JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Level of women-friendly care provision among mothers in immediate post-partum period
at public hospitals of Southeast Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study  
Version: 6 Date: 26 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments
Thank you for the invitation to review “Level of women-friendly care provision among mothers
in immediate post-delivery period at public hospitals of Southeast Ethiopia: A cross-sectional
study”.  This area has paramount importance in decreasing the burdens of maternal morbidities.
Below I provide some remarks and comments.
Regarding the title: It is better to use immediate post-partum period rather than “immediate post-
delivery period”.
Regarding abstract: be consistent with the use of words. Postnatal Vs post-delivery Vs post-
partum. The method section is too much lengthy. Try to make it short and also try to include how
you measure the outcome variable. Your conclusion is not reasonable? You need to indicate the
interpretation of your result rather than the summary of your finding. What is your base to say
low? Your recommendation also needs to be strong and should emanate from the findings.
Regarding the introduction: the introduction section needs rewriting. It is disorganized. When
you want to discuss the burden of the problem, it should be finalized in one paragraph. You
need to indicate the impact of the problem, tried efforts, and available interventions. You need
to clearly show the gap in your study. What is new knowledge in your study?
Regarding the methods and materials: I found it is good. However, you need to clearly indicate
how you measure your outcome variable and independent variables. You need to cite the
references.  The statistical analysis part is too shallow. You need to indicate the findings of
model fitness if you checked it?  Have you checked the assumptions of logistic regression? It
is indicated it.
Result: I strongly recommend the authors indicate only the variables used in the model. The
others are listed on the table. No need for redundancy.
You need to check the numbers. In the sociodemographic characteristics “Partner’s level of
education” summation is not 359. Please check all figures. You need too also check the numbers
in the model.
Regarding discussion: Rather than discussing the discrepancy, it is better to focus on the
interpretation of the findings. You need to discuss the implication of your finding.
Title: Community-based non-pharmacological interventions for pregnant women with
gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Mario Palumbo
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to review this paper “Community-based non-pharmacological interventions for
pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review”
The methodology used by the Authors is appropriate for the purpose of the article description.
The English language is fluid and well understood. Nevertheless, minor revision is needed.
The abstract is well defined.
Regarding the introduction, I find this article very interesting, you can add this paper to deepen
the topic.
DOI: I recommend integration with this job 10.3233/NPM-190305.
As regards the paper’s structuring (methods/discussion): There is a good structure of the project.
There are points on which you should cite more material in the literature: It better explains the
association between obesity and gestational diabetes.
How can physical activity affect the results obtained? Explain in more detail.
Have you found something in the literature, about educational techniques for patients?
Results
- Cite and analyze the limits of the study in a more schematic way;
- The statistical structure seems to me well done.
Conclusion
Increase the number of references
The data obtained are optimal with respect to the structuring of the work
Title: Community-based non-pharmacological interventions for pregnant women with
gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review
Version: 1 Date: 22 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Yuhang Long
Reviewer's report:
First, this is not a novel  systematic review study and the authors did not consider many
confounding factors.
Secondly, the authors did not correlate 95% confidence intervals for the individual drug
interventions, which does not allow for a more reliable quantification
Next, the methodology of the included studies was too mixed, for example, comparisons between
retrospective studies and RCTs, which were not comparable. I would suggest that the authors
include only RCT studies, comparing interventions on a factor-by-intervention basis, so that
they are more comparable.
Finally, I doubt that the article is scientifically sound and reasonable and low in valuable
information.
Title: Duration of infertility and assisted reproductive outcomes in non-male factor infertility:
Can use of ICSI turn the tide?
Version: 0 Date: 22 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Manal Madany Abdalqader
Reviewer's report:
First , its really an excellent subject to search about as many infertility centers nowadays goes
toward ICSI instead of IVF regardless male cause & it is an updated subject that need many
researches regarding the different types of procedure
Really I appreciate the good works seen through following in details all the steps for the
procedure till the end result
Nicely written  research with good grammar
Regarding Abstract , I suggest not to start with negative association between infertility duration
& success of assissted reproductive techniques as you well already search about during your
research
Regarding methodology , I find that it need more organization as you didn't mention in details
the inclusion & exclusion criteria  & only mentioned in the tables .
Your retrospective cohort study were 17477 case enrolled  in it for 3 years of study , but I had
confused weather in your study all this number or 4177 case which mentioned afterward
Regarding numbers of ICSI cases , I suggest that increase in its number may make difference
in the results
Regarding male age was seen in the results , but nothing mentioned in the method about it &
its role in these techniques
Regarding the period of infertility & its affect on the results in table 1, usually not well
understood
Discussion is well written , well organized in giving details for each result
References well written and good number for late study researches included for the last 10 years
Title: Duration of infertility and assisted reproductive outcomes in non-male factor infertility:
Can use of ICSI turn the tide?
Version: 0 Date: 01 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Although the infertility was wide  field of experiment and research especially prolonged
infertility ,yet there was many large studies had deal with this research issue and proved no
significant benefit from ICSI in non male factors in prolonged infertility so this study not add
new  in this issue  although the paper was  written  in well  organized way ,I prefer  according
to   the result  of this paper to  deal with “the role of duration of infertility  on fertilization rate “
Title: Duration of infertility and assisted reproductive outcomes in non-male factor infertility:
Can use of ICSI turn the tide?
Version: 1 Date: 10 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Manal Madany Abdalqader
Reviewer's report:
first I appreciate the nice work performed by the author
I am thankful for the additions discussed  & well performed .
-Abstract is started in  information regarding  ICSI which is nice
- Methodology Good details information regarding the  inclusion & exclusion criteria
-Discussion well written & organized with the details of the whole work in steps
-References good updated references for the last 10 years from the study .
-Regarding numbers of ICSI cases , I suggest that increase in its number may make difference.
Regarding male age was seen in the results , but nothing mentioned in the method about its effect
on the success of the technique.
Title: Duration of infertility and assisted reproductive outcomes in non-male factor infertility:
Can use of ICSI turn the tide?
Version: 2 Date: 16 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Thaer Mahmood Farhan
Reviewer's report:
Dear editors, I appreciate your invitation to review this valuable article  despite that, I have some
points to be considered
1. title page need some other details to be mentioned like the place of work, the period of work
from to ,
2. prefereably, not to mention abbreviations in the abstract
3. some abbreviations are used in the text without mentioning them frankly like CL, OR
4. some spell check are required like in line 126= duration of infertility
5. in paragraph 3.2 and outcomes: Indeed I found the outcomes based on unsolid base and
dissimilar environment between two groups of the study to be compared, ICSI and IVF groups.
the study researchers mentioned that patient ages in ICSI group are larger than those in IVF
group which will certainly affect the outcomes and the success rate of fertilization, pregnancy
as well.
6. again as in point 5 above, the authors mentioned that despite the number of oocytes retrieved
is similar between two group But, the number of MII oocyte is different where it was less in
ICSI group which in turn will affect the results and outcomes definitely in a way that bias the
actual results.
7. I insist on re-modulate and re-take the data in a way make two groups of the same environment
and depend on similar factors to be comparable group statically
8. in paragraph line164- line 169, what the author meant by sensitive analysis, need to clarify
this point
9. regarding the discussion section. actually it needs some references to be cited in to support
your arguments
finally , it seems to be a good tedious work  that tackle a very important aspect of infertility
managements. need to be reevaluated and rephrase and then it will be eligible for publication
reviewer
Dr . Thaer M. Farhan
16-oct-2022
Title: Duration of infertility and assisted reproductive outcomes in non-male factor infertility:
Can use of ICSI turn the tide?
Version: 2 Date: 23 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Wisam Akram
Reviewer's report:
Please remove the column of the total group and keep only the ICSI and Conventional IVF
groups in tables 1 and 2; it is misleading and confusing
In table 3 and 4 this is an unusual presentation of the OR
Re-arrange the tables according to the universal table format of ODD ratio arrangement please
Title: Primary ovarian insufficiency quality of life scale (POIQOLS): development and
psychometric properties
Version: 1 Date: 14 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Yen-ting Chou
Reviewer's report:
This article is well comprehensive and clearly to be read. This work should help evaluating the
quality of life (QoL) in Iranian patients with primary ovarian insufficiency (POI). However, a
meta-analysis published in 2020 (1) indicated POI is associated with low-to-medium effect size
on health-related QoL compared to normal ovarian controls.
It would also be beneficial to provide a cultural context about Iranian cultural perceptions of
women with POI. What is the cultural context of these people, how they view their symptoms,
and perceptions how this should be dealt with? How are this disease and symptoms viewed in
Iran? This may contribute to the better fit indices compared to other studies.
Reference
1. Li XT, Li PY, Liu Y, Yang HS, He LY, Fang YG, Lui J, Lui BY, Chaplin JE. Health-related
quality-of-life among patients with premature ovarian insufficiency: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 2020; 29(1): 19-36.
Title: Primary ovarian insufficiency quality of life scale (POIQOLS): development and
psychometric properties
Version: 1 Date: 03 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript aims to develop and validate an instrument to measure the quality of life of
women with primary ovarian insufficiency. It is generally well-designed and well-written. There
are minor issues such as;
-The inclusion criteria includes having "spontaneous" POI but the term is not defined.
-In the sentence "The relevant articles published in the last thirty years were thoroughly studied
and the missing items  were included in the items pool using the qualitative study results. ", I
could not quite understand what "the missing items" means.
-There are a few writing issues such as using the "p" in the higher case.
I believe that the manuscript can be published after these issues have been corrected.
Title: Determinants of the use of contraceptive methods by adolescents in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo: results of a cross-sectional survey
Version: 0 Date: 27 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. Overall comment: The paper is clear and well written. I have made some suggestions that the
authors may want to consider. Overall, more details on Family Planning methods and services
should be given.
2.Methods
2.1 Dependent variable: define the abbreviation “FP” also in the main text
2.2 Dependent variable: what do “modern” and “traditional methods” include in your study?
Also, in the methods it is not clear that analyses were both separate and joint for the two methods.
3.Results
3.1 Logistic models: some 95% CI values are very broad, please comment it in the limitations
of the study
4.Discussion
4.1 What are the objectives of the national multisectoral FP strategic plan 2014-2020?
4.2 Here some additional references to enrich the discussion on interpersonal influences and use
of methods:
Burke L, et al. Socio-demographic, health and lifestyle factors influencing age of sexual
initiation among adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):1851. doi: 10.3390/
ijerph15091851
Borraccino A, et al. Sexual behaviour in 15-year-old adolescents: insights into the role of family,
peer, teacher, and classmate support. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2020;56(4):522-530. doi:10.4415/
ANN_20_04_17:
Templeton M, et al. A systematic review and qualitative synthesis of adolescents’ views of
sexual readiness. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73:1288-301. doi: 10.1111/jan.13207
4.3 Please discuss further the differences between modern and traditional methods and their
effects
Title: Determinants of the use of contraceptive methods by adolescents in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo: results of a cross-sectional survey
Version: 0 Date: 01 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper aimed to identify the socio-demographic factors underlying the low use of
contraceptive methods by teenage gilrs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In general,
the article is logically rigorous, and the results are reported in a complete manner, which has a
certain meaning and can arouse the interest of readers. But I feel there are a few points that need
to be corrected in order to meet the publication requirements.
A legend should be added to Figure 1 indicating the classification of these measures.
There are several errors in the format and expression of the abstract and main body of the article,
such as the head of Page 3.
In addition, the references to the charts in the article are too casual, and the formatting of the
charts should also be fixed.
Title: The impact of body mass index on laboratory, clinical outcomes and treatment costs in
assisted reproduction: a retrospective cohort study.
Version: 2 Date: 24 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
The proposed manuscript about the impact of BMI on laboratory, clinical, and treatment costs in
ART procedures is a valuable contribution to everyday IVF practice. However, I would suggest
some changes to the authors. The title does not accurately say what the study was, so I suggest
changing it to "The impact of body mass index on laboratory, clinical outcome and treatment
costs in assisted reproductive techniques: a retrospective cohort study". The methodology is
confused and needed to be clarified especially regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria. The
population analyzed is heterogeneous.  Different protocols and doses were used with possible
influence on the final results.  Therefore, a higher gonadotropin dose needed, as demonstrated
in the study, could be related to the limited sample size. The authors need to clarify the high
cancellation rate and explain the relationship between obesity and poor responders in the study.
I would suggest including FSH, LH, and AMH into consideration.
I hope that this review is constructive and will allow the authors to prepare a revision ready for
acceptance.
Title: The impact of body mass index on laboratory, clinical outcomes and treatment costs in
assisted reproduction: a retrospective cohort study.
Version: 2 Date: 22 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors brings a relevant topic in ART: the increase in costs and in medication dose in obese
patients. However, some major modifications should be considered in the manuscript in order
to become suitable for publication.
1. Abstract: provides an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was
found. In line 2: remove “ ’s influence"
2. Introduction: It provides scientific background and rational for the study; however, it is too
large and structured  in subtopics which is usually not recommended for a manuscript format.
I would suggest to rewrite it shrinking it in a continuous text explaining the relevance of the
subject, providing background information informing what is already known and how this
manuscript could help with current knowledge
3. Methods:
a. The statement of Declaration of Helsinki guidelines should go along with ethics subtopic.
b. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written at the beginning of study population
subtopic, not in a separate subtopic, they define de study population.
c. Definitions: specify at which gestational age ultrasound was performed to confirm gestational
sacs
d. There is no specification how the data was tested for distribution and no description of which
test was used when data was not normally distributed, if used any.
4. Results:
a. Add unit at the end of BMI description, add the significant p-values after BMI along with
the text.
b. Results should be written in the same order that they are depicted on the tables, this section
should be better described.
c. Significant results should be described in numbers in the text.
d. Specify missing data for each variable of interest, and what authors have done to handle it
5. Discussion is large, confusing and described in sections, consider re-writing it in a more fluent
way
Consider English edit services
Title: The impact of body mass index on laboratory, clinical outcomes and treatment costs in
assisted reproduction: a retrospective cohort study.
Version: 5 Date: 17 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The proposed manuscript about the impact of BMI on laboratory, clinical, and treatment costs
in ART procedures is a valuable contribution to everyday IVF practice.  The authors accept all
suggestions and made changes according to them.
The authors  prepared a revision ready for acceptance.
Therefore, I strongly  recommend to BMC  Women's Health to accept the proposed manuscript
for publication.
Title: The impact of body mass index on laboratory, clinical outcomes and treatment costs in
assisted reproduction: a retrospective cohort study.
Version: 5 Date: 27 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors have substantially improved quality of the text and have addressed all the previous
comments properly. They have also stated properly the limitations of their work due to its
retrospective nature. I am satisfied with their modifications and consider the manuscript ready
for publication.
Title: Skilled birth attendant utilization trends, determinant and inequality gaps in Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
-Generally it is interesting work but there are ideas that should be justified especially in analysis
part.Also the recommendation should be specific and based on your finding.
Title
-Skilled birth attendant utilization trends and inequality gaps in Ethiopia – analysis of the DHS
2000-2019.The document shows you had studied determinants for inequality gaps in Ethiopia.
Therefore due think that it is the appropriate title?
Abstract
-line 22-23”We did a logistic regression analysis to examine factors associated with
observed inequalities using STATA version 14.0”. In your analysis part you did not examine
factors associated with observed inequalities rather you examine factors associated with skilled
birth service delivery.
-line 24-25 “The skilled birth attendant coverage trend showed significant and steady increase
from 5.7%  in 2005 to 49.8% in 2019”.What is the criteria to say” significant and steady increase/
not increase  from 5.7%  in 2005 to 49.8% in 2019”.
-line 25-25” The inequality gaps within the wealth, residence and education categories
also showed significant reduction over time “what is the cutting point to say significantly
reduced or not?
-line 26.Please substitute the word” greater” other suitable words.
-line 30&31.significant and steady increase??
-line 31”but it is short for the national target “what does “short” mean for this idea?
- line 31-32”The inequality gaps by household wealth status and residency area remains high
“what is your criteria to say high or low?
-line “30-33” the recommendation is not specific.it is general recommendation (effort should be
done to strengthen. What type of effort?
-Line 34 –your key words like maternal education residency area are not indexed
Data analysis
-line 119-120” The  inequality analysis was done to the year 2016 since the data from 2019
was not publicly available”but your title is about “inequality gaps in Ethiopia – analysis of the
DHS 2000-2019”
- line 121-123”To overcome unbalanced distribution of regional samples for national estimates,
sampling weights were used during analysis “What does sampling weight mean and how do you
perform it? Please describe it.
-in Analysis part,it is not clear how do you asses  inequality gaps for skilled birth??you focused
on focused on analysis of factor associated with skilled birth attendant which is not your title.
-In analysis part you explain studied  factor associated with skilled birth attendant and you
included nine independent variables which could affect SBA.But you miss major variables for
factors associated with SBA.
Title: Skilled birth attendant utilization trends, determinant and inequality gaps in Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
General Comments
I appreciate the effort of the authors of this study. This is due to the fact that this study will have
significant contribution for program planners and policy makers of the area. However, there are
several comments, which are mentioned under, that should be addressed before to precede any
further process.
1. First authors have to attach a permission letter to use the DHS data for this study analysis
unless it is so difficult.
2. Grammatical and punctuation problems of the study should be revised. It needs to be edited
through language professionals.
3. The study used data from five rounds of Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys
conducted in the period 2000- 2019. However, the researcher/s did regression done using 2016
data. Why? Why not used the recent data (2019)? It is too unfair and unscientific, thus, it must
be revised.
4. The conclusion and recommendation section is to general. For instance, it read as “The country
needs to intensify its efforts to eliminate the inequality gaps
220 by expanding service outlets and addressing transportation challenges.” Why and how
addressing transportation challenges? It is unnecessary sentence or a sentence with poor
evidence to recommend it.
5. My overall comment is that the researchers try to do good things but they attempt to shuffle
the analysis based on their need. They did not analysis the data as it is.
Title: Pentamidine inhibits proliferation, migration and invasion in endometrial cancer via the
PI3K/AKT signaling pathway
Version: 1 Date: 11 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Ali Mansoor Alameri
Reviewer's report:
Congrats on the interesting article with promissing results of the Anticancer effect of
Pentamidine in EC. I suggest you mention the findings of inhibition of cancer cells migration
and Invasion in the abstract results section.  Time factor is investigated in your study for the
inhibitory effectiveness of invasion via wound healing test, so you need to refer to it in the results
section. Some References are old, so try to Replace them with newer ones.
Please refer to the attached word file with comments.
Best wishes.
Ali Mansoor