JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Application of high intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of uterine fibroids in
overweight/obese women
Version: 2 Date: 09 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Livio Leo
Reviewer's report:
The authors' answers are satisfactory. The rise in temperature in the postoperative period can
be caused by necrosis of the myoma or by an incorrect surgical technique of the laparoscopic
suture that seems to be not in double introflecting layer. There remains the need to know the
follow-up in women wishing to become pregnant.
Title: Impact of Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval on Mortality in Patients with Early-stage
Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Nationwide Korean Cohort
Version: 1 Date: 28 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors highlighted that disparities exist regarding breast cancer mortality in South Korea.
As this is a study on mortality, additional information on tumour characteristics would allow
for a more complete picture, e.g. tumour grade and triple negative status. However, the use of
national data does provide a better overview of the access to healthcare by patients with different
socioeconomical. The following are some areas to clarify:
1. “We collected the data of 161,514 adults with breast cancer from a historical cohort enrolled
between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2017 by connecting the NHIS and KCCR databases.”
However, the flowchart (Figure 1) starts with 2006 to 2016. Please verify if the information is
accurate.
2. “A 2-year washout period (2006–2007) was applied to identify patients with new-onset breast
cancer.” Is the washout period to avoid recurrence? I am assuming that the date of first diagnosis
is known.
3. “Furthermore, patients diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 were excluded to ensure coverage
of this period.” It is unclear what coverage is referring to. Is it for treatment information? Or
that the patient will still be on treatment before the study end date?
4. Were there missing data and how was it accounted for?
5. What is the justification on using first treatment date as index date instead of diagnosis date?
6. Can “OP+CHEMO+RADIO” be completed for patients diagnosed in 2016 and still have
sufficient contribution to mortality before 2017?
7. Please check the column percentages for Table 1, After PSM, treatment type. It does not sum
to 100%.
8. Are there any patients who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy? If yes, how were they
accounted for in the analysis for Figure 2?
9. Is the first treatment always surgery? Or is Figure 2 based on a subset of patients who had
surgery as the first treatment?
10. Is there any reason why patients with more treatments have a lower risk of death (Table 2)?
11. Is there information on tumour characteristics? As all patients are diagnosed at early stage,
are there variability in other prognostic indicators, e.g. triple negatives?
12. Survival is high in breast cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage. How many deaths are
there in the two groups (DFTI #60 and >60 days)?
This is an interesting study, and I believe with clarifications, it will make a valuable contribution
to the field.
Title: Impact of Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval on Mortality in Patients with Early-stage
Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Nationwide Korean Cohort
Version: 1 Date: 29 Nov 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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor 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: My overall impression of the study is that the cutoff used to
categorize delay and non-delay may be too long for contemporary oncological practice. The
authors have done a commendable job in utilizing the Korean National Insurance claims-based
datasets for their research. However, the presentation of the study results could be further refined
to enhance clarity and impact.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The cutoff of 60 days is too long for an advanced country such as South Korea. A sensitivity
analysis of applying the second cut-off at 45 days may be necessary to answer the research
question raised by the authors.
The title contains a redundant term. Since every treatment cycle should go through the first cycle
of treatment, it is redundant to call it ‘diagnosis-to-first-treatment.’ Moreover, this study did
not investigate ‘diagnosis-to-second phase treatment,’ which is not meaningful. I recommend
effectively calling it diagnosis-to-treatment interval, which would be adequate and clearer.
Lines 75 to 77: “Moreover, most patients fear that cancer will progress during the DFTI, which
may also cause concern to the treating physician [18].” If this statement is true, why were there
so many Korean patients who delayed treatment more than 60 days?
Lines 147 to 148: “Furthermore, patients diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 were excluded
to ensure coverage of this period.” This contradicts the enrollment period which included the
entire year of 2017.
A historical paper published half a century ago can be cited to show readers this delay
phenomenon that has long concerned oncologists worldwide. Ref.: Sheridan et al. The effects
of delay in treatment of survival rates in carcinoma of the breast. Med J Aust 1971 Jan
30;1(5):262-7.
Title: Impact of Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval on Mortality in Patients with Early-stage
Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Nationwide Korean Cohort
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors has addressed all my concerns exceptionally well. I have no additional queries.
I noted that the uploaded Figure 2 is the same as Figure 1, pleases re-submit figure 2.
Title: Impact of Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval on Mortality in Patients with Early-stage
Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Nationwide Korean Cohort
Version: 2 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 adequately addressed all of the questions and
concerns I raised in the previous round of review and have incorporated the corresponding
revisions into the manuscript. Overall, I find the revised manuscript to be substantially improved,
and I am pleased to recommend it for publication."
Title: Young women’s perspectives on a user-friendly self-sampling intervention to improve
the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections in underserved communities in KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The changes made to the manuscript have strengthened the paper. Please see the following
suggestions:
P. 3, line 65-69. These sentences are different than what was put in the response letter.
Also, suggest inserting what is in the response letter and deleting what is there, which has
some typos. So insert this, “These findings are concerning when we consider the long-
term health complications of STIs which include infertility, increased risk of acquiring
human immunodeficiency virus, and development of cervical cancer [14, 15]. This affects
young women’s rights to pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, and ultimately their sexual
wellbeing.”
P. 5, line 134, no need to spell out “Nominal Group Technique” here. Just use “NGT.”
Line 135, instead of “the delay” suggest “a delay.”
Line 139, suggest, “…none of the young women showed up.”
Nice additions regarding the actual words of the participants as examples of the responses that
led to the author-determined themes. In the text, it would be helpful for readers if the themes
were differentiated from the narrative text in some way, such as by using italics. For instance,
italicize, "PHCs are far away from home."
p. 10- Rather than “clash” consider, “conflict with”
Line 328, suggest removing “”to accommodate people with disabilities” from the header,
“Online system to assess symptoms and register to receive or collect self-sampling kits to
accommodate people with disabilities.” This system was suggested for reasons other than just
to help people with disabilities, e.g., to preserve confidentiality.
Line 354. I do not see how the sentence, “Participants reported that clinic operating hours clashed
with school hours which was a challenge for young women in school” fits under the header,
“Results communicated via email or SMS”.
Line 414, “Although the cost of access has been highlighted as a barrier, research has shown
that it does not necessarily result in increased utilisation of healthcare services [54]”. Should
this be something like, “Although the cost of access has been highlighted as a barrier, research
has shown that reduced or no cost servicesdo not necessarily result in increased utilisation of
healthcare services [54]”?
This sentence, “Overall, as a strategy, STI health education has the potential to improve
healthcare seeking behaviour whilst simultaneously addressing cultural issues and practices that
prevent adults from talking to young people about sexual intercourse and providing suitable
guidance” should follow the discussion on health education, rather than the discussion on cost
as a barrier.
Suggest deletion of the sentence that begins with “ By co-creating strategies” as it repeats the
idea reflected in the sentence that begins on line 472. Also, it uses “co-creating” which is a
concept that has not been used before nor defined.
Title: Young women’s perspectives on a user-friendly self-sampling intervention to improve
the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections in underserved communities in KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
Version: 4 Date: 29 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Please find minor comments in the attached document
There is always a difference in some preferences from reviewers
I prefer the avoidance of new abbreviations unfamiliar to most readers like "NGT" but other
reviewers may differ in opinion.  In general, the goal of a manuscript is to communicate with
the readers, so the avoidance of abbreviations and jargon can increase effective communication.
Thank you for the opportunity to review
Title: Young women’s perspectives on a user-friendly self-sampling intervention to improve
the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections in underserved communities in KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
Version: 4 Date: 01 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Catherine Kafu
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations for this draft. You have done a great job so far, but this can be improved with
relooking at the data analysis and beefing up the results section. I look forward to reading the
revised draft.
Title: Young women’s perspectives on a user-friendly self-sampling intervention to improve
the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections in underserved communities in KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa
Version: 5 Date: 18 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Joanna Busza
Reviewer's report:
This paper is much improved, and my comments have been adequately addressed. I think the
paper needs a quick editing check for grammar but can otherwise proceed to publication. A few
minor points that the authors may want to consider are as follows:
Lines 75-83 - this additional text needs some editing . There is repetition of "phenomena" ,
"better life" and "overpopulation" within the same sentences. There is inconsistent use of
numbering (2 and "two"). The following sentence does not make sense, either grammatically or
content-wise "Overpopulation which typically characterises these 2 phenomena, often leads to
unequal and limited accessibility to basic healthcare services due to over population negatively
contributing to the spread of unknown and untreated infections ". Please clarify the whole
paragraph.
Lines 92-93 are the same as lines 101-102 ("Self-sampling can facilitate a paradigm shift from
a syndromic approach towards STI-specific treatment. ")
Lines 104-105 repetition of "input"
Line 110 - missing word ("THE fight for health equity")
Line 193 - I don't understand how themes could be coded with guidance from other themes. Do
you mean some codes were deductively identified based on the study questions? But then you
say the coding categories emerged directly from raw data. Please clarify
I really like the additional text you have provided in lines 450-466; this highlights a very
important challenge around youth engagement in intervention design.
Title: The Effect of Shared Decision-Making on the Conflict and Regret in Menopause
Symptoms Management: An interventional study
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Title: It is not clear and attractive.Please revise it.
Abstract: please replace discussion with conclusion. Also, the last sentence of discussion is not
related to the purpose of your study. Please revise it.
Introduction: the aim of the study is different from one you wrote in abstract. Please correct it.
Method: some of your exclusion criteria should be revised because they are "not inclusion"
criteria. The exclusion criteria are ones which happens after taking part in your research not
before it. Please revise this section.Also, did you have IRCT code? Please mention it.
Sample size: please mention the formula.
Intervention: Did you have blinding in your research? Please explain about it.Also, please
provide a table about the content of each session of intervention and provide more information
about SDM-based counseling.
Results: please avoid to repeat data in tables. For example, most of your explanations about
demographic data of participants are mentioned in tables.It doesn't need to repeat them again.
References: some of them are too old. Please update them.
Title: The Effect of Shared Decision-Making on the Conflict and Regret in Menopause
Symptoms Management: An interventional study
Version: 2 Date: 24 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
It is not obvious how this study evaluated the "effect of Shared Decision Making"
It has evaluated the effect of providing DA) booklet on the Decision Conflict and Regret of
Choosing the Menopause Symptoms Management Method among Women!
What does DA Stand for?
How was this booklet prepared?
How and who confirmed its content accuracy and relevance to the research intervention?
Speaking individually for 90-60 minutes seems too long for a non-academic one-to-one
education. How was the session performed to prevent participants' concentration loss?
Why the general information about menopause was not provided in group sessions?
Is this intervention supposed to be an affordable (cost-effective) technique that can be applied
in reality? What is different between this approach and the PLISSIT and EXPLISSIT model?
Why the general information about menopause was not provided in group sessions?
How did you reach the agreement to put some content in the oral presentation and others in the
booklet?
Which variable (s) could be measured by introduced instruments?
results: There is no need to repeat data presented in tables, in the text.
Strength and limitation: It couldn’t be this study's strength. It was the design of this study.  If
the sample size was estimated for this study, it couldn't be a limitation!
Title: The Effect of Shared Decision-Making on the Conflict and Regret in Menopause
Symptoms Management: An interventional study
Version: 5 Date: 12 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
I would like to offer a few specific suggestions to enhance the quality of the paper:
I suggest including a clear statement regarding the absence of adverse events or side effects,
even if none occurred, as recommended by item 19 of the CONSORT checklist, which appears
to be the only item not fully addressed in the current version.
A thorough language revision by a fluent English speaker is strongly advised, with particular
attention to clarity and grammar. Recurrent issues were noted in subject-verb agreement, verb
tenses, and word choice (e.g., “the the effect,” “tow groups,” “theire choise,” “concentration
about content of consultation”).
Title: The Preferences of Breast Cancer Patients Regarding a Digital Social Care Platform
Version: 1 Date: 25 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Hosna Salmani
Reviewer's report:
Try to streamline the literature review by highlighting the most relevant studies and theories that
directly relate to the study's objectives and hypotheses.
The paper mentions the persuasive system design (PSD) model and its relevance to designing
digital health technologies. It would be beneficial to provide more explicit connections between
the PSD model and the study's objectives. How does the PSD model inform the selection of
attributes and levels for the digital social care platform?
Explain in more detail how the attributes and levels were determined based on the PSD model
and social support system. Additionally, provide more information about the validation process
for the questionnaire and how the sample size was determined.
Consider providing more information about the statistical techniques used, particularly
regarding the Ordered Logistic Regression Model. Explain how the model was applied and why
it was chosen as the appropriate analytical approach.
Try to highlight the practical implications of the findings more explicitly. How can the identified
preferences inform the design and implementation of digital social care platforms for breast
cancer patients in real-world settings?
Consider adding a subsection on limitations and future directions to acknowledge any constraints
or areas for further research. Additionally, emphasize the broader implications of the study's
findings for healthcare policymakers, practitioners, and technology developers.
Title: The Preferences of Breast Cancer Patients Regarding a Digital Social Care Platform
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Camelia Rohani
Reviewer's report:
This is a second review on “The Preferences of Breast Cancer Patients Regarding a Digital Social
Care Platform.” Thanks to the authors for answering the questions. There are still several issues
that authors need to address.
1. Page 7: In the first part of the article, there is a section with the title of “Translation of PSD
Principles into the Features of a Digital Social Support System.”
It should be removed from here and replaced in the method section.
2. Methods: 2-2- Study participants and the sampling method: Authors mentioned that “To
include the required number of patients in the study, 158 consecutive patients who attended
the outpatient oncology unit at one of the tertiary hospitals affiliated…were recruited” and
in the results section they mentioned that “Results: Based on a systematic review conducted
by Merlo et al., the median response rate to the DCE was 42%. Therefore, we distributed
250 questionnaires to compensate for the 32 percent of response drop-off (43).” There is no
consistency between the text and figures in the method and results sections. If the authors
started with 250 participants and later recruited 150, they should mention it from the first part of
sampling. Also, if they did consecutive sampling, it’s better to write: “To include the required
number of patients in the study, 158 patients were selected consecutively during three months
sampling…”
3. Results: “Based on a systematic review conducted by Merlo et al., the median response rate
to the DCE was 42%. Therefore, we distributed 250 questionnaires to compensate for the 32
percent of response drop-off (43).” Reference number 43 should be fixed after the first sentence.
4. Table 2. Study Participants’ Characteristics: First column is frequency and the second one is
percent (%). “Frequency” should be removed from the second column.
5. Table 3. and Table 4: P values for “Tangible Support” are  not significant. How do the authors
justify them? They should be discussed.
6. Authors explained about the validity of the questionnaire in the section of “2-3-4- The validity
of the questionnaire.” How is it about the reliability of the questionnaire? It was my question
in the first review also.
7. Authors mentioned that “…Pearmain et al. suggests that for DCE designs, sample sizes
over 100 are suitable to provide a basis for modeling preference data (31).” and “Based on a
systematic review conducted by Merlo et al., the median response rate to the DCE was 42%
….drop-off (43).”
Reference list is not match with the names in the text. There was not possible to find Pearmain
and Merlo in the reference list.
Title: The Preferences of Breast Cancer Patients Regarding a Digital Social Care Platform
Version: 4 Date: 18 Apr 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: All my points are well addressed."