JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Mother-daughter communication of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) matters and
associated factors among Sinhalese adolescent girls aged 14-19 years, in Sri Lanka
Version: 4 Date: 18 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Hi author,
Some of the comments, that  were given in the previous round, have not been addressed. Would
you please address them or provide justifications. Example, Table 6. It s not clear why footnote
has been included to indicate the *confounders* . The variables you have listed as confounders
have already been included in the table. For me, this would make sense if you did model the
association between a single exposure variable and  the outcome of interest, and adjusted the
model for some confounders. But, I don't think this was what you did.  Again , you have used the
same single asterisk (*) to indicate different concepts.   Therefore,  I would strongly recommend
refining the table (including the title)  or providing  sound justifications.
The same goes for Table 5, I don't think that the title of the table matches with the content. I
previously suggested to make "The source of sexual health information ", but this has not been
addressed.
Thanks,
Title: Mother-daughter communication of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) matters and
associated factors among Sinhalese adolescent girls aged 14-19 years, in Sri Lanka
Version: 7 Date: 07 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing the previous comments. Although the manuscript is now shaping
well, still there are some sections that needs to be refined.  For example, when you just read
the abstract, the conclusion you have made is not well aligned with the study objective.  The
objective was about the SRH topics discussed between mothers and daughters, barriers, and
associations of SRH communication, but the conclusion is just about "source of information".
I would suggest revisiting your results or findings and making your conclusion as you have
already got all the required information, but without repeating the findings/results themselves.
See your objective and conclusion side by side:
Objective: "To assess the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) topics discussed between
mothers and daughters, barriers, and associations of SRH communication among Sinhala
adolescent girls aged 14-19 years in Sri Lanka"
Conclusions and recommendations: "Adolescent girls identified the mothers as a good source of
SRH information. Mothers' contribution as a primary source of SRH information to adolescent
girls when planning adolescent sexual health interventions needs to be considered."
Discussion:  It would be nice to summaries the findings in two or three lines before directly
jumping into comparing the findings with those from the previous studies.  See for example,
how you have started your discussion. "The present study findings were on par with previous
studies which indicate that the mother is a preferred source of SRH information to the adolescent
girls in our study setting (14)".  I don't think this is convenient for readers. And it is not clear
which study finding (s) "were on par "with previous studies.
Implications and Contributions of the Manuscript: This section is not clear, and I don't think it
is relevant at all as some of the points included have already been addressed in the preceding
sections.
Title: Pregnancy risk and contraception among reproductive-age women with rheumatic heart
disease attending care at a tertiary cardiac center in Tanzania: a hospital-based cross- sectional
study
Version: 2 Date: 21 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
General comments: an important focus on the impact of RHD in women in Tanzania, a sub-
Saharan country with a high burden of RHD.  Main comment: given the high percentage of
women in the mWHO IV risk category, more specific detail is required in results (Table 2) to
map cardiac pathology against mWHO classification. Review editing, spelling and grammar
throughout manuscript for clarity. See other comments and queries below.
ABSTRACT Line 8 “Reproductive-age women with echocardiographically diagnosed RHD
were consecutively recruited from in- and out-patients units of JKCI.”
Specify ‘non-pregnant’ as part of inclusion.
“JKCI’ spell out or rename to clarify.
MANUSCRIPT
Background Lines 5-6 “In Africa, RHD contributes up to 30% of heart diseases during
pregnancy(3) and is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes including martenal mortality(4).”
Consider references here - Ref 3 refers to South Africa study not all Africa – or specify Sth
Africa. Check spelling (and throughout manuscript).
Methods Study participants Lines 20-21 exclusion criteria. Clarify exclusion of women with
“surgical correction of the RHD lesions” – does this include valvuloplasty? At any point, or
at the index admission? Were any women excluded based on severity of cardiac impairment?
What was the total number of eligible women invited to participate ie how many declined?
Results Table 2 Define ‘mildly reduced’ (30-45%?) and  ‘reduced ejection fraction’ (<30%?)
Did you grade degree of valve regurg and stenosis (particularly mitral?)
Results Figure 1 More clarity on how women were categorised into mWHO risk – see above –
map echo results to mWHO classification.
Results Table 3 Contraception – specify type of implant, injection
Discussion “Combined oral contraceptives are prone to drug- drug interactions and carry a pro-
thrombotic risk and hence may not be a good alternative among most in this patient population
especially those on warfarin, left atrial enlargement and a previous history of thromboembolism”
Were data on women taking anticoagulation (particularly warfarin) collected.
Were data collected on gravidity/parity
REFERENCES See above comment on ref 3.
Several of the other study references were 10+ years’ old – consider eg the ROPAC study EHJ
2019, Snelgrove et al 2021 Global Heart. Also Mocumbi et al RHD in pregnancy https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-63982-8.00009-X
Title: Pregnancy risk and contraception among reproductive-age women with rheumatic heart
disease attending care at a tertiary cardiac center in Tanzania: a hospital-based cross- sectional
study
Version: 3 Date: 28 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made several constructive changes.  I note the following:
Abstract - an unwanted pregnancy is different to an unplanned pregnancy which is different
to a medically unadvised pregnancy.  Unless the women were asked, it cannot be assumed the
pregnancies were unwanted, regardless of cardiac risk and advice received. It would perhaps be
simplest to describe the pregnancies as unplanned throughout the manuscript.
Regarding the finding that almost 50% of women who reported not being provided contraceptive
advice, further research into the practice of the attending cardiologists will be invaluable in
reducing unplanned pregnancies.
Title: Women’s knowledge and attitudes to the menopause: a comparison of women over 40
who were in the perimenopause, post menopause and those not in the peri or post menopause
Version: 3 Date: 11 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Debra Holloway
Reviewer's report:
a comprehensive and interesting survey adding to evidence around education  and women's
knowledge of menopause. no revisions
Title: Women’s knowledge and attitudes to the menopause: a comparison of women over 40
who were in the perimenopause, post menopause and those not in the peri or post menopause
Version: 3 Date: 31 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Tim Hillard
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written manuscript that covers a really important subject.
The survey is well designed and presented and the narrative surrounding each section in the
discussion is thoughtful and informative. The referencing is up to date and relevant and this
paper compliments other recent publications in this topic area. I would recommend publication.
There are a few minor comments:
The limitations of this type of online survey through social media are acknowledged, particularly
the lack of diversity in their respondents. It would be helpful for the authors to speculate how
they might get a broader perspective of women's views.
P21 - It is worth noting that there are many ways that primary care can deliver information other
than just through a GP consultation.
P22 - One of the problems with online information is the lack of reliability or check on content.
Thus there is a risk that women will be influenced by certain messages (good or bad) that may
have no scientific foundation.
P25 - negative attitudes to the menopause may also be reinforced by hearing the many stories
of  women, some high profile, who have such a terrible time with the menopause. There is a
lack of counterbalance with women who do not have terrible time or who quietly manage it
without publicity.
Title: Infiltrative solid papillary carcinoma of the breast with axillary lymph node metastasis:
A case report
Version: 0 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting case of a rare breast tumor, well written and argumented. However, I have
some questions:
- Why it was decided to perform a modified radical mastectomy and not a nipple sparing
mastectomy? The NAC complex was infiltrated?
- A breast reconstruction was performed?
- How many lymph nodes were involved?
Furthermore, I think could be very interesting to compare histologic and instrumental features
of ISPC with other breast tumors, like ductal, lobular or breast sarcoma
Title: Infiltrative solid papillary carcinoma of the breast with axillary lymph node metastasis:
A case report
Version: 0 Date: 16 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I’ve carefully read your case report, it’s interesting and  it gives a good overview of a rare
condition.
SPC is hard to recognize, often misdiagnosed with other conditions and sometimes it takes a
careful review of the specimen.
The article is well designed, it is important to achieve a consistent number of cases like this since
there are a very few articles about this specific topic.
The manuscript is mostly centred on the pathology features so I found the clinical part a little
poor.
Please improve what concerns the preoperative planning and the procedure because some points
are not clear :
- Did you perform a cytology/biopsy of the mass preoperatively? I guess not because I read
about an intraoperative frozen section of the mass, why?
- Did you perform a cytology of the lymph nodes preoperatively?
- Did you perform a sentinel node biopsy or you had a  lymph node cytology already positive?
- Did the patient receive any reconstruction?
I think these details and the related motivations could be  useful to fully understand the scenario.
I hope the authors will accept my advices and I believe this manuscript deserves to be accepted
for publication.
I would be glad to revise the new version.
Kindly regards
Title: Hysteroscopic management of uterine diverticulum after myomectomy: A case report
Version: 1 Date: 19 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This case report has a unique viewpoint that a uterine diverticulum that developed after resection
of cervical myoma resembles a symptomatic cesarean scar defect.
1. It is true that the uterine diverticulum in this case resembles the so-called cesarean scar
syndrome.
However, in the last sentence, the authors argue that the defect of post myomectomy and cesarean
scar defect may be combined as hysterotomy defect, but this inference is somewhat overstated.
First, the frequency of occurrence of the two defects is different. Second, in the case of a cesarean
section, the uterine incision wound and the scar defect coincide, but in this patient, in which 26
myomas were removed, the location of the uterine diverticulum and the uterine incision may
be different, and the mechanisms of the defect formation may also be different. Hence, it is not
possible to determine from this one case alone whether all uterine diverticula after myomectomy
present the same symptoms and pathology as cesarean scar syndrome.
2. Moreover, in this sense, I believe that the citation number 3 in the sentence in line 42 is
misleading the readers. This is because the hysterotomy in the paper of No. 3 is about cesarean
section only.
3. Also, add the phrase "in cesarean sections" to line 104, since Vikhareva's report is about
incisional position for cesarean section and not for the enucleation of uterine myoma.
4. Since this case is a patient undergoing infertility treatment, it would be desirable to include
the results of the cryopreserved embryo transfer.
5. I think it would be better to add a figure of immunostaining of CD138 positive cells in the
endometrium before and after the surgery.
Title: Hysteroscopic management of uterine diverticulum after myomectomy: A case report
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal.  In this study
the authors discuss about the first report of symptomatic improvement following hysteroscopic
surgery in a patient with an iatrogenic uterine diverticulum with persistent irregular bleeding
after myomectomy.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers' attention and meets
all criteria for publication. The paper is well written and has important clinical messages.
Nevertheless, the authors should improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles
about the topic and the treatment of cesarean scar defect (CSD) with office hysteroscopy.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
-Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
-In the last years second-generation techniques have been used in hysteroscopy with good
results. These new techniques could open new frontiers in the treatment of CSD.
Please refer to these articles:
PMID: 26954490
Also I would highlight the role of office hysteroscopy having a key-role in the diagnostic work-
up of infertile couples.
Please refer to:PMID: 24779234
Title: Determinants of Precancerous Cervical Lesion Among HIV Infected Women on ART in
Woldia Comprehensive Specialized Hospital NorthEast Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Miresa Midaksa
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript finding is  worthful.
But a few comments which are addressed as follows should be corrected and incorporated well:
Methods and Materials
1. Operational definitions:- How relevant it is? If so it is better if operationally defined clauses…
are very limited considering their relevance.
2.  Data collection tools and Procedures:- Rephrase in report fashion and contextualize relating
the issue.
3.  Data quality control:- Better if removed and considered data collection tool and procedure
part.
4.  Ethical consideration:- Not relevant because it was described under declarations part.
Title: Effects of sleep pattern, duration, and quality on premenstrual syndrome and primary
dysmenorrhea in Korean high school girls
Version: 1 Date: 14 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesting study which explored the PMSS and sleep quality.
1. The title is 'Effects of sleep pattern, duration, and quality on premenstrual syndrome and
primary dysmenorrhea in Korean high school girls "during the COVID-19 pandemic".
However, the theme is not clearly related with COVID-19 pandemic.
If you explore the changes in sleep in pandemic, the effect of PMSS on sleep quality was not
examined mainly. Oppositely, if  you explored the changes in PMSS in pandemic, you did not
appropriately describe it in the introduction section.
2. If you explored the relationship in pandemic, pandemic related rating scales such as "Stress
and Anxiety to Viral Epidemic-6" or "Coronavirus Anxiety Scale"... needs to be included in the
questionnaire to adjust the effect of pandemic. However, the authors did not include it.
Title: Effects of sleep pattern, duration, and quality on premenstrual syndrome and primary
dysmenorrhea in Korean high school girls
Version: 1 Date: 09 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
It was a pleasure to review your manuscript. This study, entitled "Effects of sleep pattern,
duration, and quality on premenstrual syndrome and primary dysmenorrhea in Korean high
school girls during the COVID-19 pandemic", is a cross-sectional survey study to assess sleep
pattern, duration, and quality on premenstrual syndrome and primary dysmenorrhea in girls aged
15 to 18, and to identify the significant predictors of dysmenorrhea and PMS. Main concerns
are as follows.
(1) Stepwise multiple regression model doesn't applicable to test the causal and effect
relationship, which is not matched the purposes of this study.
(2) Sleep was categorized as good or poor based on? It is unclear to describe in the manuscript.
(3) However, the main problems of this study are sleep pattern, duration and quality, and the
content of PSQI to measure same concepts.
(4) What is the main dependent variable in this study?
Title: Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery: multi-center retrospective cohort study of
reproductive outcome.
Version: 3 Date: 12 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study describes a retrospective analysis of hysteroscopic surgery outcomes related to
fertility.
The following would improve the quality of the manuscript prior to publication.
Abstract, Methods: What were the statistical methods used? How can the outcomes be in 3
different categories?
The results in the abstract should be more condensed to the most important findings from the
study.
The introduction does not require subheadings. In the objectives, the first aim is not a complete
sentence.
Was age considered an inclusion/exclusion criterium?
Was pregnancy always desired post surgery? What if women did not want more children?
The study should be revised for English language use prior to publication.
Title: Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery: multi-center retrospective cohort study of
reproductive outcome.
Version: 4 Date: 02 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I carefully evaluated the revised version of this manuscript.
The authors have performed the required changes, improving significantly the quality of the
paper."
Title: Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery: multi-center retrospective cohort study of
reproductive outcome.
Version: 4 Date: 03 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this interesting paper. Here some suggestions:
ABSTRACT
The abstract is clear and well structured. However, in result section many data are reported (also
p values). I would simplify this section, reporting very briefly the main results of the study.
INTRODUCTION
The introduction is clear and connected to the aims of the study. However, I would add at the
beginning of this section some epidemiological information (international, national, …) related
to the problem.
METHODS
This section is clear.
RESULTS
This section is clear and well structured.
DISCUSSION
This section is clear and well structured. Please add some implication for practice, research and
organization.
Title: Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery: multi-center retrospective cohort study of
reproductive outcome.
Version: 5 Date: 20 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I carefully evaluated the revised version of this manuscript.
The authors have performed the required changes, improving significantly the quality of the
paper.
Title: Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery: multi-center retrospective cohort study of
reproductive outcome.
Version: 5 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer:  Waleed Arif Tawfeeq
Reviewer's report:
This is a historical cohort study NOT a retrospective Cohort study
The title should focus on septal repair and submucosal myoma
General review for the introduction
Major rephrasing and re-writing of the methodology
Checking the tables and correct the number as SHOWN in the attached file
Title: Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery: multi-center retrospective cohort study of
reproductive outcome.
Version: 5 Date: 29 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
- What is the reference that the author used to calculate primary outcome?
- Submucous myoma can be the cause of infertility and septate uterus is known as the cause
of recurrent miscarriage then unexplained infertility should not be used to explain the included
participants.
- Why did this study involve the participant with two different intrauterine conditions?
- What is the normal range of serum AMH level?
Title: Fertility-enhancing hysteroscopic surgery: multi-center retrospective cohort study of
reproductive outcome.
Version: 5 Date: 11 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
I am really pleased to review this article . I think that the abstract is well organized and clear.
I think that maybe an aspect should be highlighted in the discussion.  In my opinion,  the
possibility of a diffential diagnosis with malignities should be evaluated ,  in order to complete
the topic and its discussion. In particular I suggest these two articles to analyze this aspetc :
PMID: 36833105 and PMID: 36979434. Because of these reasons, the article should be revised
and completed. Considered all these points, I think it could be of interest for the readers and, in
my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published after minor revisions.