JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Breastfeeding history and the risk of overweight and obesity in middle-aged women
Version: 1 Date: 08 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The association is clearly insufficient to provide a clinically singificant effect on weight.
This is a secondary analysis o a previous results but pre-specified objectives are lacking and no
protocol is adressed.
Background: If 6 out of 8 papers do not justify the present research seems to be quite unjustified
based on literature.
Methods: It is clear that this is a secondary analysis of another research. However, clear
preconseived objectives seems lacking and objectives of the original research are not present.
Sociodemographic data: All these interesting confounders should be adressed in the introduction
as well and it should be explained why were chosen. Which criteria did you use to select
confounders in multivariate analysis? Were those confounder chosen based on the literature on
the subject?
Discussion: Most of the studies confirm an inverse association is contradictory in relation to
what was stated in introduction.
Conclusion: The observed association and conclusion showed that BMI could be associated
to decreased breastfeeding. However, waist-to-hight ratio and body fat percetange showed no
association at all. This is not justified based on a theoretical framework. Authors should elaborate
on that. Moreover, more than 12 months of breastfeeding was not associated at all with obesity.
Please elaborate.
Title: Breastfeeding history and the risk of overweight and obesity in middle-aged women
Version: 4 Date: 23 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors did a very nice job of addressing all of my prior comments and suggestions. As
a result of these revisions, the manuscript is more clear, easy to read and missing details were
added. Additional references were added as well to substantiate authors' claims.
Thank you for your revisions and I look forward to reading more of your work.
Title: Frequency and determinants of vitamin D deficiency among premenopausal and
postmenopausal women in Karachi, Pakistan
Version: 3 Date: 08 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
It is an important area of research as vitamin d deficiency is being linked to so many chronic
disorders and women in patriarchial societies are so vulnerable to it. Therefore information on
factors leading to VDD and recommendations based on that can help in improving women s
health. I have pointed to methodological changes needed to present the finding more effectively
in my feedback. Good luck
Title: Frequency and determinants of vitamin D deficiency among premenopausal and
postmenopausal women in Karachi, Pakistan
Version: 3 Date: 10 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
It is really nice piece of work.
1. For postmenopausal women the authors used menopausal at some places and postmenopausal
- consistency required.
2. In Methods it is not clear if univariable logistic regression analyses were performed. How did
you select the risk factors for the multivariable model?
3. In results either report mean or median (range) based on distribution of the data.
4. Tables: n and % should be combined in one column for example 124(39.9%). In addition to
this, either use 1 decimal point or 2. Consistency required
5. International classification was used for BMI in methods whereas it was reported as Asian
Classification in Table2. Also, it is not clear from Table 2 if the BMI was used as continuous or
categorical for analyses. If used as continuous then footnote is not required.
5. Vitamin D deficiency stated as <20ng/ml or <=20ng/ml: revision needed it should be <20ng/
ml
6. There is no description provided in results for Table 3. Exercise was appeared for the first
time in table 3. Should be included in methods how it was recorded.
7. For international readers it is difficult to understand Attire outside, for example Chadder and
Burqa are may not be understandable for others could be defined may be as Chadder (Scarf) and
Burqa (Full cover Hijab) to make these words understandable
8. Discussion section lack the reasoning behind lack of associations with BMI and sun exposure.
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
Summary: the manuscript content does not correspond to its title. In fact, most of the work,
apart from the characteristics of the study group, relates to the study of relationship between
demographic characteristics and physical activity with menopausal symptoms, depression (table
4) and anxiety (table 5). Of course, these relationships are important, although they have already
been well researched and described. I propose to reorganize the manuscript so that it corresponds
to the goal set in the work.
Title: the title does not fully correspond to the content of the manuscript, basically only refers
to table 6.
Material and methods:
Exclusion criteria: in my opinion, it is important to emphasize the lack of depression or other
psychiatric diseases among the examined patients, and not taking medications for this reason. I
also believe that it is worth considering the use of menopausal replacement therapy by patients
and the occurrence of oncological diseases.
“hormone-containing foods and plants during the past 6 months” - how was this found? I assume
it was declarative. The question is whether the participants really had full knowledge of the
hormone content in the food they consumed
Results: the description of the results is very brief, with almost no content other than links to
tables - I propose to complete.
Tables: I suggest working on the editorial side of tables, keeping consistency in presenting data;
they are hardly legible in their current form
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 18 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the association of anxiety,
depression and menopausal related symptoms with anthropometric and body composition
indices in a sample of healthy postmenopausal women. The results and conclusions are
interesting, but I have the following suggestion and queries:
1) The background section should be address to orient readers to the problem and clearly to
state the hypothesis and the aim of the study. The aim of the study is well stated in the Abstract
section, but it is a more difficult to read in the background section. I would suggest to state the
hypothesis and the aim of the study in a clearer way in the last paragraph of this section.
2) In the Study design and participants section, authors do not provide the number of women who
did not accomplish the inclusion criteria o rejected to participate in the study. This data should
be interesting because around 90% of the sample showed mild or moderate depression scores in
BDI. Where there some of these women taking antidepressant  drugs or any other antidepressant
therapy? A better description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be advisable.
3) Data collection, index and inventories for scoring menopausal symptoms, symptoms of
depression and anxiety are well explained, but there is not any information about how physical
activity  (mild, moderate, severe) was calculated.
4) In tables 4 and 5 Chi square test was used and it appears that the expected value in some cells
are lesser than 5. I would recommend authors to consult an statistical expert for considering the
possibility of using Fisher#s Exact test or Yates correction
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The study’s findings the authors put the highest importance is in the association of body
composition indices with KI or trait anxiety.
However, even though the p-values may be less than 0.5, the r values of 0.169-0.216 is very
low, suggesting the association is none or very weak, if any.
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
It is necessary carefully reviewing the manuscript. It seems that paraphs are lacking, and
information about the cutoff values in the methods section is essential to address the statistical
analysis. The results are mainly descriptive, if you carried out a logistic regression, where are
the results?
I am recommended review the punctual observations to improve the manuscript. It is very
important rethink the results because these do not support the conclusions, and these does not
answer the objective of the study.
Also, the references needed a detailed revision because for most of these, the journal was not
included.
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
It is a very interesting and well-done study but it requires some minor corrections especially in
language that would help to improve this manuscript.
Title – “a sample of” is not needed.
Abstract – space between numbers and =, ± etc . is not needed, the same in the whole manuscript
and in tables.
Abstract Results Two first sentence – what does a positive correlation mean?
Abstract Results The last sentence – protect against, not for. One sentence is missing – what
about differences between physical activity and TA?
Abstract Conclusion – better use correlation, not association, and what does a positive correlation
mean?
Background – line 3 – consequence is not a verb, but a noun.
Line 6-7 The main consequences of … is – should be “are” or consequence (singular ) is.
Other language corrections are needed.
Methods Study design and participants
Incorrect sentence “She then relative randomly selected (menopausal women covered by each
center) postmenopausal women..”
Methods Sample size – space is missing between “considering#”
Methods Menopausal symptoms, Depression and Anxiety – add information that the more score
means more severe ….
Methods Statistical analysis – better use “correlation”, not “association”, not “relationship”.
Results
Divide results into subsection, describe each table separately, interpret correlations, for example
“the higher the weight was, the higher the severity of depression on average”.
Discussion
Write “in our study”, “according to oyr findings” etc.
In paragraph “According to the results of the present study, there was a significant reverse
relationship between physical activity intensity and symptoms of depression as well as Trait
anxiety…..”
Rather use “a negative correlation” not “reverse relationship” and interpret what does it mean,
for example the more intensive the physical activity is, the less severe the depression and trait
anxiety is”
In sentence in the same paragraph “Consistent with the results of the present study, Sternfeld
et al. [62] confirmed that 12 weeks of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise had no effect
on menopausal vasomotor symptoms but slightly improved sleep quality, insomnia, and
depression… “ it should be on the end “improved sleep quality as well as reduced insomnia and
depression”, not “improved insomnia and depression”.
Conclusion – not “direct association, but “positive correlation” , it would be better to interpret
what does positive correlation mean.
Tables – unify, capital letters or small letters? “value” in “p-value” is not needed, p is OK.
Table 3 – line in column 1 under Beck depression inventory-II is not needed
Table 4 – in Education there are 3 categories, why there are four results in each column?
Table 5 – what does two stars mean?
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 4 Date: 05 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is practically new. The results were changed and now the document is very
congruent; however, it is necessary precises some points:
- In methods section, a cutoff value is indicated for the age of 55 years old; although, there
is no basis for doing this division. Additionally, you need to specify which sociodemographic
variables are used; those only are pointed in the tables.
- In table 5, annex which was the statistical test used.
- The references need another revision because some journals are with abbreviation and most
with complete name.
If the authors address these points, the manuscript will be more clear.
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 4 Date: 10 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been improved significantly by the authors, especially results. I have only
one suggestion now: I prefer Methods section with dividing into subsection as was presented in
the first version of he manuscript: The study group ... etc.   Statistical methods.
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 4 Date: 15 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Below are comments mainly on the statistical methods section:
• It would be helpful to specifically mention the method employed to select the health centers
instead of the website the information was obtained as “…. using the website www.random.org”.
• The authors need to add further clarity on the sample size calculation method as well as how
the total sample size is allocated to each health center.
• What quality control measures were taken during data collection to maintain data quality?
Were there training of data collectors, supervision during data collection, etc?
• I think the authors would need to reconsider the below items in the statistical analysis:
o Pearson’s correlation is based on normality assumption. Did the authors made assessment of
normality assumption of the variables of interest before employing Pearson’s correlation.
o The authors mentioned using Fishers exact test in their analysis which implies the cell counts
were not large enough. On the other hand, the authors indicated using odds ratios (OR) and CI
of ORs. Are these ORs trustworthy given the cell counts/ sample size of categories?
o It would be helpful to clearly mention for which type of data/ variables the Spearman’s
correlation and partial person correlation analyses were considered.
o Some estimates of the correlation coefficient are small implying weak relationship despite
statistically significant p-values. So, it would be helpful if the authors could reflect on these
relationships from subject matter view-point in addition to statistical significance consideration.
Title: Association of depression, anxiety and menopausal-related symptoms with demographic,
anthropometric and body composition indices in healthy postmenopausal women
Version: 6 Date: 13 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Now it is fine that the authors put many “weak” ’s in the main text to show that the associations
are not quite meaningful, although they are statistically significant.
Unfortunately, the abstract remains unchanged, and those who come across it will be misled that
those associations are clinically meaningful.
The authors are advised to revise the abstract accordingly.
Title: Health workers’ perspectives on barriers and facilitators to implementing a new national
cervical cancer screening program in Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 07 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript and congratulations on your well-reported
work.
I have some minor suggestions in order to improve your manuscript:
1) A sub-heading might be including before reporting results (lines 218 to 244).
2) You begin the discussion section by pointing out that the "biggest perceived barrier" was the
lack of awareness. I did not have this impression, reading your results and discussion. It seems
that "environmental constraints" were more relevant. There is a generally limited perception that
the problem of cervical cancer screening is due to a poor women´s attitude regarding self-care.
It is an important issue, and the lack of awareness contributes a lot. However, like critical health
providers, we know that when there is a lack of infrastructure, women´s attitude does not really
matter. That is the originality of your study. The reports presented are pointing clearly to this
fact. I would suggest reviewing this concept.
3) I would suggest including a table or box with proposals founded in the interviews to overcome
the barriers, from the provider's perspectives.
Best regards, Reviewer.
Title: Health workers’ perspectives on barriers and facilitators to implementing a new national
cervical cancer screening program in Ethiopia
Version: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2021
Reviewer:  Doug Puricelli Perin
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing all my comments and resubmitting this greatly improved manuscript.
The added analysis of the screening programs brought an important and needed layer to
the results, capturing the challenges with patient flow and referral systems. In addition, you
strengthened your conclusions and recommendations regarding cancer control planning in
Ethiopia.
Title: Cohort Analysis of the State of Female Genital Cutting in Nigeria: Prevalence, Daughter
Circumcision and Attitude towards its Discontinuation
Version: 3 Date: 28 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript describes an important health issue of female genital mutilation which is highly
prevalent in Nigeria. The manuscript is well written but there are some areas that would benefit
from further review and I will highlight my observations on a section by section basis.
1. Title of the manuscript: “Cohort Analysis of the State of Female Circumcision in
Nigeria: Prevalence, Daughter Circumcision and Attitude towards its Discontinuation”. This is
controversial and gives the impression that what is done is similar to male circumcision. Female
genital mutilation (FGM) is broader and covers all forms of female genital cutting (FGC).
Though the intention behind female circumcision may not be to harm the ‘girl’ it is still FGM
therefore the use of the word ‘circumcision’ is not appropriate and is not to be encouraged.
Rather, female genital cutting/mutilation (FGC/M) may be more appropriate in this manuscript
if the authors dislike FGM. This should also reflect in the manuscript.
2. Abstract: This may be altered after making necessary changes to the main document.
3. Background: In this field of FGM, where would you situate this manuscript? This should be
clear along with the justification.
- The statement in lines 70 – 73 should be referenced.
- The statement in line 83 – 90 is too long
- See line 90, the use of FGM interchangeably with female circumcision
4. Methods:
- The statement in line 129 needs to be referenced
5. Discussion:
Under this section it may be worthwhile to highlight the following:
- Strength and weakness of the study
- Implications for policymakers
- Unanswered question(s) and future research
- Limitation of the study (very important in this manuscript).
- The statement in lines 445 – 447 should be referenced.
6. References
- Kindly review all the references again with a special focus on
- Number 3: incomplete, date accessed
- Number 9:incomplete
- Number 10: incorrect, check the journal out.
- Number 11,12, 19 & 20: incomplete
- Number 24: abbreviate the journal name
- Number 30 &31: incomplete, date accessed
- Number 36: incorrect abbreviation
Title: Cohort Analysis of the State of Female Genital Cutting in Nigeria: Prevalence, Daughter
Circumcision and Attitude towards its Discontinuation
Version: 6 Date: 06 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a good job based on the initial comments however they still need to
pay attention to the references. It is important so that readers can benefit from the journals or
publications consulted.
In general, when a publication is cited online, the website address should be quoted stating it
as "available at: "with the date accessed.
The title of some of the journals are not properly abbreviated.
Below are examples from your manuscript:
1. Reference 3, when was it accessed?
2.Reference 9, the title afri medic journal is incorrect.
3.Reference 10, is incomplete. When was it accessed?
4.Reference 17, when was it accessed?
5.Reference 19, kindly insert the correct abbreviation for the journal name
6.Reference 29, this is incomplete
7.Reference 31, kindly insert the correct abbreviation of journal name and the website
8. Reference 37, same as above.
9. You may wish to cross-check others.
Title: Fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) among Chinese women undergoing frozen embryo
transfer
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author
I read the study with interest. My suggestions are as follows:
1-introduction part is too long: especially in the second paragraph, too many similar articles are
mentioned. A shorter regulation, generalization should be made
2- How and when the questionnaires were filled. What standardization has been provided for
this process?
Title: Fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) among Chinese women undergoing frozen embryo
transfer
Version: 5 Date: 26 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for their extensive revisions of the article. It reads much clearer and better
reports their findings. I believe this article will be suitable for publication after a few small
revisions as listed below.
Abstract - Results: I would delete the specific results scores and SB results/R2 calculation.
Simply state that scores were high and which factors were risk factors for diminished QOL.
Readers can review the text to find actual values. This will read smoother.
Scale Scores: The FPI results and S-AI/T-AI results should be presented in a table. This can be
in supplemental materials or added to Table 3 and should be referred to in the text.
I am assuming these are mean scores for the entire study population. If this is true, the text should
read “the mean total FPI score…” and “The mean S-AI and T-AI scores were…”. The same
goes for reference to scores in the discussion.
Lines 194-198 should read:
These scores are lower than those seen in a mixed populations of fresh and frozen embryo
transfer patients in developed countries. In the USA, for example, the mean Core FertiQoL score
of women undergoing IVF was 72.30±14.80 [14].
Line 220 should read:
so women  may experience more social prejudice
Lines 233-234 should read:
This result indicates that the treatment interval may exacerbate the anxiety of women undergoing
embryo transfer.
Lines 234-235: When you state additional studies are needed to explore a difference between
fresh and frozen transfer, what difference are you referring to? Psychological impact? This needs
to be more specific because this could refer to live birth rates, pregnancy outcomes, etc. You
could also consider just deleting this sentence.
Lines 240-241 should read:
In this study, young women had better quality of life scores.
Line 260 should read:
medical conditions. Future research is needed to compare these two groups.