JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Breast Conserving Surgery Versus Mastectomy: The Effect of Surgery on Quality of Life
in Breast Cancer Survivors in Malaysia
Version: 2 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Fernando Hernanz
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
In my opinion, the article has many flaws which must be corrected before it deserves be
published.
Breast reconstruction might be a potential way for improving the QoL of mastectomy patients.
(commentary, c) Remove because is not a conclusion of you work.
Introduction
Despite similar survival rates, BCS remains a distant second choice after simple mastectomy
for patients with early#stage breast cancer
(c) This statement should be qualified, in the occidental world the rate of BCS is higher than
mastectomy one
Procedure and measures
© Was EORTC QLQ-C30 linguistically adapted to the different languages. You should provide
version and linguistic adaptation to.
Pages 58 to 64
However, a high score for a symptom scale represents a high level of symptom, indicating worse
QoL.
© Is it a repetitive paragraph?
Have the scores normal distribution? You should provide test of normal distribution of variables.
Results.
©How do you explain that despite many differences between both groups in socioeconomical
and clinical conditions (Table 1) the baseline date were similar without any statistic difference?
Discussion.
© I should be reorganized, a table with publication which made similar comparison (mastectomy
vs BCS) can be a better way to show it.
Limitations. To observe difference between type of surgery, the groups must be similar without
differences in other conditions which can affects outcomes (quality of life); for instance:
radiotherapy or socioeconomic conditions.
Conclusion.
Providing an adequate information to the breast cancer patients in order to help them to decide
about different options of treatment could be essential. In addition, breast reconstruction could
be a potential way of improving the QoL of mastectomized patients. Further evaluation of QoL
of the same patients at 3 and 5 years is warranted to assess long-term QoL.
©These statements can be right, but they are not conclusions of your work, they should be
removed
Title: Breast Conserving Surgery Versus Mastectomy: The Effect of Surgery on Quality of Life
in Breast Cancer Survivors in Malaysia
Version: 2 Date: 10 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
with thanks to authors for their prospective study and resulted manuscript, there are some
challenges in this  manuscript:
1: The most important weakness is  that the authors did not consider the effect of systemic therapy
and radiation on the QoL . We know that most of the reviewed symptoms could be related to
chemotherapy like diarrhea, nausea , etc. Also radiotherapy could affect the appearance of  the
breast and also QoL.  That was better to adjust patients based on their systemic therapy  and
do subgroup analysis.
2:  Also some of mentioned symptoms could not be related to type of surgery, like insomnia.
How they could justify them?
3: As they mentioned,  beyond Qol, patient satisfaction and body image are very important in
comparing the results of BCS and mastectomy that have not evaluated.
4: It is better to use BCS or BCT overall , instead of conservative surgery.
5:The manuscript need to be edited . There are some orthographic mistakes and also journalistic
revision is needed.
Title: Breast Conserving Surgery Versus Mastectomy: The Effect of Surgery on Quality of Life
in Breast Cancer Survivors in Malaysia
Version: 5 Date: 29 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Fernando Hernanz
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, you have answered the points and questions which I had asked I think that the work
has improved in its quality I suggest a new linguistic revision for instance 160 line surgeries
Title: Breast Conserving Surgery Versus Mastectomy: The Effect of Surgery on Quality of Life
in Breast Cancer Survivors in Malaysia
Version: 8 Date: 07 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Fernando Hernanz
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I think that the article has been improved and it deserved be conveyed. You give a lot of data
but there might be some confusing variables who makes the conclusion no be too much clear
Title: Racial Disparities Between Measures of Area Deprivation and Financial Toxicity, and
Uterine Volume in Myomectomy Patients
Version: 1 Date: 27 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Consider making title more clear
Abstract
-consider patients with fibroids versus fibroid patients
- does better financial status mean a higher income, no debt?
Intro:
- line 75, reference for data that says black women are more likely than white women to schedule
uterine sparing treatments
- define financial toxicity and community area deprivation, and link the potential relationship
with uterine volume
Methods:
-is the registry for patients who plan to a UFE or also include patients who plan to have
myomectomy
-nice explanation of financial toxicity, consider additional description of ADI
Results:
-line 157, consider ‘and’ versus ‘but’
- would add at least average age of overall population and some descriptive information within
results section- versus just the table
-Did you do a subanalysis of white patients with worse FT and ADI and also black patients with
better FT and ADI? To see where the transition point in uterine volume is?
-would have been nice to see a higher number of volume of participants
-how closely does insurance align with FT and ADI?
Discussion
-line 180, can you further discuss data to support stress and fibroid intitation and growth and
epigenetics?
-were there other races/ethnicities in this population?
Title: Racial Disparities Between Measures of Area Deprivation and Financial Toxicity, and
Uterine Volume in Myomectomy Patients
Version: 3 Date: 30 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have thoroughly addressed the comments with edits and/or explanations of their
analytic approaches and discussion of results.  The manuscript is much improved.
One minor editorial note: line 147 of the clean version may have an incomplete edit (ending
with "????").
Title: Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of sarcopenia in
menopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 1 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I appreciated the opportunity to evaluate a systematic review and meta-analysis entitled “Effect
of non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of sarcopenia in menopausal women:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”.
Initially I would like to congratulate the authors. The study was very well conducted, including
all stages of the Prisma checklist. Here are some small considerations:
The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials analyze the
current evidence regarding the effects of non-pharmacological interventions (exercise, vitamin
D supplementation, and protein supplementation) for the prevention of sarcopenia, including
muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical functional performance, specifically in menopausal
women aged 40 to 60. The article deals with a current topic with great relevance for clinical
practice.
Abstract:
Background: From line 25 until 28, please check, perhaps it could be better if it was more
summarized, without repeating information.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed from month and year until May 5, 2023?
Please, included.
Results: I suggest including: A total of 27 RCTs enrolling 1989 subjects were identified.
Line 43 and 44 : Please check this sentence, maybe it can be improved: Limited evidence and
methodological limitations existed regarding protein supplementation.
Introduction
Line 70: an increased loss ranging from 1% to 3% per year ?
Line 120 – Please exclude the year of publication fromZhang et al. (2022)
Data sources and search strategies
Line 154: Please detail from which year the studies were included for analysis
Study characteristics
Would it be possible to include in table 1 the average age of participants per study and the
women's health condition?
Reference:
Please check reference 23. It is correct?
General comments:
Please, throughout the text avoid the term “elderly” as it connotes a stereotype.
Title: Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of sarcopenia in
menopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 3 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors adequately addressed the comments of this reviewer.
I would like to make a few suggestions on the new additions in the text.
1) Page 7 - lines 126 to 133 - the word “review” was repeated a lot, I suggest observing. The
same was verified in the inclusion of the text in lines 280 to 289 - review the repetition of the
word “effect”.
2) On page 12 – Grading the quality of evidence. I suggest summarizing lines 230, 231 and 232.
Title: Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of sarcopenia in
menopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 3 Date: 11 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the new opportunity to correct the article.
Congratulations on the excellent work and the significant improvement in the text. All the points
I mentioned previously were answered.
I only have 3 grammatical observations to make:
Line 192 – Check if the correct word is Were, instead of Was in the sentence “The data collection
and extraction process was conducted using EndNote X9”
Line 570 – There is a hyphen missing in “Middle-age”. The same applies to “Whole-body” (lines
427 and 512)
Line 636 – The correct one would be Programs (in the text it says Programmes)
Title: Patients’ and Providers’ Perspectives on the Decision to Undergo Non-Urgent Egg
Freezing: A Needs Assessment
Version: 1 Date: 26 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Giuliana Fuscaldo
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all of the comments made in my original review and the paper is
now clearer and easier to read. I found the rationale, findings and conclusion in the revised draft
better supported and commend the authors on their careful revisions.
I have made a few comments here and there in the attached, which are suggestions for fairly
minor revisions or points of clarification.
However, I suggest that the paper needs to clarify the fact that the thematic analysis of interview
content has been reported separately. I apologise if I missed this in the earlier review- but did not
realise   that the authors have already published the analysis of the interviews.  I think they need to
make it very clear  that the current paper is building on the results of already published interview
analysis- and that the section labelled demographics needs to clarify that no new interviews were
conducted- ie the current paper is  a further/ongoing  analysis of previous interviews.
Title: Patients’ and Providers’ Perspectives on the Decision to Undergo Non-Urgent Egg
Freezing: A Needs Assessment
Version: 1 Date: 01 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a second review of the paper addressing patient decision-making needs with respect to
elective egg freezing.
The authors have made significant changes and the paper is much stronger.
Altogether the authors have addressed each of my concerns/suggestions/recommendations from
the first review satisfactorily. The addition of table 2 is extremely helpful. Pending final cosmetic
edits, the paper will be ready for publication.
Title: Clomiphene citrate plus letrozole versus clomiphene citrate alone for ovulation induction
in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 07 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
#t is interesting, RCT and well-written study. But several points should be highlighted:
Please explain clearly when the randomization was done?
Could you clearly explain what kind of m uteri as coexisting condition in Table 1 was included
in this study??
Did you measure mid-luteal progesterone level for all patients if you use it , to define the
ovulation rate, if you did not how did you detect the presence of ovulation for other patients
#f you excluded uncorrected thyroid disease and hyperprolactinemia and the patients was not
diagnosed with PCOS, how do you explain anovulatuary statu
Although You achieved the number according to sample size, this study has unfortunately small
sample size
Please clearly explaine underlying mechanism the combination of CC+letrozople in introduction
May be, letrozole alone as another group could be added as group 3 in this study, could you add
this situation as limitation in discussion
sincerely
Title: Clomiphene citrate plus letrozole versus clomiphene citrate alone for ovulation induction
in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Ahmed Gibreel
Reviewer's report:
The study was conducted in 12 months and i wonder why cummulative live birth or pregnancy
rate were not consider as a primary outcome. I guess this may be to decrease sample size.
Taking 18 months to publish the study may be too much. The dose of 50 mg clomiphene (CC)
is not the standard for ovulation induction so I guess giving CC  in 50 mg only in the control
group my be underdose.  Not clear whether the study recruited women with only one patent
tube  and describing that cases should have motile sperm count above 10000000 without the
rest of parameters may be inadequate. Including only 48% or less women with PCOS in a study
population of anovulatory infertility provoked me to ask you to provide details of other causes of
anovulatory infertility in women recruited. The conclusion needs to be amended to be restricted
to one cycle and mentioning the dose of cc.
Title: Clomiphene citrate plus letrozole versus clomiphene citrate alone for ovulation induction
in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 24 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Tarek Tawfik Amin
Reviewer's report:
BMC Women’s Health
Title: Clomiphene citrate plus letrozole versus clomiphene citrate alone for ovulation induction
in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial.
Comments to the authors:
General comments: the results of this trial should be cautiously considered especially in the
presence of small sample size and in lack of well-defined groups of ovarian dysfunction (with
the exception of polycystic ovary syndrome n=46 patients in both arms included in this study).
Title: What do you mean by ovulatory dysfunction? polycystic ovary syndrome
Abstract:
In the abstract: how groups were evenly distributed?
In the abstract: what were the menstrual cycle characteristics included?
The mean age and prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome were similar in both group: how?
Introduction:
A hypothesis should be formulated at the end of your introduction.
A concrete rationale should be stated?
Methods:
What were the basic characteristics of your patients? How they were selected? And included?
The random allocation procedure? Software if any?
The sample size calculation using effect size (if any)? The current is not considering the effect
size as well as the power, please justify.
Concealment and blindness followed for the conduction of your trial?
The follow up process including laboratory tests and other clinically relevant procedures?
Use a timeline to depicts the procedures followed for patients including dosing, home-based
tests, sexual intercourse, sonography etc.,
Contents (items) included in the questionnaire to elicit the adverse events (if any).
Results:
Starting this section with the design used????
Discrepancies between your results and figure 1??? please clarify?
Table 1: revealed many possible confounders including BMI, co-morbid uterine conditions, how
would control the possible effects of these possible confounders?
Only 46 patients in both groups had the diagnosis of Polycystic ovary syndrome? What about
the other ovarian dysfunction included in your study?
Repetition of this section as the table 1?
What do you mean by “absolute difference and rate ratio” these should be mentioned in the
statistical analysis section???? As well as in the table footnote?
How many in each group with polycystic ovary showed ovulation?
For table 3: what were the statistical tested used for comparisons?
Same comments applied to table 4.
Discussion:
This section should be modified after responding to the different inquires provided.
Title: Clomiphene citrate plus letrozole versus clomiphene citrate alone for ovulation induction
in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 15 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Tarek Tawfik Amin
Reviewer's report:
BMC women’s Health
Clomiphene citrate plus letrozole versus clomiphene citrate alone for ovulation induction in
infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial
- Abstract: The mean age and prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome were similar in both
groups, please mention the number of PCO in each group< and the age as well.
- The conclusion should be interpreted in the lights of the mentioned limitations
General comment:
The generalization is questionable in the light of the several limitations mentioned, the final
conclusion should be reported with caution.
Title: Separate and combined effects of famine exposure and menarche age on metabolic
syndrome among the elderly: a cross-sectional study in China
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Pietro Serra
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Separate and combined effects of famine
exposure and menarche age of metabolic syndrome among the elderly: a cross-sectional
study” (Submission ID a48cb66f-3aeb-449a-9b9e-87dbaeb29d88), 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.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
- The Authors did not mention the sample size calculation for their study. It is essential to specify
this data in order to guarantee an adequate significance of the results obtained by the Authors.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest clarifying these points.
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives.
- 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.
-  Accumulating evidence suggests that several vitamin disbalances, as well as nutraceutical
supplementation to counteract them, may play a significant role on women’s health. Since the
importance of the topic, I would discuss, at least briefly, adding more details. Authors may refer
to: PMID: 26927948; PMID: 12969583.
- Accumulating evidence suggests that immune cells, adhesion molecules, extracellular matrix
metalloproteinase and pro-inflammatory cytokines activate/alter peritoneal microenvironment,
creating the conditions for differentiation, adhesion, proliferation and survival of ectopic
endometrial cells. I would discuss these points in the light of new theories about the pathogenesis
of endometriosis, referring to: PMID: 23154237; PMID: 31663401.
Title: Separate and combined effects of famine exposure and menarche age on metabolic
syndrome among the elderly: a cross-sectional study in China
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Poor English Style.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Separate and combined effects of famine exposure and menarche age
of metabolic syndrome among the elderly: a cross-sectional study
Title: Appropriate and informative; Please correct it
Separate and combined effects of famine exposure and menarche age
on metabolic syndrome among the elderly: a cross-sectional study
Abstract: Appropriate and informative. However, English style needs to be improved.
The study evaluates the “association” not the “relationship”.
Phrases should start with numbers; 4770 participants.
Keywords: Please add more words like; China, Regression Analysis.
Introduction: Appropriate and informative, but with a very poor English style.
Objective: A clear specific objective should be written at the end of the introduction.
Methods: Please change to be Patients and Methods.
Study population should be described in details; Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only Females.
Ethical Considerations? The study should have required approval from the ethics review
committee? IRB Number !!!
How was the model constructed? Wald Foreward or Back Word? Manual Purposfull Method!!!
Results: Text of the Results; Appropriate and Informative.
Discussion: Appropriate and informative, but quite long.
The study evaluated associations, not relationships.
Conclusion: Conclusions need to be more concise and specific
Also, a final paragraph summarizing the recommendations of the study is needed.
Limitations: Well-organized and well-explained.
References: Most referecnes are recent and relevant (>50% of the study references were
published after 2018; <5 years ago).
Tables are Appropriate and informative.
Title: Molecular-Based Classification of Endometrial Carcinoma in Northern Thailand: Impact
on Prognosis and Potential for Implementation in Resource-Limited Settings
Version: 0 Date: 23 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Molecular Classification of Endometrial Cancer
in Northern Thailand: Impact on Prognosis and Potential for Implementation in Resource-
Limited Settings”, topic interesting enough to attract readers' attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- In recent years the classification of endometrial cancer has evolved significantly. It would be
interesting to discuss results of this study by evaluating and citing references about
molecular insights of endometrial cancer,  considering prognosis and the possibility of tailored
management. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point, referring to PMID:
36833105.
- The authors should discuss solid evidence on the use of new strategies for the early detection
of molecular alterations of endometrial cancer. For example, you might consider using artificial
intelligence, especially radiomic analysis of radiological images. In particular, I suggest this
article to get deeper in the topic PMID: 36553988.
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.