symptoms.
Variables and measurements -
- Please provide more detail on how you obtained menstrual symptoms before coming to China,
and during the first 6 months
Results-
- Your tables are currently out of order. Table 3 onward is in-text, whereas 1 and 2 are at the end.
- I recommend using the term “Menstrual Symptoms Score” instead of the MS_F6M-MS label
you have for menstrual symptoms right now. It’s a bit confusing as a reader to see that acronym.
- For influencing factors of the changes in menstrual symptoms results (Lines 12-16), the
coefficients you report in parentheses appear to be different from those reported in your Table
4. Please check.
- I'm a little confused how some participants were enrolled in 2016 and 2017 (and even 2018) if
the survey was administered in 2019 and was supposed to only include participants in the first
6 months of their stay. Could you explain that?
Discussion:
- Lines 3-5 - Did you test for significance in the percentage of students who experienced changes?
To me, it seemed that you tested for significant differences in changes in the average level of
menstrual symptoms reported in your sample. If you agree, please edit the sentence to reflect
that. I also think it’s worth noting the direction of the change towards having more menstrual
symptoms.
Table 2 - For your sample size and the relatively small differences in menstrual symptoms by
item, your p-values seem very small. I recommend double-checking your analysis.
The entire paper would also benefit from a spelling and grammar check.
Thank you!
Title: Prevalence of Menstrual Symptoms Change and Influencing Factors among International
Female Students Studying in China during Acculturation Period
Version: 6 Date: 05 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your edits. I think this will be ready for publication after you edit the Methods
section to provide information on the recall period for the sociocultural adaptation, higher
education satisfaction, stress, and sleep quality. For example, were participants asked to report
on these items during their first 6 months in China? This needs to be made clearer for the reader
to understand the study design.
Title: Injury rates in Female and Male Military Personnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 26 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript conducted with meta-analysis.
This manuscript was easy to understand the objective and methodology set out to examine the
incidence rate were correct. Forest plots generated were consistent with the results description
and discussion could support well the finding. I have no further comments.
Title: Injury rates in Female and Male Military Personnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Thane Chambers
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your article. It was interesting to learn more about the injury rates of the military.
Your paper is well-written. I hope the following points can help to make your paper stronger.
METHODS I am a bit confused about the decision to use the 2009 PRISMA Guidelines.
I would highly recommend using the updated 2020 PRISMA Guidelines. Please see
Page M J, McKenzie J E, Bossuyt P M, Boutron I, Hoffmann T C, Mulrow C
D et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic
reviews BMJ 2021; 372 :n71 doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 Also, you will need to use the updated
PRISMA diagram for your flow chart. It is unclear who was responsible for the search used
in this meta-analysis. None of the authors appear to be librarians or information scientists and
no one took credit for the search strategies in the Author Contribution section. But there are
some things about the search that should be corrected. (1) Please provide the date that the
searches were run. (2) In the search strategies, no controlled vocabulary terms were used in
any of your searches. Considering that the searches were run in PubMed, MEDLINE, and
CINAHL this seems quite strange as PubMed and MEDLINE use MeSH as their controlled
vocabulary and CINHAL uses CINAHL terms. Both of these controlled vocabularies are well-
known, established, and deciding not to use them should, at the very least, be justified. MeSH
terms such as Military Personnel and Wounds and Injuries (or perhaps some of its narrower
terms) should have been included in your searches in PubMed and MEDLINE and I am certain
that there are equivalent relevant terms in the CINAHL headings. (3) The decision to search
only the title and abstract fields also seems very strange and should be justified. This means that
no subject headings (either controlled vocabulary terms or author keywords) were included in
your search strategy. I would recommend re-running your searches with your query terms in the
keyword fields to see if any relevant studies were missed. (4) I see in your search queries that
you searched terms about women, but did not search for any terms about men. I'm wondering
why that decision was made. Perhaps it would have made more sense to have just searched for
terms about the military and injuries and then screened those retrieved studies to see if they
included sex/gender related data? Other possible terms that could have been included in your
search strategies could have been "sex" or "gender." (5) The last comment related to the search is
about your inclusion criteria to only look at articles that discussed injuries in general, rather than
searching for or including studies on specific types of injuries. I would recommend justifying
this decision as it does seem arbitrary. The final question is just about how the citations were
managed for your review. Did you use software for this (e.g. MS Excel, Covidence, DistillerSR)?
Title: Injury rates in Female and Male Military Personnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Thane Chambers
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for responding to my concerns in the previous round of peer review.
As I stated in an earlier review, this paper is well-written. It should be of interest to readers of
this journal and to those responsible or involved in the well-being of female military members.
All of my concerns have been addressed and I look forward to seeing this paper published.
Title: Individual and community-level determinants of cervical cancer screening in Zimbabwe:
a multilevel analyses of a nationwide survey
Version: 1 Date: 09 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Lindsey J. Mattick
Reviewer's report:
First, I’d like to thank the authors for submitting their manuscript to the journal. Overall, the
subject-matter of this paper is important, and the study is a worthy scientific endeavor. However,
issues with the delivery of the paper, including but not limited to incomplete references,
typos, issues of grammar, and poor understanding of the statistical methods used, prevent me
from recommending this paper for publishing in its current form. Major revisions and careful
consideration of the manuscript content and references are needed.
Major comments:
• The manuscript first needs to be edited for various errors in English grammar. For example,
the first sentence of the abstract reads “Cervical cancer screening that has proven to reduce the
burden of cervical cancer elsewhere, but remains low in Zimbabwe, a country with the highest
disease burden in Sub-Saharan Africa.” – This sentence should not contain the word “that” and
has too many commas. Typos are also an issue, see Line 12 of the abstract “(OR =1.21; 95%
CI1.04-1.41),”. These issues occur throughout the manuscript
• Providing equations of the exact statistical analyses used are redundant and unnecessary,
simply stating the models used and how variables were parameterized is sufficient.
• Despite this extensive list of equations listed, I was repeatedly confused by which exact
method was used as the authors never used the same name twice. Examples of the various
names provided for their methodology include “multi-level regression modeling”, “two-step
multi-level multivariable regression analyses”, “two-step multi-variable multilevel logistic
regression”, “ the generalized linear mixed models family”. Stick to one term throughout the
manuscript.
Minor comments:
• 542 cases of cervical cancer in a country of 14 million people with comparatively high
HIV infection rates seems incredibly low and contradict current IARC data (https://gco.iarc.fr/
today/data/factsheets/populations/716-zimbabwe-fact-sheets.pdf ), also authors should provide
numbers in context for example (4 per 100,00 population) not pure case counts.
• Several issues with invalid references. For example, reference 4 (which claims the 542 new
cases per year) includes no URL and we have no way to verify the information provided. There
is also no reference provided for the very first sentence of the background.
• Authors are overly verbose, in a cross-sectional study with only 2 tables of data provided, a
7-page discussion is not warranted.
• Authors frequently repeated the same information in the discussion over and over, see  the first
and third paragraph of the discussion.
• Table 1 isn’t necessary.
• Use of colloquial terms such as “scanty”
• Tables should be listed in a separate section, not placed throughout the manuscript.
• The discussion provided exhaustive and unnecessary over-discussion of the Table 3 results
and no discussion of the Table 2 results.
Title: Individual and community-level determinants of cervical cancer screening in Zimbabwe:
a multilevel analyses of a nationwide survey
Version: 1 Date: 30 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a good article and but like you said in your limitation they are challenges in such type
of studies.
I have noted a few things that may be helpful to make this article more clear. They may not be
that important but would help to address them it possible
1.  Definition or rather this classification of favorable attitude to domestic violence is a bit vague.
-
I am not sure its  implication or the idea behind it?
It would also have been interesting to find out how this variable relate  to the level of education
and marital Status, age and region of origin or faith? I guess this was not the Scope of this study
it. These would be important confounders of this variable. Has this Variable be described or
defined elsewhere ?
2. In your discussion You spoke about the psychology violence.
Do you mean psychology or violence is equivalent  to favorable attribute towards wife beating?
I am not sure how you could conclude that the results of the current study call for; mobilizing
women regarding issues of equality, and emphasis should be laid on demystifying cultural
sentiments which insubordinates the women in their respective communities.
Title: The central role of peers facilitators in the empowerment of breast cancer patients: a
qualitative study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments#
Peers facilitators are a developing trend, and it is necessary to understand the feelings of breast
cancer patients. The findings of this study are also very interesting and meaningful. Here are
some suggestions for you:
keywords:
“Phénoménological study” should be written in English.
Background#
(1)This study focuses on breast cancer patients, so there is no need to describe too much about
lung cancer or other cancers in the background section.
(2) The background section doesn't explain why the researchers did the study only on breast
cancer peer association.
(3)The background did not clearly put forward the research question and purpose.
Method:
(1)Recruitment: Methods for determining “data emergence and saturation” should be explained
in this paper.
(2) Reliability criteria:“The triangulation of researchers was obtained between three experts in
qualitative research” Triangulation was performed by three researchers, how many researchers
were interviewed simultaneously? How to implement triangulation?
Discussion
(1) The study focused on patients' experiences of participating in a peer association, Why did
the author spend two paragraphs talking about Health Literacy. What is the relationship between
this and the findings of this study?
(2)The discussion section should answer the research questions. It is recommended that the
author be clear about the questions to be answered in this section.
Title: Association of Total Lifetime Breastfeeding Duration with Midlife Hand Grip Strength:
Findings from Project Viva
Version: 1 Date: 12 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I believe the authors tap into an essential topic in health in adult female populations.
This study aims to analyze the relationship between total lifetime breastfeeding duration and
midlife handgrip strength. This paper stands out positively when looking at the topic of public
health in the adult female population. However, I think some things need clarifying for the
publication to help the overall interpretation and understanding of the results.
Comment 1-  The manuscript is well written and clear.
Declarations
Comment 2 -  Please add the reference “…Helsinki Declaration”
Introduction
Comment 3 - “ Handgrip strength is an inexpensive and validated method of analyzing muscle
strength and mobility, particularly in older populations” – Please add reference “HG” for
handgrip strength.
Methods
Comment 4 – “..dynamometer with one hand, they performed the handgrip strength exam only
using the opposite hand. Of the 2100 women enrolled in Project Viva..” Please the dynamometer
instrument brand and specific assessment protocol.
Comment 5 – Variables-   Did the authors assess the menopause status? How do the authors lead
with the potential effect of this variable in their results? Contraceptive methods were evaluated?
Comment 6 – It's important to understand the effect of body weight in the HG test. Why
the authors did not assess the bodyweight? Please use the HG/Body Weight. (doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0222040), (DOI: 10.1186/s13104-021-05731-4)
Comment 7 – The authors should analyze and discuss the results, based on the new analysis.
Title: Association of Total Lifetime Breastfeeding Duration with Midlife Hand Grip Strength:
Findings from Project Viva
Version: 3 Date: 09 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Imke Janssen
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded with quite a bit of detail to my comments, made recommended
changes or explained why it could not be done.
A few issues remain with regard of clarity and grammar, so a native English speaker among the
authors may provide some helpful input.
Examples:
1. In the abstract, there seems to be a word missing at the end of the methods paragraph.  Maybe
it should be "assessment".
2. In the analysis section in the text, I would rephrase that breastfeeding duration was analyzed
as a continuous variables in months but reported in the tables per 3 month increment to make
estimates meaningful.
3. Use "ever smoking" instead of "ever smoker".
Table 2: I would include beta (95% CI) under every Model.
Title: Association of Total Lifetime Breastfeeding Duration with Midlife Hand Grip Strength:
Findings from Project Viva
Version: 4 Date: 04 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Imke Janssen
Reviewer's report:
Use "ever smoking" instead of "ever smoker".
The authors did not change it in Figure 1 or in Supplemental Table 2.
I'm sure it's just an oversight.
Title: Exploring the Relationship Between Self-Employment and Women’s Cardiovascular
Health
Version: 0 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for submitting this  interesting manuscript. This is important work for
the consideration of employment status for women's cardiovascular health. The manuscript is
well written and informative.
I have a few minor comments, which I have listed below:
1) Background:
- "Nearly half of all women in the United States are living with some form of cardiovascular
disease [CVD]." I would prefer a more specified statement.
- "Women are more likely to be under- or mis-diagnosed and receive less guidance on CVD
prevention measures.2 Once a diagnosis has been made, women are prescribed statins at lower
rates and are less likely to be referred for cardiac rehabilitation.2 Consequently, women suffer
higher rates of mortality following myocardial infarction relative to men.3 ":  Does the literature
provide any reasons for that?
- "Traditional cardiovascular risk factors including obesity, physical inactivity, and dyslipidemia
are more prevalent among women.2" The literature varies in regard to this statement and you
provide a rather  old source citing this. Please elaborate more on this and update this information
including more recent literature .
-"the resolution of which continues to rest on the shoulders of women—and persistent gender
discrimination . These factors likely have a significant impact on mental and physical health
outcomes, including cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes. " Please support this with
appropriate sources.
2) Methods:
- You state that the HRS comprises questionnaire responses from approximately 20,000 adults
across the United States. I would like to know about the sampling design, e.g. the first wave of
the HRS included oversamples with Bacl and Hispanic respondents in Florida.  Which samples
are included in the 2016 cohort? Additionally I would have loved to see if the more recent HRS
cohorts have resulted in similar results? Why has the 2016 cohort been chosen?
3) Results:
- In Table 1 you provide several sample characteristics. In the limitations section you state that
there was further information on race and household income etc.
Please include this in the sample characteristics and provide percentages of missing answers.
- Table 2: Please include the respective p-values which are only briefly mentioned in the text
section.
4) Discussion:
The limitations section is well written and includes the important limitations. Yet, I did not find
a discussion of the age structure of the chosen cohort, as it seems to mainly include women  in
the period before retirement. What is the age structure of the cohort? Does the data change if
looking at the subgroup of younger women which may have a different work experience/more
modern gender roles etc.?
Title: Exploring the Relationship Between Self-Employment and Women’s Cardiovascular
Health
Version: 0 Date: 13 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled "Self-employment May be Protective for Women's Cardiovascular Health: A
Cross-Sectional Study" is a very relevant study that can aid in understanding the implications
for health of an increasing form of employment and among women, a frequently forgotten
population group in labor studies.
Overall, it is well written, the methods are appropriate and clearly exposed to the reader, and
the results well interpreted. The authors also make a good effort in acknowledging the main
limitations of the paper. Namely, the cross-sectional nature of the data that does not allow reverse
causality to be ruled out, the inability to include interesting variables in the analyses such as job
description or employment activity, and the reasons to undertake self-employment.
That being said, I believe the paper is qualified to be published in BMC Women's Health, but
only if a simple yet major change is made. In my opinion, the title is too ambitious considering
the limitations described above. Even though the word "may" (self-employment MAY be
protective [...]) does alert the reader of the suggestive nature of the findings, I do think that it is
still a bit one-sided and should be carefully revised to be more in line with the results of the paper.
Minor comments are the inclusion in both the background and the discussion sections of more
recent publications related to self-employment and cardiovascular health, especially those using
longitudinal datasets (e.g., Krittanawong, et al. (2020). International Journal of Cardiology
Hypertension).
Title: The impact of sex on blood pressure and anthropometry trajectories from early adulthood
in a Nigerian population: insights into women’s cardiovascular disease risk across the lifespan.
Version: 1 Date: 29 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Oscar L. Rueda-ochoa
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written article, covering a topic of interest to BMC Women Health readers. My
comments focus on the statistical analysis proposed by the authors, which can be improved to
give more robustness to their conclusions. It is suggested:
1. Include in a table the statistical results of the ANOVA - (oneway?) Performed.
2. Describe if the ANOVA assumptions were met, such as normality and homoscedasticity.
3. Consider conducting post hoc analysis of multiple comparisons (eg: Bonferroni) to define in
which age subgroups there are statistically significant differences in the trajectories of interest
to be evaluated.
4. Given that the authors' interest is to evaluate the differences by gender in the trajectories of
variables such as SBP, DBP, PP, BMI, and WC, it is suggested that the author can perform
a factorial ANOVA analysis of at least two ways in the that the effect of age, sex and the
interaction of age and sex with the previously mentioned variables of interest can be evaluated
simultaneously
5. Other interesting analyzes to explore would be the two-way ANOVA that involves age and
anthropometric indices with the outcome of the trajectory of the SBP stratified by sex.
All the previous analyzes will give more robustness to the conclusion of the sex disparity in the
trajectories of the outcomes of interest in this research and will go beyond the only comparison
of mean differences between two age groups (<45 vs # 45 years )
Title: The impact of sex on blood pressure and anthropometry trajectories from early adulthood
in a Nigerian population: insights into women’s cardiovascular disease risk across the lifespan.
Version: 3 Date: 21 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Oscar L. Rueda-ochoa
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, Thank you for answer my questions about your manucript. This new versión
of the paper clarify some clue aspects that I have mentioned previously in special relating the
assumptions of ANOVA model and the requeriment of apply new more advanced  statistical
approaches as Generalized linear models that it was apply in the new versión of the manuscript.
To answer the question if is there significance differences in the trajectories of SBP taking
into account age categorical by sex, it is mandatory  to create an interaction term betrween age
categorical and sex. This interaction term was mentioned by the authors but it  was not showed
in the supplemental table.
I suggest include the interaction terms previously mentioned in suplemental  material. After that,
I approve this versión of the manuscript to be published in BMC women health.