JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Factors influencing maternal healthcare utilization in Papua New Guinea: Andersen's
behaviour model
Version: 0 Date: 25 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Mumtaz Alam
Reviewer's report:
An important aspect of this study is its ability to identify the factors that influence the
consumption of maternal healthcare services. The authors emphasize the complex and diverse
characteristics of these determinants, which include elements that facilitate access (such as
media exposure, proximity to health facilities, household affluence, geographical region, and
place of residence), factors that predispose individuals (such as employment and education),
and factors related to the individual's need for healthcare services (such as parity). This detailed
research facilitates a more nuanced comprehension of the obstacles encountered by women in
their pursuit of maternity healthcare services.
The study's findings underscore the importance of enabling variables, indicating that policies and
initiatives targeting the enhancement of maternal healthcare should prioritize the reinforcement
of healthcare infrastructure, the augmentation of media exposure, and the resolution of regional
inequities. The suggestion to enhance transportation and healthcare infrastructure, namely in
the Highlands region, Momase region, and rural areas, aligns with the need of addressing
geographical obstacles to healthcare accessibility. Moreover, the prioritization of enhancing
women's educational opportunities and vocational training is in accordance with a more
comprehensive approach aimed at empowering women and enhancing their entire health and
well-being.
In essence, this article provides a significant contribution to the comprehension of maternal
healthcare utilization in Papua New Guinea. The study's rigorous methodology and complete
analysis of variables offer valuable insights for policymakers and program creators aiming to
decrease maternal death rates and enhance maternal health outcomes in the region. The proposals
put forth are practical and consistent with the overarching objective of attaining sustainable and
equitable healthcare accessibility for women in Papua New Guinea.
Title: A single-institutional retrospective analysis of factors related to vaginal intraepithelial
neoplasia
Version: 1 Date: 28 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Nora Sabah Rasoul
Reviewer's report:
Dr.Nora Sabah Rasoul
Dear authors
I would like to thank you for your efforts invested in this manuscript and choose this subject
for highlighting its importance. I have some remarks on the manuscript hope you to take them
into consideration.
Aim of the study
One of the aims of your study is to analyze the clinical features of VAIN please can you clarify
how you analyze them?
Methodology
1- Please add the name of the country.
2-In collection of the sample of study you mention that all of them were histologically diagnosed
as VAIN while in Table two of the results there is 25 patients out of the 62 were normal cytology,
please can you explain why they were refer for histopathology (does they have positive HPV
test or what). Did HPV test were done routinely for all patients underwent pap smear?
3 - You choose a retrospective analysis to study the risk factors and their relation with the
development of VAIN, please can you write in details the type of the study & if you want to study
the risk factors it is better to choose a case control study if a causal attribution is investigated
otherwise, a cross sectional study may be chosen. For both choices a control group is required.
I recommend to review these articles:
M. Ao, D. Zheng, J. Wang, et al., Risk factors analysis of persistence, progression and
recurrence in vaginal intraepithelialneoplasi..., Gynecologic Oncology, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ygyno.2021.06.027
He, Yue MD; Zhao, Qun PhD; Geng, Yu-Ning MD; Yang, Shu-Li MD; Yin, Cheng-
Hong PhD; Wu, Yu-Mei PhD*. Clinical analysis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with
vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. Medicine 96(17):p e6700, April 2017. | DOI: 10.1097/
MD.0000000000006700
4- Please can you clarify the method of sampling of patients (convenient?) or what and why you
divided them into two groups based on whether there is concomitant CIN or not; the aim of your
study is to analyse the risk factors and one of the risk factors to develop VAIN is CIN. If you
want to analyze you should have a control group.
5- Line NO. 90 you mention (correlations were assessed using the t-test) while each of them
are a separate type of tests.
Results
1- Table one I suggest to change its title to Patient’s characteristics. And why you didn’t add
the status of smoking and hysterectomy as there is relation between them and VAIN, and even
you can test their relation.
2- Line 123 please write the full name not just the abbreviation (NILM).
3- You used the Chi-square test of independence to evaluate the association of different
categorical variables which will yield one p value for each table but not for each category as it
is the case in Table (2) and Table (3). Please reconsider that.
4- In Table three please add the number of the HPV subtypes.
Title: A single-institutional retrospective analysis of factors related to vaginal intraepithelial
neoplasia
Version: 1 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is interesting study but study design and the title is not appropriate to explain the contents
of this manuscript.
First, because VAIN is rare, I wonder how the authors diagnosed VAIN only patients.
Also, in case of the patient who already received hysterectomy including cervix, we called it
VAIN not CIN when its occurring from the vaginal stump. There is no data of hysterectomy
status of the patient.
And CIN and VaIN lesion can be classified as Lower-risk lesion and High-risk lesion according
to the recent pathological criteria (LAST project, Darragh TM Colgan TJ Thomas Cox J
et al.  The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization project for HPV-
associated lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American
Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Int J Gynecol
Pathol. 2013;32:76–115.) or it had been classified as CIN I/II/III or VAIN I/II/III. However,
this manuscript has lack of information of pathologic grading system of the patients who have
diagnosed as intraepithelial neoplasia.
Title: A single-institutional retrospective analysis of factors related to vaginal intraepithelial
neoplasia
Version: 1 Date: 01 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I have reviewed your article " A single-institutional retrospective analysis of related factors for
vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia".
This manuscript is one of the most valuable pieces of data on VaIN. However, some necessary
information is lacking and needs to be added or corrected. Therefore, I request that the authors
make major revisions.
I have several comments.
1. Lines 97-99: “Among these 62 patients diagnosed with VaIN, 52 and 10 had low-grade and
high-grade VaIN, respectively.” There are 7 cases of ASC-H and HSIL in total, but 10 cases
of high-grade VaIN?
2. Lines 210-211: Reference 24 is a paper on High-Dose-rate Brachytherapy for VaIN. Please
cite the paper on spontaneous regression. In addition, please mention the grade of VaIN and
prognosis in cases of VaIN and CIN coexistence.
3. Lines 229-232: Please add a note about the rationale for the need for early intervention even
though the majority of VaIN is low-grade VaIN.
4. Well-known risk factors for VaIN include immunocompromised diseases and cases of long-
term steroid use, and these risk factors should be considered in this study as well.
Date of this review
1st Sep. 2023
Title: A single-institutional retrospective analysis of factors related to vaginal intraepithelial
neoplasia
Version: 2 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve
readability.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
- I find it interesting to include a reference from another continent to the screening programs
for early cervical cancer diagnosis (Golia D'Augè T, Giannini A, Bogani G, Di Dio C,
Laganà AS, Di Donato V, Salerno MG, Caserta D, Chiantera V, Vizza E, Muzii L, D’Oria O.
Prevention, Screening, Treatment and Follow-Up of Gynecological Cancers: State of Art and
Future Perspectives. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023, 50(8), 160. https://doi.org/10.31083/
j.ceog5008160).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
- Discussions can be expanded by citing relevant articles about long-term risk factors for the
recurrence of HVP-related lesions (see PMID 37401466).
Title: A single-institutional retrospective analysis of factors related to vaginal intraepithelial
neoplasia
Version: 2 Date: 20 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Nora Sabah Rasoul
Reviewer's report:
Dr.Nora Sabah Rasoul
Dear authors
I would like to thank you the recommended corrections were made and indicated on the
manuscript, but I still have an argument about the type of study if a causal attribution wanted to
be  investigated you should  have a control group.
Title: Case report#Septic shock after endometrial polypectomy with tissue removal system
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Giancarlo Garuti
Reviewer's report:
To The Authors
This is an interesting case report about an anecdotal severe outcome following hysteroscopic
polypectomy.  However, I believe that major revisions should be made before publication.
The English grammar and style must be improved by submitting the manuscript to a native
English speaker confident with medical reports.
Introduction section
Line 35: The sentence should be changed to “Endometrial polyps represent a frequent benign
focal overgrowth of endometrial mucosa”
Line 35-36: “The formation of…” must be referenced
Line 36-38: “…other factors such as…” must be referenced
Line 39: “They may even…”  must be referenced
Line 39-40: “Therefore, hysteroscopic…” must be referenced
Lines 42-43: What the Author means by the sentence “The traditional hysteroscopic resection
system…?”  Polypectomy can be accomplished throughout several mechanical, electrosurgical
and laser devices. Please clarify this conceptualization.
Case Presentation Section
Line 56: The ultrasound technique used and the results of imaging should be specified.
Line 64: The sentence is unclear and redundant
Line 89: Respiratory rate (up to 27 bpm???)
Line 98: “…albumin, etc” should be specified, alternatively, I suggest to delete “etc”
Discussion section
Lines 155-157: The sentence is not understandable, please clarify.
I believe that Table 1 does not add information and should be deleted from manuscript
Title: Case report#Septic shock after endometrial polypectomy with tissue removal system
Version: 1 Date: 27 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
hysteroscopy (diagnostic or operative), as well HyCoSy, carries a small risk of ascending
infection. This complication is more likely in the presence of risk factors such as young age
(under 25 years), active bacterial vaginosis, smoking, endometriosis, previous pelvic surgery,
multiple sexual partners undiagnosed current PID  patient's immune status.
In the case presentation the patient was 23 years-old and treated for mycoplasma and bacteria
(which?). TWO risk factors before underwent hysteroscopic polypectomy with TRs and
HyCoSy during the same surgical section.
The authors have to better explain why the ascending infection is link to tissue removal system
( are they using reusable or disposable blade?) before reminding  their use with caution in patients
with previous recurrent vaginitis
Title: Case report#Septic shock after endometrial polypectomy with tissue removal system
Version: 2 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Giancarlo Garuti
Reviewer's report:
Answer to Authors, second round
Introduction Section
Lines 36-37: I believe the sentence must be changed to: “Other risk factor including age… have
been associated with the occurrence of Eps”
Line 38-39: The sentence “They may even become cancerous if not treated for a long time”
is arbitrary and cannot be supported, neither from the Reference 2 nor from current and more
recent literature. I suggest to conceptualize in a more dubitative fashion, ie: “The potential for
malignant transformation of untreated Eps is unknow”
Line 42: I believe “Hysteroscopic electrosurgical techniques are the commonest method to
treat…” may be more appropriate. Moreover, “…which has a history…” should be deleted
Case Presentation Section
The Authors must add some methodological information. Which hysteroscopic morcellator was
used (6mm, 9 mm?). The intervention was accomplished under general anesthesia, sedation or
as out-patient based procedure? Some cervical dilatation was required?
Line 96: The firstly used acronym ICU should be extensively reported (Intensive Care Unit).
Title: Case report#Septic shock after endometrial polypectomy with tissue removal system
Version: 3 Date: 22 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Giancarlo Garuti
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I provide further suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript
Introduction Section
Line 37. The term “closely” should be deleted
Line 38. The term “occurrence” should be changed to “development”
Line 39. “Eps can lead…and infertility, while the potential…” seems more appropriate
Line 40. “Therefore” should be changed to “However”
Line 42. “… are the commonest method to remove Eps (4).” Seems more appropriate
Lines 43-44. The sentence: “The electrosurgical…is the most common method to treat…”
should be removed. This concept has been already reported in line 42
Case Presentation Section
Line 78. “The cervix was dilated to 8.5 mm (?) and a 8mm-sheathed hysteroscopic
morcellator…” seems more appropriate
Line 79. The sentence: “Under hysteroscopy, there were…” should be changed to:
“Hysteroscopic inspection showed five endometrial polyps”
Line 81. “in uterine cavity” should be deleted
Line 83. The sentence: “Specifically…” should be deleted
Line 84: “…and the patient was sent…” seems more appropriate
Discussion Section
Line 132. “… a severe operative complication” should be deleted; the severity of a septic shock
is obvious
Title: Formal support services and (dis)empowerment of domestic violence victims:
Perspectives from women survivors in Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reading this paper. I think it is interesting and well organized.  My only comments are
in clarifying points or correcting grammar.
1. Pg. 2: women movement should be women's movement (3rd line from the bottom)
2. The phrase "negative gender norms attitudinal changes" is a little confusing to me. Do you
mean you recommend attitudinal changes in gender expectations?
Pg. 3: Instead of "caters" I think "calls for" and later "calling for"  sounds more appropriate.
Pg. 3: Could you provide a source or sources for the first sentence in the second paragraph? It
ends with "accessing state support services."
Pg. 3: "However, till date," should be However, to date...
Pg. 10: In the last sentence, does the valid health insurance refer to a card? If not then, it should
read "Only one of them had valid health insurance."
Pg. 14:  In the the first paragraph beginning with "a testimony of their contribution..." seems
more like a commentary. Would this be more appropriate in the discussion section?
Pg. 15: In the table (2) at the bottom of the table under Outcome of support, I believe the
percentages for violence did not stop and violence stopped should be reversed?
Pg. 16: In the last paragraph: "Aside from fear of loss of life, the support from the abused
informal networks..." This is a little confusing, but do you mean the informal networks of the
abused? or the informal networks composed of abused women?
Pg. 20: Last paragraph: In the sentence "Threats of reporting alone..." should that be "it sent a
signal..." ?
Pg. 21: I am not familiar with this type of citation where you cite the number of the footnote
rather than the name of the author, so I had a hard time following the citations.
Pg. 23: "Court-guaranteed protection or occupation orders to protect survivors are not utilized..."
Also, "Aside from lack of knowledge..."
"This finding shows that women victims...are mostly at their wit's end..."
Title: Formal support services and (dis)empowerment of domestic violence victims:
Perspectives from women survivors in Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
On page 11, 2nd paragraph, "...had a valid health insurance" should be "had valid health
insurance."
Page 26, 1st paragraph, fifth line down, "Aside the lack of knowledge..." should be "Aside from
the lack of knowledge..."
Otherwise, I think this is good to go!  I enjoyed reading it and look forward to it being published!
Title: A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Domestic Violence
Vulnerability in Liberian Women
Version: 1 Date: 08 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Contribution to the literature information is not clear. It needs to be clearly explained before
materials and method section.
Data collection section must have citation to show the reference of data.
Liberia Demographic and Health Survey (LDHS) is stated several times in the article.
What are limitations of the proposed method, results and their findings in the study. It must have
a clear elaboration before conclusion section.
As this topic is very hot and the article must have recent literature reported in introduction
section. I can see there is no study published in 2023 in the introduction section.
Deep learning models such as RNNs are promising in prediction and widely used in the recent
literature. Why do authors prefer to use ML models instead of deep learning models?
Title: A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Domestic Violence
Vulnerability in Liberian Women
Version: 1 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have gone through the paper.
The paper lacks novelty from the perspective of the methodology . No any new idea in the study,
only off-the-shelf shallow algorithms were run on violent on women dataset. The lack basic
ingredient for a machine learning paper, it is more of a lecture note. Nothing to review in the
paper
Title: A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Domestic Violence
Vulnerability in Liberian Women
Version: 3 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have paid attention to their article by editing it in response to the comments and
feedback that have been given. I appreciate all you have done.
It is quite admirable that you are dedicated to improving your work's overall quality and
readability. It is clear that you have thoughtfully examined the comments, advice, and
suggestions offered by the reviewers, and the paper has been dramatically improved as a result
of the revisions that you have made.
Title: Breast cancer treatment and recovery: pets’ roles as emotional buffers and stressors
Version: 1 Date: 16 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this interesting study on social support provided by pets.
Please check throughout that qualitative is spelled correctly.
Is there data on whether participants had children at all, including adult children?  What about
adult children that live in the home? How many  never had kids?
The first four paragraphs in the discussion section are more of a literature review, then the results
of the study being tied to existing literature.
Title: Effectiveness of a Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal System Device for Hysteroscopic
Myomectomy on Patients’ Quality of Life: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Version: 3 Date: 02 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal.  In this study
the authors discuss  about the impact  of a Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal System Device for
Hysteroscopic Myomectomy on Patients’ Quality of Life.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers' attention and meets
all criteria for publication. The paper is well written and has important clinical messages.
Nevertheless, the authors should improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles
about the surgical treatment of  hysteroscopic myomectomy.  Could the authors give some details
on the surgical technique describing the advantages of this new device? Why the authors chose
this device?
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
In the last years second -generation techniques have been used in multiple hysteroscopic surgical
procedures, including metroplasty for the septate uterus, myomectomy, and polypectomies .
Evidence supports their safety and efficacy in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.  I think
it is worth to extend the discussion mentioning these new techniques.
Please refer to:
PMID: 26954490
PMID: 27632410
PMID: 26090457
Title: Effectiveness of a Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal System Device for Hysteroscopic
Myomectomy on Patients’ Quality of Life: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Version: 3 Date: 05 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Giancarlo Garuti
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript titled:
“Effectiveness of a Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal System Device for Hysteroscopic
Myomectomy on Patients’ Quality of Life: a Randomized Clinical Trial”
Is an appreciable well-designed study comparing prospectively the QOL of patient suffering
from submucosal myomas treated by hysteroscopic mechanical morcellation (Truclear System)
or hormonal medical therapy. Regarding each parameter used to rate the QOL no significant
differences have been found between the two treatment harms.
Nevertheless, I found a significant weakness of the trial due to the lack of clinical data.
• By which Transvaginal Ultrasonography the diagnosis of submucosal myoma was made? (a
standard examination, enhanced by saline infusion, 3D?)
• What the number and size of submucous myomas in the two harms?
• How many patients presented with grade 0, 1 or 2 myomas? In this view are the two harms
comparable?
In the surgical harm:
• Some form of endocrine priming was used before the treatment or it was timed based on
menstrual period?
• How many patients are treated under general anesthesia or in the outpatient setting?
• Which the diameter of hysteroscope? (18Fr or 26Fr?)
• What the surgical times?
• How many fibroids were fully removed?
In the medical harm:
• To establish the grade and number of myomas, the patients underwent a diagnostic
hysteroscopic assessment before the start of therapy?
• What estro-progestin oral combination was administered?
• Which IUD was used? (LNG  52mg or LNG 13mg?)
I understand that this implementation can be challenging. Nevertheless, I believe that an effort
to describe at least some of these methodological features, eventually aided by a supplementary
Table, can improve the quality of Your research.
Title: Effectiveness of a Hysteroscopic Tissue Removal System Device for Hysteroscopic
Myomectomy on Patients’ Quality of Life: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Version: 4 Date: 29 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Giancarlo Garuti
Reviewer's report:
Results Section, page 12, line 2: The use of general anesthesia implies an inpatient setting