Title: Adaptability and Clinical applicability of UFS-QoL in Chinese Women with Uterine
Fibroid
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper presents information about the adaptation and application of an instrument that
evaluates quality of life of Chinese women with uterine fibroids. The authors have met the
methodologic criteria needed to show that the instrument has reliability and ability to detect
change after treatment to all domains measured, except for one, self-consciousness, which does
not invalid the study.
Comments about the sections of the manuscript:
ABSTRACT: It is concisely written and provides all the information needed.
ABBREVIATIONS: Add the abbreviations MRI, FDA, PRO and RMB (used on Table S1).
HIGHLIGHTS: It is suggested that the authors change the order they appear, so that the positive
results are shown first. First display highlight #3, then a second one with another positive
aspect of the research. Finally, a highlight that unifies the information given on #1 and #2,
such as: “Self-consciousness domain in UFS-QOL showed both poor internal consistency and
detectability in 6 and 12 months after treatment, and needs further investigation on cultural
adjustment.”
INTRODUCTION: A full review about the subject is given. (a) It is suggested that the following
sentence should be reviewed, “Validation the UFS-QoL questionnaire have been created in
Brazilian, Portuguese,[18, 19] Spanish,[16] traditional Chinese,[20] and simplified Chinese
languages.[21]”; substituting ‘have been created’ by ‘[…] have been performed to Brazilian
Portuguese, [18, 19] […]”. (b) On page 8, the sentence “[..] the efficacy of UFS-QoL need
further verification plagued with inadequate sample size.” is not quite understandable, perhaps
it could be written “[..] the efficacy of UFS-QoL need further verification because of inadequate
sample size.”.
METHODS: The methods are very well described, in a very clear and orderly way. It is necessary
to substitute “role-physical” and “role-emotional” by “physical role” and “emotional role”,
respectively, throughout the manuscript (including at the abbreviations section and the tables).
RESULTS: The statistical analyses are well performed and offers sound results. It is suggested
that the authors do not underline any information on the manuscript, even though they consider it
relevant.  (a) Please explain what the authors refer to with the expression “parent questionnaires”.
Are they the questionnaires of the original study? (b) Please review the information about the
ceiling effects of sexual functioning presented on page 15, as it repeats 15.18% instead of 16,96%
(as shown on Table S4). (c) At the 5th line of the 2nd paragraph of page 16, notice that “SRM”
is misspelled as “SEM”. Also, please, review the information given about the mean change in
score because they are not similar to the results on Table 5; it is important to clarify the difference
between 6- and 12-months follow up scores.
DISCUSSION: It is also very concise and straightforwardly written, relating the results with the
literature; it adequately presents the strengths and limitations of the study.
CONCLUSION: Adequate.
REFERENCES: need reviewing to follow BMC’s standards.
Besides the suggestions before mentioned, it is suggested that the complete manuscript should
have an idiomatic review (especially to what concerns the use of articles and punctuation). As
a non-native English speaker, it is my opinion that those revisions are always welcomed. #