JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Primary pelvic retroperitoneal smooth muscle tumor with cystic degeneration: A case
report and review of the literature
Version: 2 Date: 17 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Case presentation
- During the surgery, were the excised margins of the mass were free of tumor cells??
- How did you find out the patient has pelvic mass initially? In your case presentation, it seems
like the patient had no symptoms. Did the patient come for a complete medical check up when
you found the pelvic mass? Or if she had any symptoms like a lump in the abdomen or sort
please explain so.
- The sentence “The patient was a 34-year-old female of childbearing age with a well-defined
cystic solid pelvic mass of unknown nature, indications for surgery, and the patient's desire for
surgery” in line 98-199 is unclear and a bit redundant. Please correct this.
- The sentence “The patient's postoperative recovery was successful, and they were discharged
in good condition” is grammatically incorrect. There is only one patient, you could change the
sentence to “The patient had a successful postoperative recovery and was discharged in good
condition.”
Discussion
- What are the common signs and symptoms associated with primary pelvic retroperitoneal
smooth muscle tumors?
- You mentioned that preoperative diagnosis of primary pelvic retroperitoneal smooth
muscle tumors is challenging and must be distinguished from other differential diagnoses of
retroperitoneal lesions. Could you elaborate on these differential diagnoses and how they can
be differentiated?
- What routine examinations would you recommend to aid in the preoperative screening or
diagnosis of this condition? Feel free to include this recommendation in the conclusion.
- this case, the tumor marker alpha-fetoprotein is elevated. Could you explain this further and
include it in your discussion? Is it typical for retroperitoneal smooth muscle tumors to present
with increased alpha-fetoprotein levels? You may also compare it with other case reports, if
available.
Title: Primary pelvic retroperitoneal smooth muscle tumor with cystic degeneration: A case
report and review of the literature
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Nice very rare case.
During surgery the authors decided to finish the resection with laparoscopy and fortunately for
the patient the final result was benign. Do you think that if the tumor was sarcoma for example
the laparoscopic resection is the best or you will choose to convert?
Title: Primary pelvic retroperitoneal smooth muscle tumor with cystic degeneration: A case
report and review of the literature
Version: 2 Date: 23 Jan 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?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
N/A - no methodology
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors do revise most of the article to respond to comments
and they significantly improve the text that initially showed a lot of missing points or mistakes.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
1/ the HE image inside the text and separately provided are not the same
2/ microscopy images are of low quality not allowing for true revision
3/ what can be seen is that no necrosis or edema or cystic degeneration is shown
4/ the pathologist describes necrosis which is a MAJOR criterion of malignancy - precision
needed.
5/ there is nothing novel in this case so the authors should at least provide a thorough review
of peritoneal (as the reviewer previously noted the origin is not certain) or retroperitoneal SM
tumors
6/ ER and PR should be performed. All uterine LMs are positive and given the authors
assumption of hormone related tumors this is important.
7/ the epidemiology data provided where do they come from if it is so rare ? The authors should
not use previous case reports as references for such declarations
8/ the elevated AFP is still not explained
9/ « the most common tumors is sarcoma »  Too simplified phrase
Title: Primary pelvic retroperitoneal smooth muscle tumor with cystic degeneration: A case
report and review of the literature
Version: 4 Date: 21 Feb 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?
N/A - no methodology
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors improve significantly their text and respond to
comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors remarkably ameliorate the report.
The images show no necrosis. Since since tumor necrosis is the most important criterion for
leiomyosarcoma and given that I see no necrosis, I believe that the pathologist misinterpreted
cystic degeneration or ischemic necrosis for tumor necrosis. So I advise the authors do delete
that there is tumor necrosis and the corresponding image.
Also, call it cystic degeneration not just degeneration.
Title: Primary pelvic retroperitoneal smooth muscle tumor with cystic degeneration: A case
report and review of the literature
Version: 5 Date: 11 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
"REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER:
Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a
technically sound contribution? Yes
Reviewer comments: I carefully evaluated the revised version of this manuscript. The authors
have performed the required changes, significantly improving the overall quality, clarity, and
coherence of the paper. Their thoughtful revisions addressed the main concerns raised in the
previous round of review, enhancing both the scientific rigor and presentation of the work."
Title: Examining the unfair concentration of non-institutional deliveries among poor households
in India: A study of predictors and wealth-based inequality
Version: 1 Date: 29 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors explore the factors that influence non-institutional deliveries and the
inequalities that exist between India's poor and non-poor populations. The attempt to examine
the non-institutional deliveries is greatly appreciated. It is apparent from the prevalence tables
that those who are the poorest have a significantly greater rate of non-institutional delivery
(27%), compared to the richest population's (2%).  The authors' motivation for proceeding
with the inequality analysis is unclear, nevertheless, it eventually became evident from the
prevalence tables. The authors have been recommended to present a compelling argument for
why it is necessary to investigate the inequality of non-institutional deliveries, even if these
have decreased over time and the NFHS report and your prevalence figures make this inequality
clearly evident. In consideration of the comments below, this manuscript may be approved for
publication.
A few important remarks:
1. The author states in the abstract that “It also aims to provide policy-relevant insights into
the socioeconomic factors contributing to its concentration among specific households and their
implications for maternal and child health”. What potential benefits might the policy have from
focusing on assessing socioeconomic characteristics instead of the variables involved in the
policy? Nevertheless, throughout the entire document, I fail to observe any policy analysis.
2. In the final paragraph of the introduction section, the author states that “India has undoubtedly
made impressive progress in terms of institutional delivery coverage in the last couple of
decades; however, more than 10% are still out of the net”. It is evident that there is a decline
in non-institutional delivery throughout time. However, I was unable to track down a proper
explanation in the introduction of how this may be a research question, what the research gap
and prior studies were, and how this study can fill it.
3. As stated by the author “In this case, #/(1- #) represents the odds ratio”, however, in fact  #/
(1- #) indicates odds rather than odds ratio.
4.The supplementary tables may be included in the main manuscript.
5.The discussion part has to be strengthened in light of earlier research.
Title: Examining the unfair concentration of non-institutional deliveries among poor households
in India: A study of predictors and wealth-based inequality
Version: 3 Date: 09 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors should explain Figure 1 more elaborately to provide a comprehensive temporal
understanding of the changes in institutional delivery.
The authors introduced a very important concept of “last mile delivery” in the context of
institutional delivery. The idea should be integrated with the analysis done in the presented
research.
The source of data for each figure and table should be mentioned beneath each of them.
Title: Examining the unfair concentration of non-institutional deliveries among poor households
in India: A study of predictors and wealth-based inequality
Version: 4 Date: 22 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am quite satisfied and happy with the responses even where the Authors have cleverly deferred
certain analysis by promising a future paper, but I accept their response (a reviewer may always
want more analysis – that is an occupational hazard #). The visualisations they have added has
certainly added to the value of the paper specially the district map of NID percentage and the
two pie charts that highlight the persistent nature of the problem in the North Eastern region.
I commend the authors for their analysis and look forward to their promised future paper.
Title: The comparison of hematological inflammatory parameters before and after surgery in
women with endometriosis: Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written with a clear language
authors are advised to discuss possible cause of NLR PLR reasons in gynecology.  (see PMID:
37832065,
Besides Ca125 may be raised in many other factors please briefly discuss. (see PMID:
22539035 )
The ethnology of endometriosis is still not clear, briefly mention about the role of apoptosis
(see PMID: 30071521)
Title: The comparison of hematological inflammatory parameters before and after surgery in
women with endometriosis: Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
This retrospective cohort study investigates the changes in hematological inflammatory markers
before and after surgical treatment in women with endometriosis. The topic is clinically relevant
and may contribute to understanding the systemic inflammatory response associated with
endometriosis and its surgical management.
Below, suggestions are provided to increase the scientific quality of the manuscript.
1. While the topic is of clinical interest, the manuscript lacks a clear statement of novelty. Similar
studies evaluating NLR, PLR, and other hematological parameters in endometriosis exist. The
authors should clarify what distinguishes their study from previous ones and highlight its unique
contribution.
2. The retrospective design is appropriate, but more details about inclusion and exclusion criteria
are needed.
3. Was there any matching or control group used for comparison? This would strengthen the
validity of the findings.
4. The stage or severity of endometriosis (e.g., rASRM classification) is not mentioned but may
impact inflammatory markers and should be considered.
5. The use of the Wilcoxon test is suitable for paired non-parametric data. However, the authors
should report effect sizes or median (IQR) values before and after surgery, not just p-values.
6. No adjustment for potential confounding variables (e.g., age, BMI, medication) is reported.
7. While the decrease in NLR, PLR, and MLR is statistically significant, the clinical significance
remains unclear. The authors should discuss what magnitude of change is meaningful.
8. The unchanged WBC and lymphocyte/platelet counts should be discussed as well.
9. Language and grammar: The manuscript is generally readable, but minor grammatical editing
is recommended for clarity and academic tone.
10. References: A stronger literature review in the introduction would better position the current
study within existing research.
Recommendation:
Major Revision
The study presents potentially useful data, but clarification on methodology, stronger
justification of novelty, and more detailed statistical reporting are needed before it can be
considered for publication.
Title: The comparison of hematological inflammatory parameters before and after surgery in
women with endometriosis: Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Samaneh Rokhgireh
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
Thanks for your valuable study. Nowadays, we know endometriosis is not just a gynecological
disease but also considered a systemic inflammatory disease.
1-What did you expect happen in hematologic inflammatory parameters after surgery and why?
please discuss your hypothesis in the introduction.
2-Why  did you select 6 weeks post-operative for evaluating hematologic inflammatory markers?
3-It  is better to mention the type of hematologic inflammatory markers you evaluated in the
method section exactly.
4- Please mention what NLR, MLR, and PLR stand for.
5-Why did you decide to evaluate hematological inflammatory parameters before and after
endometriosis surgery? what is the advantage in clinical practice? explain it in the discussion
section
6-How did you calculate the sample size?
7-Do you think Hormonal agents affect the inflammatory parameter?
8-Did you consider age and BMI cut off as inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Title: Effects of Benign Ovarian Cyst Volume and Laterality on AMH and CA-125 Levels
Version: 1 Date: 13 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Alessandro Libretti
Reviewer's report:
The Impact of Volume and Bilaterality of Benign Ovarian Cysts on Serum AMH and CA-125
Levels” addresses a relevant clinical question concerning how morphologic features of benign
ovarian cysts affect biochemical markers tied to ovarian reserve and malignancy screening.
While the study is of potential clinical interest, particularly for preoperative counseling and
surgical planning, the manuscript currently requires major revisions before it can be considered
for publication. Below is a detailed evaluation.
Major Issues
1. Title-Abstract Inconsistency
The running title refers to "Diurnal Impact on UA Doppler in Hypertension", which is unrelated
to the study. This appears to be a copy-paste error.
Recommendation: Correct the running title to reflect the actual study topic.
2. Language and Grammar
There are multiple grammatical, typographical, and formatting errors throughout the manuscript.
Examples: "cyts" instead of "cysts", "rpe" instead of "pre", "tractable" instead of "traceable",
"dysparenuia" instead of "dyspareunia", "MeanS.D." instead of "Mean ± S.D." in tables.
Recommendation: The manuscript needs thorough English language editing, preferably by a
native speaker or professional editing service.
3. Statistical Interpretation
Effect sizes and confidence intervals are missing and should be reported for key outcomes (e.g.,
AMH decline, CA-125 changes).
Recommendation: Add 95% CIs where appropriate to enhance interpretation and transparency
of findings.
4. Tables and Data Presentation
Tables are difficult to read due to formatting issues.
Units (e.g., "ng/m, L") are miswritten, and statistical test annotations are awkward.
Recommendation: Reformat all tables, ensure consistent and correct units, and use standard
formatting.
5. Literature Contextualization
Although key references are cited, the discussion would benefit from deeper integration with
existing literature, especially regarding:
Mechanisms of AMH reduction
Recovery timelines post-cystectomy
Comparative impacts of different cyst types
Recommendation: Expand and refine the discussion to place the findings within a broader
clinical and scientific context.
6. Small Sample Size for Bilateral Cysts
Only 13 out of 139 patients had bilateral cysts. This limits statistical power and generalizability.
Recommendation: Acknowledge this limitation more prominently and avoid overinterpreting
subgroup findings.
7. Clarity of Key Definitions
The manuscript lacks clarity on:
How endometriomas were confirmed
Whether AMH kits were standardized
The rationale for choosing 2-month follow-up only
Recommendation: Provide more detail in the Methods section.
Minor Issues
Inconsistent use of abbreviations (e.g., “TVUS” should be defined earlier).
Author Affiliations: Clean up redundant entries (e.g., "Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecolog").
Reference Formatting: Ensure consistent formatting of all references per journal guidelines.
Title: Effects of Benign Ovarian Cyst Volume and Laterality on AMH and CA-125 Levels
Version: 1 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for uploading the files. I will read the contents of the manuscript document and
prepare an English rejection letter based on it. Let me first check the contents of the manuscript.
The manuscript explores the relationship between the volume and bilaterality of benign ovarian
cysts and their impact on serum AMH and CA-125 levels. Based on this information, I will draft
an appropriate rejection letter in English. Here’s a draft of the rejection letter:
Title: Effects of Benign Ovarian Cyst Volume and Laterality on AMH and CA-125 Levels
Version: 1 Date: 25 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
1- Match with Mesh in Pub med.
2- Explain the reason and importance of your study more clearly.
3- Write down the strengths and weaknesses of the study and application.
4- The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study should be stated.
Title: Effects of Benign Ovarian Cyst Volume and Laterality on AMH and CA-125 Levels
Version: 1 Date: 27 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript investigates a clinically important and underexplored topic: how benign ovarian
cyst characteristics (volume and bilaterality) impact ovarian reserve (AMH) and tumor marker
(CA-125) levels. It is well-structured, clinically relevant, and mostly statistically sound, but it
would benefit from the following improvements:
1. The title is informative but a bit technical. Consider revising it.
2. The abstract is well-written but slightly verbose. Report key numerical results with absolute
values and p-values (e.g., % AMH decline, CA-125 differences). Emphasize the clinical
significance of AMH decline (i.e., potential infertility concerns).
3. In the Methodology section:
a) Mention potential for selection bias explicitly in the limitations section earlier.
b) Cyst volume measurement has been well-described, but the term “ovarian parenchyma” could
be confusing; clarify if necessary.
c) For the Histological subtypes, endometriomas vs. non-endometriotic cysts have
been mentoned but no breakdown of "non-endometriotic" types (e.g., dermoids, serous
cystadenomas). Consider adding a supplementary table.
d) Were patients on hormonal treatment (e.g., OCPs) before surgery? It’s important to mention.
4. Some tables are squeezed; needs better formatting. In Table 1, units (e.g., "Age (years)",
"Gravida (n)", "Total cyst size (cm³)") should be standardized. Highlight statistically significant
p-values clearly in bold in all tables.
5. Stronger emphasis needed on bilaterality's impact on AMH reduction. Explain the possible
clinical implications of a 1.67 ng/mL AMH level at 2 months in the bilateral group.
6. In the Discussion section:
a) Discuss the lack of AMH recovery (some other studies noted partial recovery by 6 months).
b) Expand slightly on why bilateral cysts might cause more ovarian tissue damage (e.g.,
ischemia, surgical technique, hemostasis method).
c) Introduce the concept of ovarian reserve testing (like AFC/FSH) briefly for a broader
audience.
7. In the Limitations section:
a) Add: lack of long-term follow-up on ovarian function or pregnancies beyond one year.
b) Add: single-center design.
8. Ensure all abbreviations (e.g., AMH, CA-125, TVUS) are spelled out at first use. The short
running title at the beginning ("Diurnal Impact on UA Doppler in Hypertension") is incorrect
and unrelated — needs correction to reflect the ovarian cyst topic.