JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINE UPTAKE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS
AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS IN HIGH SCHOOLS OF NEKEMTE CITY, WESTERN
ETHIOPIA, 2020
Version: 3 Date: 12 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Is “HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINE
UPTAKE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS IN HIGH
SCHOOLS OF NEKEMTE CITY, WESTERN ETHIOPIA, 2020." 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;
- The authors, considering topic of this study,  could extend and improve the discussion by
evaluating and citing current evidence about crucial role of HPV infection persistence and its
consequences.  (for example I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point PMID:
37401466)
- Considering recent evidence in literature, it would be interesting to highlight the importance
of prevention, screening and treatment of HPV infection and HPV-related lesion.
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: HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINE UPTAKE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS
AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS IN HIGH SCHOOLS OF NEKEMTE CITY, WESTERN
ETHIOPIA, 2020
Version: 3 Date: 13 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following recommendations:
- The whole text should be corrected by a native English speaker to make the work clearer and
more readable and correct a few typos.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to risk factors that influence the recurrence of high-
grade cervical lesions (see PMID: 36992282).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths of their study. I suggest better
specifying these points.
- Discussions can be expanded citing articles about pregnancy outcomes in young patient
surgically treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (see PMID: 33140628).
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 major revisions.
Title: HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINE UPTAKE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS
AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS IN HIGH SCHOOLS OF NEKEMTE CITY, WESTERN
ETHIOPIA, 2020
Version: 5 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read your work with great interest and pleasure. The work with the changes made after my
advice and those of the other reviewers is complete and, in my opinion, ready for publication.
Title: HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINE UPTAKE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS
AMONG ADOLESCENT GIRLS IN HIGH SCHOOLS OF NEKEMTE CITY, WESTERN
ETHIOPIA, 2020
Version: 5 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has improved thanks to the changes made. I think it could be of
interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published.
Title: A Transvaginal Ultrasound-Based Diagnostic Calculator for Uterus Post-Cesarean Scar
Defect
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Gullo
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below. Authors should
consider the  following recommendations:
In my opinion you have to refer in the paper to the updated literature about  POSSIBILITY THAT
IT CAN HAPPENS AFTER CESAR SECTION AS WELL AFTER SURGERY TREATMENT
AS IN UTERUS TRANSPLANTATION .
rEALLY INTERESTING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS A CORRELATION WITH THE
partial ectogenesis AND POSSIBLE Scar CONGENITAL  DefectS.
ITS ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT TO REFER TO THE POSSIBILITY TO PERFORM
Contrast Agents during Pregnancy AND HOW PROGESTERON GIVE A HELPFULL
CONTRIBUTE TO PROTECT THE PREGNANCY.
I  SUGGEST YOU TO READ AND CITE THESE ARTICLES:
Utero-cutaneous fistula after caesarean section delivery: diagnosis and management of a rare
complication
Contrast Agents during Pregnancy: Pros and Cons When Really Needed
Progesterone: the key to success ?
Early diagnosis and surgical management of heterotopic pregnancy allows us to save the
intrauterine pregnancy
The reproductive potential of uterus transplantation:future prospects
From the maternal uterus to the “uterus device”? Ethical and scientific considerations on partial
ectogenesis
Title: A Transvaginal Ultrasound-Based Diagnostic Calculator for Uterus Post-Cesarean Scar
Defect
Version: 0 Date: 05 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper requires major revisions. However, to further evaluate and clarify some aspects of the
study, I would like to ask the following 18 questions:
1. What motivated you to conduct this study on cesarean scar defects (CSDs) and their diagnosis?
2. Could you provide more insight into the prevalence and impact of CSDs on women who have
undergone cesarean sections (CS)?
3. In the "Methods" section, you mentioned a binary logistic regression model. Could you
explain how this model was developed and why it was chosen for this study?
4. How did you define and measure the dimensions of CSDs using transvaginal ultrasound
(TVU)?
5. What were the key findings regarding the diagnostic accuracy of TVU in identifying CSDs?
6. Can you elaborate on the factors that were significantly associated with hysteroscopy-
confirmed CSDs, as mentioned in Table 2?
7. In your study, did you encounter any challenges or limitations in performing hysteroscopy
and TVU, and how did you address them?
8. Were there any unexpected findings or results that you think are particularly noteworthy?
9. The study mentions the potential use of TVU as a cost-effective diagnostic tool. How does
the cost and accessibility of TVU compare to hysteroscopy?
10. Can you explain how the regression model's sensitivity and specificity values impact its
practical utility in diagnosing CSDs?
11. What are the potential clinical implications of your findings for healthcare providers and
women with a history of CS?
12. Could you provide more information on the specific characteristics of the patients included
in the study, such as their demographic profile and previous CS history?
13. How did you determine the optimal cutoff values for niche dimensions in TVU to predict
CSDs?
14. Did you encounter any challenges in recruiting participants for the study, and how did you
ensure a homogeneous sample?
15. Are there any future research directions or follow-up studies you have planned based on the
findings of this research?
16. Can you explain the clinical implications of your findings for oncologists and patients,
especially in terms of treatment decision-making? How do the findings from this study compare
with the previous AI studies mentioned in the literature review section? Add suitable references
to the site with the following PMIDs [PMID: 37238175, PMID: 37473589].
17. In the "Discussion" section, you mentioned that TVU is recommended as an initial
diagnostic step for AUB-related pathologies. Could you discuss the potential implications of
this recommendation for clinical practice?
18. Finally, what are the next steps in translating the results of this study into clinical practice
or further research?
Title: Should IUI replace IVF as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility? A Literature
Review.
Version: 2 Date: 21 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors made a literature review on the topic of UI,  asking the  question which active
treatment is more efficient between IUI and IVF. They elaborate on the evidence throughput the
manuscript and conclude that both should be offered without prioritising one over the other in
couples with UI. Older evidence seems to favour IVF while more recent evidence favour IUI
+OS. However the authors stress the fact that there is not really strong evidence and RCTs on
the topic are needed. So far so good, and the manuscript is well written and easy to read. A lot
of thought and critical thinking has been put into this work and it is appreciated!
It is unfortunate that this study is being published now, when ESHRE has just released the new
guidelines on UI - the full report is available online and the paper  just published 21 August
(see below citation). The new guidelines  recommend IUI+OS as first line treatment for UI
and suggests that IVF is not superior to IUI. In addition, the guidelines detail in the evidence
tables (supplemental material /Annexes of full report) all the relevant studies that justify this
conclusion.
The authors of this manuscript were either unaware of this guideline, although the development
and its underway status was announced before, or they were aware and decided to ignore it.
On this basis, I would recommend that the authors adjust their manuscript accordingly because
reading that the current recommendation is IVF is not the full truth anymore, as besides NICE
we now have the new ESHRE guidelines. It would be worth rewriting sections of the manuscript
to reflect the most current knowledge in the field.
This manuscript could become very exciting if the authors decide to add this extra information
and critically assess the new guideline, which may make their conclusion different but certainly a
bit more exciting. As this guideline is fresh, no other studies have been published so far analysing
the guideline and discussing the consequences of the new recommendations. It would be very
interesting to see what the authors think of that. Look forward to the revised manuscript!
Guideline Group on Unexplained Infertility; Romualdi D, Ata B, Bhattacharya S, Bosch E,
Costello M, Gersak K, Homburg R, Mincheva M, Norman RJ, Piltonen T, Dos Santos-Ribeiro
S, Scicluna D, Somers S, Sunkara SK, Verhoeve HR, Le Clef N. Evidence-based guideline:
unexplained infertility†. Hum Reprod. 2023 Aug 21:dead150. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead150.
Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37599566.
Title: Assessment of breast cancer risk perception, knowledge, and breast self-examination
practices among market women in Owo, Ondo state, Nigeria
Version: 2 Date: 13 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Ugonma Winnie Dozie
Reviewer's report:
1. There is repetition of the problem in the introduction. The problem needs to flow logically
and sequential
2. The researchers should give reasons why they choose market women in particular
3. In your study setting, there are no sources of your information.
4. How did you arrive at 30 as your attrition rate
5. Include Target population figure
6. Yes, No etc is not enough to test the respondents knowledge of BSE
7. In table 8, you wrote 51 and above instead of 51 -65
8. The paper needs revision for the language and grammar
Title: Assessment of breast cancer risk perception, knowledge, and breast self-examination
practices among market women in Owo, Ondo state, Nigeria
Version: 2 Date: 26 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Edmund Ndudi Ossai
Reviewer's report:
Review comments
General comments
A study on breast cancer among women in Low/Middle Income Countries is of relevance bearing
in mind the burden of the disease in these countries and the attendant late presentation of patients.
In this regard, Authors are commended for conceptualizing the study and in presenting the
manuscript for publication.
After reviewing the manuscript I made some observations which should be addressed by the
Authors  before the manuscript could be accepted for publication. Authors should take note of
the following:
1. Authors should take note of Instructions to Authors in the Journal website and adapt the
manuscript following the Journal guidelines.
2. The manuscript should be reviewed critically for errors of grammar.
3. Sampling. The sampling technique was not properly presented. Before a probability sampling
method is applied the sampling frame should be indicated. Authors selected the three big markets
in the community without a mention of the sampling frame. Also, there was no indication of the
number of clusters in the selected markets. Again if cluster sampling technique was used why
was design effect not applied?
4. Definition of the outcome variable. Authors did not define how the variables used to assess
knowledge, risk perception and practice were assessed and the basis for categorizing the outcome
variables into good, fair and poor.
5. I expected the Authors to dichotomize the outcome variables into good and poor before
proceeding to bivariate analysis using Chi square test. This will make the results easy to interpret
and could also enable the Authors to proceed to binary logistic regression analysis.
6. There was no linkage of the outcome variables. For example, does good knowledge influence
good practice since practice is the ultimate outcome variable.
7. Authors should re-categorize the independent variables in the table on association. Marital
status ought to have two categories, Married and Single which will include all the other
categories.
8. Authors should bear in mind that the level of statistical significance is determined by a p
value of <0.05.
9. Authors should change Not educated to No formal education. Authors should also review the
method used in categorizing the age of respondents. Authors should make statements and not
use questions in the tables.
10. Authors should re-name table 6: Factors determining the practice of breast self-examination
11. The Chi square and p values should be presented in three decimal places.
Title: Clear cell carcinoma arising in an ovarian remnant 19 years after  oophoerctomy: case
report
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Esraa Hameed Humadi
Reviewer's report:
1-The is interesting case the tumor arise from residual this rather than intact ovary this strength
the theory of ovarian trauma as a cause of ovarian cancer as monthly ovulation
2-whey no differential diagnosis not included
3- The risk of malignancy was there before operation as multiple masses and lymph node but
the author needed for frozen section and operation to concluded it malignant
Title: Clear cell carcinoma arising in an ovarian remnant 19 years after  oophoerctomy: case
report
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Nora Sabah Rasoul
Reviewer's report:
Title: Ovarian remnant malignant transformation into clear cell carcinoma after oophorectomy:
case report
Version: 1 Date: 25 July 2023
Reviewer: Nora Sabah Rasoul
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Ovarian remnant malignant transformation
into clear cell carcinoma after oophorectomy: case report" which falls within the aim of the
Journal. In my opinion, this topic is  interesting enough to attract readers’ attention.  Although
the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest the following
recommendations:
1. I suggest to change the title to " Clear cell carcinoma arising in an ovarian remnant 19 years
after oophoerctomy: case report.
2. Please the abstract needs to be structured to cover the 3 parts(background, case presentation
and conclusion).
3. I would recommend to replace(ovarian residual syndrome) by (ovarian remnant syndrome )
wherever mentioned in the manuscript because the former occurs in women who her ovaries
are kept after hysterectomy.
4. I suggest to add references of the case series studies in line 31.
5. In case presentation I suggest to add more details regarding her presentation and in which
country.
6.Please can you clarify why the patient had salpingo-oophorectomy for ovarian teratoma in her
previous operation.
7.I suggest to mention if the patient had any risk factors to develop ovarian remnant syndrome.
8. In line 56 I suggest to add the type of incision.
9.I would recommend to change the (rapid pathology) to frozen section in the manuscript.
10.I suggest to mention the stage of ovarian cancer.
11. In line 71 I suggest to mention the name of the(NCCN) guideline not just abbreviation.
12. I would recommend to add more details about her follow up both clinically and by tumor
marker.
13.  In line 83 I suggest to change (it may suggest that ....)to  what raising the concern.
14.In line 89 I suggest to change the word mesenteric to mesentry .
15. In line 142  I suggest to mention the name of the(HRR) not just abbreviation.
16. I would recommend to add conclusion at the end of the manuscript.
17.  I suggest to add explanation under Fig. one & two.
18. I would recommend to add Fig.shows the histopathology of the tumor.
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  to be published
after minor revisions.
Title: Clear cell carcinoma arising in an ovarian remnant 19 years after  oophoerctomy: case
report
Version: 4 Date: 18 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Nora Sabah Rasoul
Reviewer's report:
Name:Dr. Nora Sabah Rasoul
Comments
I would like to thank the authors for making the requested changes that enrich the manuscript
& make it deserved to be published but before that I have minor comments for you.
1. Line 13 keywords should be at the end of the abstract.
2. You have some abbreviations that mentioned in the manuscript please add the full name or
term before them.
Line 31 in abstract TC regimen
Line 60 CT scan
Line 65 CA 125
Line 83 you wrote OCCC then later in line 96 you mention the full type of tumour
Line 94 BRCA
3. Please  add list of abbreviations at the end of the manuscript
Title: Clear cell carcinoma arising in an ovarian remnant 19 years after  oophoerctomy: case
report
Version: 4 Date: 31 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Case presentation; line 54, the line you added is rather confusing, I would suggest that you
rephrase it into the following: “The patient, who was a 47 years old accountant living in China,
presented in 2020 and she was admitted to…”
Or you can consult a language editor for grammatical modifications.
2. Case presentation, line 56: the term “hidden pain” is vague, please explain or use an
alternative.
3. Case presentation, line 56-58, rephrase the sentence, we suggest that you write it as follows:
“the patient complained of dull lower abdominal pain for the six months preceding her
presentation, especially in the right side”
4. Case presentation, line 58: you should add the findings of the patient examination before
going into the results of investigations.
5. Any other laboratory investigations should be mentioned (if normal please state it) before
imaging, like CBC, Hb, ect…
6. Case presentation, line 59: showed a 9*9*10 mm area of low echogenicity n the posterior
wall of the myometrium”
7. Case presentation, line 60-61 : “There was an equal echo area in the left wall of the
myometrium and its size was   24*18*18 mm “ what do you mean by equal echo area? The term
homogenous echogenicity is preferred if that’s what you mean.
8. For the last 2 comments , you used the term “ area’ which is a vague term that you can describe
the shape of the area or the mass “round? Irregular? Oval?”
9. Case presentation, line 61: “There was an uneven high echo in the right anterior myometrium,
and  its size was 48*50*39 mm “ again you should use the term heterogenic hyper-echogenicity
or hyperechoic mass. Also are you describing another mass? Or its part of the myometrium??
Please clarify.
10. Case presentation: line 67: since this is a gynecological case , you should mention the past
obstetric history earlier in the manuscript as this is relevant information.
11. Case presentation, line 74, what was the indication for transabdominal hysterectomy in this
case?
Title: Clear cell carcinoma arising in an ovarian remnant 19 years after  oophoerctomy: case
report
Version: 5 Date: 17 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author(s)
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled: Clear cell carcinoma arising in an
ovarian remnant 19 years after oophoerctomy.
In this study, the authors have evaluated the Ovarian remnant syndrome (ORS) as a rare
complication following oophorectomy. They have reached a conclusion that Complete excision
of ovarian tissue during the initial surgery is crucial in preventing ORS recurrence and
potential malignant transformation of ovarian remnants. 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. Line 70: Before describing the ultrasound finding, you should mention the findings of the
clinical examination of the patient including a full abdominal and gynecological examination
and a general examination.
2. Line 80: The findings of the laboratory investigations should be mentioned (add the results)
even if they are normal, be specific what are they?
3. Lines 71&72: What you mean by the term area, do you mean mass? Be more specific please.
4. Lines 67,68,69: What is the past gynecological history? You mentioned that the patient had
unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, has it been done simultaneously with the cesarean section?
And what the indication for it? Re write the paragraph.