JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Spatiotemporal distribution and determinants of overweight or obesity among urban
women in Ethiopia: A Multivariate Decomposition Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 19 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Emanuel Orozco
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
After reviewing your analysis, several doubts emerged after considering to publish it. I have to
recognize that statistical analysis is not one of my professional competences. My doubts emerged
on the data that you present, and some of the hypotesis that you discuss.
1. It is noticeable that your analysis is based only on some demographic variables, without
considering any data related to diet.
2. Your argument becomes very local without describing some characteristics of the places or
cities that present major averages of women living with obesity. Are there facilities for physical
activity? Is quality food available? Is the diet worst in those places that report major averages
of women living with obesity?
3. I sugest you to apply some gender approach to explair female obesity. In countries like
Mexico, where I live, it has been documented that women face major barriers for physical
activity and quality meals in comparison to men. Without comparisons and an idea about what
is going on in rural contexts, its hard to accept that becopme married can become in a sort of
risk factor for women.
4. It would be more ilustrative if you try to go deep into your data, in order to enrich discussion
analyzing  in a more comparative way those factors affecting nutritional transition in Etiopia,
with negative effects in terms of obesity in female populations.
With kind regards,
Title: Spatiotemporal distribution and determinants of overweight or obesity among urban
women in Ethiopia: A Multivariate Decomposition Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Emanuel Orozco
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Congratulations for your manuscript. I think that the amendments done provide a more precise
argument to understand spatial distrinbution of obesity in Ethiopia, and some of its determinants.
I apreciate your responses to my suggestions.
With kind regards,
Title: Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the
treatment of stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Your manuscript has a good overall setting, with proper and clear esposition of every aspect
of the study.
Despite this, it lacks some details and needs revision.
- First of all, Athanasiou's VALS procedure is reported to be the type of surgery studied in
the article. Though, Athanasiou one  is different from the that used in the study. Athanasiou
described the surgery as having vaginal hysterectomy, while in this article hysterectomy is
performed laparoscopically most of the cases. Thus, different surgical steps (for example
preparation of the vesicovaginal space) could alter results. In fact, authors should underline this
aspect at least.
- Heterogeneous performed collateral surgeries alters the quality of the study. For example,
authors have not specified why they did not perform for all patients suffering from stress urinary
incontinence a proper TVT correction.
- Please provide references for pessary use for prevention of infections.
- Line 163-164: there must be a mistake in the starting time (year should be 2010)
- No definition of recurrence or complication is given in the study.
- Exclusion criteria should be more detailed.
- Study needs a minor English revision.
Title: Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the
treatment of stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse
Version: 2 Date: 02 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this study.
The manuscript requires editing and attention to Grammar and sentence structure. There are
several spaces missing between words and the majority of verb e tenses are incorrect.
It is not clear how and why this was designed to be a retrospective study. Does this mean that
the authors had the intention to run it is as retrospective from the outset!!.
Related to the above, how were patients consented for a retrospective study? Unless this was a
database study and if this is the case then it is not retrospective.
The issue of the possibility that patient selection for the procedure might have introduced
selection bias should be added to the limitations.
If this was designed as a retrospective study!! And patients signed consents to participate in
research, why wasn’t there a formal; sample size calculation
Related to this, what is the primary outcome of the study.
All the results and associated figures and tables are difficult to follow because it does not specify
the duration of follow-up at which these outcomes were assessed.
Title: Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the
treatment of stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse
Version: 4 Date: 10 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for responding to my comments. The manuscript is improved, however it still needs
editing.
There are several grammatical errors including within the new added sections.
Some of the terminologies are not used in standard English medical terms like Repairment,
Vaginae……
The authors state this was a case series and this would have introduced selection bias. In fact the
selection bias would be mainly introduced because the authors chose the procedure not because
of the design.
I am still not clear how come the patient signed a consent for a case series? Were they approached
before surgery that they will be part of study and they signed a consent. This would mean that
the ethics was granted before all that?
Title: Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the
treatment of stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse
Version: 5 Date: 22 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded to my previous comments and the manuscript is still clearer.
However it still needs editing. Several sentences could be better constructed because some of
them are vague. Also the terminology needs to be revised by a native English speaker examples
include:
Prolapse vagina anterior when it should be Anterior vaginal pro;lapse.
Preoperatiom should be preoperative
Vagina anterior  should be anterior vaginal wall or anterior compartment depending on what
the authors mean.
These issues are there throughout the manuscript and tables.
Title: Family Functioning and Life Satisfaction among Female University Students during
COVID-19 Outbreak: The Mediating role of Hope and Resilience
Version: 2 Date: 27 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, a cross-sectional study was used to examine the mediating role of hope
and resilience on the relationship between family functioning and life satisfaction among female
university students. In my view, it’s quite an interesting research, but still could be more precise.
The following comments may address furthering clarity and help enhance the study’s quality.
1. There is not much introduction about why this research chose females as participants, not
male students or other groups, please introduce more about this.
2. Please check the grammar carefully throughout the whole manuscript, for example, on page
6 line 27, “there were There were 33 (7.1%) freshman……” is better changed to “There were
33 (7.1%) freshman……”.
3. In Table 3, it says “n=250”. Please use all valid samples#n=463# to test whether your
hypothesized structural model demonstrated a good fit to your data.
4. The path coefficient had been shown in Figure 1, and the significance of each path coefficient
should be shown either. please use “*” to point out.
5. In Table 4,” LL” should be changed to “LS”.
6. The part of the discussion may need some editing services, some sentences lack the subject
or the predicate. For example, on page 12 line 11, “We a positive association……” is better
changed to “We find a positive association……”. On page 13 line 13,” Therefore, mediates the
link among university students’ family functioning and their life satisfaction.” is better changed
to “Therefore, hope mediates the link among university students’ family functioning and their
life satisfaction.”
7. Please discuss more about the meaning of this research to female university students in the
discussion part.
8. The last two sentences (from page 13 line 31 to page 14 line 4) in the discussion part feel
disjointed, and should be rephrased to provide more flow.
9. On page 15 line 2, “Therefore, hope plays a mediating role in the relationship between
university students’ family functioning and their life satisfaction.” The results, practical
implications, and conclusions should be restricted to female university students, and please
reconsider the words to express in the manuscript.
10. Please standardize all the decimals. The p-value and all coefficients should be standardized
at 2 digits after the decimal point.
Title: Using Silva pattern system to predict prognosis and plan treatment of invasive
endocervical adenocarcinoma: A single-center retrospective analysis
Version: 2 Date: 21 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Using Silva pattern system to predict prognosis
and plan treatment of invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma: A single-center retrospective
analysis".
The manuscript is really interesting, original and well written, nevertheless, there are some points
to improve.
Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker to improve clarity and
readability.
I suggest also authors to not repeat some concepts more than once and to organize better
the discussion section improving comparison with existing literature (see PMID:  35455328;
29958629)
Title: Using Silva pattern system to predict prognosis and plan treatment of invasive
endocervical adenocarcinoma: A single-center retrospective analysis
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Yangyang Shi
Reviewer's report:
After review of the manuscript, we are sorry to report that we have elected to reject this paper for
publication. Review of the current literature indicates that various studies have been conducted
assessing the use of the Silva pattern system for the clinical management of patients with
invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma. Most recently, a paper by Alvarado-Caberero, et al was
published in 2021 (see citation below) where they conducted a comprehensive literature review
assessing the role of the Silva pattern classification in clinical management of patients with
invasive adenocarcinomas. The paper included a large sample size and confirms that at this
point sufficient evidence has been collected on the use of the Silva pattern system to allow for
prospective studies in this topic.
Alvarado-Cabrero, Isabel, D, Ph.D., Parra-Herran, Carlos, Stolnicu, Simona, Roma, Andres,
Oliva, Esther, et al. (2021). The Silva Pattern-based Classification for HPV-associated
Invasive Endocervical Adenocarcinoma and the Distinction Between In Situ and Invasive
Adenocarcinoma: Relevant Issues and Recommendations From the International Society of
Gynecological Pathologists. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 40, S48-S65.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000735
Title: Using Silva pattern system to predict prognosis and plan treatment of invasive
endocervical adenocarcinoma: A single-center retrospective analysis
Version: 2 Date: 08 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a single institution, retrospective study that analysed surgically resected cases of invasive
cervical adenocarcinoma and categorised them according to their histological Silva Pattern.
A total of 63 patients over a period of 5 years and 10 months, from 2011 to 2016, were
included. Using univariate analysis the authors found that tumour size, clinical stage, lymph
node metastases, lymphovascular invasion and depth of invasion were related to post-operative
tumour recurrences, however age and Silva classification were not. Multivariate analysis showed
that lymph node metastases was an independent risk factor for recurrence.
No statistically significant difference in the proportion of lymph node metastases was observed
between the three categories of Silva classification.
Comments:
- Why was the study cohort period specifically from 2011-2016?
- The authors should make clear that all of the tumours in the cohort were HPV-associated, and
should state how they made sure this was the case.  In addition, WHO/IECC terminology should
be used.
- FIGO  1A and 1B substages should be provided; it should be clear which FIGO staging system
is being used (is it 2018?)
- for pattern A tumours, where they entirely submitted and margins not involved?
- the three histological images inadequately portray the different patterns of invasion -
consideration should be given  to taken both low and high power images and to possibly making
a composite figure showing the differences
- Table 1 should be referenced and/or acknowledged as the data has been taken from well
published sources (like the  WHO)
- there is no need to indicate in the manuscript where the Tables need to be inserted (the call
out is sufficient)
- the authors state that the Silva pattern system can predict lymph node status but by their own
analysis there was no significant difference in lymph node status between the three Silva patterns
(line 19-20, lines 316-317). Are they referring to prior studies?
- there should be increased discussion about how the results compare and contrast with
the previous literature (ex. recent ISgyP papers/guidelines and Stolnicu et al doi: 10.1016/
j.pathol.2022.01.007.
- what is the difference between extensive vs. extrafascial hysterectomy?  This should be
clarified as more commonly used terms including simple, modified and radical hysterectomy
- line 181-Typographial error- relapse not relas
- line 210-211-Would benefit from short expansion/discussion as it is still recommended to
provide a histological grade in pathological reporting, although this may be replaced by Silva
pattern in the future
- line 225: Grammatical/typographical error-identified not identify
- line 235: Pelvic organ prolapse may be a more appropriate encompassing term than rectocoele
- line 254: Unnecessary line
- line 259: “this new system”. Are the authors referring to their suggestion that conservative
management be used for Silva pattern A cases (line 246)?
Title: Using Silva pattern system to predict prognosis and plan treatment of invasive
endocervical adenocarcinoma: A single-center retrospective analysis
Version: 5 Date: 02 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to read the modified manuscript after my and other reviewers' suggestions.
I have seen a marked improvement in the work, especially for the English language; thank you
for extending the discussions with the suggested articles, please cite  them in the text and add
them in the references. (PMDI: 35455328; 29958629).
Title: The use of Method Information Index (MII) to monitor the amount of information given
to women users of modern contraceptives in Indonesia: results from an analysis of the 2007,
2012 and 2017 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 3 Date: 22 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Good reframing, nice title
For the justification of the paper, can you compare Indonesia to other countries in the region
in terms of MII- It would be interesting to see if it is lower than others, or if others are making
progress while Indonesia is stagnant
Last sentence of methods data sources section is not necessary- dates of when the analysis were
preformed does not matter
Study design- might want to include a sentence that you do not include non-in union women
because of the small numbers of contraceptive users
Also include a sentence that the 5 methods chosen represent X% of method mix (and that other
method users are not asked the method mix questions)
I like the addition of the time variable but am not sure if you are interpreting the time interactions
correctly- Looking at table 3 (with no time interaction), we see that there are differences in MII
by the different independent variables of interest.  If I am reading table 4 as the time interaction,
then what is it saying is there wasn’t a change between 2007 and later surveys- so the patterns
did not change.
Title: The use of Method Information Index (MII) to monitor the amount of information given
to women users of modern contraceptives in Indonesia: results from an analysis of the 2007,
2012 and 2017 Demographic and Health Surveys
Version: 4 Date: 01 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has improved from the last revision. However, I have two remarks:
1. Standard errors are usually presented below the coefficients and in brackets, not in a column.
2. Regarding the interpretation of the results in Table 4, the fact that the coefficients are no
longer significant when the interaction with the variable "survey year" is introduced means that
the coefficients are not statistically different from the reference category of the variable in 2007.
It could be interpreted as meaning that the gap within the independent variable has closed but
that the level is not statistically different from that of the reference category of that variable in
the reference year. It would mean that access to information has been democratized, although
there has not been an increase in the informed population.
For instance, the richest quintile (as well as the rest of the quintiles) in 2012 is not different than
the poorest quintile in 2007. It would mean that there are no differences in receiving information
about contraceptives by wealth quintile, but it also means that the proportion of the population
receiving information has not increased between 2007 and 2012.
The authors could explore these implications.
Title: Barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening services in low-and-middle-income
countries: A systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Nice to review your manuscript and I think it is contributive to worldwide strategy for
elimination of cervical cancers as WHO called for. However, I think it could be much more
contributive if you could provide further analysis on your available data that I believe you should
have in you hands.
Most of worldwide investigator knows about the most the barriers you listed in your manuscripts.
What we need to know is what are the barriers that are vital to the uptake of cervical cancer
screening, geographically, social-culturally  or technically. In your manuscript, you listed several
kinds of barriers and discussed the impacts of each kinds on the screening followed by your
suggestions, but you did not provide enough  statistical or proportional evidence to support your
conclusion and recommendation, for which I think you have enough data to provide. In this
respect, I think you should calculation and give at least a percentage at  studies/reviews  level,
geographic level, and participant level.  In this way, you may be able to figure out what is the
common vital barriers in the world, for which  improvement could consequently make others
be improved or even dismissed.
To make your manuscript be promotive to advancing the science, you should make your analysis
focus on medical service aspects, the aspects that medical society can do something on to
improve the screening uptakes. For example, information for cervical cancer should be not only
given to the women who need screening but the decision makers under certain cultural and social
background; change service technology (from Pap smear to self-collected HPV testing) may
improve the accessibility of the service and further increase the uptakes.  In general, you should
suggest a prioritized rank of  the barriers  that need to be improved based on your analysis on
the available data.
In addition, I suggest you to clarify the proportion of countries/regions from which the included
studies or reviews are.
I hope you can provide more evidence that help the world to strategize cervical cancer
prevention.
Title: Barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening services in low-and-middle-income
countries: A systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports a useful narrative review, bringing together the literature on barriers to
cervical screening in LMICs.  I have a few thoughts and comments which I hope will further
strengthen the manuscript.
In the title and elsewhere, the authors refer to ‘barriers to uptake’ of services. But many of the
barriers identified relate to poor provisions of services so I wonder if ‘barriers to participation’
or another similar wording might be more appropriate, to encompass all the factors discussed.
Intro
Line 88 it would be useful to include a reference for coverage being ‘below 10%’ in most LMICs.
Line 92 – this is an example of referring to ‘poor uptake’, which puts the emphasis on the women
being invited (or not) rather than the delivery aspects of screening.
Methods
Line102 – please explain why girls as young as 15 years are included when screening is not
usually recommended at this age.
Line 107 – please refer to the other databases described in Table 1 (not just Web of Science).
What does ‘a basic search in Google Scholar’ mean? – details are not included in Table 1 with
the other search strategies.
Results
Line 139 – is there overlap between the 13 reviews and other papers i.e. were the individual
papers included in the reviews, in which case I’m not sure about the rationale for including both.
In Table 3, it would be useful to include information about the numbers of studies included in
each review and any potential overlap.
Line 182 – please put the 5 categories in the same order here as they appear in the text below.
The authors acknowledge overlap between categories and I wondered whether their analysis
might benefit from the use of an existing framework such as the Social Ecological Model or
the COM-B. This might help untangle the categories and put some additional structure onto the
narrative. For example, individual level factors fall into different types which could be captured
in the ‘motivation’ and ‘capability’ aspects of the COM-B.
Line 304 – how were these four underlying reasons identified? – I don’t think this process was
described in the Methods section.
Discussion
Line 339 – I’m not sure about the assumption that fear of screening simply reflects poor
knowledge or poor technique. There is a huge literature from high-income countries showing
that women dislike the procedure, even if they are well-informed.
In general, I felt the Discussion was largely a restating of results and would benefit from setting
the findings in the context of the wider literature, including potentially reviews of barriers
in high-income countries, or other reviews (e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34348689/;
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35121607/).
Line 385 – please cite the scoping reviews mentioned here.
The manuscript could do with proof-reading for grammatical errors throughout.
Title: Barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening services in low-and-middle-income
countries: A systematic review
Version: 5 Date: 31 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a good job of address the reviewers' comments. I just have a couple of
more suggestions.
1) Please refer to the Social Ecological Model in the legend/title for Figure 2
2) In Table 3, it's not clear to me whether the counts and percentages refer to papers or barriers
i.e. were there nine papers that identified individual/personal barrier in West Africa, or were 9
of these types of barriers identified across papers? Similarly, it's not clear what denominator was
used to calculate the percentages. Please make the text and title clearer.
I don't think the authors have really addressed my question about how the 'underlying reasons'
were identified. Were these specified in the reviewed papers, or have the authors come up
with their own explanations based on the wider literatures or theoretical models? I'm trying
to understand whether these are essentially higher-level themes from the narrative analysis or
something different.