JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Pre-eclampsia during pregnancy and risk of endometrial cancer: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 22 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Farangis Sharifi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Colleague
Greetings and respect
-The article's findings should be added to the table. The findings of the studies are not written
in the tables. Based on this, the controversy of the results is not seen.
-What were the study exclusion criteria?
Title: Pre-eclampsia during pregnancy and risk of endometrial cancer: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 13 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study found no evidence that pre-eclampsia increased the risk of endometrial cancer, but
some evidence that it increased the risk of endometrial neoplasia. The study suggested that
more research is needed to understand the effects of pre-eclampsia on endometrial health. The
study provides meaningful interpretations of key clinical question, and I have the following
recommendations#
1#MOOSE checklist may be better placed in the supplementary material.
2#Why don't you use forest diagrams to show the main results?
3#Subgroup analysis based on race or country may be useful.
4, "Five studies were cohort in design,one utilised a nested case-control approach  and another
one was case-control." Are studies of different research designs comparable? I suggest this point
needs to be discussed carefully.
Title: Pre-eclampsia during pregnancy and risk of endometrial cancer: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 16 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Pooyan Afzali Harsini
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your valuable work that discussed: Pre-eclampsia may be associated with the
development of endometrial cancer. It clearly showed something new and can help future
researches.
Title: Pre-eclampsia during pregnancy and risk of endometrial cancer: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis
Version: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Farangis Sharifi
Reviewer's report:
Greetings and Regards
How was the quality of the articles included in the meta-analysis checked?
The articles included in the study are very different in terms of weight. Nearly 50% of the weight
of the study is related to Trabert's study (2020). These studies do not seem to be synergistic.
The sample size (386,614) of Cho's study (2019) does not agree with the obtained weight (1.72).
Title: Female doping: observations from a data lake study in the Hospital District of Helsinki
and Uusimaa, Finland
Version: 1 Date: 12 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Katia Collomp
Reviewer's report:
This study carried out in Finland is original. It makes an ambitious attempt to link clinical data to
the use of prohibited substances in women who report having used them in the past. Nevertheless,
there are a certain number of points to be clarified.
- It should be noted that this is only a first exploratory study.
- It seems necessary to present the different classes of prohibited substances and not only that
of anabolics.
- The separation into 5 phases is not clear: why separate phase 4 and phase 5 and why include
them when it is not known whether the subjects continue the administration or not?
- There are many limitations to add to the study: not only a very small number of subjects, but
also a great heterogeneity of age and of the moment of taking the doping substances alone or
in combination.
Minor
Pg 3 line 47 : anaerobic
Pg4 line 50: references needed
Pg 6 line 112: reformulation of the aim needed
Title: Survey on cervical cancer knowledge and its influencing factors among 2,578 women in
Shache county, Kashi, China
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Filippo Alberto Ferrari
Reviewer's report:
Dear respectable Editor,
I am so grateful to have the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Survey on cervical
cancer prevention and treatment awareness status and influencing factors” investigating the level
of cervical cancer screening and related knowledge. I appreciated the effort of the authors to
analyze in large cohort the different aspects of knowledge and barrier in rural and non-rural
population to better design future intervention. Nonetheless, some reflections are needed.
-I suggest to shorten the conclusion in the abstract and summarize the take home message.
-I advice to add in the keywords “pap test”.
-In the introduction the author should focus on the topic of the paper, briefly describe the
geographical background avoiding useless information.
-In my opinion, to use a temporal cut-off of six month for women living in the considered area
is too short both for the biological behavior of the disease and for the cadency of the cervical
cancer screening and can represent a possible bias.
- The Cervical cancer-related knowledge assignment, as reported in tabel 3, includes only 5
items and questions are not totally clear because suggesting the answer in the question itself.
- The authors stated that “CervicalCancer Prevention and Treatment Awareness Questionnaire
for Women in Shache County” was used but the development method and the complete
questionnaire was not provided. Moreover, this tool was not validated and the help of family
members for illiterate women dramatically reduced the quality of the data and with the
aforementioned points arise some doubts on the entire design of the study.
- Please avoid “etc” and provide all the fundamental information.
- Please provide the abbreviations under each table, use horizontal layout to facilitate the reading.
- In consideration of the design of the study I consider mandatory to improve the reported
limitations.
Title: Survey on cervical cancer knowledge and its influencing factors among 2,578 women in
Shache county, Kashi, China
Version: 1 Date: 31 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Filippo Alberto Ferrari
Reviewer's report:
I appreciated the effort of the authors to review the manuscript but I suggest to always use a
track change tool to emphasize the valuable work of revision.
Limitations were improved but need to include the short time period of six months as possible
bias. Please, discuss it.
Bests
Title: Survey on cervical cancer knowledge and its influencing factors among 2,578 women in
Shache county, Kashi, China
Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Elias Yadeta Debele
Reviewer's report:
Dear respected Editor,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Survey on
cervical cancer prevention and treatment awareness status and influencing factors”
investigating the level of cervical cancer screening and related knowledge. I have great
appreciation for the authors’ efforts to assess the knowledge and barrier in rural and non-rural
population for improving the future of women. I have some concerns which stated as below
1. I suggest the authors to add the background or rationales in the abstract.
2. Is Shache a County or one province of china make it clear and correct accordingly in the
abstract line 51?
3. In the abstract the authors stated that the basic information on cervical cancer screening and
acceptance were collected. However, in the title and objective the authors main concern is to
the assess prevention and treatment awareness of the women. Does this things go in line? Since
cervical cancer screening is implies actual practice not the awareness?
4. In the abstract method section. Please add study design, sampling method and how the data
were collected from the participants. And how the data were processed after collected. Please
expand a little bit about methods of data analysis.
5. In result section of abstract: the final include study make it the final included. And also the
authors stated 1591 were from rural areas and 987 were from the county. What does it mean 987
were from the country? Which country? Or it to mean from the urban make it clear.
6. The authors reported that the overall screening rate of the surveyed population was 9.6% but
what expected to be reported in this paper is the overall prevention and treatment awareness
rate, not the screening rate. Please look again at your objectives. Your objective should go in
line with your main findings. Or the title requires modification. Remove the vaccination rate
from abstract results
7. From the abstract results: remove the awareness of cervical cancer protection knowledge, the
way to acquire knowledge and the reasons for not screening were analyzed and compared. Just
focus only on your findings not on the how you did. How you did and what you did should be
mentioned in the method section. The influencing factors should be reported with AOR.
8. Your conclusion should be based on your objectives and major findings.
Title: Survey on cervical cancer knowledge and its influencing factors among 2,578 women in
Shache county, Kashi, China
Version: 2 Date: 03 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Filippo Alberto Ferrari
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
In my opinion the authors adressed all the  critical points in the main manuscript.
Nonetheless, I suggest to improve the quality of the Figure 1: be clear with the reported sources,
avoid "..." and "etc" using instead "*" to provide in the footnotes a complete description.
Bests
Title: Survey on cervical cancer knowledge and its influencing factors among 2,578 women in
Shache county, Kashi, China
Version: 2 Date: 11 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Elias Yadeta Debele
Reviewer's report:
Thank you all authors for the efforts you put to address May concerns regarding your manuscript
entitled “Survey on cervical cancer prevention and treatment awareness status and influencing
factors among 2578 women in Shache County, Kashi, China”. The authors attempted to address
may concern however, still it needs some improvements
1. Make it clear your title, objective and main findings of your paper should be inline. Your
title and objective are talks about cervical cancer prevention and treatment awareness status, but
your main findings under result section is all about Knowledge about cervical cancer. Please
again modify your title, objective and main findings. For instance under the method section
of Abstract you stated that the basic information of the research object, the awareness level of
cervical cancer screening behavior and its acceptance were collected.
2. Under result section: you stated that the scoring system of the knowledge about prevention and
treatment of cervical cancer includes 4 items: please take this paragraph to the method section
under variables measurements. How the variable measured and computed has to be explained
under methods.
3. What is your dependent/outcome variable in this study? Is it knowledge, or cervical cancer
screening behavior and its acceptance or awareness about cervical cancer prevention and
treatment? Please make it clear and state it under the method section.
4. Under result of abstract section. You didn’t report your main findings/your outcome variables.
For instance, under the conclusion of abstract you stated the level of cervical cancer protection
and treatment awareness status among women in Shache County was inadequate. But you didn’t
report their figure in the result section of abstract. Please give a time and modify this paper it
needs revision.
5. Please use AOR instead of OR for presenting your findings
Title: Survey on cervical cancer knowledge and its influencing factors among 2,578 women in
Shache county, Kashi, China
Version: 3 Date: 28 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Elias Yadeta Debele
Reviewer's report:
thank you very much for addressing may comments.
I do have a minor comments on this rounds. that is based om my previous comments the authors
took the the scoring system of the knowledge about cervical cancer includes at the method
section of abstract. it better if you put it under the objective and methods part of your manuscript.
Title: Endocervical curettage for diagnosing high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or
worse in women with type 3 transformation zone lesions: A retrospective, observational study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Erika Catania
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “The performance of endocervical curettage for
additional diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial or worse lesions in women with
Type 3 transformation zone lesion” (7708257e-a01e-4234-a6d1-148bfbdc6349), 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.
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English
- 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 recommend to stress novel pieces of evidence about high-risk HPV-negative high-
grade cervical dysplasia, which seems to have more favorable outcomes than patients with
documented high-risk-HPV infection (PMID: 32552158; PMID: 33514481).
- Authors should discuss the potential role of pre-operative conization before radical
hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer (PMID: 33620615; PMID: 32320800).
Title: Endocervical curettage for diagnosing high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or
worse in women with type 3 transformation zone lesions: A retrospective, observational study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Dominik Pruski
Reviewer's report:
According to the guidelines of colposcopic societies, curettage of the cervical canal is obligatory
in the case of a colposcopy with a TZ3 transformation zone.
The above work may only be a confirmation of the need to perform the above procedure in the
event of inadequate colposcopy, type 3 transformation zone or higher screening abnormality.
The study was conducted on a large study group.
The term unsatisfactory should not be used. (introduction).
I do not agree that the collection of material from the cervix is a very invasive method. The
material can also be picked up with a brush.
Were procedures on the cervix, such as cryotherapy and conization, also included in the above
analysis?
Was the analyzed population covered by HPV vaccination?
Was the cytology taken on a liquid medium?
Please avoid the word dysplasia.
What type of colposcope was used optical or digital?
Were slides subjected to double independent histopathological evaluation?
Is it better not to use the term LSIL and no pathology in the tables instead of
Title: Endocervical curettage for diagnosing high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or
worse in women with type 3 transformation zone lesions: A retrospective, observational study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled  "The performance of endocervical curettage for
additional diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial or worse lesions in women with
Type 3 transformation zone lesion" falls within this Journal's aim.    However, some edits seem
to be necessary.
- First, the Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker. A very accurate
revision is needed.
-please, rewrite the range of percentage in this way: number-number %
-Rewrite the sentence about the aim of the study for more clarity
-inclusion criteria should be better clarified. You have written: <> which type of screening
results? Which type of treatment? For example, If a patient had conization, was included or
excluded?
-exclusion criteria should be better clarified. You have written: <> Same points as above.
-in the method you have written <> but then you stated that << High-risk HPV types were
defined as HPV16/18, non-16/18 hr-HPV or negative>> . These two sentences seem to say the
opposite message.please check and clarify.
-statical analysis paragraph need a very accurate revision: for  example, this seems as an
incomplete sentence: <>
Specify how you calculated the agreement.
- results section: there is a discrepancy between the number of the population in the flowchart
(figure 1) and the Manuscript.
-Rewrite the results section. include the rate of HSIL
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it mayhelpful to suggest a diagnostic
flowchart to select the best candidate to ECC
Title: Endocervical curettage for diagnosing high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or
worse in women with type 3 transformation zone lesions: A retrospective, observational study
Version: 4 Date: 28 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors well addressed each previous point with criticism. The manuscript is well structured.
This report has studied a relevant clinical question with an interesting clinical relevance.
Title: Endocervical curettage for diagnosing high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or
worse in women with type 3 transformation zone lesions: A retrospective, observational study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Erika Catania
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Endocervical curettage for diagnosing high-grade
squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse in women with type 3 transformation zone lesions:
A retrospective, observational study” (7708257e-a01e-4234-a6d1-148bfbdc6349), 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
Title: Spatial patterns and the associated factors for breast cancer hospitalization in the rural
population of Fujian Province, China
Version: 1 Date: 30 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Using the data from New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme, this study aimed to describe the
disparity of breast cancer hospitalization and it also found the factors which impacts the rate.
The research is not innovative and the study design and data analysis is not rigorous enough.
1.How to calculate the rate of breast cancer hospitalization? Is the number cases of breast cancer
divided by total population in 73 counties? Please describe it clearly.
2.What is the total population of the study area in 2015 and 2016
3.“Due to the few number of rural residents in Taijiang County, Gulou County, Licheng County,
Fengze County, Cangshan County, and Xiamen City, these counties were excluded from the
analysis, leaving 73 counties covering majority of the study area.” How many rural people are
there in these counties. And the reason for the low rural population is the high urban rate or other
reasons? Whether the the excluded data could impact the representativeness of the research data.
4.A breast cancer patient will be admitted several times, whether to eliminate this part of the
data?
Title: Spatial patterns and the associated factors for breast cancer hospitalization in the rural
population of Fujian Province, China
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Point1:There are differences in living environment, work pressure, economic conditions and
influencing factors between rural population and urban population,The topic should be changed
to breast cancer of rural population.
Point2 :Please supplement the data list, including all of the data name, spatiotemporal resolution,
year, and core attributes  used in the text.
Point3:There is no explanation for spatial autocorrelation result  (line209-218)in the discussion
part.
Point4: How to explanation: The strongest association between the hospitalization rate of breast
cancer and road density was found in counties in Northeast and Southwest Fujian.
Point5: line195-201 seems to have nothing to do with the research focus of the article.
Point6:Please combine the conclusions and give policy guidance on the reduction of breast
cancer risk exposure in Fujian Province in the discussion, that is, give suggestions from the
perspective of spatial differences.
Title: Disordered hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary axis in heterotopic extraovarian sex cord-
stromal proliferation: a case report of fallopian tube serous adenofibroma
Version: 0 Date: 01 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Gullo
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below. Authors should
consider the following recommendations:
Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
iN MY POINION YOU CAN IMPROVE THE PAPER  REFERING HOWIT CAN
UNDIAGNOSTICAED ALSO IN CASE  OF EARLY STAGE OF heterotopic pregnancy
OR IN CASE OFTUBAL  ENDOMETRIOSIS.SO ITS COULD BE INTERTESWTING TO
REFER TO THEIR TREATMENTS AS WELL AND IM PACT ON LIFESTYLE.iTS ALSO
IMPORTANT TO REFER IF THESE PATIENTS NEED TO PRESERVE THEIR FERTILITY
BEFORE A SURGERY TREATMENT.
i SUGGEST YOU TO READ AND CITE THESE ARTICLES
Impact of lifestyle and diet on endometriosis: a fresh look to a busy corner.
Pathology of the Fallopian Tube: Tubal Involvement by Ovarian Tumors and Incidental
Findings in the Nontumoral Setting.
Early diagnosis and surgical management of heterotopic pregnancy allows us to save the
intrauterine pregnancy
Fertility preservation in female cancer sufferers: (only) a moral obligation?
Giant serous adenofibroma of the fallopian tube
Title: Disordered hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary axis in heterotopic extraovarian sex cord-
stromal proliferation: a case report of fallopian tube serous adenofibroma
Version: 4 Date: 02 May 2023
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?
N/A - there are no statistics in this 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: Significant improvements in readability after the authors had
addressed by queries and recommendations. Appropriate changes were made in the revised
paper.
The revised manuscript is now ready for publication consideration.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
No further revision is needed. The paper should be considered for publication
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No further suggestions"