JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Molecular-Based Classification of Endometrial Carcinoma in Northern Thailand: Impact
on Prognosis and Potential for Implementation in Resource-Limited Settings
Version: 0 Date: 23 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 minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, in order to correct a few typos and improve
readability.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
- I find it interesting to include references to the new molecular classification of endometrial
cancer and its importance for tailoring the approach to this important disease ( see PMID:
36979434 and PMID: 36983243).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
Title: Molecular-Based Classification of Endometrial Carcinoma in Northern Thailand: Impact
on Prognosis and Potential for Implementation in Resource-Limited Settings
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Molecular-Based Classification of Endometrial
Carcinoma in Northern Thailand: Impact on Prognosis and Potential for Implementation in
Resource-Limited Settings”, topic interesting enough to attract readers' attention.
After the changes made, the manuscript improved.
I think it deserves priority to be published.
Title: Health professionals’ and beauty therapists’ perspectives on female genital cosmetic
surgery: An interview study
Version: 0 Date: 28 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Michela Villani
Reviewer's report:
This is an excellent article.
The problem is well outlined, drawing on relevant recent literature, which highlights the major
issues concerning FGSC and in particular aspects relating to counselling, information and
management. The article proposes to identify the socio-cultural factors underpinning both the
demand for FGSC on the part of women and girls and the way in which this demand is interpreted
by the medical profession, which attempts to explain this demand by focusing exclusively on
the pathological dimension.
The methodology is well-designed and has the merit of being based on a rich corpus of qualitative
data that provides a wide range of illustrations.
Finally, we highlight the major ethical issues facing practitioners: the reasons for FGSC requests.
Practitioners who are confronted with these requests are often at a loss and often lack solid
explanations, which leaves too much margin for subjectivity in the medical assessment.
The article should stress this point, particularly in its conclusions, by emphasising that the
problem often lies upstream and cannot be solved within the hospital setting (in this case, only
clinical reasoning can be applied, which has the loop-effect). Other professions can/should be
involved, in particular social workers, which needs to get to grips with these issues (sexuality and
gender).  On this subject, the authors may wish to refer to this article, which addresses the issue:
Villani M (2023) Changing gender norms around female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/
C): a key role for social work in the Global North. Front. Sociol. 8:1187981. doi: 10.3389/
fsoc.2023.1187981
With regard to criticism of heteronormative thinking in medicine, this article could be
mentioned :
Earp, B. D. (2020). Systems thinking gender and medicine. J. Med. Ethics 46:4, 225–226. doi:
10.1136/medethics-2020-106206
That being said, the article is well structured, well written and solidly argued. Moreover,
it tackles an urgent and sensitive issue that is most welcome and useful to researchers and
practitioners both.
For all these reasons, I recommend publication.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 3 Date: 11 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
To this reviewer,  discussion on case-control design is less clear and confusing. In Materials and
Methods section, the authors states that "we retrospectively reviewed 281 patients diagnosed
with endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, or ovarian cancer who underwent surgery in our
hospital between 2018 and 2023." Then, in Table 2, the authors indicate there are 109 cases and
172 controls. How the authors designated 109 as case and 172 as control? This is fundamental
thing to make it clear before conducting any statistical modeling and  testing.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 3 Date: 13 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Identifying Novel Predictive Factors for
Mitigating Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction in Gynecological Cancer Patients" (ID
7c92ffc1-f951-4255-b6ef-5d3025267983), which falls within the aim of this Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers' attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
-Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
-What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives .
-Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research
(EQUATOR) network guidelines? It would be mandatory to declare about this element.
I would like to suggest to discuss, at least briefly, how the potential association between the
risk of gastrointestinal cancer and hysterectomy may be influenced also by the type of surgical
approach, considering for instance vNOTES (PMID: 37231836), radical hysterectomy (PMID:
36767419) or subtotal hysterectomy (PMID: 36708659).
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 3 Date: 18 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Ref: Submission ID 7c92ffc1-f951-4255-b6ef-5d3025267983
Title:
"Identifying Novel Predictive Factors for Mitigating Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction
in Gynecological Cancer Patients"
General comments
This manuscript describes the main features of patients who underwent gynecological surgery.
Overall, the paper contributes to reducing the knowledge gap of complications post-surgery.
Would think that title is very ambitious as Novel predictive factors because more researchers are
needed in different settings, would suggest “Main predictive factors identified in postoperative
Gastrointestinal Dysfunction in Gynecological Cancer Patients."
Personal skills in surgery from the health team are a relevant factor in the success of the surgery
process, please explain this component in the methods section or as a limitation.
Please check in the results section some paragraphs are conclusions; these must be separated
into specific sections.
Usually, age is a vital confounding, and it must be included in the multivariable regression
model, please justify this.
Specific comments
Check the wording in some paragraphs.
Attach an English proofreading certification.
Describe the reasons to exclude patients with hysterectomy via vaginal in the methods section.
Hence this approach could change results.
Titles in results must be shorter.
A conclusion section is needed in the main manuscript.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 6 Date: 13 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The aim of the project is Ok the new findings are interesting.
But  I am a little bit confused regarding the results and discussion about the serum Bilirubin
level and other risk factors.
They concluded that "Specifically, the higher serum bilirubin levels, longer surgical times,
and the presence of the greater omentum and pelvic lymph nodes may serve as protective
factors against POGD", But The table-2 showed,  the higher  Bilirubin level was found among
cases compared with controls . And as I am not the statistician I do not understand when the
serum_bilirubin, mean ± sd is higher in cases [ 14.172 ± 4.0701] vs controls [9.6429 ± 3.5351]
with P value < 0.001, how the univariate and multivariate analysis showed that the higher level
is protective.
again for sodium level and omentectomy.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 6 Date: 13 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the authors' explanation and elaboration on their "case-control" design. I suggest
for the authors to cite some prominent studies utilizing the same approach.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 7 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read again with great interest the Manuscript
I found that Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis.
Authors have clarified the point and improved the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 7 Date: 09 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the two additional references (Onwude JL., 2008. and Chao X, Li L, Wu M, et al.,
2019.) to reinforce authors methodological choice in terms of study design. But, somehow, I
am not able to find the two references in the revision. (Maybe I am reading a different version).
Please make sure to add the two to References.  And please modify the text, if needed. when
you add the two references.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 8 Date: 15 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion this paper is accurate and attractive. I’ve read it with interest and I found the
study is strong.
Thank you for the reference.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 9 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the article. I found it well written and thorough.
The study design is appropriate to answer the research question  and  the conclusions are
supported by the evidence presented.
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 9 Date: 22 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for addressing the reviewer feedback and revising your manuscript. I appreciate the
effort put into strengthening various aspects as suggested. With some further improvements, this
work shows promise in advancing knowledge on an important clinical topic.
Please consider the following concise points as you prepare your next revision:
Title:
- Lacks specificity and focus on key variables/outcomes
Abstract:
- Broad objectives stated without clarity on aims
- Methods overview lacks important details
- Results presented without outcomes of interest
- Weak conclusions not supported
Introduction:
- Background information limited
- Justification for study aims unclear
- Literature review scope could be expanded
Methods:
- Patient selection and data collection lacking detail
- Important variables not accounted for
- Statistical analyses need more explanation
Results:
- Baseline characteristics and groups not described
- Outcome not clearly defined or standardized
Statistics:
- Choice of tests not justified
- Assumptions not established
- Missing data handling unclear
- Confounding not addressed
- Power/sample size not reported
- Sensitivity analyses needed
Discussion:
- Comparative analysis is limited
- Limitations and biases not critically addressed
Conclusion:
- Not supported by results/analyses
- Generalizability uncertainty not discussed
References:
- Sources vary in age, quality and relevance
- Important references missing from discussion
- Bibliographic errors and inconsistencies present
- Accuracy could not be verified without full text
I believe fully addressing the points raised could result in acceptance. Please feel free to contact
me if any part of the review requires further explanation. Wishing you the best moving forward.
regards
Title: Predictive Modeling of Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: The Role of Serum
Bilirubin, Sodium Levels, and Surgical Duration in Gynecological Cancer Care
Version: 10 Date: 01 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing all of my comments and concerns in such a comprehensive manner.
I appreciate you taking the time to carefully consider each suggestion and make appropriate
revisions throughout the manuscript. The changes have clearly strengthened the various sections
as we discussed.
Some key areas that have notably improved include providing greater specificity in the title,
objectives and conclusions. The methods section now contains important details on patient
selection, variables and statistical analysis. Additionally, the discussion more critically evaluates
limitations and the references have been thoroughly updated.
Overall the manuscript is much clearer and the scientific rigor has increased. The results are
better supported and contextualized. You have demonstrated the care and effort taken to enhance
the quality and reporting of this work.
I believe the manuscript is now ready for publication pending any final edits from the editorial
team. Thank you again for your revisions - it was a pleasure to review this improved manuscript.
The study findings appear to provide a useful contribution to the field. Best of luck with the
publication process.
Title: Case Series of Ovarian Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: Overview of Clinicopathological
Features
Version: 1 Date: 06 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Neuroendocrine carcinoma is ,indeed, a rare type of gynecologic neoplasm with unknown
pathogenesis  and no relevant treatment guidelines. The present reviews the existing literature
offering a lot in the field emphasizing the need of proper and accurate pathological staging
aiming at patients  survival.
Title: Case Series of Ovarian Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: Overview of Clinicopathological
Features
Version: 1 Date: 08 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Caleb Harris
Reviewer's report:
The article is well written, but the pivotal point in this article is the WHO classification of
Neuroendocrine Neoplasms which has not been referred to. An older article from 2009 is alluded
to which may not be very appropriate here. Would suggest that the introduction is modified to
include a brief description of this modified classification.
You have mentioned that there are only few case reports, but there is a large series of
399 patients (Huang W et al. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the ovary: .... Endocrine. 2022
Jun;77(1):188-198. doi: 10.1007/s12020-022-03067-y). A diligent review of current literature
and rewriting of the discussion is needed.
I wonder how you could conclude(from the data you have) that accurate pathological staging
and early detection can improve survival.
Title: Case Series of Ovarian Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: Overview of Clinicopathological
Features
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Case Series of Ovarian Neuroendocrine
Carcinoma: Overview of Clinicopathological Features." topic interesting enough to attract
readers' attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest the
following recommendations:
- I suggest round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability;
- Considering topic analyzed in this study rarity and diverse histological types of ovarian
neuroendocrine carcinoma, the discussion could be extended by evaluating advantages and
drawbacks of various surgical approach, in particular laparoscopic surgery, and the possibility
of tailored-terapy for these patients.  I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point,
referring to PMID: 35343352
- - I suggest authors to add a reference to highlight the importance of precise management
in gynecological cancer patients. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point,
referring to:  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: Induced Abortions among Chinese Adolescent Girls
Version: 1 Date: 21 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, the manuscript has clearly
reflected the research conducted by the research team. I have some comments for the authors:
1. he descriptive statistical table showing the characteristics of the data set to be analyzed (age,
marital status, age at the time of abortion, number of abortions experienced, percentage of
unintended pregnancies, percentage of unintended abortions, number of persons from rural and
urban areas, number of persons by education level, etc.) will be needed.
2. Comparisons are made by cohort, region, and ethnicity, but statistical tests would be better to
be performed to ensure that there is a statistical difference when making comparisons.
3. What are the criteria for classifying cities and rural areas? Is it population size? It would be
better if the criteria should be explained.
Title: Induced Abortions among Chinese Adolescent Girls
Version: 3 Date: 21 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for sending the revised manuscript. I have some comments on the following points
for the authors:
1. You explain that you conducted an examination of the trend in the proportion of women who
have experienced induced abortion, but there are different types of propensity tests, so please
explain what kind of propensity test you conducted specifically.
2. In Table 2, odds ratios and confidence intervals are listed. In general, I don't think odds ratios
are available for trend tests, but is this a mistake for logistic regression? If you are using logistic
regression, please specify the explanatory variables and explained variables, and please explain
how you make the variables with specific research methods.
Title: Beyond the scars: A qualitative study on the experiences of mastectomy among young
women with breast cancer in a country with crisis
Version: 1 Date: 12 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled " Beyond the scars:
a qualitative study on the experiences of young breast cancer women with mastectomy in a
country with crisis”. I believe this is a valuable study in the Syrian context. However, this article
is currently of low quality and needs to be revised. Please find and address my comments and
suggestions point by point as follow:
Introduction:
1. I suggest that you discuss why the present study is useful in the context of Syria. You can use
the following studies in the discussion and introduction:
- https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-021-01212-9
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12905-022-01906-8
Method:
2. Which of the qualitative research approaches was used? What was the reason for using it?
3. Context - Setting/site: More information regarding setting and the reason for choosing it is
necessary.
4. Sampling strategy - How and why research participants were selected; what were the inclusion
and exclusion criteria? What criteria for deciding when no further sampling was necessary?
5. Researcher characteristics and reflexivity - Researchers’ characteristics that may influence the
research, including personal attributes, qualifications/experience, relationship with participants,
assumptions, and/or presuppositions; potential or actual interaction between researchers’
characteristics and the research questions, approach, methods, results, and/or transferability
6. Data collection should be provided with more details.
7. Techniques to enhance trustworthiness - Techniques to enhance trustworthiness and
credibility of data analysis should be provided.
Results
8. A table and figure can better display the findings.
Discussion:
9. The discussion is too short. All of the main findings should be discussed and explained.
Integration with prior work, implications, transferability, and contribution(s) to the field should
be performed.
10. Limitations - Trustworthiness and limitations of findings should be discussed.
Title: Beyond the scars: A qualitative study on the experiences of mastectomy among young
women with breast cancer in a country with crisis
Version: 3 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript revisions. The authors responded
thoroughly to the reviewer's suggestions. The revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity,
transparency, and validity of this important work. Thank you for your contribution to this
valuable research.
I only have a few minor suggested revisions.
1. Please ensure your updated themes / subthemes in the paper carry over to your abstract.
2. Line 67: It seems like the authors were going to add something here but didn’t complete their
sentence.
“Previous studies revealed that The relevant literature emphasizes that young women … "
Please continue this sentence or delete “Previous studies revealed that”
3. Line 316:
Change "For example, two participants said:     to
For example, a participant said: "
(As you only have a single quote by participant “R”)
4. Several grammar revisions are needed.  There are several fragmented sentences,  wrong verb
forms, word agreement mistakes, and the addition/absence of commas.