JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Handgrip strength and menopause are associated with cardiovascular risk in women with
obesity: a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 26 Feb 2025
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall, this study evaluating the relationship between handgrip
strength and cardiovascular disease risk is appropriately designed and conducted to address the
research question.
The methods need some work to be complete. I think this biggest challenge is that there are so
many studies that have evaluated the relationship between handgrip strength and cardiovascular
disease risk it is difficult to see how this study adds meaningful insight.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the abstract, it seem that the authors are stating that handgrip strength over 37.8 kg is a risk
factor. Please revise.
In the methods, the authors should state they measured body mass (not weight) since they then
calculate body mass index. Were the measurements of mass and height taken with or without
shoes?  What other clothes were worn by the subjects? To what precision does the stadiometer
measure?
Were the participants given any instructions for diet or physical activity prior to DXA? (both
can affect DXA accuracy).
More details on handgrip measurements are needed. Was it right hand, left hand, dominant hand,
or both hands? Seated or standing? Bent or straight arm?
When was blood pressure assessed and how?
The authors should tone down their statement about being the first to evaluate "the predictive
value of the HGS test in screening  for cardiovascular risk in women with obesity"  There
have been lots of studies correlating handgrip strength with CVD in women with and without
obesity and before / after menopause.  This paper may be the first to focus specifically on
obese postmenopausal women, but there are other larger studies that have evaluated this subject
population within their overall larger number of subjects.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I really think the authors need to strengthen their justification that this project is truly necessary,
both in the introduction and in the discussion
Title: Handgrip strength and menopause are associated with cardiovascular risk in women with
obesity: a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 01 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Tongyu Ma
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Using HGS as a diagnostic test
for CVD risk is novel. However, my main concern is that there isn't a good cut-off point
for HGS that yields high sensitivity and high specificity, indicating that HGS alone is not a
sufficient diagnostic tool to predict CVD risks. As stated by the author about the "utility of
HGS measurement as a straightforward, valuable, and complementary tool for cardiovascular
prevention," I recommend adding more specific evidence to support which established tests HGS
complements and how combining HGS with established tests can make the prediction of CVD
risks more accurate.
Title: Handgrip strength and menopause are associated with cardiovascular risk in women with
obesity: a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 18 Mar 2025
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: The authors have adequately addressed all of my concerns in the
revised manuscript. I think the revised manuscript is now much more compete and clear.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I do not see any further revisions that are necessary for this manuscript.
Title: Development and Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model for Osteoporosis Risk
Prediction in Korean Women
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
It is an honor to be able to read the results of this study. This study can provide basic data for
preventing osteoporosis in women. I offer the following suggestions for further advancement
of the study.
Abstract
In this study, age at menopause was not the only significant factor identified.
Background
Several studies have used machine learning to identify osteoporosis risk factors (references
no. 25, 26, 27). Please describe the need for research on osteoporosis in “Korean women” in
particular.
Discussion
The discussion in this study is limited to listing factors and adding one or two related previous
research results. Please discuss in depth the implications of previous research and the results of
this study. Additionally, as with research methods, I recommend that variables be categorized
and described in the discussion.
Please add to this the important clinical and community implication of this study.
Title: Trends and survival benefits of bilateral breast-conserving surgery in patients with
metachronous bilateral breast cancer
Version: 2 Date: 03 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, real-world data from the SEER database were used to analyze the likelihood of
breast cancer represervation after breast conservation. The topic of the study is of great clinical
significance and interesting. Several questions and suggestions  as followed need to be verified
and revised.
Q1. The use of acronyms is not standardized enough, which makes it inconvenient for readers to
read. It is suggested that the abbreviations of surgical methods in this paper should be normalized
and standardized.
Q2. In the abstract and results, the description of the research object is not clear enough, and it
is not easy to understand the object and population of the analysis when reading.
Q3. In the abstract#"Univariate Cox analysis identified BCS as an independent favorable
prognostic factor for OS (HR=0.717, 95% CI 0.649-0.791; P < 0.001) and BCSS (HR=0.484,
95% CI 0.422-0.556; P < 0.001)".  There are some errors for this sentence, univariate analysis
can not analyze independent factors, please verify and ask statisticians to help analysis. The
corresponding result part and discussion part need to be modified accordingly.
Q4. In the section of  Surgical patterns, Please specify the encoding of various surgical
procedures in the SEER database to improve the reproducibility of the study.
Q5. When analyzing the influencing factors of surgical methods, no HER2 analysis was found
in the table. Because HER2 is an important biomarker of breast cancer, it is recommended to
include in the analysis.
Q6. In terms of prognostic analysis, HER2 was not included in the analysis in the research
paper, and it is recommended to be included.  Because HER2 is not only an important prognostic
indicator, but also an important targeted therapy indicator.
Q7. In the multivariate prognostic analysis model, tumor stage, T stage and lymph node status
were included in the model, and there was a certain overlap effect among the three variables. It
is recommended to verify the model and consult a statistical expert.
Q8. Because bilateral breast cancer may have higher BRCA gene mutations, and the treatment
of patients is more complex than that of unilateral breast cancer. However, the SEER database
does not provide these more detailed data. Therefore, it is recommended that a detailed analysis
be carried out in the discussion section to objectively explain and analyze the limitations.
Title: Translation and Psychometrics of the HPV Impact Profile in Iranian Women
Version: 1 Date: 14 May 2024
Reviewer:  Hamid Sharif-Nia
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I would like to express my gratitude for allowing me the opportunity to delve into the study of
Translation and Psychometrics of the HPV Impact Profile in Iranian Women. I also extend my
appreciation to the authors for their dedication in crafting this article.
While the article is commendable, there are several areas that warrant attention from the authors:
1. The sample size utilized in this study is notably small. It is recommended to have a
minimum of 400 samples, with 200 allocated for exploratory factor analysis and another 200
for confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, it is imperative to acknowledge the limitations of
the study.
2. The methodology should be presented in a structured and coherent manner, detailing each
step in a logical sequence. This includes outlining the type of study, sample size, participant
demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the subsequent psychometric procedures.
3. When discussing the validity of the structure, it is essential to specify the type of rotation
employed.
4. The study should be classified as methodological rather than descriptive cross-sectional.
5. Instead of referencing a book (Reference 32), it is advisable to cite a
relevant article. For instance, consider referencing the following article: https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35432109/
6. If Permax rotation was utilized (which is assumed unless otherwise stated), it is recommended
to adhere to the approach outlined in the following article: https://npt.tums.ac.ir/index.php/npt/
article/view/2920
7. The references provided for the normal data section (References 40 and 41) do not align with
the information presented. It is crucial to provide accurate and appropriate references.
8. "Amos" should be capitalized throughout the article.
I trust that these suggestions will enhance the clarity and rigor of the study. Thank you for
considering these points.
Title: Translation and Psychometrics of the HPV Impact Profile in Iranian Women
Version: 3 Date: 28 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
General comment: Interesting paper reporting the cultural adaptation of a specific PRO into
Iranian. The manuscript reports a very comprehensive study covering all aspect that should be
followed to culturally adapt a tool for patient-reported-outcomes. Results are consistent with
what is expected to meet a tool with acceptable psychometric properties. The manuscript merit
to be published in BMC Women´s Health. Nevertheless, reviewer recommend authors to pay
attention to the following comment before the final manuscript can be accepted for publication:
• There is redundant mention of the total sample used to test psychometric properties of the
Iranian version of HIP. It is suggested to mention once only explaining what part was used to
run CFE and what sample to run EFA.
• Participants: there is an inconsistency between inclusion criteria (married women) as appears
in study design section, and participants finally included in the study as can be seen in table 1
and methods section. Please, clarify.
• It seems that the sentence “The assessment utilized a 4-point Likert scale with the following
options: "little," "somewhat," "much," and "very much." In the methods section of manuscript
(subheadings “psychometric properties”) is out of place or alternatively need explaining to what
property applies.
• In table 1 is included a column mention Mean (SD), but to what authors refers with this data?
Perhaps the mean score in HIP? If so, please, specify as a foot note.
• According with authors, CFA was applied to half of the sample (150 participants). If so, please
check the degree of freedom in table 3; 208 is correct?
• The discussion section would benefit by including some discussion about the difference in
the number of items and domains compared with the original version. Also, it could benefit
discussing in this way regarding others cultural adaptation of the instrument into Spanish,
Portuguese, etc.
• A possible limitation is that the domains and number of items differ than that of the original
scale. This mean, that while the whole HPV impact could be gathered with the Iranian version,
domains are different. Therefore, such aspect of quality-of-life explored with Iranian version
could be different that that explored with the original. This should be discuses also and authors
should explain how comparable would be results using HIP tool in the original language versus
Iranian language.
Title: The health-promoting lifestyle and its relationship with the impacts of endometriosis on
women's lives in Iran, 2022: a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for sending me the article
It was a good and new article. I tell the authors of the article not to be tired.
It is suggested to clearly explain the validity of the instrument.
The response rate of samples and spills should be stated.
Other parts (how to sample, introduction, discussion, etc.) were good.
Of course, you yourself mentioned the weakness of the study
Title: The health-promoting lifestyle and its relationship with the impacts of endometriosis on
women's lives in Iran, 2022: a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 05 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have read this manuscript with interest.  The manuscript reports on health-promoting lifestyle
and its correlation with the impact of endometriosis lives.  While the title seems appealing, the
manuscript itself does not provide much new information. The most problematic issues with this
submission are at least three fundamental deficiencies that make the study findings unsound.
1. Since the objective was indicating the correlation, the sample size could not be calculated
based on mean and SD. The authors need to recalculate the sample size for the study.
2. Relying on correlation analysis is very naive.  To achieve the study objectives more advanced
analyses are needed. As the authors might know in studies with relatively big samples all
correlation coefficients would become significant!
3. According to the above, the conclusion is not accurate.
4. The discussion section should be revised. At present it is very long and somewhat boring.
5. The manuscript needs extensive editing for language.
Title: The health-promoting lifestyle and its relationship with the impacts of endometriosis on
women's lives in Iran, 2022: a cross-sectional study
Version: 8 Date: 20 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Leila Amiri-Farahani
Reviewer's report:
the authors were performed most of comments very well. it is bettr to answer the rest of
comments of second reviers. there are no answr about them.  I hidhlighted them in the attached
file.
Title: The Effect of Educational Intervention Based on Protection Motivation Theory in
Improving Reproductive Health Protective Behaviors: A Quasi-experimental Study
Version: 0 Date: 30 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The type of study should be mentioned in the title
Why were female students chosen as the target group? It would have been better if this study
had been conducted on married women.
In the abstract section:
In the method section: The validity of the questionnaire should be mentioned.
In the conclusion section: The conclusion should be based on the results and with reference to
its application in reproductive health policy-making.
Check the keywords in the mesh.
In the introduction section:
The introduction is short, expand it.
The importance of the topic and the necessity of doing the work in this target group is not clear,
it seems that the group of girls is not a suitable target group. The importance of doing the study
in this target group should be stated by referring to the reference. Can this be clarified?
Before stating the purpose of the study, previous research should be mentioned and then the gap
of the study should be mentioned.
In the method section:
Explain the reason for choosing female students as the target group, what is the necessity of this
target group? Are young and single girls with an age range of 21 years a suitable target group?
Why was marital status, which is an important factor, not examined?
The inclusion and exclusion criteria provided need to be revised
Regarding the study instrument, please mention some questionnaire questions.
Provide explanations regarding the educational content and its validity.
In the results section:
More important demographic variables, including marriage, should be examined.
Report the effect size.
In the discussion section:
The studies and comparisons presented are few and in most cases irrelevant.
Justification and explanation of the results are not well reported.
The strengths mentioned are not appropriate and should be presented more carefully.
Complete the study limitations, including the self-reporting nature of the questionnaires.
Update old references.
Add references relevant to the study topic.
Title: The Effect of Educational Intervention Based on Protection Motivation Theory in
Improving Reproductive Health Protective Behaviors: A Quasi-experimental Study
Version: 0 Date: 02 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
I wish you success in your study.
Methods: How were the control and experimental groups blinded to each other's knowledge
sharing about the intervention in clinical, school and classroom settings?
Research hypothesis or questions or propositions can be added.
Discussion: The discussion of the findings of the study focused on the infrastructures of the
model. Discussion of the findings regarding the infrastructures of the model with the literature
should of course be given, but since the subject is infertility prevention behaviors, the study
findings should include the infertility dimension in addition to the discussion of the educational
method. I suggest structuring the discussion by referring to experimental studies on health-
protective behavioral interventions related to infertility.
Title: The Effect of Educational Intervention Based on Protection Motivation Theory in
Improving Reproductive Health Protective Behaviors: A Quasi-experimental Study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
While thanking the respected authors for editing the article, there are still some ambiguities
The importance of the necessity of doing the work in single girls has not yet been determined,
at least this title and purpose are not consistent with your study,
You conducted the educational intervention to improve infertile behaviors, but these behaviors
become important when these girls are married and about to become fertile
If these girls do not get married, what does it matter whether they have infertile behavior or not.
In principle, the choice of the target group is wrong
The second point is that improving infertile behaviors cannot be achieved with a questionnaire
alone and requires an objective indicator
Therefore, considering that it is not possible to change the target group, change the title and
purpose of the study in an acceptable way
Title: "Women's Experiences of Head and Neck Cancer: An Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis"
Version: 3 Date: 20 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper “Women who have undergone surgery
following head and neck cancer: interpretative phenomenological analysis”
The manuscript is well-written and addresses a significant subject impacting patients with head
and neck cancer, particularly women. We provide some suggestions for improvement.
The title is clear and accurately reflects the type of study. In the results section, the authors
present themes from the thematic analysis; this information should be included in the abstract.
In the introduction, the authors describe and contextualize the problem effectively. The research
question and the study's aim are clearly explained at the end of the introduction.
The methods are appropriate for the research objectives, and the procedures are well-explained.
The authors include a table with participant characteristics, which belongs in the results section
rather than the methods. Presenting the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants in the
methods is sufficient (this is already covered in the second paragraph of the methods section).
The results appear to be analyzed and interpreted correctly, with the authors including
representative excerpts from interviews for each category. Table 2 should be improved for better
legibility, as some words are split across two lines.
The discussion is well-structured, and the authors identify and analyze the study's limitations.
In conclusion, the authors discuss the study's impact and outline potential next steps.
References: In the manuscript, 33.8% of references are from 2019–2024. In the discussion,
54.4% are from 2019–2024. However, in the introduction, only 27.2% are from 2019–2024.
This should be improved to ensure that the manuscript reflects the latest literature.