JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Household food insecurity, sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors associated with
high blood pressure among women in farming communities in Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 11 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
Line 33: about a-fifth of the participants; remove the dash
Keyword: please consider ethnicity and rural and peri-urban. When you put these words into
google, the results are not linked to the study
Introduction
Line 63: kindly provide some statistics to support the claim
Line 66: please move the sentence A house … to line 55, after the sentence that ends with life.
Line 97: is this a section header
Methods
Line 122 add study after cross-sectional
Line 147: edit the section on Twi.. it is unclear
Measures: indicate that HFIAS is applicable to the Ghanaian context
Line 168: change we to were
Line 170. Edit for clarity; a word is missing, add
I would the authors to consider further analysis into the pathway through which food insecurity
affects hypertension. they can consider creating interaction terms between food insecurity and
lifestyle changes.
Title: Household food insecurity, sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors associated with
high blood pressure among women in farming communities in Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 24 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
General Comments
In this manuscript “Household food insecurity, sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors
associated with high blood pressure among women in farming communities in Ghana” The
study to examined the association between household food insecurity (HFI) and hypertension
among women farmers in peri-urban and rural communities in Ghana. The study idea is fairly
novel, makes an important contribution and draws linkages between food insecurity and chronic
disease conditions such hypertension, obesity and others, thus it will add to literature. However,
the basis using prevalence of obesity for sample size is not clear and so in its current state, the
manuscript requires some revisions.
Line 133:
Reviewer Comment #1: Methods:
Sample size;
Authors did not mention about the statistical software used for data analyses. It would be better
to write few lines on preferred statistical analyses and justification on why it was used.
Reviewer Comment #2
Line 137: Insert “Study or research” after earlier
Reviewer Comment #3
Line 137: If the prevalence of hypertension in an earlier study was 31.4%, what is the justification
of using 50% prevalence?
Reviewer Comment #4
Line 153: you may change respondents to “participants”
Reviewer Comment #5
Line 133: Why did you not use prevalence of high blood pressure (hypertension) since your
objective was to understand the relationship between food insecurity, lifestyle habits and
hypertension. Or you are using obesity as a proxy to measure hypertension, which only measure
risk of developing hypertension but not prevalence of hypertension. Please clarify
Reviewer Comment #6
Line 249: how was the household wealth estimated?
Reviewer Comment #7
Line 282 to283, Authors indicated “This observation may buttress the idea that risky health
behaviors such as alcohol intake may contribute to food insecurity” explain further.
Reviewer Comment #8
Line 300: Is this a validated methodology? you may cite other studies to justify, since 24-hour
dietary recall may not be sufficient to justify food insecurity.
Reviewer Comment #9
English language and expression need to be thoroughly checked and corrected as there are a
number of issues/errors throughout the text.
Title: Effects of a Low-FODMAP Diet on Patients with Endometriosis, a Prospective Cohort
Study
Version: 4 Date: 01 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comment
This study examined the efficacy of a low-FODMAP diet in alleviating bowel symptoms among
patients with endometriosis, highlighting its therapeutic potential as a non-medical intervention
within multidisciplinary care frameworks.
Introduction
-Line 106: Please more clearly clarify that visceral hypersensitivity is a factor in
both endometriosis and IBS, especially endometriosis. Please consider providing a more
comprehensive discussion.
-Line 115-119: This paragraph mainly focused on the efficacy of low-FODMAP in treating
endometriosis. Please consider discussing it in the Discussion section
-Line 120-132: The content regarding comparative analysis of dietary interventions should be
discussed in the Discussion section, not the Introduction.
Methods
- Line 196: Please add "Answers of EHP 30 can be rated on a 5-point scale (0 = never to 4 =
always)."
- Please specify the administration format of the questionnaires (electronic vs. paper-based) in
the Methods section.
Result and Discussion
- Table 1 presented 13 patients diagnosed with IBS among 34 patients. Given the
established efficacy of low-FODMAP diets in IBS management, the overlapping gastrointestinal
pathophysiology between IBS and endometriosis raises concerns about confounding bias. Please
clarify.
- The sample size is small and there is a high dropout rate. Type of endometriosis and current
treatment may result in bias. Please discuss it in the Discussion section.
Title: Dealing with lipoedema: women’s experiences of healthcare, self-care, and treatments—
a mixed-methods study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded well to the comments I raised and the
paper is much clearer now. I have no more comments. Thanks for the hard work!"
Title: Silencing circRNA-ZFAND6 induces trophoblast apoptosis by activating the
mitochondrial pathway through the miR-575/SOD2 axis in unexplained recurrent spontaneous
abortion
Version: 2 Date: 26 May 2024
Reviewer:  Huiqing Ding
Reviewer's report:
The author identified a reduced novel circRNA, hsa_circ_0000643 (circRNA-ZFAND6) that
increased miR-575 and further reduced SOD2 levels, which further reduced proliferation of and
caused apoptosis of HTR8/SVneo cells. These results formed a circRNA-0000643/miR-575/
SOD2 axis that promoted RSA occurrence by affecting the trophoblast proliferation. In general,
this study was conducted strictly and provided resourceful information. However, I would like
to give some suggestions.
1. The manuscript is too long. The first two paragraphs in the introduction, several well-known
experiments like PCR and WB, as well as the discussion can be shortened.
2. The abstract part is not well written. The author should give more primary results.
3. The key words should be consistent in the important descriptions: abortion and pregnancy loss.
4. The enrollment of the cohort is inconsistent between the method and the result part.
30 pairs of age-matched URSA patients and normal pregnant patients in the method, however,
23 pairs in the results. What is the use of 4 women who experienced a missed abortion?
5. In Figure 1H, why does the control group have 0.87 (1.29) pregnancy loss per woman? why
is it 0 (use women without abortion as control)?
6. The legendary of barplots with more than 2 categories cannot be differentiated.
7. The upper flowcytometry results in Figure 2C appear to be an error.
8. The discussion part talks too much about the justification of the research. The first paragraph
in the discussion is not needed. Here the authour should mainly discuss about the findings.
Title: Silencing circRNA-ZFAND6 induces trophoblast apoptosis by activating the
mitochondrial pathway through the miR-575/SOD2 axis in unexplained recurrent spontaneous
abortion
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors show that in unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion, blocking circRNA-
ZFAND6 induces trophoblast cell death by activating the mitochondrial pathway through the
miR-575/SOD2 axis. This finding is important; however, there is a notable concern about the
culture media used with HTR-8/SVneo cells. RPMI-1640 is generally recommended for HTR-8/
SVneo cells according to the original cell providers and ATCC. Using an alternative medium,
such as DMEM, might affect the cells' signaling pathways and functionality.
Title: Silencing circRNA-ZFAND6 induces trophoblast apoptosis by activating the
mitochondrial pathway through the miR-575/SOD2 axis in unexplained recurrent spontaneous
abortion
Version: 3 Date: 19 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is a reevaluation of a revised manuscript by Wang and
colleagues. The authors have carefully responded to all queries raised by the original reviewers,
and in my opinion, the manuscript is ready to be accepted for publication."
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 1 Date: 13 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study about how the position of the pelvis during the ultrasound
examination affects the measured parameters.
Finding differences in all the parameters studied and the posterior position being the one that
obtains the best results.
In any case, it is striking to me that ALL the parameters vary so much from one position to
another.
The study lacks a study of the reproducibility and repeatability of the measurements in each
of the positions, since each position technically varies the performance of the ultrasound and
generates different difficulties.
The writing of the summary is confusing and complex. I recommend redoing it and eliminating
the excessive degrees of significance.
An illustration showing exactly the placement of patients in each of the three positions is
necessary. It would be necessary for each of the positions to be detailed more clearly.
A study of the reproducibility and repeatability of each of the measurements is missing.
What is the methodology followed to carry out each of the measurements used, please reference
it. Simply posting illustrations is not enough.
“POP on Transperineal ultrasound was defined based on previously published cut-offs of descent
# 0 mm, # 0 mm, # 15 mm, and # 0 mm below the symphysis pubis for cystocele, uterine prolapse,
perineal overactivity, and rectocele, respectively, and hiatal ballooning was defined as HA#20
cm2 (16).” Estos puntos de corte no tienen el suficiente respaldo de la literatura internacional,
y además desconozco que es lo que denominan como perineal ovaractivity.
How was the sample size calculated?
Error in the table 2: Hiatal ballooning Yes 21 (42%) 11 (22%) 35 (70%) No 29 (58%) 39 (78%)
15 (70%)
Table 3 has too many acronyms
In the discussion I should comment on whether the results of this study would have any influence
on the position at the time of physical examination of patients with prolapse.
Among the limitations of this study would be the lack of a study of the reproducibility and
repeatability of the measurements in each of the positions.
the conclusions should go at the end of the discussions after the limitations
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.  Unfortunately, I can not recommend
this work for publication. Firstly, the methodology and statistical analysis need to be carefully
examined and improved – there is no sample size calculation, no information regarding drop-
outs/excluded patients, no information regarding testing of normality of data etc. Moreover,
the use of repeated measures ANOVA is incorrect. Secondly, if all the measurements were
performed in the same order, this could affect the results, as patients can quickly improve their
pelvic muscles contraction/Valsalva manoeuvre based on examiners feedback. And last, there
is no data on POP-Q measurements of included patients, meaning we do not have an objective
“proof” od their prolapse. In my opinion, it would be better to correlate your US finding to POP-
Q measurements for the corresponding compartment.
Introduction:
- Prevalence of 3-6% is very low. The reference behind this statement is more than 10 years old,
the authors should refer to more recent literature.
- The introduction is a bit too general. I would suggest authors to focus on diagnostics of POP
only.
Methods:
- Which medical professionals collected the data?
- Primary and secondary aims of the study are not defined.
- Why did you choose to include 50 patients only? Was sample size calculation performed?
- Were the measurements always performed in the same order? In my opinion, this could affect
the results, as the patients can learn to perform Valsalva manoeuvre/pelvic floor contraction
better because of investigator’s feedback during the examination.
- In which case did you use parametric test? Did you perform normality analysis to check for
normal distribution of your data?
- Repeated measurement ANOVA is used for repeated measurement of the same outcome
in the same group and not to compare different outcomes in the same group of participants.
Moreover, outcomes should be approximately normally distributed. I would suggest you to
consult a statistician to help you with the analysis.
Results:
- Please state how many patients you assessed/invited and how many you included in the study.
- If you present your demographic data in a table, you do not have to repeat it in the text.
Moreover, it looks very difficult to read.
- You are presenting the results of urethral funneling, but there is no description of urethral
funneling measurement in the Methods. Moreover, there is no information on measurement of
the BND, URA etc. in the Methods section.
Discussion:
- Why would a woman contract their PFM at the end of urination/defecation?
- The discussion is very scarce and does not give sufficient explanation of the results and possible
mechanisms behind authors’ findings.
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 3 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I have read the manuscript, the response of the reviewers and all track changes.
I find that the author tried to improve their manuscript. A lot more patients were added, but the
majority of the comments were answered in a very limited way.
The trackchanges include a lot of folds in grammer.
I am absolutely not convinced that the previous doubts from the reviewers are now solved.
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 4 Date: 17 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for your study. You stated  that the differences among neutral pelvic tilt,
anterior pelvic tilt, and posterior pelvic tilt in hiatal area (at contraction), hiatal area (at rest),
hiatal area (at valsalva), bladder neck descent, urethral rotation angle, cervical descent, rectal
ampulla descent, hiatal area increase, and hiatal area decrease were statistically significant. -
-Why did you choose the study population from postpartum women?  will the results be different
in postmenopausal or premenapousal groups?
# th#nk it is important . You should explain it  clearly to the readers in the  aim  section.
-#  didnt see in the  study a correlation between your ultrasounic findings and POP stages with
pelvic floor muscle position.
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 4 Date: 24 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The semantic and contextual issues as highlighted by Reviewer 3, and I concur with Reviewer
4, too, have regrettably persisted in this revision which made the significance of your study,
methods and findings, though of interest, difficult to interpret and  is below standard quality to
be expected for publication.
Some examples include:
- persistent typos in lines 119, 206, 332
- multiple inconsistent utilisation of capital letters mid-sentence.
- discussion lines 242-243, "In total, our results revealed that posterior pelvic tilt is a better
position for performing PFM contraction and Valsalva." - please avoid unnecessary subjective
terms, 'better' implies relative outcome achievement to study objectives, however it really wasn't
clear to me how that's justifiably the case.
However, at the heart of this, yours would be a study worthy of publication following more
careful revision, with particular attention to ensuring succinct and grammatical structuring
please.
With best regards,
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 4 Date: 29 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Fernandi Moegni
Reviewer's report:
Welldone for the study, it is very useful for getting the optimum results of those measurements
during levator ani contraction and valsalva maneuvre. But unfortunately there is no specific
picture with detail information of the position. There were pictures, but with no information
which one was anterior nor posterior tilt. And it will be much better if the detail of the position
was described, e.g. using how thick in cm of the pillow? Because this is very important in
influencing the supine position of the patient anad also the measurement results.
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 4 Date: 30 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
It is interesting study.
1. In my opinion urethral funneling evaluation should be deleted from the study. Evaluation yes/
no is too subjective. If someone would like to evaluate funneling, length and width should be
measured.
2. Figure 4.
- Mistake in photos: swap places of c and e,
- Following my first sentence - delete funneling (f),
- d: I did not find explanation of: S, E, U, R, V,
- d: two times A and two times R - this must be changed,
- d: the following is not clear, please change it: “The measurements in the top right are
bladder neck-symphysis distance (BSD), retrovesical angle (RVA), urethral tilt angle (UTA),
cervix uteri-symphysis (Cx-SP), ampullae recti-symphysis (RA-SP); e The parameters measured
at Valsalva are bladder neck-symphysis distance (BSD), retrovesical angle (RVA), bladder
posterior wall-symphysis (BPW-SP), urethral tilt angle (UTA), cervix uteri-symphysis(Cx-
SP), ampullae recti-symphysis (RA-SP), bladder neck descent (BND), urethral rotation angle
(URA);”
3. It’s a pity that all measurements were not done at rest, at Valsalva and durimg maximal pelvic
floor muscle contraction, they were done only at Valsalva and rest.
4. “Kuba Ptaszkowski et al” should be changed to “Ptaszkowski et al” or Ptaszkowski K. et al”
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 5 Date: 03 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are minor 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?
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: The authors report findings from an important study. The asessment
technique is well described, and can easily be reproduced.
The sampling technique need to be further clarified.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
May 2020 to May 2024 - only 132 participants - What was the selection criteria? Was is
consecutive patients?
Since this is not an interventional / randomized study, why was a clinical trial registration
performed?
Preliminary 41 participants - how were they identified?
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors have addressed the queries raised by previous reviewers satisfactorily.
Title: Effect of pelvic position on ultrasonic measurement parameters of pelvic floor in
postpartum women
Version: 6 Date: 27 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have answered the queries raised satisfactorily,
including the long sampling window and participant selection.