JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Comorbidities in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a sibling study
Version: 0 Date: 17 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study analyzes the risk and odds ratio of common comorbidities in patients with PCOS
using nationwide registry data. Sibling data were used to assess genetic and environmental co-
founders. I just have a few questions:
Have you also examined the risk of other, less common comorbidities? Perhaps there would be
an association that had not been expected in the past.
You mentioned in the introduction that the risk of developing PCOS is up to 1/3 if a sister has
already been diagnosed with PCOS. I think it would be interesting to also report, using your
large registry data, what the prevalence and odds ratio of PCOS is when some relatives have
already been diagnosed with PCOS. What did you do with the statistics in such cases?
In paragraphs 347 to 349 you mention that on the effects of education and background on
PCOS there are discrepancies compared to previous reports in the USA. Can you explain this
difference? Is it because of the different school systems?
Overall, it is a very well-written manuscript on a very relevant topic.
Title: Fertility and self-rated health of migrant women of childbearing age——an analysis of
moderating effects based on socioeconomic status
Version: 1 Date: 30 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The present study examines the association between reproductive behavior and maternal health,
with a unique focus on a specific subset of the population in China: migrant women, who
are particularly vulnerable. One of its main strengths lies in its utilization of an extensive
dataset and explicit hypotheses. Furthermore, the paper incorporates rigorous robustness checks
and analyses to account for heterogeneous effects. There are several suggestions for further
enhancing this paper.
Main comments:
1. Hypothesis 1 is well-defined. However, Hypotheses 2 and 3 should be clarified. For
Hypothesis 2, the theory discusses how socioeconomic status influences maternal health,
focusing on the impact of education level and income on individual health outcomes. However,
it does not address how socioeconomic status is associated with fertility behavior, thus we cannot
derive Hypothesis 2 from this literature. Similarly, Hypothesis 3 mainly discusses the impact of
migrant on fertility behavior, but we cannot understand how it relates to the relationship between
fertility behavior and maternal health.
2. On line 263, I believe that the conclusion cannot be derived solely from Table 3. When
introducing an interaction term, it is essential to consider not only the coefficient of "Fertility
behavior" but also the additional contribution from the interaction. Therefore, I suggest including
a regression analysis without any interaction term alongside the original regression to provide
further support for Hypothesis 1.
3. In lines 289-290, there appears to be a similar oversight in Table 4 as observed in Table 3.
4. It would be beneficial to provide more comprehensive details regarding Table 5, such as
whether it incorporates an interaction term like Tables 3 and 4.
Minor comment:
1. How many of the full sample were mentioned in the data source section? It was stated that
65,725 individuals were part of the full sample; however, only 51,286 were present in the tables.
Additionally, it would be beneficial to include the original full sample in the survey.
2. Line 215-216, I don’t understand how the findings in this paragraph to support this conclusion.
3. I suggest maintaining consistent decimal places throughout the entire manuscript.
4. Why are table 2 and 3 placed at the end of the manuscript while others are within the text?
Is there a specific reason for this arrangement?
5. In table 2, how many samples are included in each subgroup: Birth migration and No birth
migration?
Title: Fertility and self-rated health of migrant women of childbearing age——an analysis of
moderating effects based on socioeconomic status
Version: 1 Date: 20 Dec 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)?
No - there are major issues
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?
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 major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: It was challenging to make an overall assessment of the manuscript
since there was no thesis statement and it was never clear what the goal was. The paper uses
sophisticated statistical approaches to explain human behavior from  a sociological perspective,
which seems to be a mismatch. The term migrant is not defined and it is unclear if this pertains
to agricultural work or physical movement from town to town. There are many strengths to the
manuscript but it's difficult to digest the results based on theories of behavior when the people
who are involved were not interviewed or surveyed but instead modeling was conducted
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
This manuscript is well written and provides some important information but is disjointed and
lacks cohesiveness. There are multiple major weaknesses that limit enthusiasm. 1. there is not
clear purpose or thesis or objective ; it is neither stated nor implied. 2. there is an overly lengthy
background that focuses on theories of fertility that are rooted in a basic science  and sociological
approach that are not well integrated in to the overall concept of the manuscript. 3. The literature
review delves into issues of the impact of the health of older parents and finally ends with a
hypothesis that focuses on women exclusively whereas the prior text talked about "parents."
4. Since the concept of "migrants" is never fully explained, it is challenging to understand the
purpose of the focus on this population. 5. The analysis is well described 6. The results are
editorialized, that is rather than report results and save analysis/interpretation for discussion, this
is intertwined with the results. 7. the actual discussion is brief, and re-states the results.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
none
Title: Fertility and self-rated health of migrant women of childbearing age——an analysis of
moderating effects based on socioeconomic status
Version: 6 Date: 20 Mar 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?
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?
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 made substantial revisions and this is my fourth
time reviewing this manuscript. They have revised based on prior comments from multiple
reviewers but the new sections added to the discussion section, as requested, still required editing
for scientific English language
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have responded well to the prior suggested revisions. The new text added to the
discussion requires editing for scientific language and grammar.
Title: Nutritional Management Recommendation Systems in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A
Systematic Review
Version: 1 Date: 02 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Meisam Dastani
Reviewer's report:
- The title is ambiguous and does not clearly indicate the study's objective.
- The data collection date should be mentioned in the abstract of the article.
- There is a need for better coherence between the introduction and its subsections.
- The literature review section should be written in a continuous and appropriate manner. Each
study's conclusion should be clearly stated. Additionally, this section can be transitioned to the
end of the introduction.
- In the last paragraph of the literature review, why have you mentioned Iran? Are you only
planning to examine studies conducted in Iran? Clarification is needed.
- The data collection date should be mentioned in the methodology section.
- In section 3.3, "Study Specifications," more detailed explanations are necessary. Additionally,
considering that the results are extracted from selected studies, citing the references is essential.
Title: Knowledge, Attitude, Practices and Associated Factors of Family Planning Among
Women Living with HIV at the University of Gondar Specialized Hospital: A Cross Sectional
Study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper that would have clinical as well as public health importance.
However, the paper needs to be revised.
1. Why you want conduct this title….. Because there are many studies done in Ethiopia?
Is your study focused on Dual contraceptive Use or other?
2. What is the current recommendation regarding PLHIV on FP (DUAL vs other ???)
3. ABSTRACT: Please add a clear the problem of this study
- Clearly put how many of the participants had Knowledge on FP
- Better to show the predictors for all KAP
- Needs clear conclusion and recommendation
4. What makes your study differ from others???
5. Why you authors exclude those HIV positive women diagnosed with Cervical Ca?
6. Is CD4 count determine the KAP related to FP?
7. The discussion needs clear Justification
8. Please clearly add the strength and limitation of this study
9. The manuscript needs extensive grammar and editorial correction
Title: Knowledge, Attitude, Practices and Associated Factors of Family Planning Among
Women Living with HIV at the University of Gondar Specialized Hospital: A Cross Sectional
Study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
this is really great jobs
1. In general there is a grammatical, punctuation, and spieling errors.
2. in your abstract sections: in the conclusion, it says "Only about half of HIV positive" but it
was 55%  and it is better to say more than half of the study population.
3. "stokeholds" what you mean this in  your conclusion.
4. in your introduction part the second paragraph what is the relationship b/n the incidence of
HIV in children with your study population
5. Inclusion and Exclusion criteria:
how or why, you use the 15-47 years of age the cut of point
Dependent variable: Remove "The dependent variables were"
Independent variables: Remove "Independent variables were"
Title: Knowledge, Attitude, Practices and Associated Factors of Family Planning Among
Women Living with HIV at the University of Gondar Specialized Hospital: A Cross Sectional
Study
Version: 3 Date: 14 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors:
First of all thank you for your best job. and I saw the document thoroughly, and you take an
action accordingly that is interesting.
still there are grammar and punctuation issue, so please take a measure it is too simple.
In general it is good jobs.
Title: Level of immediate postpartum family planning utilization and the associated factors
among postpartum mothers, Bole Sub-City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Institution Based cross-
sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Title: Level of immediate postpartum family planning utilization and the associated factors
among postpartum mothers, Bole sub-city Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Institution Based cross-
sectional study
• Your title is clear and self-explanatory
• Better if you replaced the word level with magnitude.
• Please indicate the afflations’ of authors
Abstract: Well written
Background:  Avoid repeated idea
Under your background of the study, you stated the coverage of family planning, unmet need
and the problem of short birth interval.  This not lined with your title.
Please clearly state:
- Definition of immediate post-partum family planning utilization
- The existing problem and severity of immediate post-partum utilization of family planning
from global to local.
- Describe any attempts taken by the government and stakeholders
- Clearly state the existing gap that might be filled by your research and what you recommend
other scholars.
Methods
- Your study populations were mothers who gave birth before one year of data collection period.
This study prone for recall bias. How you managed the recall bias?
- Why you used design effect 1.5? Why not 2 or 1.8? What is the reason behind?
- What type of sampling technique you used? Please clearly state
- Where was your pre-test site? And clearly write the amendments you have done.
- Data entry software is not clearly mentioned
Result
- The result was well written
- Please minimize stating all variable categories in sentence/ text.
Discussion
- Good, but better if it have brief introduction of one paragraph.
- Please compare with similar population of the existing evidence
- Use terms similarly throughout your document
- Your discussion lacks implications of your finding, please add it.
- Lacks limitation and strength of your study
Abbreviation
- Please make initial letters upper case
Title: Level of immediate postpartum family planning utilization and the associated factors
among postpartum mothers, Bole Sub-City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Institution Based cross-
sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jan 2024
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?
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 - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall this is an interesting study that has good potential, however
it was very challenging to read as the English grammar and syntax were very poor and there
are a lot of terms that are unfamiliar . There are multiple parts of the manuscript that could be
shortened.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
While I had minimal comments about the design, execution and statistics, I must qualify this
with noting the manuscript was very challenging to read. I had to read sentences multiple times
to try to understand what the authors were trying to convey, and it's possible I misinterpreted
some aspects of this. The study needs review by a native English speaker before it can be really
assessed. I do think there is valuable information that will be of interest. It seems as if the authors
now have a good baseline of the status of the use of postpartum family planning in this population
as the basis for a future intervention. 1. The background is long and meandering and should
be reduced and tightened up. 2. What do the authors mean by "modern family planning."? 3. I
could not follow at all the description of the PCA and the 14 variables and their relevance to
the study. 4. Data on how many women were approached, declined, and reasons for decline if
known, should be provided. 5.  Many variables were collected but they are not all reported on
in relation to the objective of the study - were there hypothesis or associations you expected?
Why was only the occupation of the partner collected?  6. 14% of the sample were labeled as
"illiterate" how was this determined? Was the survey read to all people ? More details are needed
on how the women were approached and how the survey was administered as well as the survey
development.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The language is a big issue
Title: Level of immediate postpartum family planning utilization and the associated factors
among postpartum mothers, Bole Sub-City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Institution Based cross-
sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 01 Mar 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 minor issues
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?
No - there are major 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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have revised the manuscript with some success but
problems remain with lack of clarification on the methods, repeating results in the discussion
without an in-depth analysis and the English language is poor and needs review by a native
English speaker or language editing service
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The overall manuscript, particularly the newly edited portion is written in poor English which
still makes a challenging read. the authors state in their response letter that the measures were
delivered in person and verbally to all participants but this is not described in the methods.
The methods state the term "electric mitrad" but this is unclear as to what this means. The
response rate is unclear - do the authors mean that everyone approached to participate agreed
and gave sufficient responses with no missing data and could be included in the final analysis?
How was it determined that the participants could read and write? Was this self-reported? Did
participants sign consent forms? The discussion is lacking in a critical analysis of the findings
and the implications of these findings
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
English language revisions
Title: The Relationship Between Resting Metabolic Rate and Quality of Life is Moderated by
Age and Body Composition in Women: A Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to BMC Women's Health. The article was very well
written and interesting.  I only have a few suggestions after reading the manuscript.
In the abstract it would be nice to include in the methods the statistics that were used.  It would
also be nice to see some of the mean values and SD of your dependent measures.  I know there
is probably a word count so maybe some of the simple correlations could be removed.
In the method section or results could you give a little more information on your participants
such as socioeconomic status which may effect HRQOL.  I know you measured disease status
but did you look at medications?  Were women on medication that helped with anxiety, stress,
or depression? If so could these medications have affected your results for both HRQOL and
on metabolic rate? I am not sure if I missed this but did you just evaluate women who were
sedentary? If not should you control for activity level?
Maybe in discussion or limitation section you could speculate a little why your hypotheses were
not supported.  Your sample was at the lower end of being overweight and obese.  Do you think if
you were able to recruit heavier participants this could have changed results? What about activity
such as aerobic exercise or resistance training that has effect on RMR and HRQOL.  Colorado is
also a very healthy state compared to the rest of the country and your HRQOL scores look pretty
high.  Maybe your sample is too homogenous to see the correlations you expected.  Maybe just
a little more speculation on the reasons why you found  the results you did would be helpful.
Title: The Relationship Between Resting Metabolic Rate and Quality of Life is Moderated by
Age and Body Composition in Women: A Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 23 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I think this paper is clear and well written.
I have a few minor comments/questions to help provide greater context for the results.
• Was there any adjustment or sub-analysis for stages of menopause? With such a broad age
range spanning such massive hormonal and body-composition changes, and so many of the
participants presumably post-menopausal, conversation about reasoning for keeping analysis
spanning 25-89 would be helpful.
• With 18% of the participants being non-white, it seems reasonable to assume that racial
differences, or relatively homogenous participant group, may account for some of the surprising
results observed. One article published in Nature back in 1998 (yes, it's dated) especially
stood out to me, it noted significant differences in RMR between inactive obese African
American and Caucasian women. [https://www.nature.com/articles/0800569]. With so many
racial differences in QOL and health metrics, it seems like a relevant acknowledgement. Perhaps
a small acknowledgement of racial differences in the discussion would be productive.
• What other factors do you suspect account for the relatively large remaining variability in
PQOL and MQOL? To better understand modulating factors of QOL in women, where do you
recommend research shifts its attention to?
Title: EXPLORING MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND SUPPORT NEEDS AMONG
PREGNANT AND PARENTING TEENAGERS IN RURAL AREAS OF LIMPOPO, SOUTH
AFRICA
Version: 3 Date: 31 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Ifeanyichukwu Anthony Ogueji
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for conducting this important study. Some comments are:
- The conclusion statement in the abstract reads like a generalization. The authors should revise
this within the context of their study also bearing in mind the qualitative design employed.
- In this kind of study, it is required that the authors report the step-by-step approach used in
the content analysis.
- The report of findings reads like a list of quotes without an engagement on what the findings
mean.
-The authors noted depression as a finding from participants, and thus, have mentioned it in
several places in the manuscript. But, depression is mentioned as if standardized scales were
used to assess and diagnose depression in the participants. It is suggested that the authors address
this impression to reflect that the finding of depression emerged as a qualitative finding rather
than through a standardized scale assessment.
- The authors have not reported any limitations of this study, as well as directions for future work.