JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Pre-operative and early postoperative health-related quality of life of breast cancer
woman: a Lebanese prospective study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has been significantly improved in the results and discussion sections. However,
I see the need for some clarifications and minor corrections.
1. The authors replied that they did not collect patient information about the axillary surgical
procedures, so they could not verify the relationship with HRQOL. However, in the paper
regarding breast cancer surgery, the breakdown of axillary surgery should be listed in the table of
patient characteristics. Therefore, the authors should re-examine individual patient information.
2. The table of clinical characteristics also lacks a description of the tumor characteristics. Not
only stage I or II classifications, but also tumor size (T category) and lymph node status (N
category) should be described from individual patient information, because these factors may
change the surgical procedures and affect the postoperative HRQOL.
3. BCS for patients with bilateral breast cancer is not contraindicated and may be an option,
except in the case of HBOC (p.3, Line 98).
4. As I pointed out before, the descriptions of the relationship between marriage and
postoperative body image are inconsistent in the papers. The authors stated in the results
that married women were associated with significant improvement in body image scores after
surgery (p.8, Lines 234-236), while in the discussion, they described that marriage was an
independent predictor of the clinically relevant decrease in postoperative body image scores
(p.11, Lines 332-334).
Title: Utility of Vaginal Vault Cytology in the Local Recurrence of Cervical Cancer
Version: 3 Date: 27 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Canio Martinelli
Reviewer's report:
The article in question presents a thorough and well-researched examination of a current and
pressing issue in the field of medicine. The topic of the study is both scientifically relevant and
of social utility, making it an important contribution to the body of knowledge in the field.
The methodology used in the study is appropriate and sound, providing a strong foundation for
the conclusions drawn. The authors have clearly put a great deal of effort into collecting and
analyzing data, and the results they present are both meaningful and informative. The data is
presented in a clear and concise manner, making it easy for readers to understand the findings
and implications of the study.
However, one area where the article could be improved is in the description of the specific
surgical techniques used in the cases presented. While the study provides a general overview
of the procedures, it would be beneficial to have more detailed information on the specific
techniques used, particularly in relation to vaginal suturing. Knowing whether the suture is
performed in an introflection or extroflection way is important for practitioners because if the
suture is made in an introflection way, it would be easier to detect local recurrences earlier.  This
would help practitioners better understand the results and potentially replicate the study in the
future.
In conclusion, this article is a valuable contribution to the field and is deserving of publication.
The topic is relevant and socially useful, the methodology is sound, and the results are
meaningful. The authors should be commended for their hard work and dedication in bringing
this important research to light. However, providing more information on the surgical techniques
used in the study would greatly enhance the value of the article.
Title: "They see me as mentally ill": The stigmatization experiences of Chinese menopausal
women in the family
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
It was a pleasure to review the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript was well developed, and the
topic was of importance considering the ageing issue in China.
Introduction
The authors provided a comprehensive background and rationale for the current study.
However, I would like to know whether are published papers on the topic in the Chinese
language databases. If yes, mention them and cite them, then say why the current study should
be performed.
Methods
Design part was well developed, and Colaizzi's method was appropriate for a phenomenological
design.
However, Line 78-79, the aim should be moved to the Introduction, not here.
Table 1 was good and well organized.
Results
The authors well presented the findings with well-organized Table 2 to show themes and
subthemes.
The descriptions and quotes for each theme and subtheme were appropriate.
Discussion
The discussion part was also well developed.
Line 349, the writing “As Conrad (1987) notes” was not appropriate, just use the numbered
format for citations, not APA format.
However, as the authors noticed the intimate partner violence (IPV) issue, appropriate resources
regarding counselling and/or referrals should be provided to the participants who experienced
IPV. It is an important ethical consideration.
Several points in the limitations were well presented.
I simply like the study and the writing of the manuscript. Well done.
Title: "They see me as mentally ill": The stigmatization experiences of Chinese menopausal
women in the family
Version: 3 Date: 02 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The manuscript is very attractive and well written. Congratulation to you for this great
manuscript! Here are some comments and suggestions for the manuscript.
Introduction:
1. In the beginning of the introduction, menopause is a medical term that should be defined and
summarized.
2. Your paradigm shift should be explained, however, there is very little review of the relevant
literatures. Please use the findings of the relevant literatures to explain the gap in life experience
of menopausal women research.
Method:
1. Please explain ethical considerations more in detail.
2. I suggest putting purpose and research questions in the introduction.
3. Were sampling adequate, as evidenced by achieving saturation of data? Please explain.
Discussion:
1. Most participants have lower level of education, some of them have lower level or no salary,
do they have the education or knowledge of menopause? The bias of participants’ data should
be explained.
2. How a researcher’s experience, background, or prejudices might shape and bias and
interpretation should be explained.
3. Data and knowledge should be linked in meaningful ways to relevant literature, so please add
more literatures here to make discussion more complete to have a more insightful interpretation.
Conclusion:
What is the novelty of the present study? Please add.
Reference:
Please add more recent references.
Title: "They see me as mentally ill": The stigmatization experiences of Chinese menopausal
women in the family
Version: 4 Date: 31 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Dr. Gu,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper titled "'They see me as mentally ill': The
stigmatization experiences of Chinese menopausal women in the family."
I appreciate the depth and breadth of the research you conducted and the comprehensive
revision. You have delivered a well-organized and in-depth analysis of the results and discussion.
However, in the limitation, I suggest you explain why the environment and family members
impact the participant's response and how it affects your findings and interpretation.
Overall, your work has great potential for contributing to menopause research. Congratulations
on this great manuscript!
Best regards.
Title: Role of iron in the reduction of anemia among women of reproductive age in low-middle
income countries: Insights from Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this paper indicates a lack of proper understanding of the purpose and method for a
systematic review and meta-analysis. The results are inadequately presented and some are of
unnecessary information.
Background
Please improve the English language and sentence structure. Copy editing by native English
speaker is warranted.
Method
1. This is not a Cochrane review where Plain Language Summary is needed. Please remove.
2. Please use the PRISMA flow chart 2020
3. Please include the search strategy for each of the databases used.
4. One and half years have passed after the last search. An update in the literature search is
required.
5. Why is the iron dosage of 60 to 100 mg daily for at least one month? Please justify.
6. Tables 2 and 3. Search strategy according to PICO criteria. The comparison should not be
“women without anemia or non-anemic women. The setting should not be referring to regions.
These are misconceptions of the PICO format.
7. When were the fixed effect and random effects used? Please include it in the method section.
8. Refer to document “Data extracted for Risk of Bias Assessment”. There is no information
on Ahmed F et al.
Results
1. For the primary and secondary outcomes, please report the results of pooled estimate in full.
There is no need to report on the individual study in the meta-analyses. Please include the
assessment of heterogeneity.
2. Findings for the risk of bias assessment should be before the expected results.
3. Any subgroup analyses?
4. What about the GRADE assessment for overall quality?
Discussion
The discussion is weak. It only quotes what other previous reviews reported and it is also
repetitive of the information in the Background section.
Conclusion
Focus the Conclusion on answering the objective of the review.
Title: Role of iron in the reduction of anemia among women of reproductive age in low-middle
income countries: Insights from Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Belayneh Mengist
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled “Role of iron in the reduction
of anemia among women of reproductive age in low-middle income countries: Insights from
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”. There are fundamental comments to be addressed before
publication.
It is known that iron reduces the burden of anemia and based on this fact iron supplementation
has been implemented in different countries. What new evidence does this study reveal?
Can this review be generalizable to LMIC based on the studies of a few countries?
The review is conducted among the different populations (pregnant and non-pregnant)
The study includes studies published in the last 20 years (2000 to2020). It is too long and the
trials done during this period might be varied particularly the treatment types given for the
experimental/treatment group therefore, the estimate may not be reliable and valid to conclude.
The funnel plot shows the presence of publication bias visibly therefore adjustments should be
made using fill and trim analysis.
Throughout the article, there are a number of grammatical errors, and in general, the article is
quite cumbersome. For example, in the background section, in line one the word “problem” is
repeated, line 2 “it is can lead” etc.
Title: Role of iron in the reduction of anemia among women of reproductive age in low-middle
income countries: Insights from Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 06 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  K.m. Saif-ur-rahman
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the effort of the authors. However, there are some methodological concerns that
need to be addressed before the article can be accepted for publication. Please find my comments
as follows:
1. Searching Strategy (Page 6; Line 131): PubMed is a search engine, Medline is the database.
Please write “Medline through PubMed”.
2. Page 6; Line 132: “…… was conducted (Embase)”. Is that a typo? Why is Embase at the
end in bracket?
3. Page 8; Line 172: Please write “Medline through PubMed”.
4. Page 9; Line 194: Please write “Medline through PubMed”.
5. The search strategy that has been provided in Table 3, is retrieving 2685 articles from Pubmed
(Medline). It’s retrieving 1675 articles after selecting publication year between 2000-2020. I
don’t know how the authors have got only 114 articles from Pubmed (Medline). Please clarify.
Please go through the following article to know the importance of transparency of reporting
search strategies in systematic review.
“Saif-Ur-Rahman KM. Transparency of reporting search strategies in systematic reviews.
Hypertens Res. 2022;45(11):1838-1839. doi: 10.1038/s41440-022-01003-1.”
6. Study selection (Page 9): Please mention clearly that the title-abstract screening was
conducted by two review authors independently.
7. Study selection (Page 9): Please mention clearly that the full-text screening was conducted
by two review authors independently.
8. Overall quality assessment for RCTs (Page 10): Please rewrite the heading as “Assessment
of risk of bias”
9. Overall quality assessment for RCTs (Page 10): Please mention clearly that the risk of bias
was assessed by two independent review authors. Make a comment on how was the conflict
resolved?
10. A qualitative synthesis of eligible studies (Page 11): A qualitative synthesis is completely
different method for qualitative evidence synthesis. It seems that authors have performed a
narrative synthesis. Please replace “qualitative synthesis” with “narrative synthesis”.
11. Please assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Please mention that GRADE will be
assessed by two independent review authors.
12. Please provide summary of findings table (SoF) using GRADE.
13. Overall, the quality of English is very poor and requires a thorough editorial proof reading.
14. The manuscript is full of repetitive sentences in several sections (for example: name of
databases have been mentioned three times).
Title: Role of iron in the reduction of anemia among women of reproductive age in low-middle
income countries: Insights from Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 19 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
No more comments to the authors. The structure of this manuscript is clear and the findings might
provide additional evidence for reducing iron-deficiency anemia among women of reproductive
age in low-middle-income countries. Thank you to the authors for their work in this field.
Title: Barriers to using postpartum family planning among women in Zanzibar, Tanzania
Version: 3 Date: 20 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Batula Abdi
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed of the issues; however few things can still be highlighted.
It is important to note the inequalities in terms of contraceptive uptake. Zanzibar has places that
have a single-digit CPR in Pemba- showing the regional variation is vital so that inequalities in
FP uptake in not masked by national averages- The authors have responded that they can't go
into details of regional variations. This is important - the variation can be stated as unguja and
Pemba not going into details or showing the highest CPR in Zanzibar and the lowest to show
the inequalities.
Title: Factors Associated with Low Utilisation of Cervical Cancer Screening Among Urban
Women in Lilongwe, Malawi: A Cross Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death for women in low and middle income
countries (LMICs), despite effective primary and secondary prevention. This health crisis
represents an implementation problem – we have the tools to prevent cervical cancer but need
to bring them to the women who need them the most. For this reason, studies such as this one
that investigate the causes and gaps in cervical cancer prevention in a LMIC are particularly
important. I commend the authors for investigating this issue.
However, the manuscript has several issues that need to be resolved in order to be ready for
publication. There are multiple grammar, spelling, and organizational issues. I would urge the
authors to consider an English-language editing service, BMC suggests some ideas here:
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/language-editing-services
Methods need to be explained more clearly and fully. For example, how and where the interviews
conducted? How were qualitative interviews coded and/or analyzed and by whom? Which
themes and subthemes emerged during the content analysis? How were coding disagreements
resolved? How were the evaluative criteria (credibility, dependability, etc.) applied to the data?
Providing the interview guides or examples of questions would be helpful as well.
In the Results section, it would helpful to provide an initial summary of how researchers arrived
at the different themes and subthemes. It is not clear why certain quotes are presented under
specific themes when they could just as easily be part of another theme – this may be an
analysis problem. Some themes may be better classified as subthemes: lack of knowledge,
misconceptions and myths, and cues to action all sound like they could both go under a broader
theme of “lack of education”.
Within themes, direct quotes should be introduced and contextualized, not simply added with
little explanation. It is also unclear why quotes are used to illustrate some themes but not others
that seem equally common or important.
Instead of using imprecise words such as “some”, “most”, or “many” women, it would be helpful
to get numbers and percentages.
It would also be helpful to provide more details regarding the field observations:  how many
women attend and how many sent back on any given day, what does the health education include,
how is this delivered, etc.
The Discussion section needs significant editing: it is much too long and repetitive. Subsections
are distracting. Rather than listing all the findings one by one, it may be a better idea to
summarize findings first and then discuss the existing literature. This is where some English
editing would also be very helpful.
The authors may consider re-analyzing their interviews to come up with a clearer coding scheme
that can better support their conclusions. Conclusions also need to recognize the limitations of
the small sample size.
I hope these comments are constructive and helpful.
Title: Factors Associated with Low Utilisation of Cervical Cancer Screening Among Urban
Women in Lilongwe, Malawi: A Cross Sectional Study
Version: 3 Date: 05 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for addressing many of the comments made previously. However, there
are still issues related to the organization of the manuscript and a need to revise the language.
For example, the long sections in the Methods section defining constructs to measure the validity
of qualitative methods are unnecessary. Details on how the sample was selected, who conducted
the interviews, when, where, etc. are missing. Data analysis is not described: who coded the
interviews? If it was more than one person, was inter-coder reliability assessed? How was the
coding scheme developed?
The model used to interpret findings needs to be explained first in the Methods section.
Overall, I strongly urge the authors to work with a professional editing service or a published
colleague to review and polish the manuscript.
Title: Factors Associated with Low Utilisation of Cervical Cancer Screening Among Urban
Women in Lilongwe, Malawi: A Cross Sectional Study
Version: 6 Date: 13 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have significantly improved the manuscript and the results are organized and clear.
However, to be appropriate for publication, the manuscript requires editing for clarity and style.
I strongly encourage the authors to engage a professional editing services or perhaps assistance
from a colleague with extensive publishing experience.
Issues that come to mind:
-Some of the language is colloquial and inappropriate for scholarly publication: "kid", "ladies",
"figure out", "The first thing I noticed was the clinic's opening and closing times", etc.
-In some cases, the meaning of the phrase is impacted by grammatical errors:
"Age, sex, ethnicity, knowledge, status, and personality are all modifying [not modifiable, which
has quite a different meaning] factors."
-Some phrases and sentences are awkward, unclear, have incorrect verb tenses, or otherwise
need editing for stylistic issues. For example, a corrected version could look like this (compare
to submitted manuscript):
Abstract:
Background: In [Year], more than half a million women (528,000) were diagnosed with cervical
cancer around the world. More than 80% of cervical cancer cases occur in developing nations,
such as Malawi, where estimates of the disease's burden show an incidence of 75.9 per 100,000
women and a mortality rate of 49.8 per 100,000 women (both age-adjusted). Despite its high
case fatality rate, cervical cancer can be avoided through immunization, early detection, and
screening. Malawi, however, has low immunization and screening rates with coverage as low as
__% and __%, respectively. Here, our aim is to uncover factors that contribute to low utilization
of cervical cancer screening services among women in LiLilongwe, a large urban center.
-There are also inconsistencies in how data is presented (for example, sometimes "20%" and
others "20 percent") and parts of the manuscript where punctuation must be corrected.
In terms of content, the  sample selection section requires a few more explanatory sentences:
were women recruited as they came to the clinic? Were they recruited at home? Where did the
interviews take place?
The methods are explained well (although perhaps a further explanation of how and who arrived
at the final themes would be helpful), results are clear and the use of direct quotes is relevant
and appropriate.
Title: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Awareness among Females in the UAE: A Cross-Sectional
Study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for conducting this study.
My suggestions/concerns related to your manuscript are listed below.
1. The abstract needs to be improved.
2. Kindly include Setting, Duration of study, Population and Sample, Study Design, Sampling
technique, Data collection, and Data analysis, in the abstract and in main text.
3. In line number 78 underdiagnosed shall be replaced with misdiagnosed.
4. In introduction section line number 87-90 can be added in the discussion section.
5. In introduction section the aim of the study mentioned in line 118-119 needs to be rephrased.
6. In the introduction section line 93-116 the author has discussed the literature review. I think
the author have taken this portion directly from the thesis or dissertation. These lines  needs to
be rephrased, shorten or summarised.
7. The introduction section is a bit extensive with constant repetition of knowledge in the closing
paragraphs which can be improved.
8. In the methods section line number 148-149 the author have mentioned that the estimated
sample size was 400, but they eventually they recruited 30 subjects in the study… how come???
9. In the methods section of abstract line 37 its written that SPSS version 23 was used for data
analysis but in the main text line 160 mentions the use of SPSS version 25… kindly correct
10. Line 161 mentions sample size of 414… the sample size being mentioned is different in
different areas of the paper which is very confusing… kindly correct it
11. Line 173 of results section correct the number (2) written before demographics
12. In the results section the tables are not properly tabulated. there are unnecessary numbers/
values mentioned. The author can directly mention the p values instead of going in upper and
lower quartiles… the results needs be con sized and briefly tabulated.
13. Is the questionnaire being used in the study validated?
14. The discussion section of the study needs to be rewritten. the author has discussed their
findings along with the reasons of their findings… the author has not compared their results with
studies from other regions and countries round the worlds.
15. The discussion shall start with a brief summarisation of the findings of one’s own study
leading to comparison of your results with the findings from other research studies. the
discussion needs to be improved.
16. Please re-check the manuscript once more for commas, typos, and grammatical mistakes.
There is wrong use of capitalizations and spaces in the MS.
17. Kindly add future directions and limitations after conclusion.