JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Determinants of Immediate Uptake of Post-Partum Intrauterine Device Among Women
Delivered in Hospitals in West Wolegga Zone, Ethiopia
Version: 2 Date: 09 Oct 2024
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors have attempted to respond to all comments. They have made
changes to the manuscript. However, the title and objectives need to be fine-tuned further.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The topic could read something like this: Determinants of Immediate Uptake of Post-Partum
Intrauterine Device Among Women Delivered in Hospitals in West Wolegga Zone, Ethiopia.
Further, the general objective could read: # To assess the determinants of immediate uptake of
postpartum intrauterine contraceptive devices among women delivered in Hospitals in the West
Wolegga zone, Ethiopia. And finally, the specific objectives could read: # To assess the uptake
of immediate postpartum intrauterine contraceptive devices among women who delivering in
Hospitals in West Wolegga Zone.
# To identify the factors associated with the uptake of immediate Postpartum intrauterine
contraceptive devices among women delivering in Hospitals in the West Wolegga zone.
Title: Determinants of Immediate Uptake of Post-Partum Intrauterine Device Among Women
Delivered in Hospitals in West Wolegga Zone, Ethiopia
Version: 2 Date: 18 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
It is great to see the authors’ efforts in revising the paper based on reviewers’ comments.
However, there are still concerns about the quality of this paper.
• The authors provided a version with track changes but I did not find any track changes in that
document. I thus only used the clean version for review
• Line 84 there is an incomplete sentence
• Line 91, how did the authors decide the number 1,025? And Why?
• Line 95-96: The sentence is confusing. “Findings with a p-value of <0.05 at a 95% confidence
interval were considered statistically significant.” What does “at a 95% confidence interval’
mean.
• Line 120-122, the sentence starts with “When pregnancy occurs…” is not complete and
confusing.
• Line 139-141: the two sentences do not have citations.
• Line 168: specific objectives are totally repeated with the general objective.
• Line 203-204: what does “a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.96” mean.
• Line 208: need to explain the meaning of P1, P2, and OR
• Line 235-252: I still don’t think using bullet point is appropriate or necessary. I have
commented on this issue before and will leave the editors to decide whether it is appropriate
or not.
• Line 258-260: Incomplete sentence and confusing words “with 95% CI with”
• Line 261: Confusing sentence about multivariable logistic regression was a statistically
significant predictor
• In the Discussion part, in addition to discussion on IUD use prevalence, the authors need to
compare their findings of risk factors of IUD use with previous findings, and highlight what are
new findings of their study.
Title: Determinants of Immediate Uptake of Post-Partum Intrauterine Device Among Women
Delivered in Hospitals in West Wolegga Zone, Ethiopia
Version: 3 Date: 05 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the manuscript based on reviewers' comments, though the writing
quality and clarity could be improved. One comment remains unaddressed. Specifically, it is not
accurate to state, "Findings with a p-value of 0.05 at a 95% confidence interval were considered
statistically significant." Instead, I suggest rephrasing to, "A significance level of 0.05 was used
to assess the statistical significance of the study's associations." This revision is recommended
because the p-value and confidence interval are distinct concepts, and referring to a "p-value at
a 95% CI" is both unclear and inappropriate.
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
# Abstract
- In method specify the authors that extract the data.
- In conclusion “Overall the utilization of reversible long-acting contraceptive among modern
contraceptive users HIV positive women was low”. What is your measurement to say low?
#Method – inclusion exclusion criteria
- “The study period was not restricted”. Why? The study period must specify.
# Results
-In table 2, the I-square for three regions (Addis Ababa, Oromia, SNNP and Tigray) is Zero. Is
important to do subgroup analysis for region?  What is your conclusion for the I-square is zero.
And also the P-value is zero in this table. Is the P-value exactly zero?
# Conclusion
-What is your conclusion? Sub-group or pooled?
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The topic is important and interesting, but needs some revisions to make it suitable for
publication and the English language need little improvement. These are my further comments/
suggestions:
Comments
Abstract
• The objective of the study is not clearly written in the abstract section, please revise.
Introduction
• The burden of HIV in Ethiopia is not clearly reported in Paragraph 1of the introduction …. As
the MA is being conducted in Ethiopia, please revise this section.
• In the last Paragraph it says …. Furthermore, there is no evidence on uptake of reversible long-
acting contraceptives utilization among modern contraceptive users HIV positive women … did
you mean pooled evidence? As you are reporting meta-analysis of 18 studies.
Methods
• Why only PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched, you
could have increased the number of searched databases to get much yield and more accurate
and comprehensive results by further searching databases like Web of Science, POPLINE,
Scopus ..etc.
• Search time interval should have been reported.
• In the Quality assessment section it says “Two independent authors assessed the quality of the
study …” but you provided names of three authors?
Results
• Please refer to “HIV positive” women when you write the factors associated with contraceptive
use instead of “women” in the result section.
Discussion
• Some considerations are not justified by the results and some of the associations are not
adequately discussed in the discussion section.
• For e.g. in paragraph 2 of the discussion section difference in access to modern contraceptives
(MCs) in the ART delivery sites was provided for the discrepancy in use of MCs, but there could
be more other reasons…
• In paragraph 4: the reason for discrepancy between MC use and age was not adequately
discussed.
• Several limitations should be recognized. Potential selection bias and confounding factors may
exist, as variations in sample size and study time exist.
Declarations
• In the Acknowledgment section the authors acknowledged the Institute of Public Health staff
… where exactly is this Institute…
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 20 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
ABSTRACT
# …… Provision of contraceptives is an undeniable fact to overcome these dual jeopardizes….
Which dual jeopardizes?
Results section
# What is the difference between modern contraceptives and reversible long-acting contraceptive
methods?  Since you have different pooled results.
# Conclusions: what is your reference to say low?
# Keywords ??????
INTRODUCTION
# The problem is not clearly stated which urges you to conduct this study. You do not identify
the gap and the need for your study. You simply tell us about the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and
the study not assessed the correlation with long acting reversible contraceptives.
# The rationale for restricting this work to Ethiopia is not clearly presented since the problem
is relevant to all sub-Saharan settings where HIV is endemic. Authors need to explain such a
restriction.
# Lack of a clear objective that addresses a testable research question?
METHODS
# In their method section authors describe Google, google scholar to get the appropriate article.
Are those things databases?
# How many articles were extracted from each electronic database?
# How do you trace unpublished grey literature?
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
# How do you see women who have been on LARC but did not attend the ART clinic? Do you
exclude these women?
# Need to attach the JBI quality assessment result?
RESULTS
# …..60% (95% CI: 52-68) …please show I2 vale and Chi-square test (Cochran Q test)
# Why not the authors show the pooled result after subgroup analysis?
# ……. using HAART were more like to use contraception compared to their HAART nonuser
counterparts…….Once the ART clinic visit (using HAART) criteria for inclusions in this review
so nonusers could not be your comparators.
# Fig.6 fig7 fig. 8 and fig 9 the title needs also be labeled in the figure submitted
# The finding in the manuscript totally contradicted the figure.
# The review is unable to show factors associated with long acting contraceptive utilization
among women’living with HIV/AIDS.
DISCUSSION
# This review was aimed to estimate the overall utilization of modern contraception,
reversible long-acting contraception methods utilization among modern contraceptive users, and
associated factors from 18 reviewed articles….. Need major modification
# This systematic review and meta analysis found six major factors associated with the utilization
of modern contraceptive methods among HIV/AIDS infected women. And you missed below
listed two factors
1. Women with CD4 cell count greater than 250cell/mm3 and
2. Women on HAART.
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 01 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Magnitude of reversible long-acting contraception utilization among modern contraception users
HIV positive women in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
ABSTRACT
• background section needs some modification since your study also assesses associated factors.
INTRODUCTION
• The problem is not clearly stated that urges you to conduct this study in your region; you simply
tell us about the global and regional burden of HIV/AIDS and the severity of the problem. So
better to emphasize on impact of the unmet need for FP among HIV infected women, tragedy
happening due to lack of contraceptives, barriers, unforeseen factors on national policies, and
service provision.
METHODS
• How do you see quality assessment between studies?
RESULTS
• Make it more sensational and coherent.
• Subgroup analysis expressed by the figure is more descriptive and easy to interpret than the
table.
• Describe included articles and assess variables like sociodemographic, reproductive…..
• How do you operationalize those “other factors?”
DISCUSSION
• written clearly
CONCLUSION
• Well written
Note: better to modify the title inconsistent with the content of the article.
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 05 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Your changes throughout have strengthened the paper and your findings. Thank you for making
them.
Thank you for adding the literature search dates in the methods. In your response to reviewers
it is stated, " In this review, studies conducted after initiation ART program in Ethiopia (2012)
is considered, since our review focus on studies that conducted in ART clinic setting. "  I
recommend including that  rationale for the search dates in the Methods section. That rationale
may also guide the categories of "year of study" in the meta-analysis. If an ART program began
in 2012, grouping studies published from 2011 through 2013 may be a cause of heterogeneity.
In the Methods section, "Heterogeneity between the studies was checked using I2 statistics, and
we considered an I2=99% and above as significant heterogeneity [20]." Since Higgins and Green
2011 is cited, the interpretations  of I2 in that document should be used. For example, 50% to
90%: may represent substantial heterogeneity; 75% to 100%: considerable heterogeneity.
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 14 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in Ethiopia:
a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract
• Well revised.
Introduction
• The comment was observed and the requested modification was made.
Methods
• Well written
Result
• On track changed document …..line number...257. Once you already exclude women not
having visits to ART clinics; so how could women not on HAART(indirectly not have ART
clinic visit) become a significant factor as far as they are not included in the review?
Discussion and conclusion
• Written well
General comment
• Some figures lack figure captions.
Submitted additional file-2….
• You say a 6/8 JBI score will be the required cut-off score for studies to be included in the
review. My reading on JBI methodological quality assessment instead say “Decision about a
scoring system or any cut-off for exclusion should be made in advance and agreed upon by all
reviewers before critical appraisal commences.” What is your saying in this area?
• Better to incorporate some justification/reason especially for “no” and “unclear” response
questions.
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 6 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you again for the invitation to review the manuscript.
Previously I reviewed this paper and I asked some questions about the manuscript. But you can’t
answer it. Example,
1. Abstract: -
On your conclusion “Overall the utilization of reversible long-acting contraceptive among
modern contraceptive users HIV positive women is low”. What is your measurement to say low?
2. Results
In table 2, the I-square for three regions (Addis Ababa, Oromia, SNNP and Tigray) is Zero. Is
important to do subgroup analysis for region?  What is your conclusion for the I-square is zero?
3. Conclusion
What is your conclusion? Sub-group or pooled?
Additionally, on page 12, 1st paragraph
The factors that are significantly associated with the utilization of modern contraception among
HIV-positive women attending ART clinics in Ethiopia are socio-demographic factor, HIV-
AIDS related factors, reproductive health-related, and other factors. On this page in paragraph
2, you only listed socio-demographic factors. What are the other factors like, HIV-AIDs related,
reproductive health related and other factor?
Title: Utilization of modern contraception and determinants among HIV positive women in
Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 8 Date: 10 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Throughout, please be consistent about terms and capitalizations. For example, at various points
one type of contraception is called “reversible long-acting contraceptive” or “revisable long act
contraceptives,” RLCM, and LACM. I recommend writing out the term once to define it and
then using your chosen abbreviation of RLCM subsequently. Another example, Google Scholar
should be capitalized.
Abstract:
“Moreover, Family planning service integration to ART clinics need to strength.” This sentence
needs to be rewritten for clarity. Perhaps “Integration of family planning services to ART clinics
needs to be strengthened.” ?
Methods:
Rather than “We considered literature searching from” it might be more accurate to say, “We
searched the literature via”
Please define CI and AOR when first using them.
Results:
“Out of the reviewed articles, the prevalence of modern contraception, within 19 articles
the reversible long-acting contraception utilization, and in 17 articles associated factors were
reported [12-17, 25-28, 30-33, 36].” This might be clearer if written as something like,
“Of the included studies, 19 [citations] reported on the prevalence of reversible long-acting
contraception utilization, and 17 [citations] reported on associated factors.” Additionally I think
the “associated factors” should be described in some way. The subsequent sentences also need
citations telling readers which studies reported each of the different factors.
Given that these are cross-sectional studies, I recommend against using the term “likely” when
describing the adjusted odds ratios. Likely implies a comparison of probabilities, not odds.
Double check your phrasing throughout. For example, both these sentences need grammatical
work:  “In the pooled estimate, having two or more live children associated with utilization
of contraception; HIV positive women who had two to three living children 1.84 times more
likely use contraceptive compared to HIV positive women who had no surviving children
[AOR=1.84, 95% CI: 1.24-1.74]. Whereas fertility desire and previous use of contraception
were not significantly associated (Figure 9).”
“In this review other factors like discussion with a husband and provision of contraception
counselling during chronic care follow up were reported to increase the utilization of modern
contraception in different articles.” Please cite the papers that include these factors.
The edits to the Discussion are well done; I think the addition of some limitations improved it.
Title: Recurrence rates and associated risk factors after conservative surgery for adenomyosis:
a retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 29 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  José Vitor Cabral Zanardi
Reviewer's report:
Major Points:
Statistical Analysis: The statistical methods employed are appropriate; however, I suggest
providing a more detailed explanation of the significance levels chosen and how potential
confounders were managed during the analysis. This additional information will help clarify the
robustness of your results and allow readers to better understand the analytical process.
Study Limitations: While you have mentioned some limitations, such as recall bias and the
single-center design, a more in-depth discussion of how these limitations might affect your
study's conclusions would be beneficial. For example, consider discussing any potential biases
in patient selection and follow-up that could influence the recurrence rates observed.
Conclusions: Ensure that the conclusions drawn from the study are closely aligned with the data
presented. For instance, while your study suggests that hormone therapy may reduce recurrence
rates, it is important to clearly state the limitations of this finding and avoid implying that
hormone therapy is universally effective without further validation from larger, multi-center
studies.
Minor Points:
Abstract: The abstract effectively summarizes your study, but I recommend including a brief
mention of the study's limitations to provide a more balanced overview.
Language and Clarity: There are minor grammatical issues and occasional awkward phrasing
throughout the manuscript. I suggest a thorough language review to improve clarity and
readability.
Figures and Tables: Please ensure that all figures and tables are clearly labeled and that the data
presented are consistent with the narrative in the text. The legends for the figures should be
detailed enough to allow readers to understand the data without referring back to the main text.
Title: Recurrence rates and associated risk factors after conservative surgery for adenomyosis:
a retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 18 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
thank you for giving me the chance to review this paper
despite good overall merit, I have some comments:
- revise english language by native speaker
- please specify better the term recurrence in the Methods section; how you can assess recurrence
of adenomysis if you have also endometriosis only evaluating pain relapse; which typo of lesion
are considered for specific recurrence at imaging (eg doi 10.1002/ijgo.15572)?
- do you have some re-surgery for recurrence of adenomyosis?
- evaluating recurrence after conservative surgery aids to evaluate also cost-effectiveness of this
surgical strategy and its sustainability (eg doi 10.1093/bjs/znad092), please comment on this
issue
- add in the discussion section, the limitation in identifying hidden lesions at white light  (eg
doi 10.1111/aogs.13866)
- please comment on the high frequency of adenomyosis in women with endometriosis and
viceversa (eg doi 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.016)
Title: Placental Histopathological Abnormalities in Adverse Obstetric Outcomes: A
retrospective Cross-sectional Study at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital
Version: 2 Date: 20 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled Placental Histopathological
Abnormalities in Adverse Obstetric Outcomes: A retrospective Cross-sectional Study at Sultan
Qaboos University Hospital.
A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2017 to January 2020
including women who were admitted to Sultan Qaboos University Hospital with an adverse
obstetric outcome, where the placenta was sent for histopathological examination.
They have reached a conclusion that histopathological examination of the placenta was abnormal
in 74.0% of women with adverse obstetrical outcomes which was significant. Histopathology
examination of the placenta is important in cases of adverse obstetric outcomes to identify the
underlying pathology and to formulate an appropriate plan of care in the subsequent pregnancy.
Establishing hospital protocols for indications of placental histopathological examination is
necessary.
Comments:
1. Abstract: methods no need to tell the details of statistics instead be brief and talk about patient
selection, please.
2. Methods: the author mentioned that ultrasound abnormality were excluded from the study
can you explain why?
3. Methods: Placenta histopathological abnormalities: as the authors depends on Amsterdam
criteria, please mention that with the reference.
4. Methods need more details after what time of delivery histopathology done? was include
whole placenta or only parts of it? How the pathologist performs his work
5. Methods: How you select the patients all admission in this period? Is there any gestational
age cut of value like after 28 weeks? Even dead babies were included please clarify selection
criteria and some more details in methods that explain you work in details.
6. Methods: Regarding the statistics in abstract the authors explained more details than the
methods please write in methods section all the details.
7. Result: In the beginning of result section, the authors explain further details about exclusion
criteria that should be mentioned earlier in methods, please.
8. What was the number of total hospital patients admission at study period?
9. Limitation should be before conclusion part of discussion.