JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Characteristics of Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography in Taiwan: A
Single Institute’s Experience
Version: 4 Date: 29 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
- definition of screen detected cancer, interval cancer should be clearly stated in the programme
context.. also, the screening programme with/without women presenting with symptoms should
be clearly stated.
- the author mentioned that ~30% of contamination from symptomatic cases, what does this
means? is that proportion the contamination to the screening group? if so, that's too high,
and there is no rationale to have a comparison group. i suggest that the author make 3
groups, women with symptoms in the screening programme vs women without symptoms in
the screening programme vs clinical presentation of symptoms outside of the mammography
screening programme, and re-do the analysis accordingly. removing the clinical cases from
the screening programme in the analysis is a bias, rather author should consider them and the
screening programme can have specific strategy for those women presenting with symptoms in
the screening programme, for eg. detailed further assessment and/or lower screening interval,
regular follow up of symptomatic women even though mammography finding is negative. if the
author considers this, i would be happy to read the next version.
- tables/figures needs proper formatting
Thank you.
Title: Using human-centered design to co-design dedicated menstrual health spaces with people
who menstruate in Bidi Bidi refugee settlement, Uganda: Learnings for further adaptation and
scale in humanitarian settings
Version: 2 Date: 28 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Performing feasibility studies is a great and thanks to the authors for did it. My recommendation
is accepted, however, please authors explain the following comments about the method section.
1. Please express inclusion and exclusion criteria as clearly.
2.If the data collection method was through deep interviews aimed at qualitative study in line
with the experience of living, please provide the results of the qualitative part as clearly in the
table including themes, subcategories, categories (separate from achievements), but if depth
interviews was not aimed at qualitative study and extraction of themes, subcategories, etc., and
merely a method used to collect data, so that depth interviews cannot be said to it. besides, there
are also questions during the interview that were not probe questions, so, it seems that it was not
semi -structured and it was structured. Please clearly explain these.
3.Due to the social- cultural level of the intended community, please state what has been done
to accept intervention in this setting.
Title: Menstrual Hygiene Management and Associated Factors among Adolescent School Girls
in Gursum District, Eastern Ethiopia 2021.a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 24 Apr 2023
Reviewer:  Samson Kastro Dake
Reviewer's report:
In general, there are many grammar, spelling, and sentence structure errors.
Title>> Use a colon rather than a full stop before the study design.
Lines 39, 108, 153>> Do not start a paragraph with a number.
The decimal places should be limited to a maximum of 2 places.
Abstract>> Method>> Mention the sample size and study period.
Line 35>> You can’t say “factors affecting” in a cross-sectional study since you cannot
determine the cause-effect relationship. It would be better if you said “factors associated…”
Line 44>> Abstract>> Is the outcome of interest safe MHM practice or unsafe? The prevalence
you have reported was the unsafe MHM practice but the other results tell us the opposite. The
outcome of interest should be unsafe MHM practice because you have described the unsafe
MHM practice as a problem in the introduction section, and it should be. You have to state clearly
the outcome of interest whenever you state the outcome variable and be consistent throughout
the document.
Line 94>> You better include the total number of your source population (school-going
adolescent girls) in the district.
Lines 115 and 116>> The sampling of the sections and individuals was not clearly described.
You have to mention it thoroughly so that others can repeat it.
Method>> Outcome variable measurement>> The outcome variable measurement is unclear.
When do you say that the MHM practice is safe or unsafe? How did you measure it?
Line 144>> Report the response rate.
Line 144>> Can we say 51.82% is the majority? Use appropriate terms.
Result>> You did not report the prevalence of unsafe MHM practice in the result section. Report
the confidence interval for the prevalence.
Lines 174-183>> I recommend removing this paragraph. The result you have presented about
the factors associated with unsafe MHM practice in the succeeding paragraph is adequate.
Lines 184-195>> I can see that your result and your interpretation of the result do not go in
line. If the odds ratio is <1, the exposure variable is protective or it decreases the odds of having
the outcome but you have reported it the other way. You have to correct the interpretation. Be
clear with the coding of the outcome variable in regression analysis. It looks like the outcome
variable was not coded properly.
Title: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to evaluate the paper titled 'Evaluation of endometrioma size effect
on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a
cross-sectional study'
The study has some methodological flaws.
The study includes unexplained infertile couples and tubal factor as the control group. However,
tubal factor infertility could also be related to endometriosis.
Regarding the exclusion criteria the authors claims that AMH<0.5 cases would be excluded
however if we look closely to the endometrioma group AMH varies between 0.21-11.3.
In subgroup analysis AMH also mentioned as ' unilateral 3.58±3.20 ng/dl (0.21-12.8) and
bilateral endometrioma 2.45±2.14 (0.21-0.20) groups' which is not consistent with the whole
endometrioma group.
In conclusion the authors declare that ' IVF and embryo preservation and even pregnancy before
surgery seem to be reasonable for endometriotic patients.' If there is no difference between
endometrioma and controls why should embryo freeze still feasible better to conduct fresh
transfer than.
Title: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 24 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written in terms of context, findings and discussion. However, I have few
queries and suggestions as mentioned below,
1. The title could be modified and improved by including the country name or settings.
2. The introduction in the abstract reads as objective. Please provide a short context and mention
the aobjective towards the end.
3. The rationale where authors are talking about lack of studies on comparison of the quality of
embryos...needs to be strengthened. What was the relevant or need?
4. Can the authors re-structure methodology for better understanding of readers.  Re structure
in terms of Study Setting, Sampling Strategy, etc?
5. How did the authors select 70 patients? Justification for the number is missing in the study.
6. I suggest re writing the inclusion and exclusion criteria section in one paragraph .
7.  I am unable to understand what the authors mean when they write "rank variables as frequency
and percentage" in the statistical analysis section. Is it presenting?
8. The section of results directly starts with "As shown in Table 1....." Could the authors elaboate
general context and then talk on table specific findings.
9. Please list the abbrebiation rather than keep it in a paragraph. Also ensure that you have not
missed any abbreviations.
10. The conclusion is short and vaque. Needs to be strengthened.
Title: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Apr 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: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the authors for assess infertility. Please explain about the following comments.
1.    Items such as history of autoimmune, infectious, or inflammatory diseases over the last
three months before to the ovum pickup and etc. it is written in the exclusion criteria section
however these do not seem to be exclusion criteria because these items should not be taken into
account in the first place. Exclusion criteria are the things that happen during the study and that
cause not to continue participating.
2.    In Tables 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, the p-value of which tests were obtained should be reported in the
tables.
3. It is better to compare the results between unilateral endometrioma levels with the control
group and also compare bilateral endometrioma levels with the control group.
Title: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 16 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors' revise is approved.
1.Just, Items such as history of autoimmune, infectious, or inflammatory diseases over the last
three months before to the ovum pickup and etc, move to the end of the second paragraph of the
Material and Method section and add this sentence that these patients were not included in the
study from the beginning in order to homogenize the samples. Also, in the exclusion criteria,
things such as unwillingness to continue etc, should be mentioned.
2. For better understanding of the readers, please report in the main text that there was
no significant difference between each case (unilateral endometrioma levels or bilateral
endometrioma levels) with the control groups in pairwise comparisons.
Title: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 19 Apr 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: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 03 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Please write exactly these sentences
In order to homogenize the studied population, some patients left out from the beginning and they
were not considered among the study samples, including: a history of autoimmune, infectious
or inflammatory diseases over the last three months prior to the ovum pickup, any type of
malignancies, previous endometriosis surgeries, previous ovarian or pelvic surgeries, a history of
spontaneous pregnancy without IVF procedure, polycystic ovary syndrome, severe male factor
infertility, FSH>10, AMH<0.5, a history of abdomino-pelvic radiotherapy or chemotherapy for
any reason, the presence of leiomyoma and adenomyosis simultaneously.
Patients 18 to 37 age who had a history of infertility for up to 1 year were included in this study.
Exclusion criteria was included unwillingness to continue participating in the study.
Title: Evaluation of endometrioma size effect on ovarian reserve, embryo quality and pregnancy
outcome after in vitro fertilization cycle; a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 04 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: Immediate Impact of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) Among Women
with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta#analysis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
The authors conducted a systematic meta-analysis to assess the immediate impact of
Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in women with breast cancer. Overall, the study was
conducted with an appropriate method and the results were well organized. However, some
minor points should be revised. Below are my specific comments.
Minor comments:
1. Abstract - Conclusion: Results of this study did not include the cost-effectiveness of MBCT.
I’d suggest removing the “cost-effective” word in the conclusion. The conclusion on page 16
should be revised as well.
Materials and Methods
2. Database and Search Strategy, p.5: Clarify the meaning of “inception” in the sentence “…
from inception to December 2021”.
3. Specify which studies were included as “non-RCT studies” (e.g., one-group interventional
study?).
4. P.6: What does it mean by “with a threshold of at least 60% of breast cancer patients in the
literature”? Clarifying this in the method section is needed.
5. Strength and Limitations – p.17: The first limitation seems irrelevant in the context of the
study. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of MBCT and thus, including only
intervention studies and excluding observation, case studies are appropriate. Consider removing
this limitation
6. Strength and Limitations – p.17: For some outcomes of this meta-analysis (e.g., anxiety,
insomnia…), only 2 studies were analyzed. This point should be described as the main limitation
of this study.
Table 1.
7. The reference number does not match the reference numbers in the manuscript text.  Revision
is needed.
8. Revise non-RCT to “one-group interventional study”
9. What does it mean by “larger RCT”? Specify or revise.
Title: Immediate Impact of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) Among Women
with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta#analysis
Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2023
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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with 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 - 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: My overall impression of the study is that it has a relevant aim and
the methodology has been well performed. Also, the results are well exposed and discussed. I
have minor comments that will be exposed in further sections.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Abstract: the abstract properly summarizes the content of the manuscript.
Background: I feel that this section clearly frames the objective of the study.
Methodology: The authors have correctly followed the PRISMA guidelines.
Results: The authors expose the main results of the study in a clear way.
Discussion: I feel that results are well discussed in the manuscript.
Figure 1: Could the authors generally specify the reasons of the 279 articles excluded? (either
in the Figure 1 or in the text).
Table 1: There are some directions of the results which do not sound clear (e.g.: Park (2020),
Nissen (2019)."
Title: Immediate Impact of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) Among Women
with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta#analysis
Version: 1 Date: 25 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
1) I would recommend to include only RCT because the quality of the study  and it's finding
might be affected by it's design.
2)  Add search strategy as a supplementary file for each databases.
3) Did you include all studies  irrespective of language restriction? If so, mention it in the
eligibility criteria.
3)Sub-group analysis should be done with respect to (Method of intervention, duration of
intervention, control condition, mode of intervention, and type of intervention provider)
4) The finding of your study is highly affected by high risk of performance bias in 10 papers
included in the review  , 90% have high risk of detection bias and publication bias.
So, how do you recommend this finding for practice?
This limitation should be clearly indicated in the limitation part and the conclusion should be
modified.
5) Discussion section:  the effect of MBCT shall be compared with CBT about it's effect on
anxiety and depression.  you may refer this paper:
Getu MA, Chen C, Panpan W, Mboineki JF, Dhakal K, Du R. Correction: The effect of
cognitive behavioral therapy on the quality of life of breast cancer patients: a systematic review
and meta#analysis of randomized controlled trials. Qual Life Res. 2022 Oct;31(10):3089. doi:
10.1007/s11136-022-03221-z. Erratum for: Qual Life Res. 2021 Feb;30(2):367-384. PMID:
35972619.
Title: Immediate Impact of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) Among Women
with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta#analysis
Version: 3 Date: 22 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: The authors properly responded to each of my concerns and did the
adequate changes. I thing that the manuscript is ready for publication.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No additional revisions