JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Clinical outcome analysis of intramural myoma greater than 8cm in diameter removed
during caesarean section#a retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 08 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
There have been too many studies investigating myomectomy during cesarean section. In my
opinion ,the manuscript entitled "Clinical outcome analysis of intramural myoma greater than
8cm in diameter removed during caesarean section#a retrospective study" is not suitable for
publication in BMC Women's Health.
Sincerely,
Title: Clinical outcome analysis of intramural myoma greater than 8cm in diameter removed
during caesarean section#a retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 19 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a study comparing the surgical results of enucleation of uterine myoma larger than 8 cm
during cesarean section, including the amount of blood loss.
In the past, myomectomy at the same time as cesarean section was considered to be a bad idea
from the viewpoint of increased blood loss, but recently many reports have been published, and
it is becoming more acceptable.
In particular, myomectomy of large myomas has often been avoided due to problems such as
increased blood loss.
Similar studies exist in which meta-analyses have examined more than 1000 cases, and
compared to those, this study is a retrospective study and has a small number of cases. However,
this study is a clear analysis of a very large number of 130 cases in which myomectomy was
performed by Cesarean section in a limited number of cases of 8 cm or larger. Therefore,
the reviewers agree to publish the article, but the following points need to be questioned and
modified.
EM usually seems to have worse surgical outcomes than SM. In the discussion, it is noted that
the wound is smaller and the vascular injury is a large branch vascular injury for SM. However,
there are other references that indicate that the SM has less blood loss. In this regard, do other
literatures exist and come out with similar results?
The result of B1 and B2 is retrospective study, B1 has a better surgical outcome. Are cases in
which the myoma is located close to the wound site often included in B1? Since the myoma in B2
is located far away from the wound, it was decided to enucleate it later after closing the cesarean
section wound, wasn't it? The reviewer believes that this result may be biased because such a
myoma in such a distant location would not be enucleated with the wound deliberately opened.
Sometimes preparations such as autologous blood reservoirs are made for myomectomy during
cesarean section, but were such preparations made? Is the only measure against hemostasis the
uterine tourniquet?
Title: Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Healthy Lifestyle
Instrument for Breast Cancer Survivors (HLI-BCS)
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study was correctly performed and the manuscript is well written.
I suggest some minor revisions:
- The authors stated "Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlation
between the Persian version of HLI-BCS and SF-12". Indicate why this coefficient was used
and how the normality  of the two variables was checked.
- Indicate what version of SPSS was used for the analysis
- In the Discussion section, include a paragraph on possible limitations of the study.
Title: Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Healthy Lifestyle
Instrument for Breast Cancer Survivors (HLI-BCS)
Version: 0 Date: 12 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The article is clear, well-written e scientifically valid.
The evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the questionnaire is methodologically correct.
The article fully explains the items needed for validation.
Figures and tables are clear and exhaustive.
It would be useful to include the questionnaire which is missing
Title: What is the role of attitudinal barriers on cervical cancer screening non-attendance?
Findings from a cross-sectional study with migrant women in Portugal
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciated reading the revised version of the manuscript. The authors are to be commended
for their responsiveness and detailed reply to reviewer comments, and their decisions regarding
revisions to the manuscript. Nevertheless, I believe there are two more substantive concern
remaining that should be addressed to improve the manuscript.
1. I forgot the first time to ask how the authors have handled their missing data (for example,
summing the <45y and the >=45 gives 1063 not 1100). This must be mentioned.
2. Regarding the inclusion of the women less than 25 years old, the authors should run a sensitive
analysis where these women are excluded in order to verify that the conclusions remained the
same. Especially since the age variable is split into before and after 45y, so adjusting on it does
not distinguish between the youngest from the others. The choice to keep these women in the
analyses must be mentioned and discussed.
Title: Status of information, education, and communication as perceived by clients receiving
antenatal care at Chiradzulu District Hospital, Malawi.
Version: 2 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an important study that recognizes the client experience in antenatal care. However, prior
to being considered for publication, the overall manuscript should be reviewed and edited for
writing clarity and style.
Background: Literature review needs to be more specific to the study topic and context in
Malawi. Conceptual framework is a bit repetitive and should be integrated into the background
section, and should also be more context specific rather than academic. Currently it is too
generic, more analysis on Malawi's current strengths and gaps for antenatal care would help.
Also, data from 2015 for maternal mortality is out of date in 2022.
Methodology: Please clarify at what time in the pregnancy IEC/antenatal education is provided
and a description of the program. Please clarify the rationale for excluding first time pregnancies,
without explanation this seems like a major source of confounding and bias. Description of
recruitment strategy is missing , reflection of researcher/interviewer bias is as well. Sample size
calculation also needs better justification for prevalence - prevalence of what/which outcome of
the research study? Regarding Likert scale discussion in paragraph starting on line 136 - how
was it determined what "adequate" means in the sample group? Was it self-perception - please
clarify.
Results: Line 144/145 - mean age cannot be a range. Please give figure for 'most participants'
living in rural areas. Figure 1 needs a more descriptive title, numbers on the scale and descriptors
on the x and y axis. Duration of IEC paragraph is not clear - please revise/edit for better clarity
and purpose.
Discussion and conclusion: Recommendations and statements do not seem to be connected to
data and analysis provided by the study. More direct logical statements resulting from presented
data is encouraged. Discussion should also address limitations of the study. Conclusion should
also address local to regional generalizability of findings as well as comparing to other local/
regional studies on the same issue.
Title: Status of information, education, and communication as perceived by clients receiving
antenatal care at Chiradzulu District Hospital, Malawi.
Version: 2 Date: 14 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. Antenatal care is well researched, yet a
new angle was found. It is not clear how the researchers decided on information, education and
communication. The following aspects are not clear and should be addressed to improve the
article.
Abstract
The researcher indicated that the respondents indicated preferred receiving information from
midwives. Why then recommend that skilled birth attendants should provide the information?
The way forward is not addressed adequately.
Background
The title and  background is not aligned. A definition and application of information, education
and communication is needed in the background. The research gap is not indicated - what
happens at the hospital the study took place? Indicate the significance of the study.
L68 - What are pregnancy hazard symptoms?  What are pregnancy difficulties?
L77 - Indicate the year of the maternal mortality rate.
Population and sample
The study setting is well described, yet the number of women attending antenatal care is not
indicated. How many women are seen daily by the attending midwife at the clinics?L119 -
Why were first-time mothers not included? Antenatal education is very important for first-time
pregnant women.
Data collection
Development of the data collection tool is not adequately described. Briefly inform the reader
about the Integrated Maternal and Neonatal Health  strategy. Address the validity and reliability
of the questionnaire in detail.
L134 - How were the women flagged at the clinic? Why were face-to-face interviews held? Who
completed the questionnaire and why?
L142 - Were there any incomplete questionnaires?
Table 2: What does 'unknown' mean?
Results
The results include demographic characteristics, ANC providers, topics taught during ANC  and
client satisfaction. Align with information, education and communication.
Discussion
The discussion is comprehensive and is aligned with the results. Align with information,
education and communication.
Title: Status of information, education, and communication as perceived by clients receiving
antenatal care at Chiradzulu District Hospital, Malawi.
Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank  you for a much improved article.  The research gap is now addressed and the findings
reveal that information, education and communication is not adequately provided in the setting.
Conceptual framework
Donabedian's  conceptual framework  was  applied, yet is not used in the analysis or discussion.
The findings are not analysed under each component of the conceptual framework.
Population and sampling
A motivation was added that many of the primigravida's were under the age of 18. Correct the
'Kth' member under sampling. It is still not clear exactly how, when and where the interviews
were conducted.
Data collection tool
The development of the data collection tool was briefly described. Was the tool piloted?
Table 1
Most of the percentages in the table do not add up to 100%. The text of the next paragraph starts
to the right of the table.
There are still multiple linguistic errors throughout.
Title: Status of information, education, and communication as perceived by clients receiving
antenatal care at Chiradzulu District Hospital, Malawi.
Version: 7 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for an improved article.
Conceptual framework
The components of Donabedian’s conceptual framework is better applied.
Population and sampling
The motivation under exclusion of primigravidas under the age of 18 now does not make sense.
Even though women are encouraged not to have children below the age of 18, many women
under the age of 18 have children.
Data collection
Were the findings of the pretest included in the main findings?
Table 1
The percentages now adds up to 100% except for occupation.
Language
The language improved, yet there is still inappropriate use of articles ('a', and 'the'). Words are
also missing in a few places and the article with comments is attached.
Title: Patients’ and Providers’ Perspectives on Non-Urgent Egg Freezing Decision-making: a
Thematic Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 18 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Tessa Copp
Reviewer's report:
The authors have adequately addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
Congratulations on an excellent manuscript!  I only have one further comment. The additions
regarding AMH testing to the discussion are excellent, however the results still read like the
AMH test results add value in decision-making. Can you please clarify in your wording that these
are the perspectives of the providers interviewed (also how many expressed this view? Was it
the majority? Only a few?), and not reflective of the evidence. E.g. instead of stating “However,
providers also recognised that people with low ovarian reserve testing…” revise to “However,
providers also stated that they considered/believed people with low ovarian reserve testing…”
Title: Modern contraception utilization and associated factors among all women aged 15-49 in
Ethiopia: Evidence from the 2019 Ethiopian Mini Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 2 Date: 24 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Title: Modern contraception utilization and associated factors among all women aged 15-49 in
Ethiopia: Evidence from the 2019 Ethiopian Mini Demographic and Health Survey
1.   Shallow and unclear recommendation
2. Still the background section is not well articulated, it needs more elaboration.
3. Study design and setting are not written till.
4. Please write the data source and the way how you access it from the ethical declaration section
clearly. Please, refer to previous similar studies about how they write all things.
5. Although the 2019 EMDHS does not collect data for all indicators, media such as TV, Radio,
newspapers…and the like were collected. Using those variables one can assess women’s media
exposure. Additionally, region, place of residency, and sometimes wealth index are community-
level variables if your data are fitted for multilevel analysis.
6. The discussion section of the manuscript still needs more elaboration. Please support your
result with related literature, and reason out more why it is so.
7. Avoid citations in the conclusion section. Your conclusion must be based on your finds
only. For instance, “… private facilities were less likely to provide the service than their public
counterpart...”  is not your finding. Conclude your finding shortly and precisely only. Then, write
your recommendation for policy formulators or stakeholders on what they need to do regarding
your findings by providing alternative solution measures. There is an interesting highlight there,
you need to make clear it, and add some remaining.
8. There are lots of grammar and spelling issues in the whole manuscript. Please make
corrections to it.
Title: Explaining Sexual Self-Care Status and its Predictor factors in Women Referring to
Healthcare Centers of Sari, Iran, 2021
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Mina Hosseinzadeh
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
1-I think it is a worthy research; but  the main problem of this manuscript is the researcher
made scale about Sexual Self-Care Status. You did not present any information about the
references you used for its preparation, about number of items and its scoring. Also the process
of instrumentation is complex, you should use Explanatory factor analysis methods and report
KMO and structural validity.
2-Please remove the first lines in the  conclusion part of the abstract and add your suggestions
according to your findings.
3-There are previous related studies:
Uptake and provision of self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health: findings from
a global values and preferences survey
Human rights and legal dimensions of self care interventions for sexual and reproductive health
4-In the last line of introduction 2012 or 2021?
5-In inclusion criteria "and no pregnancy or breastfeeding" at the time of study or before?
6-"Consistent with the given formula, 290 samples were required at a minimum. Ultimately, the
sample size included 400 people, according to the variables and the attrition rate. "Please write
the considered attrition rate and explain "according to the variables".
7-How did the researchers made questionnaire? It is needed to add it.
Also please add the references you have used. Number of items and scoring of it should be
explained too.
8-You mentioned that this study was done on 2021, In 2021 the Covid 19 outbreak was controlled
in Iran.
9-Would you please explain more about the items of this scale?
10-You can merge table 3 with table 1. Just add the P and Test Statistics in Table 1.
good luck.
Title: Explaining Sexual Self-Care Status and its Predictor factors in Women Referring to
Healthcare Centers of Sari, Iran, 2021
Version: 3 Date: 08 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Mina Hosseinzadeh
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, thanks for the revisions you made. Please consider below suggestions:
In inclusion criteria, I think “Not being pregnant or breastfeed at the time of study” is more
correct.
I still think regarding 25% attrition rate, the sample size is not equal to 400.
Using electronic sampling is one of the limitation of your study, please mention it in your
limitation section.
Please use (.) instead of (/) for decimals.
Please add a reference for “because the self-care dimensions and items are known, and EFA or
CFA are compulsory for exploring or confirming the construct of a valid instrument”.
Best regards,
Title: Exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua
New Guinea
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Suzana Costa
Reviewer's report:
The work is important as there is no publication on the relationship of violence inter-partners
who were exposed to violence inter-parents in Papua New Guinea.
The finding that: "The present study also revealed that women living in the Highland region are
more likely to experience IPV." made me curious as to what cause might be suggested by the
authors. Is this region more populous, does it have large cities or does it have another aspect
that could explain this finding?
In the "Competing interests", there is a typo in the word "declare".
Title: Exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua
New Guinea
Version: 3 Date: 31 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  chuka emezue
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the first round of reviews and delivered a more publishable cross-
sectional report.
A few issues to address:
a. Please consider rephrasing some sentences either because they seem incomplete or have
typos– “The results of this study support the importance of interparental violence exposure and
IPV experience among women in PNG, which may have important consequences for health
strategy and intercessions in the country.”
b. Rephrase “Intercession approaches to combat interparental violence are also required, with
a focus on young mothers in PNG who have experienced such violence to avoid them from
experiencing and approving IPV in the future. In addition, we suggest counseling and health
edification initiatives to tackle the consequences”
c. Typos; page 15 “pride-price argument”
Title: The average gonadotrophin dosage per follicle is predictive of ovarian response and
cumulative live birth chances after in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for referring me this manuscript.
There are some minor points need to be considered before publication, and these are as follow:
Introduction:
Line no. 72-74 have unclear sentences, need to be clear
Methods:
• Study design and participants:
1. In line no. 102, what do you mean by preovulatory follicles? do you mean the AFC or FORT?
2. In line no. 104 &105, how do you get the percentile? It would be better if write the equations.
• Ovarian stimulation, oocyte retrieval, and embryo transfer:
1. In line no. 109, at which days of the cycle rFSH doses were given? Are the doses just for 4-5
days or longer? Because you mentioned in line no. 115 the cotreatment (with GnRH antagonist)
continued until the trigger day! Make it clear
2. In line no. 116-117, are Triptorelin and hCG were given in single doses?
3. In line no. 120-121, what are the parameters of good quality cleavage fresh embryos? Mention
them.
4. line no. 121, Where the embryos have been transferred? Are they transferred to another media
or to the uterus? Mention it.
5. There is a large huge paragraph extending from the line no. 116 to the line no. 141, which
make your protocol so confusing and misleading. Try to make it in more than one paragraph to
make it simple and easy for the readers
6. At the end of this part of the method it would be better if you write the way of counting the
preovulatory follicles, antral follicles, and oocytes. Are you relying on the ultrasound only?
Also, it would be preferred if you write in this part of manuscript the equations to get the
indicators of ovarian responsiveness (FORT, FOI, OSI, FSI, and the average of Gn dosage per
follicle) rather than writing them in discussion.
7. The details of total Gn doses should be mentioned in details, which gonadotropins do you
mean? Are you mean rFSH, triptorelin, hCG? Are GnRH antagonist doses were involved? Please
make it clear
Blood Samples and Hormone Assays:
The author did not mention which hormones that have been measured in this paragraph, you
need to write them or refer to table 1.
Discussion:
I think this part of manuscript should contain the drawbacks and limitations of other indicators
of ovarian responsiveness.
With all the best
Title: The average gonadotrophin dosage per follicle is predictive of ovarian response and
cumulative live birth chances after in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Filippo Alberto Ferrari
Reviewer's report:
Dear respectable editor,
I am very sorry for the delay in posting my review, i got covid infection followed by a small
operation, please accept my apologies. I am so grateful to have the opportunity to review
this paper entitled “The average gonadotrophin dosage per follicle ispredictive of ovarian
responseand cumulative live birth chances after in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort
study”. The authors performed a retrospective study including 330 women underwent a complete
ART cycle. They proposed a new index (average Gn dosage per follicle) as a marker for ovarian
response and pregnancy outcomes.
- The structured abstract is well written and provide all the important information.
- I suggest to shorten the introduction. The authors should only justify the rationale for this study
in short by highlighting the literature gap. Please cut down on general information and keep only
relevant information pertaining to this study
- In the methods the inclusion and the exclusion criteria are completely reported. I suggest to
specify if all the patients were entirely treated in the same hospital. Please clarify and specify it.
- The use of 33rd, 67th percentile seemed to be chosen more for statistical purpose than clinical
meaning, please explain this point. The number of 110 patients in each group is only related to
mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria?
- Is it was used a standardized form to collect the data?
- The discussion is adequate and the authors addressed all the critical points analyzing available
evidence in literature. I suggest to improve the passage on the future studies and clearly specify
what will be needed
-Tables are clear and help to better understand the results of the study.
Title: The average gonadotrophin dosage per follicle is predictive of ovarian response and
cumulative live birth chances after in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 29 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Filippo Alberto Ferrari
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I really appreciated the new version of the manuscript and the authors adressed all the critical
points. The current version is suitable for publication.
Bests