JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Analysis of influencing factors of HPV vaccination willingness of female sex workers in
urban entertainment venues based on the IMB model in Guangxi, China
Version: 2 Date: 21 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion, this topic analyzed is interesting enough to attract readers’ attention.
But authors should clarify some points:
- The whole text should be corrected by a native English speaker in order to make the work
clearer and more readable.
- The authors could extend the discussion by evaluating and citing current evidence about the
persistence of HPV infections and the risk of recurrence of cervical diseases. I suggest authors
to read and insert in references the following article PMID: 37401466
- Considering topic analyzed in the study, I suggest that authors to consider relevant evidence
about HPV-vaccination e its possible therapeutic role and the use of others alternative therapeutic
strategies, such as immune checkpoints inhibitors. I suggest authors to read and insert in
references the following article PMID: 29958629.
Considering all these points, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published after minor
revisions.
Title: Analysis of influencing factors of HPV vaccination willingness of female sex workers in
urban entertainment venues based on the IMB model in Guangxi, China
Version: 4 Date: 08 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for going through the manuscript and the reviewers' points
In my honest opinion, the authors have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers’ criticisms.
The manuscript is well written and falls within the aim of this Journal amd it deserves the priority
to be published.
Title: Health-promoting lifestyle in mothers with vaginal childbirth and cesarean section in the
postpartum period
Version: 3 Date: 31 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for your valuable research, in some parts of this manuscript, there are some points that
seem to need to be revised:
Abstract and title
Title and introduction and other sections:
-It is better to use the word vaginal delivery instead of natural delivery, because after reading
your manuscript, it became clear that vaginal birth was meant and not natural (which is without
intervention and medicine).,
-The number of samples and the average score of each group should be mentioned in result
section and the place of the first two lines is in the discussion section which is repeated in the
discussion section
Main text:
Methods:
-How and where do you find the samples after 2 and 6 weeks? Will the questionnaires be posted
or via email or online questionnaires? Please give clear explanations.
-What is the purpose of literacy in the conditions of entering the study?
-There are many explanations of demographic information in the method section and it is not
necessary
-Results:
-Write the average scores of each group in the results section
-What statistical test was used to compare the averages in the results section?
-In the results section in the second paragraph regarding the comparison of the averages in the
two groups, all three sentences written are actually the same and since this reduction was in all
dimensions, it should only be mentioned that the average reduction was in all 6 dimensions and
the second sentence be deleted.
Discussion:
-The discussion should be edited in the fourth paragraph, the fifth line (Jofri's name is mentioned
twice in one sentence)
-Because this study has been completed, it is better to write a more suitable word instead of"
in the ongoing study"
-In relation to the strengths of your study that you have written, what do you mean by “important
postpartum variables”? Please write it down.
-In the discussion section, you have compared the intensity of post-episiotomy pain with the
pain after cesarean section, which according to the available literature, the intensity of cesarean
section pain and its recovery time and even the duration of pain after cesarean section are much
higher and much longer than episiotomy pain. And even the return of the mother to normal
daily activities in vaginal delivery with episiotomy is faster than cesarean delivery, that this part
should be revised. Unless you have references in this regard, you must mention it in this section.
-You mentioned somewhere in the discussion that in Iran, episiotomy is routine for all
primiparous women, while according to the guidelines of the Iranian Ministry of Health and
Medicine regarding the promotion of vaginal delivery, episiotomy even in primiparous women
should be based on the indication and not routine. Please delete this section.
-In the second paragraph of the second page of the discussion section, where you mentioned the
study of “He et al” for the first time, the reference is not written.
Title: Health-promoting lifestyle in mothers with vaginal childbirth and cesarean section in the
postpartum period
Version: 3 Date: 05 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review the paper, some comments are as follows:
-In Iran some hospitals have been considered as mother- baby friendly hospital and these
hospitals are running physiologic delivery, in the paper had not been mentioned about that. Also,
all pregnant mothers in the clinics and hospitals attend preparation program during pregnancy
that it reduces the chances of laceration during delivery. So in the discussion part should mention
about these classes.
_In the paper mentioned first or second rupture, but this is laceration.
Title: Health-promoting lifestyle in mothers with vaginal childbirth and cesarean section in the
postpartum period
Version: 7 Date: 21 Jan 2024
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 major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major 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 major 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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This study compared life-style factors between vaginal and
caesarean section women. While the objectives seem attractive, there are many ways to
strengthen this article. The sampling strategy and sample size is less; and the analysis strategy
needs to be transparently described and interpreted.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
My comments for revision are:
Abstract:
Based on the findings of no significant difference; how can authors conclude this: “This requires
more attention from policy makers to make vaginal childbirth more convenient, and by reducing
complications after vaginal childbirth, they can improve women's healthy lifestyles and, in turn,
families.”
Background
Where are the studies described in the fourth paragraph conducted? What is the evidences from
Iran?
Methods:
Why convenience sampling method is used for this quantitative study? Why can not be random
sampling done? A sample size of 77 women for this cross-sectional survey is less.
How was the questionnaire developed and validated? Or is it adopted from previous study?
Authors should make clear that for which objectives or comparison, they use independent t test,
paired t test, and ANCOVA.
Results
There should be comparison of basic characteristics between the two groups. Are these two
groups different in some characteristics?
Also, I could not find the results comparing the two groups at the same time point; there are
results comparing the time factor only. Where is the paired and independent t test used here and
what are the results?
Discussions:
The choice of study variable and findings can not be strengths of the study. Rather than stating
strengths, authors need to focus what are the limitations? Why not random sampling? Why not
community-based study? Why not a larger sample size for a survey like study?
Conclusions
It needs to include implications and suggestions that can be made from this study findings.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None
Title: Health-promoting lifestyle in mothers with vaginal childbirth and cesarean section in the
postpartum period
Version: 8 Date: 05 Feb 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major 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 - 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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors have responded and revised but this is not adequate. The
article still needs more careful thought and revisions.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
My comments:
Authors have justified that convenience sampling is for hypothesis generating but sample
size calculation seems hypothesis testing. Overall, this study is not for hypothesis generating.
Convenience sampling is generally used for qualitative studies, and yes for hypothesis
generating. I do not agree with authors’ justification.
Why is it necessary to compare quantitative demographic variables? There were no such
objectives. And also, both independent t-test and paired-t test were used for mean health-
promoting lifestyle scores comparison.
For ANCOVA, there should be more than two groups.
The choice of variable, and findings cannot be strengths; strengths relate with the design and
conduct of study. These has not been revised. Random sample is not impossible; authors just
need to justify why it can not be done in this study.
Authors need to specify “other factors” while they conclude.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have commented above.
Title: Health-promoting lifestyle in mothers with vaginal childbirth and cesarean section in the
postpartum period
Version: 9 Date: 18 Feb 2024
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: Yes, the authors have responded to my comments and revised the
text. They have consulted with biostatistician, and agreed with my comments in 'strengths'
sections.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None
Title: Effect of vitamin E with and without saffron on the sexual function in women of
reproductive age with sexual dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Asl# Sis Celik
Reviewer's report:
It was a successful work on a beautiful subject. Congratulations to the authors. At one point I
have a question, why did you consider depression and sleep problems when choosing the sample
for sexual dysfunction? Adding a sample would be nice.
it is also recommended to include the hypotheses of the research.
Title: Effect of vitamin E with and without saffron on the sexual function in women of
reproductive age with sexual dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 30 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Elena Colonnello
Reviewer's report:
The focus of this triple randomized controlled trial was to assess the efficacy of vitamin E
combined with saffron versus a combination with placebo on sexual dysfunction, as a primary
outcome, and depression and anxiety as second ones. However, this is not entirely clear from the
background: “Due to the limited evidence available on the efficacy of using saffron on sexual
function and its safety for medicinal uses, this study aimed to determine the effect of adding
saffron to vitamin E on sexual function” Which is the rationale of it? Given this premise, one
would expect that, given the limited available evidence of saffron, the study would focus on
saffron alone, and then eventually on a combined therapy, versus placebo. Conversely, the study
focuses on vitamin E, with and without saffron. Hence, while the methodology is clear, the
background of the research should be implemented.  More studies on the efficacy of vitamin E
on the proposed outcomes should be given.
Please, explain the choice to exclude drugs to treat sexual dysfunction, contrarily to drugs to
treat depression or anxiety.
In the results section, consider not to repeat the reasons for the lost-to-follow-up, as they are
already shown in the figure.
Lines 252-254: the mean overall score of sexual function in the experimental group prior to the
intervention seems to be significantly lower (hence, worse) than the control group, according
to table 2.
Stress was significantly lower in the experimental group at baseline, too. Do the authors think it
may have somewhat impacted the course of the therapy, despite having a baseline of significantly
better sexual function?
Figure 2. The font size is too small and the terms on the x-axis are not readable. Consider splitting
it into more figures.
Title: Effect of vitamin E with and without saffron on the sexual function in women of
reproductive age with sexual dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Elena Colonnello
Reviewer's report:
The authors extensively worked to improve the manuscript, which, at the present stage, looks
improved. However, as the study design itself is not tremendously solid, this should be listed
among the limitations. That is, given the inconclusive results on vitamin E itself available in
the literature, the whole study would have benefited from a placebo arm (vitamin E placebo
+ saffron E placebo). Indeed, given the results, it is impossible to state, as the authors say in
the conclusions, that adding saffron to vitamin E enhances the sexual function of women of
reproductive age who suffer from sexual dysfunction, but only that the combination is more
effective than vitamin E alone for such purpose. The effect of such a combination over a placebo
has not been tested. Hence, the conclusions should then be smoothened.
Moreover, which is the dosage of vitamin E that has been used for sexual dysfunction in the
previous trials? This should be specified, and compared it to the present trial.
What do you mean by guidance? (table 1) Maybe primary school?
Antidepressants can be prescribed even for mild depression, hence the answer provided by
the authors is inconsistent. However, the inclusion of women taking antidepressants does not
represent a bias per se.
Finally, I recommend a deep revision of the English language and editing, especially in the parts
included by the authors after the first round of revisions.
Title: Effect of vitamin E with and without saffron on the sexual function in women of
reproductive age with sexual dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 15 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Elena Colonnello
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the manuscript accordingly. I have no more comments on it, besides
suggesting to report the corresponding value of IU of vitamins E used in this study (to align with
the previous studies  been mentioned, that used IU instead of mg - that is, "in the present trial,
the dose of vitamin E was 50 mg corresponding to ??? IU )
Congrats to the authors for the present work.
Title: MENSTRUAL HEALTH AND HYGIENE AMONGST ADOLESCENT GIRLS AND
WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE: A STUDY OF PRACTICES AND PREDICTORS,
ODISHA, INDIA
Version: 1 Date: 05 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is well written as per your objectives specified.
Predictors, although known, has come out well statistically.
Major issue seems unprepared for Menarche and disposal..
if the system is providing sanitary pads, the disposal issue also needs to be answered...need to
include in the conclusion.
Title: MENSTRUAL HEALTH AND HYGIENE AMONGST ADOLESCENT GIRLS AND
WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE: A STUDY OF PRACTICES AND PREDICTORS,
ODISHA, INDIA
Version: 3 Date: 07 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The revisions are adequate, to the extent they could. It would help if they mention that this study
excludes a specific analysis of the KUSHI project and that the findings are being presented in
a seperate paper.
Secondly, the authors can mention the overall explanatory capacity of their multivariate analysis
using the predictive efficacy of the logistic model. This will actually strengthen their argument
regarding use of additional accessibility and affordability variables.
Title: MENSTRUAL HEALTH AND HYGIENE AMONGST ADOLESCENT GIRLS AND
WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE: A STUDY OF PRACTICES AND PREDICTORS,
ODISHA, INDIA
Version: 3 Date: 20 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the authors have made good efforts in addressing comments. In particular, the
organization of the article has improved by labeling quantitative and qualitative findings
separately for each section. I think the language can be cleaned up a bit, perhaps with the
assistance of an editor. But the purpose of the article – to show that non-health determinants
matter for women’s health, and that there remain important challenges to proper menstrual health
hygiene in Odisha – has come through very clearly. For this reason, I recommend accepting
this article.
Title: MENSTRUAL HEALTH AND HYGIENE AMONGST ADOLESCENT GIRLS AND
WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE: A STUDY OF PRACTICES AND PREDICTORS,
ODISHA, INDIA
Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed almost all of the comments. The comment to include the predictive
efficacy is an added embelishment. The paper holds even without it. Therefore, it can be accepted
in its present form
Title: A POPULATION BASED STUDY ON HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION
AND ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS AMONG WOMEN OF THE REMOTE SOUTH
ANDAMAN ISLAND, INDIA
Version: 0 Date: 27 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Leila Allahqoli
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, I read your study with a lot interest, here is my concern.
The study based on which the sample size is estimated is in women with cancer and the
prevalence of HPV is higher in this population, while in the current study, the study population
is a healthy population. Of course, a sample size of 1,000 seems sufficient for a cross-sectional
study.
Inclusion section of this study was “married women of reproductive age (18 - 59 years)”. Why
were not included unmarried but sexual active women in this study? How is it possible to
generalize the result of this study to community?
Before using abbreviation, it needs full of the words to be introduced. “PHCs, CHCs”,???
Were all the tests done in the same laboratory? Or were the tests done by someone?
The questionnaire should be fully explained in the method section, how many questions did it
have? What was the measurement scale? What were the types of questions? Quantitative? Yes/
no or Likert scale?
Statistical section:
Authors have written “Data was presented using frequency, percentage, median, quartiles,
maximum, and minimum values” 1. Why they used median and quartiles? Were not obtained
data in this study normal distribution? 2. I cannot see median, quartiles, maximum, and minimum
values.
Determine of prevalence is the first outcome of this study, please draw a table and bring the data
of crude and adjusted prevalence of HPV infection. In addition, a revision needs in statistical
and result section accordingly.
Please draw a table and bring the data of crude and adjusted prevalence of HPV infection
“Based on the number of married women …………. their confidence interval using the binomial
exact formula”: What does mean of “the binomial exact formula”?
In method section please step by step explain about study. For example: In this study we
Examining the Role of Sexual Behavior and Reproductive Factors using questionnaire with X
questions. The type of questions were yes/no type,………
Result section:
“The study involved 1000 women….” Did all 1,000 women complete their study?
The study revealed a 5.0% prevalence (95% CI 3.6-6.4) of Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
infection among 1000 women. High-risk HPV (HR-HPV) was found in 3.2% (95% CI 2.2-4.49):
please delete Human Papillomavirus and High-risk HPV in this sentence. They are in the
introduction.
Result section is so hard to follow, please summary and organize this section and tables.
Please bring all demographic information in general in Table 1.
Table 2: crude and adjusted prevalence of HPV.
Table 3:…
Table 4:…
What is figure 1? It needs to be clarified in method section that what questions were asked about
the symptoms of HPV.
Please delete screened columns from all tables.
Title: A POPULATION BASED STUDY ON HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION
AND ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS AMONG WOMEN OF THE REMOTE SOUTH
ANDAMAN ISLAND, INDIA
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Masoumeh Namazi
Reviewer's report:
-  References  are not according to journal guideline. please revise them.
-Abstract: the purpose of study is different from what is mentioned in last paragraph of
introduction.
-Introduction: the last line of the first paragraph does not have any reference.
-Method: please mention the months which data is collected.
-Method: please mention the formula of sample size.
-Data collection: please write the full name of PHCs, and  CHCs for the first time.
-Data collection: what is the exclusion criteria of study?
-Results: please do not repeat the findings of tables. most of the information in this part are
mentioned in tables.
-Discussion:  References  are not according to journal guideline. please revise them.
Title: A POPULATION BASED STUDY ON HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION
AND ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS AMONG WOMEN OF THE REMOTE SOUTH
ANDAMAN ISLAND, INDIA
Version: 0 Date: 19 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. I read this paper carefully. The article
explain prospects and realities of emerging antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia. I feel
the research topic is interesting and the article appear well-written and well-referenced. I have
no further comments.