JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with post-abortion contraceptive uptake at Mbagala
Hospital, Temeke, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Version: 6 Date: 12 Nov 2024
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?
No - there are major issues
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?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have attempted to respond to the prior critiques but some
moderate issues remain, primarily focused on the data collection methods
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I think the authors have attempted to respond to the previous comments but have not looked
holistically at the manuscript after making those changes. 1. lines 81-85 belong in the discussion
and don't make sense in the introduction. 2. Line 111 the exclusion criteria of need for a referral
is unclear. 3. Data collection methods - the description of the translation process is not rigorous.
4. Concerns remain about the validity of the single question to categorize respondents as being
knowledgeable or not. It is unclear if the (line 129) mentioning the counseling by a nurse
occurred before or after the survey? Was the question intended to measure how much knowledge
they retained after discussing with a nurse?
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with post-abortion contraceptive uptake at Mbagala
Hospital, Temeke, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Version: 7 Date: 08 Dec 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is a revised manuscript that has been highly responsive to the
prior reviews. One moderate concern remains about the translation process
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have been responsive to the prior reviews. Once issue remains - the authors have
not described the formal translation process - was it a forward/backward process? A certified
translator? How as the translation tested for comprehension?
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with post-abortion contraceptive uptake at Mbagala
Hospital, Temeke, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Version: 8 Date: 18 Jan 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 addressed the issue about the process of translation
and this explanation is  sufficient and included in the manuscript as well as the response letter
Title: Comparative Analysis of Spinal Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia in Single-Port
Access Laparoscopic Adnexal Surgery: A Propensity Score Matching Study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
It seems to be a very restrictive way to select patient indications for spinal anesthesia. It is
not clearly explained why spinal anesthesia is necessary for surgeries lasting less than 1 hour.
Also, the trendelenberg position angle is too small to make the surgery very uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, although you have done a good job, your research is not good enough to be
published.
Title: Comparative Analysis of Spinal Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia in Single-Port
Access Laparoscopic Adnexal Surgery: A Propensity Score Matching Study
Version: 3 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Daiki Hiratsuka
Reviewer's report:
I think authors responded to the reviewers' comments well.
This paper has become better after the revision.
Thank you.
Title: Comparative Analysis of Spinal Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia in Single-Port
Access Laparoscopic Adnexal Surgery: A Propensity Score Matching Study
Version: 3 Date: 12 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
You have diligently revised your manuscript to address the reviewers' points.
Your efforts are very much appreciated and your manuscript is definitely worthy of publication.
Title: Impact of a Breast Cancer Diagnosis on Finances and Marital Status in Young Women
Version: 1 Date: 22 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Atar Singh Kushwah
Reviewer's report:
1. The abstract lacks specific quantitative results, there's no mention of the statistical methods
used, which is important for understanding the robustness of the findings.
2. The literature review is comprehensive, but doesn't critically evaluate the existing research or
identify clear gaps that this study aims to fill. There's no clear statement of the study's hypotheses
or research questions. Some citations are quite old and could be updated with more recent
research.
3.  The sampling method (social media and online advocacy groups) may introduce significant
selection bias, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. There's no discussion of
power analysis or sample size justification. The survey instrument's validity and reliability are
not addressed. The categorization of cancer stages into "early" and "advanced" may oversimplify
the disease progression.
4. The high proportion of respondents with metastatic breast cancer (42.8%) is unusual and may
not be representative of the general young breast cancer population. This potential bias is not
addressed. The analysis doesn't account for potential confounding factors, such as time since
diagnosis or treatment type.
5. Some percentages don't add up to 100% (e.g., insurance status in Table 1), which should be
explained. The presentation of results could be more consistent across different demographic
factors.
6. The discussion section is missing from the provided excerpt, which is a significant omission.
This section is crucial for interpreting the results in the context of existing literature and
discussing implications.
7. The study's cross-sectional design limits causal inferences about the impact of breast cancer
diagnosis on employment and insurance status. The lack of a control group makes it difficult to
attribute changes solely to the breast cancer diagnosis.
8. The sample is predominantly white (85.4%), which limits the generalizability to other racial/
ethnic groups.
9. The time frame for data collection is unclear, as it mentions two separate periods (January
2021 to May 2021 and August 2021 to December 2022). The rationale for excluding responses
with missing data is not provided, and the potential impact of this exclusion is not discussed.
Title: Impact of a Breast Cancer Diagnosis on Finances and Marital Status in Young Women
Version: 1 Date: 24 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study exploring the economic vulnerability of young breast cancer
survivors, particularly in relation to changes in employment and insurance coverage.
I have a few comments:
- Introduction: The paragraph discussing intimate relationships and divorce should be framed
within the context of economics, as that is the central theme of your manuscript.
- Insurance Explanation: Please clarify the differences between private and public insurance for
non-American readers. Additionally, explain the implications of these insurance types on patient
care and the availability of social counseling programs during rehabilitation.
- Table 2: In the column labeled "less than 5 years from diagnosis," how is the number listed
(n=156) at T1 (time of diagnosis) possible? Shouldn't this number equal n=223 instead?
- Discussion: Please discuss your findings in the light of a similar study (Naughton MJ, et al.
Prevalence and correlates of job and insurance problems among young breast cancer survivors
within 18 months of diagnosis, BMC Cancer 2020).
Title: The Impact of progestogens on RAAS – a systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 31 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The systematic review by Singer et al. provides a comprehensive analysis of the effects of
various progestogens on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and their associated
clinical outcomes. The review is thorough and provides valuable insights, but some areas could
benefit from clarification, deeper analysis, and a few methodological improvements.
- The narrative synthesis may sometimes lack focus. Consider grouping results by progestogen
class and directly comparing findings to improve readability.
- Adding a table summarizing study quality and heterogeneity metrics could be beneficial.
- The review mentions the need for standardization but does not provide specific
recommendations. Offering guidance on study design, such as suggested RAAS parameters to
monitor and standardized dosages, could be a valuable addition.
- The overview table lacks a legend and a list of abbreviations.
- Please expand the discussion on the molecular mechanisms by which progestogens affect
RAAS. This would deepen the reader’s understanding and connect the findings. For example,
RAAS and endothelial cells homeostasis are interdependent, with RAAS being associated with
angiogenesis (e.g. PMID: 38071212) and vascular stiffness (e.g. PMID: 29476451), which in
turn are associated with progestogens (e.g. PMID: 27843051).
- It is essential to add in the conclusions that, given the pivotal role of the RAAS in regulating
blood pressure and vascular homeostasis, as well as its significance as a primary target for
antihypertensive therapies, the inclusion of sex- and gender-based differences in research and
guidelines is indispensable. Furthermore, it should be stressed that these considerations are
currently underrepresented in ESC and other guidelines, highlighting an urgent need for their
integration (e.g. PMID: 39064064).
Title: The Impact of progestogens on RAAS – a systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors had made thorough efforts to assess the  various types of progestogen used clinically.
The Impact on the RAAS is an interesting point as progestogen type COCPs and treatments are
widely applicable and the various unique characteristics of the different types of progesterone
also guide their unique clinical indication. The RAAS is vital to common side effects that women
are uncomfortable with such as bloating, weight gain and hypertension can be cause of concern
for discontinuation of treatments which may be important for their clinical condition.
Although this is a narrative review but the methodology described is as detailed as it is required.
The table is helpful to allow readers to have a generic overview.
However, I would like the authors to proffer some recommendations or suggestions on a
potential description of a clinical pathway for clinicians to choose the progestogen type for
clinical utility or suggest a ranking of progesterone in terms of effects and/or negative impact
on RAAS. It would be helpful if the authors can offer insights on the "complaints" which
women find concerning such as weight gain, bloated ness  etc to link the clinical relevance of
progesterone use (which tend to be prolonged - months to years) with less VTE risks and side
effects.
Title: The Impact of progestogens on RAAS – a systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “The Impact of Progestogens
on the RAAS – A Systematic Review.” The authors evaluated the association between the use
of progestogens and their impact on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. They concluded
that the effects of progestogens on the RAAS are complex and varied, influenced by the type
of progestogen, dosage, and combination with estrogen. The concept of the manuscript is
interesting, and the content is well-written and easy to follow. I would like to suggest the
following.
Major comments
1. The Introduction was presented without any references, which is uncommon. To enhance its
credibility, please demonstrate that your research objectives are grounded in prior studies, and
include citations for any information derived from previous research.
2. The Discussion section was also missing references in certain parts. Please include citations
where you discuss results or interpretations based on previous research to ensure accuracy and
strengthen the argument.
3. The quality assessment was presented only in the Appendix section and was not adequately
addressed in the Results or Discussion sections. Typically, an objective evaluation of the risk
of bias should be included, using a tool such as ROBINS, to enhance the study's credibility and
transparency.
4. The study's language selection was restricted to English and German, which may introduce
potential bias. Furthermore, detailed information about each included paper was not provided,
leaving the selection process opaque. To improve transparency, the language of each paper and
specific details of the data analyzed should be presented in an Appendix table.
Minor comments
Quality Assessment in the Method section: This description is overly detailed and could be
simplified by incorporating appropriate citations.
Title: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ROLE STRAIN, PSYCHOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
PERCEIVING DIABETES AS A HEALTH PRIORITY WITH SELF-CARE IN WOMEN
WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the opportunity to evaluate this work.
Firstly, I commend the authors for their diligent efforts in looking at the association between self-
care and sociodemographic data, social role strain, problem-focus coping, social support, and
perceived diabetes as a priority. Their work undoubtedly contributes to the field by addressing
a critical gap in understanding the mental health aspects of this population. However, certain
issues need to be addressed to enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript before it can
be accepted for publication:
1. For the introduction, please add the prevalence of diabetes in the 2022 as per latest guideline.
2. Method: I agreed the associated factors of self-care behaviour and sociodemographic data
and clinical characteristics. But could you please explain why you chose associated factors
to analyse the social role strain, perceived diabetes priority and problem-focused coping?
Why not a relationship since those could be the correlations/ the relationship of the self-
care practices with those phsychologcial aspects, coping skills and social strain? What is your
conceptual framework? Are those factors unidirectional or bidirectional? If it is correlated,
suggest relationship/correlation analysis.
3.  Discussion: page 14 line 416 mentions diabetes brings significant stress that they need to
cope, so do you think women with diabetes need emotional coping as well? page 14,  line
424-426: Could you please explain more why problem focus coping only was utilised in this
study? Reference 62 was conducted on mothers with GDM which is unlikely to represent women
with diabetes mostly older adults in your study. Is there any strong reason why only 6 items
on problem-focused coping as the tool to measure coping instead of the complete brief-cope
28 items?
In conclusion, while the manuscript presents a promising contribution to the field, these issues
need to be addressed to ensure the clarity, rigor, and impact of the findings. I appreciate the
opportunity to engage with this work and contribute to its refinement for potential publication.
Title: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ROLE STRAIN, PSYCHOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
PERCEIVING DIABETES AS A HEALTH PRIORITY WITH SELF-CARE IN WOMEN
WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS
Version: 4 Date: 17 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done an excellent job revising this manuscript and addressing the reviewer's
comments and queries. The data provided is essential and will interest a broad audience.
However, the psychological and behavioural aspects of coping with diabetes self-care among
women should be considered in future studies.
Title: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ROLE STRAIN, PSYCHOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
PERCEIVING DIABETES AS A HEALTH PRIORITY WITH SELF-CARE IN WOMEN
WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS
Version: 4 Date: 26 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer Comment:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. After a thorough review
process, I am pleased to note the following:
Overall Evaluation:
The paper presents a comprehensive study and demonstrates several strengths, including a well-
crafted title, clear organization, and relevant citations. The authors have addressed all previous
comments effectively, resulting in significant improvements in the manuscript.
In my opinion, the revisions made are satisfactory, and I have no further comments at this time.
Title: Effectiveness of motivational interview on psychological distress of women with human
papilloma virus: A randomized clinical trial
Version: 2 Date: 11 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Greetings and Regards
Respectfully, it seems that implementing the following suggestions can increase the accuracy of
these researches for future time. The researchers are required to pay attention to the following
items.
Abstract: There is no need to report the ethics code and IRCT code in the abstract because
without these codes, there is no license to conduct a clinical trial.
Keywords: “Motivational interview, Stress" do not exist in the Medical Subject Headings 2024
and it is better to replace.
In the introduction:
Conceptual Framework: Research should be based on a scientific model or theory. Research
should have a strong conceptual framework. This manuscript pays little attention to this
prominent feature. Why haven't the authors done research based on motivational interview? The
manuscript has no explanation of "motivational interviewing" documented by reference.
The study variables are not explained in the introduction. First, these concepts must be defined
based on valid scientific evidence of the last 5 years. After describing and explaining the causes,
structure and outcome of the variables (independent and dependent) based on valid scientific
evidence, the problems that other researches have not answered should be explained.
Authors must carefully explain the necessity of the research. What problems have there been in
society? Why are they forced to investigate the Effectiveness of motivational interview? These
contents are not visible in the introduction.
The research method:
It should be written in such a way that any reader can repeat the researcher's experience. The
method of conducting the study should be written accurately and in full detail.
1) What was the logic of this work?
2) What reference is the basis of the intervention content?
3) How has it been adapted to Iranian culture?
4) Who conducted the intervention?
5) What was the field of study and academic degree of the implementer?
6) Why was the content validity confirmed by only two people?
7) What was the method of confirming the reliability and validity of the intervention content?
8) What are the exact specifications of the questionnaires (Questionnaire validity and reliability
(?
9) What was the reason for the convenience sampling?
10) Why were only three inclusion criteria considered?
11) Why was the “social determinants of mental health of the samples” not considered?
12) How was “study bias” limited?
13) Why were questions not asked about the number of sexual partners and type of sexual
intercourse?
14) Why were 5 intervention sessions conducted?
15) On what basis was the assessment carried out only immediately after the intervention?
16) Why was it not assessed 2 or 6 months later?
In the discussion section:
Why did you not compare the findings of your study with other studies? Why haven't you
explained the reasons for matching or not matching your findings?
In the references section: Researchers have used very old and limited sources of studies.
Title: Effectiveness of motivational interview on psychological distress of women with human
papilloma virus: A randomized clinical trial
Version: 3 Date: 14 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Mahboubeh Dadfar
Reviewer's report:
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
Dear Authors,
Thank you so much for your good manuscript "Effectiveness of motivational interview on
anxiety, stress, depression of women with human papilloma virus: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Study".
This is a valuable study. Here are my comments.
1. Title should change to “Effectiveness of motivational interview on psychological distress of
women with human papilloma virus: A randomized clinical trial”.
2. Keywords should change to “HPV, MI, anxiety, stress, depression, women, Iran”.
3. Authors should add research questions/assumptions of their study in the end of Introduction
section.
4. Authors should report reliability and validity of the DASS-21 in previous study.
5. Has the DASS-21 a cutoff point? If so, authors should report it.
6. Authors should write two typical items for the DASS-21 in Measures sub section.
7. Authors should write limitations of their study.
8. Authors should write their suggestions for future studies.
9. Authors should write DOI for all references.
10. The whole paper should edit by a native English person.
Sincerely,