JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Pathways to ovarian cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved
in the following ways:
Abstract
# Did you use Guba and Lincoln Criteria? If yes, mention it in method.
# Conclusion is not based on the results. Please revised it.
# Check the keywords in Mesh. There are all of them in Mesh?
Introduction
# Explain more the importance of study. You can talk about lack of qualitative studies and
importance of them in explore experiences and …
-in the end of introduction section please bring the applicable objectives of this sudy.
Methods
# Re-organize Methods section to this part: Design, Participants, Data collection, Data Analysis,
Trustworthiness, and Ethical Considerations. You can see this article to understand changes you
have to do:
# Move the period of data collection to that part and omit it in Design part.
# How did you select participants? Explain the process of purposeful sampling.
# Add a reference to data saturation.
# How did you design the questions? Explain it.
# Before the start of each interview, did you talk about the study and its important to participant
to get her/ his trust. If yes, mention it.
# How did you protect the privacy of your participants?
# Which author did the data analysis?
# please add the  Trustworthiness of data
Results
# Results are the main section of your research. It needs more describe in each sub-category.
Before quotations you have to describe the sub-categories.
please add the Discussion section in main text and in this section needs the interpretation of
authors. Please add your interpretation and explanations to this section.
# Add limitations and strengthen of study.
# What are your suggestion for future studies?
Conclusion
What are your suggestion for future studies?
To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section The following
studies are suggested, please to use and cited and add to article reference
To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section The following
studies are suggested, please to use and cited and add to article reference
-The effect of educational workshop on emergency department nurses' self-efficacy in patient
training
- The Prevalence of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Among Health Care Workers During the
COVID-19 Pandemic: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis
- Observance of patients’ rights in emergency department of educational hospitals in south-east
Iran
- Psycho social Needs of the Families With Hospitalized Organ Transplant Patients in an
Educational Hospital in Iran
Best regards
Title: “YOU MUST CUT THAT LONG AND STINKING THING”: UNCOVERING THE
LIVED EXPERIENCES OF UNCIRCUMCISED POKOT WOMEN IN NORTH-EASTERN
UGANDA
Version: 4 Date: 13 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Nazarius Mbona Tumwesigye
Reviewer's report:
The paper is generally good. it brings out insights that are lacking in many studies.  However,
there are few points that can improve the quality of the paper even further.
1.   High light limitations where  claims are best stated with comparison with the circumcised.
an example is sexual pleasure. you never interviewed those circumcised.  probably they also
have some form of sexual pleasure.
2. check typos.  page 8 on the Nancy quote  you missed  the word NOT. the Lina quote you seem
to confuse born with bone. several other places have those typos.
3.  on page 9 you compare the married and unmarried. was this in the design of the study?
4.  the names you use for the quotes may not be the real names but wouldn't use of  Woman1,
woman2 ...... better?  supposed there is an uncircumcised woman byname of Lina in villages
where the study was conducted. she would face violence !!!!
5. on page 5 you say  "The level of understanding of female circumcision across the participants
was irrespective of the level of education, age, marital status or religion.". is your study powered
to make these comparisons?  from 15 women?
6 . you state  "To reduce harm and ensure confidentiality, female Research Assistants were
recruited to carry out interviews with uncircumcised women"  how does this reduce harm ensure
confidentiality?
7. How did you decide on one FGD, 15 participants, 5 KIIs?  you quote some sources but its
best to pull out short clear explanation.
8.  you state . "However, this has reduced compared to Uganda Demographic and Health Survey
(UDHS) (19), which estimated the prevalence rate at 95% and Uganda Women Network at 80%
in 2016 (20). The persistence of female circumcision among the Pokot is associated with strong
social values..." double check then specify this refers to the pokot.
Title: “YOU MUST CUT THAT LONG AND STINKING THING”: UNCOVERING THE
LIVED EXPERIENCES OF UNCIRCUMCISED POKOT WOMEN IN NORTH-EASTERN
UGANDA
Version: 5 Date: 31 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
A very well revised manuscript - it flows very well and is thorough.
Page 2 paragraph 3 - rather than "However, this has reduced compared to" could write
"Fortunately, this has..." - indicates a more positive note as percentage has decreased.
It would have been great to have conducted interviews for members of the community who were
circumcised as it could provide more accurate comparisons for points such as knowledge about
female circumcision and the positive experiences in particular.
Overall good.
Title: “YOU MUST CUT THAT LONG AND STINKING THING”: UNCOVERING THE
LIVED EXPERIENCES OF UNCIRCUMCISED POKOT WOMEN IN NORTH-EASTERN
UGANDA
Version: 5 Date: 07 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
- An interesting manuscript.
- Many of the previous review comments were addressed. These are additional observations:
- The manuscript needs some language editing.
- L65, I am not sure about the FGM prevalence of 1.4% among the Sebei, etc. Please check
again. This most likely is a national not sub-regional prevalence.
- The authors could consider adding content from a programming perspective on the persistence
of FGM in Pokot relative to the Sebei region.
- L334, consider reviewing the sentence.
- The discussion has content that is not presented in the findings e.g. property ownership, and
STDs.  Such should be mentioned in the findings prior to the discussion.
- While formal education could be a protective factor, the findings show that only 5 of the women
had secondary education. Perhaps, in this case, any form of formal education makes a difference.
If this is the case, the authors should state so.
- In the discussion, the authors could limit the repetition of content in the findings.
- L 507-509 “Further studies need to be conducted on the scientific benefits of not being
circumcised and protective factors adapted by uncircumcised women and girls to navigate in
a community that considers them deviant” There is a lot of information on this issue.  Please
review.
- Some of the references require editing.
Title: Pregnancy and Sexual Related Problems among Women Living on The Street in Dire
Dawa City, Eastern Ethiopia,2021 : Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Temesgen Tilahun
Reviewer's report:
Comment on the manuscript (PREGNANCY AND SEXUAL RELATED PROBLEMS
AMONG WOMEN LIVING ON THE STREET AT DIRE DAWA CITY, ETHIOPIA 2021)
1. Language: it is poorly written. It should be corrected by native speakers
2. Title: Modify It as’ Pregnancy and Sexual Related Problems among Women Living on The
Street in Dire Dawa City, Eastern Ethiopia,2021 : Qualitative Study
3. Abstract
# Shorten the background
# Better the phrase ‘unsafe sex’ is changed to ‘unprotected sex’
# Is HIV not STI?
4. Background
# The authors used one reference for paragraphs one and two. Let them add more references
for each paragraph
5. Study setting and design
# Include the public health coverage of the area including health education about SRH
# Why Dechatu River is underlined?
6. Study variables
# Include them
7. Study population and sampling procedure
# Clearly define exclusion and inclusion criteria
# How do authors control the inclusion of previously interviewed participants into the new
interview if they are making the interviews at different times?
# How were participants selected(do the authors selected from different kebele)?
8. Data analysis
# What technique of qualitative data analysis was used?
9. Result
# I am not clear with 1st paragraph. It shall be rewritten
10. Conclusion
# Try to shorten it. Make sure that recommendations are made only based on the findings
11. Limitation
# Should be included before the conclusion
Title: Pregnancy and Sexual Related Problems among Women Living on The Street in Dire
Dawa City, Eastern Ethiopia,2021 : Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor, thank you for your invitation to review. I have the following concerns.
1. Authors have to introduce abbreviations on first use.
2. The methodology part of the manuscript is too shallow. It needs rewriting starting from the
study setting to data analysis.
3. Authors have to justify why they have used FGD and IDI? What is the importance of using
both?
4. Which type of non-probability purposive sampling method was used to select women?
5. Why snowball to select key informants? Are they hidden populations?
6. Who were data collectors?
7. The data analysis part has to be well written.
8. The authors have planned thematic analysis but there is no clearly indicated themes. They have
to present themes and sub-themes/categories. If possible it is better to summarize using a table.
Title: Pregnancy and Sexual Related Problems among Women Living on The Street in Dire
Dawa City, Eastern Ethiopia,2021 : Qualitative Study
Version: 6 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Temesgen Tilahun
Reviewer's report:
dear editor,
The authors have still many  points to address:
1. Language: it is poorly written. It should be corrected by native speakers
2. in the abstract: let them shorten the background.
3. background: the authors used only four references. this is not enough. The reference style is
also not per the journal guideline [] vs ()
4. study variables: The authors did not address it yet
5. inclusion and exclusion criteria: the authors did not address it yet
6. some of the phrases were not consistent eg. (Table) and (table)
7. correct. (table 2) as   (table 2).  The other should also be collected like this
8. table labeling is not per the standard. please look at it
9. conclusion: still there is no significant amendment
10. the way author's contribution is not correct. please look at the criteria to be the coauthor
11. the way abbreviations were written needs amendment
Title: Effect of vitamin D supplementation on the severity of stress urinary incontinence in
premenopausal women with vitamin D insufficiency: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 22 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for writing this manuscript. The study showed that Vitamin D supplementation for
3 months significantly improved the severity of stress urinary incontinence in the intervention
group compared to the placebo. There are some comments needed to be considered:
- Please shorten the introduction into l2 pages and bring only the important sentences relevant
to your objectives.
- You need to cite some previous similar studies and bring the novelties of your work (e.g. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34678177/ ). Include another similar study with the differences of
your work.
- Some grammatical mistakes and typos must be edited (pages 3, 4, 5 and etc.)
- What was the key variable in calculating sample size?
- Did you consider concealment while randomizing the participants?
- Definition on “pre-menopause” is not clear. What was the exact criteria while including
premenopausal women? What was the exact definition of a premenopausal symptom? How did
you manage those with “Peri-menopausal” symptoms?
- Please consider that there is a difference between exclusion criteria and the criteria for not
including the participants. Those you wrote for the exclusion criteria, must be re-written as
“Participants were not included if they had …”. Please also write the exclusion criteria (i.e.
characteristics that the participants have and must be excluded from the study after they were
included).
- Re-organize the order of the subheadings in methods. The inclusion/ exclusion criteria would
better be brought after the sample size calculation.
- There is an extra irrelevant description under the BLINDING section of methods is
inappropriate. Describe the blinding method only.
- What were the codes in blinding?
- What were the definition of the categories of the total score ranges (0-21)?
- If you included participants with vitamin d deficiency, you’d better to consider this in the title.
- Why did you not measure the dietary intakes of participants? They might have effects on the
final analyses.
- It is better to bring the mean changes (SD) in the text of the results for more precise information.
- Work more on the limitations (e.g. the results cannot be generated to men; the severity of
vitamin d deficiency of participants would affect the results; and etc.,)
Title: Effect of vitamin D supplementation on the severity of stress urinary incontinence in
premenopausal women with vitamin D insufficiency: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 09 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have several major concerns for the authors:
1. Results were duplicated in the text and tables/figures. I suggest avoiding any duplication to
improve the readability of the manuscript.
2. I note the authors have reported results according to the CONSORT checklist. Please
include a copy of the CONSORT checklist (with page numbers indicated for each section) as a
supplementary appendix, as required by CONSORT.
3. Please report the blinding method more precisely.
4. I suggest an extensive revision of the discussion with more explanation of the results of the
current study. In discussion, many factors could have influenced the results. Please also discuss
other factors.
5. The strength and limitations of the study should be more extensively described.
6. Language has to be checked and improved preferably by a native speaker.
7. Outcome measures: primary and secondary outcomes should be determined.
8. The exact reasons of droup-out from this trial should be clarified.
9. Even if absent, the manuscript should include a paragraph or a sentence about side effects of
the vitamin D supplementation in discussion section.
10. The authors indicate that participants were block randomized. It is not clear if the study is
appropriately powered to show data for the stratified results.
Title: Primiparous women’s knowledge of diastasis recti abdominis, concerns about abdominal
appearance, treatments, and perceived abdominal muscle strength 6-8 months postpartum. A
cross sectional comparison study.
Version: 1 Date: 04 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors for the study and highlight some points
Methods
Page 124 – What does mean Norway (n = 45) ?
Results
I suggest presenting a flowchart to show how they reached the final number of participants
As it is a knowledge survey, it is important to show the educational level of the participants in
numbers (in table 1).
I think more inclusion criteria should have been used
There are only 5 women with a twin pregnancy, I believe they should be excluded from the
sample, as it can change the abdominal appearance much more.
women with delivery between the 26th and 30th gestational week, and Child`s birth weight
(1000-1499) is it also not a bias?
The limitations of the study were well pointed out in the text
Discussion
I don't know if it's possible to talk about the prevalence of DRA.....or just knowledge . (Page
299-302) I suggest removing the comparison with other studies that performed the physical
assessment of the inter-rectal distance and diagnosed DRA
Title: Primiparous women’s knowledge of diastasis recti abdominis, concerns about abdominal
appearance, treatments, and perceived abdominal muscle strength 6-8 months postpartum. A
cross sectional comparison study.
Version: 1 Date: 21 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank you for having the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled:
Primiparous women’s knowledge of diastasis recti abdominis, concerns about abdominal
appearance, and perceived abdominal muscle strength 6-8 months postpartum. A cross sectional
comparison study.
This investigations is considerably relevant and the authors let it clear in the introduction.
Literature on the diastasis recti abdominis that takes into account women’s perspective is scarce.
Few studies contemplate the perception of women regarding their body, although diastases is
quite prevalent. Additionally, the objective of this study is clear and well described, and the
method is according to cross sectional studies. Nevertheless, when it comes to exclusion criteria,
I would like to see them more elaborated. Women under 18-years-old were excluded. However,
in the results, there was a new piece of information, since “women (who) did not answer the
questionnaire and answered the questionnaire twice" were excluded. It would be interesting to
have inclusion and exclusion criteria better clarified.
The tools, questionaries and statistics analysis used were thoroughly described and are adequate
for the purpose of the investigation. I suggest including the explanation about which questions
of "Eating Disorder Examination questionnaire (EDE-Q 6.0)” were used. Moreover, it would be
interesting to learn more about how the score of the respective questions was designed.
The results revealed puerperal women are concerned about their abdomen appearance. The
findings also show how social media may impact their expectation regarding their shape.
Surprisingly, women search for orientation concerning exercises on social media. Although they
are upset with the protrusion of their abdominal wall, just few women reported looking for
adequate treatment.
The discussion presented is well delineated and brings literature findings that are consistent
with this study. The authors also suggest new investigative paths that would explore postpartum
women’s perspective regarding their body. Moreover, the limitations and contributions of the
research are specified and explained. Having that said, I recommend the publication.
Title: Primiparous women’s knowledge of diastasis recti abdominis, concerns about abdominal
appearance, treatments, and perceived abdominal muscle strength 6-8 months postpartum. A
cross sectional comparison study.
Version: 3 Date: 11 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscripts. I believe that the
suggestions given in the initial feedback have been answered. Having that said, I recommend
the publication.
Title: Needs and preferences of women with prior severe preeclampsia regarding app-based
cardiovascular health promotion
Version: 1 Date: 13 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was well-written and presents a comprehensive overview of the topic. This is
an interesting paper and the author presents the material in clear and straightforward way.
Here are a few comments on segments were more details or clarity would be useful.
151 I would suggest including the study design and more details about the survey. For example,
how it was developed, by whom and if it included previously validated questions. This additional
information would allow other research teams to use similar questions and it would also show
that you used a rigorous approach to collect data.
223 It would be helpful to know more about the qualitative analysis. For example, what approach
was used (deductive vs inductive), did you use a framework to guide the creation of the
codebook or analysis, etc. Similar to above, this additional information would show that rigorous
methodology was used.
338 The results section doesn’t include data related to the following statement: “Participants’
interest in improving these behaviors could be due to their awareness of their heightened CVD
risk, further strengthened by their wish to provide a healthy environment to their child(ren).” I
would suggesting adding data related to it or removing the sentence.
Overall, the manuscript presents material in an organized way. However, there were a few issues
with the tables.
234 Mentions Table 1 includes participants’ demographic characteristics, but it wasn’t included
in the supporting information.
246 Table 2 is actually shown as Table 1 in supporting information.
248 It would be helpful to see these percentages in the table next to the correlation analysis. I
would also suggest adding an interpretation about the correlation analysis in the discussion.
265 There are two Tables 3. One within the manuscript that shows preferences regarding
intervention delivery (280) and Table 3 in the supporting information. I suggest naming these
tables differently to avoid confusion.
Lastly, a few minor issues
158 Under procedures, I would suggest adding when data was collected.
247 Healthily is a word rarely used. I would suggest rephrasing “participants struggled to behave
healthily” to something like “participants struggled to follow a healthy lifestyle”.
Apart from the issues mentioned, the rest of the paper is straightforward and has potential to be
of interest in the research community.
Title: Needs and preferences of women with prior severe preeclampsia regarding app-based
cardiovascular health promotion
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Girija Wagh
Reviewer's report:
The design and the plan of the study look promising and user-friendly. The contents need to
be included objectively and guidance is given as per . the concept is good, the plan has to be
structured well with appropriate evidence-based content. The objective of the study has been
fulfilled aptly and it's an important reflection of the felt need for such services.
Title: Needs and preferences of women with prior severe preeclampsia regarding app-based
cardiovascular health promotion
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript on the Needs and preferences
of women with prior severe preeclampsia regarding app-based cardiovascular health promotion.
The authors have done a great job addressing my initial comments. The paper reads much better.
However, there are still a few minor concerns that need to be addressed:
Recruitment
Recruitment is still unclear. Would you say 122 participants was your target sample size for the
study and 35 your final sample size?  If so, this needs to be made clearer for the reader. I would
advise that the authors remove lines 160-163 as this statement is misleading.
I understand that data saturation may very well have been achieved in the qualitative aspect
after analysing data from the 35 women who completed the survey; this needs to be  phrased
differently.  For example, data saturation was achieved after analysing the qualitative data from
the 35 participants, therefore  LLK and MFVDvdB were confident  that no themes were missed
and additional data would not lead to any new emergent themes.