JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Relationship between bone mineral density and ovarian function and thyroid function in
perimenopausal women with endometriosis: A prospective study
Version: 2 Date: 20 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  M Ikram Khatkhatay
Reviewer's report:
My greatest concern is the R square values of the parameters concerned with the theme of the
study that is FSH, E2, T4, AMH and TRACP-5b is less than 0.1, and in some of these parameters
has significant P value. Though it may be considered statistically valid but may not be clinically
relevant. For e.g. T4 and AMH R2 value is 0.026 and 0.048 and statistically significant.
In partial regression analysis, Beta value is extremely low.
The BMD value of initial measurement is 1.15± 0.16 g/cm2 and follow-up measurement is 1.14±
0.15 g/cm2 with P value significant. Such data has no clinical relevance.
Even Correlation between change in annual rates of BMD (%/year) and initial measurements
of all the parameters is extremely poor.
The relationship between three categories of BMD besides other parameters is also poor.
In view of this I suggested the outcome of the study will not have an impact on management of
low bone mass as claimed by the investigators
Title: Relationship between bone mineral density and ovarian function and thyroid function in
perimenopausal women with endometriosis: A prospective study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I carefully reviewed the revised version of the paper entitled ‘Relationship between bone mineral
density and ovarian function and thyroid function in perimenopausal women with endometriosis:
a prospective study’ by Mari Uehara et al.
Authors meticulously answered the raised comments, changed the title, and modified the
manuscript including more recent evidence from the Literature and deepening both Methods
and Discussion.
The several changes within the manuscript make the paper more critical and accurate,
strengthening its scientific value.
Therefore, the study now deserves to be published in ‘BMC Women’s Health’.
Title: Relationship between bone mineral density and ovarian function and thyroid function in
perimenopausal women with endometriosis: A prospective study
Version: 3 Date: 09 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  M Ikram Khatkhatay
Reviewer's report:
In the conclusion section, investigators should bring up the point that women with endometriosis
should undergo bone scanning to rule out the possibility of reduced bone mass and subsequent
increased risk of fracture, instead of ‘these findings could assist in disease management in
women with endometrioses’
Title: Relationship between bone mineral density and ovarian function and thyroid function in
perimenopausal women with endometriosis: A prospective study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I carefully reviewed the revised version of the paper entitled ‘Relationship between bone mineral
density and ovarian function and thyroid function in perimenopausal women with endometriosis:
a prospective study’ by Mari Uehara et al.
Authors meticulously answered the raised comments, changed the title, and modified the
manuscript including more recent evidence from the Literature and deepening both Methods
and Discussion.
The several changes within the manuscript make the paper more critical and accurate,
strengthening its scientific value.
Therefore, the study now deserves publication in ‘BMC Women’s Health’.
Title: Unmet Need for Family Planning Among Married Women in Zambia: Lessons from the
2018 Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 3 Date: 02 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for the opportunity. The study is important however it needs some few
edits.
1.  In-text citation numbering was poorly done.
2. Incomplete sentences were captured specifically the 3rd Paragraph
3. The study did not acknowledge previous studies conducted thus cite source to those studies.
4.The references did not follow the Vancouver referencing style.
Title: Unmet Need for Family Planning Among Married Women in Zambia: Lessons from the
2018 Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 3 Date: 24 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Carolyn Bolton-moore
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this submission. I am happy  to see the DHS data
being used for additional analyses. Whilst I understand the benefits of improved availability and
uptake of FP,  I don't believe your manuscript has clearly and adequately detailed  the potential
public health benefits, changes or policy recommendations that could arise from these data.
I would recommend revising to ensure repetition is minimised and the recommendations for
changes in service delivery, program and policy are more clearly articulated.
Title: Risk of uterine leiomyoma based on BET1L rs2280543 single nucleotide polymorphism
and vegetarian diet
Version: 1 Date: 29 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers' attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
-Do you think this line of research on genetics and diet could be significant only for prevention
or also for future medical therapy? I would discuss these points in the light of the new medical
management of UFs  referring to PMID: 34278887; PMID: 33388011.
- It would be appreciable if the tables were made clearer and easier to read.
Title: Does prevalence of sexual dysfunction differ among the most common causes of
infertility? A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the authors for allowing me to read this work on women’s sexual health, fertility, and
sexual dysfunction.
This work is very interesting. It clearly contributes to the discussion on the sexual wellbeing
of women and couples and explores in detail how different types of infertility associate with
women’s sexual dysfunction.
My recommendations to improve this study are:
1) To follow the STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies to improve the quality of
reporting. For example, it would be useful to know how the authors dealt with risks of bias (e.g.
social desirability bias).
2) To improve the description of results, I would suggest that the authors specify the table at the
beginning of the paragraph following the findings shown in each table (e.g. “Table1 shows […].
We found that […]). If there are relevant analyses/calculations now shown in the tables, please
indicate so by adding between brackets “not shown in the table”.
3) The study concludes that this study would be useful for medical practitioners to help improve
the quality of life of infertile women. I would like the authors to elaborate on this in more detail
and propose specific strategies in which this can be helpful (it can be both in the context of Iran
or globally).
4) I would like the authors to extend a bit the discussion and talk about the male factor. While
findings in this study suggest that it is less associated with some variables of women’s sexual
dysfunction, I would like to briefly see why that may be the case and why it is important to know.
Title: Does prevalence of sexual dysfunction differ among the most common causes of
infertility? A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Flavia Fairbanks
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
First of all I would like to congratulate you for your effort and also for this opportunity to
contribute here with you!
After reading carefully the manuscript I have few considerations in order to improve it:
1. How was assessed the main cause of infertility among these couples? It should be mentioned
because some causes could coexist, others could be excusive... endometriosis, for example, was
diagnosed through laparoscopy with biopsies or only through clinical findings?
2. Did you use the common FSFI cut off index to define FSD (26.55)? You should have
mentioned this important infomation, too... I believe you've use it.
3. In your opinion, how is it possible that endometriosis' patients have lower pain scores
than fertile women or other groups patients? That's why is so important to establish how this
endometriosis diagnosis was defined (lines 150, 189 and also table2).
4. About the prevalence of FSD between endometriosis and PCOS patients: wasn't it too high?
From 2013 to 2016 our group in Brazil studied more than a thousand patients with endometriosis
and we found 43,3% of FSD in these women. It was supported by others studies at that time.
Your results showed almost 98% of FSD among the PCOS group and 100% among the EDT
group. These numbers are impressive!
I'll give here this reference just in order to give you these data:
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017 Jul;33(7):544-547.
doi: 10.1080/09513590.2017.1302421. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
Endometriosis doubles the risk of sexual dysfunction: a cross-sectional study in a large amount
of patients
Flávia Fairbanks  1 , Carmita Helena Abdo  2 , Edmund C Baracat  1 , Sergio Podgaec
5. In line 182 you've mentioned that some patients were using contraceptives during their
infertile treatments... it is better to clarify it.
Thank you so much, again!
Title: Does prevalence of sexual dysfunction differ among the most common causes of
infertility? A cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Flavia Fairbanks
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I thank you for the objective answers for my comments. Some rewritten sentences now allow
better understanding.
I appreciate the inclusion of how PCOS, male infertility and  endometriosis were diagnosed, ando
also the explanation about the contraceptive use among pacients who were trying to conceive.
This study  will be useful for general practitioners. Dealing with female sexual dysfunctions
(FSD) is a challenge everywhere.
I agree with your comments about the difficulties to establish the main (or major) cause of FSD,
due to its range of possibilities. I would recommend to insert at least a sentence mentioning
about particularities related to your own population which might be interfering on the results;
just in order to guarantee that specific issues were also considered.
I am satisfied with your modifications for this moment.
Thank you for the opportunity to collaborating with you.
Title: Does prevalence of sexual dysfunction differ among the most common causes of
infertility? A cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the work taken to make and address the suggested changes. In comment 3 where I
suggest that the authors elaborate on how these findings can improve clinical practice, however,
I did not see any information added in the discussion to address this suggestion. I find every
other change appropriate. I appreciate that the authors added an ANCOVA test for robustness
check. I also appreciate the change in wording to make the description of tables and results more
clearly. I kindly request the authors to address comment 3, and I believe the paper will soon be
ready for publishing.
Title: Does prevalence of sexual dysfunction differ among the most common causes of
infertility? A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 28 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Flavia Fairbanks
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you so much for this opportunity of reviewing your manuscript again!
Adding those sentences bring us the reliability in understanding the particularities of Iranian
population.
I really appreciated the final revision. You made a great job!
Title: Domestic violence in Indian women: lessons from nearly 20 years of surveillance
Version: 4 Date: 30 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Angela Taft
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your responses to our review. I am happy with the majority of your responses,
although it was a shame our line numbers were different.  I have a further small few just to make
the study as clear as possible, as it is an important one.
1.  Small but two more 'heads' to 'headings' in lines 108 and 111.
2. Subheadings in your discussion. It is a large text section and I suggest you signpost even by
crime headings and then one for limitations. You have responded well to these and it is now
clear what they are.
3. 260-261. This sentence is not one and requires a little tweaking.
I look forward to citing this study.
Title: Respectful delivery care and associated factors among mothers delivered in public health
facilities of Dessie city, Northeast Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper produced knowledge on an important topic: respectful care.  It was generally reported
in a straightforward manner. Please see below on how to strengthen the paper:
The paper is full of grammatical errors which impact the general flow of the paper.  Review
each line carefully to ensure sentences are constructed correctly and are relaying the intended
message.
In the background section, line 53, cross-check the reported statistics on respectful care in the
different countries listed.
In the methods section, line 85, the authors should provide justification for the exclusion and
inclusion of participants.
The section on "operational definitions" is helpful but the authors should introduce the reasons
for defining the concepts as this will aid in the flow of the paper.
The authors failed to provide an explanation for their choice of variables such as delivery,
maternal education and occurrence of any maternal and/or fetal complication and their
association  with respectful delivery care.
This paper would be strengthened by deeper reflections on why the associated factors impacted
respectful care. For instance, is the level of oversight and accountability different during the
daytime vs nighttime? Give some more insights into the impact of these variables.
What are the limitations of this study? How would the study be improved on through further
research?
Title: Respectful delivery care and associated factors among mothers delivered in public health
facilities of Dessie city, Northeast Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript have shown much improvement and almost all of my concerns have
been addressed. But I kindly suggest the authors not to put the study participants on the grounds
they may be asked legally while describing the possible reasons for the association of daytime
childbirth with respectful care.
Title: Perceptions and Attitude of women of Luderitz, Namibia on Pap smear and cervical cancer
prevention
Version: 3 Date: 12 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a cross-sectional study with limited sample size to describe the perception and attitudes
of women from Luderitz on Pap smear. While current manuscript has some major weakness:
1. Language problem: the manuscript requires careful revision from a native English speaker.
2. The current manuscript was poorly constructed from scientific perspective. For example: in
“RESULT” part, the author used sub-titles such as “descriptive statistics”, “logistic regression
model” etc, which were unusual. Please follow the general scientific writing standard.
3. The result part needs to be re-organized. For example: authors used table2 only to describe
the residential areas of respondents, while this is one of the sociodemographic variables which
could be merged into Table 1. No need for making a separate table.
4. Please carefully check each figure in the manuscript to avoid mistakes. For example: in Table
1 “Number of women with 0 children was 732 ?? While total N of study participants was 136.
Similar mistakes or spelling error were quite common in whole manuscript, please carefully
check!
5. Usually, it is required that Tables should be independent to the text. While In Table 4: one
could not understand what is the meaning of “single response, two responses, one of the correct
responses, etc...” unless going further to the relative text. Similarly, in Table 6 : “how many
times” for what?
Please check whole tables for similar problems.
6. Statistical method: Pearson correlation is used to evaluate the correlation between two
quantitative (continuous) variables, while author used Pearson correlation to evaluate the
relationship between categorical variables (the age, employment status, etc.. and screening
uptake) in Table 8. This is not appropriate.
Overall, please carefully revise the manuscript.
Title: Perceptions and Attitude of women of Luderitz, Namibia on Pap smear and cervical cancer
prevention
Version: 5 Date: 04 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
The previous comments well replied. My last concern are regarding to:
1) Language needs to be polished again for overall manuscript.
2)Please avoid minor mistakes which should not appear at current status, for example:
--Page 3:" cervical 15 cancer in 2013 " , why there appears "15"?
--Page 3: "39 cervical cancer cases have been reported in the! Karas region" , please delete "!"
before Karas region.
Similar mistakes exist in other pages, Please CHECK whole manuscript carefully before next
submission!
Title: Levels, patterns and determinants of using reversible contraceptives for limiting family
planning in India: Evidence from National Family Health Survey, 2015-16
Version: 2 Date: 08 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Anjali Pandey
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This research work is a sound attempt to explore the Levels, patterns and determinants of using
reversible contraceptives for stopping childbearing. But as a reviewer and researcher in relevant
area, I was looking for some new determinants identified by this study in addition to already
established ones to w.r.t. the considered outcome variables. The study lacks in doing the same.
Also, the methodology used for investigation suffers following shortcomings.
1. Before proceeding for application of logistic regression, authors should have verified whether
there is any association between considered explanatory variables and outcome variables or not.
2. Model fitting for fitted logistic regression to the given data has not been investigated.
3. Extent to which the logistic model correctly classifies the women under consideration
according to three considered outcomes has not been investigated.
Title: Longitudinal inconsistencies in women’s self-reports of lifetime experience of physical
and sexual IPV: Evidence from the MAISHA trial and follow-on study in North-western
Tanzania
Version: 0 Date: 20 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Summary: This is a longitudinal analysis using data from a cluster-randomized controlled trial
to describe factors associated with discrepant disclosure of different types of IPV over time.
Interviewers asked study participants the same sexual and physical IPV questions at three time
points. Of those that experienced physical IPV and sexual IPV at baseline, 62% and 73%,
respectively, no longer reported lifetime IPV at subsequent time points. To better understand
why, the authors explored potential factors (i.e., baseline and IPV characteristics). The authors
found that individuals who experienced more severe, more recent, and/or more types of IPV
were less likely to give discrepant responses.
Overall, this study is very well-written and is incredibly important to the field of violence
research to help improve the way in which we measure violence. I only have very minor
comments for the authors to address.
Methods:
1. The authors mention that the violence questions were adapted from the VAW Instrument.
How were they adapted?
2. Why did the authors select financial hardship, mental health, and partner communication as
possible factors associated with discrepant reporting?
3. Did the authors adjust for multiple testing or assume that the hypothesis involving each
outcome (sexual vs. physical IPV) were of independent interest?
4. What statistical program was used to conduct the analysis?
Discussion:
1. The authors discuss the possible reasons behind the statistically significant results, but do not
discuss their thoughts behind the association between financial hardship and fewer discrepant
results. It would add to the manuscript if the authors  would provide some possible explanations
for this association.
2. I would hesitate to explicitly recommend wording changes to questions without having tested
whether or not this would lead to an improvement in discrepant reporting.
It was a pleasure to review your manuscript!
Title: Longitudinal inconsistencies in women’s self-reports of lifetime experience of physical
and sexual IPV: Evidence from the MAISHA trial and follow-on study in North-western
Tanzania
Version: 1 Date: 04 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your detailed response to the reviewers and your careful consideration of my
feedback. I am satisfied with each of the points raised and the revisions made, and I have no
further comments. I look forward to seeing this manuscript in print.
Title: Association between Mass Media exposure and endorsement of HIV infected Female
Teachers teaching: Insight from 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 0 Date: 03 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Eric Lawer Torgbenu
Reviewer's report:
Authors have explored the association between mass media and  whether HIV infected female
teachers should be allowed to teach in Ghana. The authors may address the attached comments
to improve the readability and quality of the paper.
Title: Association between Mass Media exposure and endorsement of HIV infected Female
Teachers teaching: Insight from 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 0 Date: 02 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Akosua Baddoo
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study with useful findings.  A few edits needed to  conform with
international nomenclature as well as some grammatical errors .
Once the revision is done, i suggest  the paper is accepted for publication.
Title: Association between Mass Media exposure and endorsement of HIV infected Female
Teachers teaching: Insight from 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey
Version: 2 Date: 05 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Akosua Baddoo
Reviewer's report:
The authors have studied the association between being exposed to mass media and endorsing
female teachers to continue teaching in an interesting paper. After the previous review, the
quality of the paper has markedly improved with the suggestions made from the reviews.
I propose it is good enough to be published.