Title: Sexual dysfunction in women with genital warts: A systematic review
Version: 3 Date: 21 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript entitled: Sexual dysfunction in women with
genital warts: A systematic review.
Overall, this is an interesting study and the methodology is scientifically sound. However, there
were a lot of grammatical and punctuation errors. For example, scholar should be Scholar,
prevalence should be the prevalence in the abstract and there is a missing were  in-between
'articles' and 'nineteen' for  'Results: Nineteen articles selected and analyzed narratively.' For
the punctuation, it should be small letter for 'Psychosexual',  and I felt the manuscript should
be read and edited by an expert in the field of the English language before it can be accepted
for publication.
Regarding the abstract, it was mentioned: "Purpose: The purpose of this review was to provide
an understanding of the impact of genital warts on women's sexual function.
Methods: In this review study, Databases searched included: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus,
Web of Science, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Google scholar, ProQuest, Wiley
and Highwire Press. No study design limitations were applied to the initial search, and both
qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2005 and 2021 were included.
Results: Nineteen articles selected and analyzed narratively. The quality of the studies was
almost good. The results of our study were classified into 3 groups, which include: prevalence
of sexual dysfunction in women with genital warts (GWs) and Human papillomavirus (HPV),
Types of sexual dysfunction in women with genital warts and associated factor and Psychosexual
impacts of genital wart. Conclusion: This study provides up-to-date evidence of the effects of
genital warts on female sexual dysfunction. Differences and variations in quantitative study
designs and the study population make it difficult to determine the impacts of genital warts on
patients' sexual function so The impacts of genital wart on women's sexual function is unclear.
Based on the results of this review, more research is needed in the future. " Please check the
grammar, for example, it should be 'factors, and.." There is a missing 's'.
Regarding the introduction and background, please be mindful of the grammar and punctuation.
For example,  the use of full stop in between the references and the space in between the
references and the sentences.
For Objectives and Review questions, please explain your hypothesis and use the objectionable
aims in your study. For example, the correct term is 'to determine" rather than 'to provide
understanding'  for " This review aims to provide an understanding of the impact of GWs on
women's sexual function."
Regarding the methods, please explain the reasons why the studies were excluded in the
PRISMA figure. To increase the search abilities of the studies, why truncation and Boolean
strategy were not incorporated? How does the reviewer come to conclusion to exclude or include
the studies if there is any dispute?
Regarding results, please explain why a synthesis of the meta-analysis was not able to be
performed in the studies. Please state the quality of the studies incorporated in the review (for
example, what is the quality of the study based on the McMaster criteria).
In the study characteristics, 8 articles evaluated the psycho sexual impacts of GWs and HPV
(22, 23, 26, 36-40) and 6 articles evaluated the quality of life of patients. How do the authors
know that these studies on GWs and HPV for the impact on the psychosexual function is all of
the prospective types of studies (because the causative language, ie., 'impact' was used)?
For the discussion, it is not clear why a meta-analysis is not performed in the study. The
discussion is not in-depth on the role of the VWs and HPV which are associated with sexual
dysfunction. The limitation of a systematic review must be articulated in the discussion.