JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Sense of coherence and health in women: A 25-year follow-up study
Version: 1 Date: 29 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author (s),
First of all, congratulations for this great research you have done. There are some shortcomings
and errors in the manuscript.
- In the abstract section, a short sentence can be added in the method section about where and
how the study was conducted and the data collection tools used.
- The method part of the study should be revised. It is not written in which dates, where and by
which authors the study was carried out.
- Participants and procedure title should be added in the method section.
- The Instruments and questionnaire section should be handled in a way that introduces the
questionnaire form again.
- The data collection tools used should be written in the same format and attention should be
paid to spelling rules in general.
- How Stressful Life Event was created by whom can be written more clearly.
- Title should be written as Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). The
abbreviation should be made later in the text.
-Discussion section should be strengthened.
Title: Sense of coherence and health in women: A 25-year follow-up study
Version: 1 Date: 07 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an observational study of the relationships between sense of
coherence and self-reported health status. The article is generally well written.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have some recommendations for revision: (1) This is a longitudinal study, which is one of
its strengths, but the study started with 1723 mothers and the sample reported at 25 years is
415. It would be helpful if subject characteristics could be compared between subjects reported
(415) and not reported (1723-415=1308); (2) In the methods, they say that stressful life events
include 4, but it is not totally clear how those 4 are defined; (3) The second paragraph of results
is confusing. They talk about SOC over time and refer to table 2, but SOC over time is reported
in figures 2a and 2b. So references to the figures should be given in the first sentences of the
paragraph, and not at the end.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Tables should "stand on their own". e.g., in tables 1 & 2, good and poor health should be defined
in a footnote; In tables 3 and 4, authors should state that logistic regression was done and state
the dependent and independent variables, etc. Also give sample sizes.
Title: Sense of coherence and health in women: A 25-year follow-up study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Improvements still need to be made to the paper: (1) In the study
population section, all inclusion rates calculated are based on the denominator of 1694, except
the last one 415/649=64%. This should be changed to 415/1694=24%; (2) In the dropout
analysis, 415 + the remaining 1079 = 1494, not 1694. Where is the remaining 200 patients?
(3) In the second line of the second paragraph under RESULTS, I would move the reference
to "Table 2" to the end of the sentence "However, scoring above the 75th percentile was more
common among women with a good SRH..." (4) In the 4th paragraph of RESULTS, results that
are not statistically significant should not really be reported as a fact or as true; e.g., "Women
who scored high on SOC at all measurements were more often born in Sweden 8.4% vs. 4.2%
NS." The fact that the results were non significant means that the data are really inconclusive.
This was done 3 times in the paragraph; (5) In tables 3 and 4, it is still not quite clear how the
regressions were done. I presume that in table 3, good health (yes, no) and SOC>75th percentile
(yes, no) were the dependent variables, and each variable in the left column was the independent
variable in 10 different single logistic regressions? The footnotes should explain better. In table
4, what exactly were the dependent and independent variables. The footnote says "all factors in
Table 5". Where is Table 5?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I listed the items that need to be addressed earlier in this review.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
There are some areas of the manuscript where the English could be improved.
Title: Sense of coherence and health in women: A 25-year follow-up study
Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to my concerns
Title: What are important areas where better technology would support women's health?
Findings from a priority setting partnership.
Version: 3 Date: 10 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Thomas Gray
Reviewer's report:
This is a valuable paper.
The background and context are clearly and succinctly defined.
The methods are explained and are replicable and trasnparent.
The results are provided, including the comprehensive tables in the appendices.
The authors have included most of the relevant associated literature and dealt clearly with the
papers limitations.
The priority list of developments needed should hopefully serve as a driver to develop these
technologies and changes in conjunction with patients, industry and the NHS.
Title: What are important areas where better technology would support women's health?
Findings from a priority setting partnership.
Version: 3 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be congratulated on this innovative and  well-presented manuscript.
The methodology is quite novel, following previous JLA publications, and appears to have been
rigorously followed with the necessary variations to suit the aims.  The results and  conclusions
of the study appear to be sound, despite a paucity of studies for comparison.
Strengths of the paper are the breadth and inclusiveness of the subject matter, as well the
robustness of the methodology.
I would only suggest a few minor edits of spelling and would support publication without further
revision.
Title: What are important areas where better technology would support women's health?
Findings from a priority setting partnership.
Version: 3 Date: 30 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The purpose of this project is fascinating and unlike any papers I
have reviewed thus far. I wish a midwife had been part of the project team as midwives are
such a large part of the women's health care team. I appreciate that midwives were included as
participants. Data collection from providers and patients/clients led to a diverse and rich pool
of data. the two areas where I think the paper falls short is in the analysis of the data. I think
qualitative methods of analysis could have been used to better capture some of the themes that
came out as well as the priority list. I do also think that the paper could be a little more clear
and concise about what was done at what stage. I found myself going back and rereading. The
appendices were very helpful and interesting
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Suggest some edits to make the methods and results a bit more concise and clear.
Title: What are important areas where better technology would support women's health?
Findings from a priority setting partnership.
Version: 6 Date: 06 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors responded adequately to my previous comments and
either made revisions or provided concise and compelling reasons why they did not make the
changes.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I appreciate the authors careful attention to all suggestions and look forward to this manuscript
continuing to publication.
Title: Alteration of stool pH and its association with biomarkers of gut enteropathy among slum-
dwelling women of reproductive age in Bangladesh
Version: 1 Date: 21 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Mostafa et al looked at whether alterations of stool pH can be associated with biomarkers
of gut enteropathy among slum-dwelling women of reproductive age in Bangladesh. Using
fecal biomarkers of gut enteropathy (intestinal alkaline phosphatase and fecal lipocalin), they
investigated the association with stool pH using multiple linear regression models after adjusting
for relevant covariates.
The search for non-invasive markers to diagnose enteropathy is well documented and recent
publications have shown fecal biomarkers to be suitable markers of enteropathy. The study
findings demonstrate an association of fecal pH with biomarkers of gut enteropathy suggestive
of its applicability as an alternative measure to assess enteropathy in resource limited settings.
Based on their analysis there is a clear demonstration of this association but looking at
the covariates used in their analysis model, I am not convinced that fecal pH is a suitable
measure of enteropathy. A recent review by Yamamura et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.3389/
frmbi.2023.1192316), showed that fecal pH can also be affected by diet, drug intake, and the
presence of diseases. The study does not account for any of these factors and based on the
absence of this information, and a clear mechanism that links back to enteropathy, it is difficult
to accept the conclusion stated. Inflammation is a common feature of enteropathy, but  it could
also be as result of other disease states or conditions.
While the findings of this study are not entirely surprising, it is an interesting study that makes
an important contribution to the enteropathy knowledge base, and I would recommend it be
published after revision of the conclusion.
Title: Physiotherapy practice in women’s health: Awareness and attitudes of obstetricians and
gynecologists in Ghana
Version: 3 Date: 03 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a descriptive study of medical doctors' awareness and attitudes toward physiotherapy
in obstetric and gynecologic settings in Ghana. The background and discussion sections have
been expanded as recommended by reviewers. Other clarifications and additions are also made
throughout this revised manuscript.
Overall, this study, though descriptive, is important in expanding the concept of interprofessional
practice in low and middle income countries.
Minor comments:
Correct typing errors:
largestertiary to largest tertiary
At he time to At the time
here are 17 to there are 17
Title: Physiotherapy practice in women’s health: Awareness and attitudes of obstetricians and
gynecologists in Ghana
Version: 6 Date: 29 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have been responsive to reviewers' comments, but there are still some words that
were omitted and need to be added or edited:
Abstract:
Delete and replace: "reported for [delete 'obstetrics' and insert 'obstetricians']
Delete and replace: "wide variation [delete 'in gynecology' and insert  'for gynecologists']
Add: "effective in their inter-professional relationship; [add semi-colon and] 2) none of the
doctors
Page 6: "The study was [add 'a cross-sectional' study
Page 11: "during childbirth whiles [delete 'and'] 25
Page 11: "alluded [to] the relevance
Also, on page 17, there are two places where authors need to delete "click or tap to enter text".
Page 21: "physiotherapists [insert 'to'] attend ward rounds
Title: Reliability, Validity and Distribution of the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index in
Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled: Reliability, Validity and Distribution
of the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index in Women with Multiple Sclerosis
This cross-sectional multicentre study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the
19-item Spanish version of FSFI (svFSFI) in 137 women with MS and evaluate the prevalence
of sexual disfunction and its association with clinical and sociodemographic variables. They
have reached a conclusion that the Spanish FSFI may be a useful tool to assess problems in
specific sexual domains in women with MS and design a personalized therapeutic strategy in
this population.   Thus, I think that this paper needs some adjustments and corrections that I
have mentioned below, otherwise I believe that it contains important scientific data which are
valuable for the field.
Specific comments
1. In material and methods you mentioned that one of the inclusion criteria was diagnosis of
relapsing remitting MS, you specified this type of MS and you exclude the confirmed progressive
disease why? And how you could generalise the study in women with MS regardless the type
of MS?
2. You didn’t mention if MS patients included in you study on medications and if they are, which
medications?
3. There  are many points in methods while you are trying to explain reliability and validity are
confusing .please make them simple and clear
Title: Reliability, Validity and Distribution of the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index in
Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
Version: 2 Date: 11 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Andrea Giordano
Reviewer's report:
This article aimed to validate the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a widely used
scale to assess sexual dysfunction (SD) in Spanish women with multiple sclerosis (MS). Results
showed excellent test-retest reliability and substantial-to-excellent internal consistency for the
svFSFI. Convergent validity was significant in domain intercorrelations. Discriminant validity
revealed differences in SD between women with high and low neurological disability, measured
with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores. Exploratory factor analysis suggested a
five-factor structure for the svFSFI. The prevalence of SD in the MS cohort was 42.6%, with
'desire' and 'arousal' being the most affected spheres. Only EDSS, fatigue, depression, and having
a stable partner influenced the total svFSFI.
The manuscript is well-written, and clear in its methods. The results are consistent with the
methods. I have only some points which need to be addressed:
- Introduction, line 10: […] the Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI) [10] is one of? the
most used patient-reported outcomes […]
- Material and methods, Subjects and procedure, last line of the section: […] evaluated with the
Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) [add ref here], recruited women […]
- Material and methods, Measures: In the socio-demographic and clinical forms […] (measured
using the EDSS), […]
- Same as above: […] presence of depression and/or fatigue referred and/or measured with the
MFIS and BDI-II scales, […]
- Patient and Public Involvement: I would suggest authors to revise this section including who,
when and why patient and public have been involved during the study.
- Table 8 and its interpretation: I don’t like very much the use of ‘independent factor/variables
reported before table 7 and in the discussion. First of all, why did not conduct a multivariable
regression including the variables in table 8? In that case, you would have obtained a predictive/
independent effect on the total FSFi score. Please, comment on that, and if feasible conduct
a regression analysis. Should you be not able to conduct this, I would strongly recommend to
change the terminology
Title: Reliability, Validity and Distribution of the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index in
Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
Version: 3 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled: Reliability, Validity and Distribution
of the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index in Women with Multiple Sclerosis
This cross-sectional multicentre study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the
19-item Spanish version of FSFI (svFSFI) in 137 women with MS and evaluate the prevalence
of sexual disfunction and its association with clinical and sociodemographic variables. They
have reached a conclusion that the Spanish FSFI may be a useful tool to assess problems in
specific sexual domains in women with MS and design a personalized therapeutic strategy in this
population.. Thus, I think that this paper needs specific adjustments that I have mentioned below,
otherwise I believe that it contains important scientific data which are valuable for the field.
Comments:
1. In this study since you have used five-factor structure, which is different from the initially
proposed six-factor model (you eliminating the 'arousal' factor as an independent entity), you
should use the term modified Spanish Female Sexual Function Index.
2. In introduction add the percentage of SD in normal women population compared to women
with MS.
3. Add more to the introduction to make it at lease 2 pages.
4. The manuscript should be assessed by a statistician to make sure the data are accurate.
Title: Reliability, Validity and Distribution of the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index in
Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
Version: 4 Date: 08 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled: Reliability, Validity and Distribution
of the Spanish Female Sexual Function Index in Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
This cross-sectional multicentre study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the
19-item Spanish version of FSFI (svFSFI) in 137 women with MS and evaluate the prevalence
of sexual disfunction and its association with clinical and sociodemographic variables. They
have reached a conclusion that the Spanish FSFI may be a useful tool to assess problems in
specific sexual domains in women with MS and design a personalized therapeutic strategy in
this population.
I’m glad that the author had responded to my comments from last review. I have no further
comments.