JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Health promotion focusing on migrant women through a community based participatory
research approach
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
Is the paper technically sound?
The paper is technically sound and the topic is really interesting.  It shows how social
health inequalities influence the live of migrant women. I congratulate authors for this paper.
Nevertheless, I have some minor suggestions that in my humble opinion need to be clarify or
reconsider.
Here are they:
Regarding the INTRODUCTION: begin by briefly defining CBPR and consider differentiating
CBPR from “community-placed” research (e.g., research conducted in a community, but without
ongoing, substantive community involvement) (Bordeaux, 2007). If you believe that it is clearly
explain, just tell me.
You could also strengthen the reason of using CBPR by writing that “the overarching research
approach because the host community is disproportionately affected by a health condition, hard
to reach, poorly understood, or unchanged after using a traditional research approach to address
a health problem” (Bordeaux, 2007).
Regarding METHODS: This part address correctly all the information that it should show. The
community is well defined, the established methods are well referenced. The phases of the
process are also well explained. In the Analysis part, I only suggest to add a cite of NVivo
Software (e.g., NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version
12, 2018.).
Regarding RESULTS: page 18, line 376, story dialogue 2. Could you explain to what the word
“her” refers to? To Pain? If so, they you should change it for “it”.
Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data? If not, what further evidence is needed?
The claims are fully supported by the data they have exposed.
Is the statistical analysis of the data sound?
I must admit that I am not very familiar with this type of analysis. So, to the best of my knowledge
the analysis is appropriated.
Does the availability of data adhere to the expected standards of your research community?
Yes, it does.
Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
Yes, they are.
Could the manuscript be revised to address any potential limitations?
Yes, I suggested some minor revisions before consider it to publication.
Title: Health promotion focusing on migrant women through a community based participatory
research approach
Version: 1 Date: 14 Jul 2021
Reviewer:  Barbara Olivan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for let me review this manuscript since it is very interesting and deals with a relevant
and scarcely studied topic.
it is in general a well-written article but I have some concerns about some aspects that I expose
below.
- The introduction section is coherent and  guides the reading concatenating the most relevant
aspects of the topic.
- The methodology section is also well expalined but at hte begining of the setion, the authors
could explain more in depth the story-dialogue method. How is the external validity of this
method? Could the results be implemented in other colectives of inmigrant women? Perhaps
lines 187-200 could be replaced at the begining of the section "design and settings".  In lines
214-218, authors state that the method was modified. Can these modifications have included
any bias?
- In the result section, it would be desirable to include some characteristics (age, time in the
country, educational background, incomes) of women that highlight or comment on any relevant
concept. Are there any differences among them?
-The discussion section is also well written but do the authors think that the women´s roles are
associated to the stoy that they report? Are the roles relevant in the health perception and heatlh
behaviours?
Title: Health promotion focusing on migrant women through a community based participatory
research approach
Version: 1 Date: 26 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
This article presents a current and necessary topic. I appreciate the attempt to apply an unusual,
yet  interesting method. With this said, I believe the  manuscript has one major issue and two
secondary still pertinent issues that authors should address for this paper to be accepted:
First, it is a major methodological problem to have organized the participants without taking
into consideration the problems represented by their variability in terms of: countries of
origin,  ages, and number of years living in Sweden. As if to be a migrant woman were a
universal category exempt from cultural, political, and social factors. To put an example, the
experiences of migration are way too different for newly arrivals for whom identifying problems
in an unfamiliar environment can be highly challenging. Their still very vulnerable condition
can interfere with their willingness to express themselves freely. In the same line, another
problematic aspect concerns language barriers, as if all women coming from the mentioned
countries spoke fluid standard Arabic, which we know it is not the case (Arabic is used by the
media but not necessarily by the general public)
To solve this issue I recommend including a section on reflexivity, addressing the limitations of
the study and approaching those issues as an opportunity of growth,  or lessons learned. Perhaps
that mix of women worked well, but authors should provide us with examples proving so.
Second, most readers won´t be familiar with the story/Dialogue method, therefore, more details
should be provided about it.
Finally, the writing style is too cryptic and telegraphic sometimes. Longer explanatory sentences
are needed.
Title: Women diagnosed with HIV and unknown HIV status perceived susceptibility to cervical
cancer and perceived benefits of cervical cancer screening in Ghana: a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 30 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study attempts to unpack perceptions of women living with HIV versus those undiagnosed
towards cervical cancer screening. Whlle the sample is large in the two groups, the authors do
not explain whether and how the structured questionnaire was validated. What language were
the interviews conducted in? 'Was Translation used? Were the authors able to guestimate the
rate of HIV positivity in 'undiagnosed women'. How was HIV status determined or verified?
What training, if any, was provided to those conducting the interviews?
Title: Women diagnosed with HIV and unknown HIV status perceived susceptibility to cervical
cancer and perceived benefits of cervical cancer screening in Ghana: a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 09 Jul 2021
Reviewer:  Doreen Ramogola-masire
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this important study. This cross sectional
study involved 600 known HIV positive women and 600 women with unknown HIV status
in Central Ghana. The main aim of this comparative study was to evaluate perceptions of
susceptibility to cervical cancer and the benefits of cervical cancer screening between the two
study groups. The authors used similar structured interview schedule used in prior research
focusing on HIV positive women only, and published in 2018.
One of the merits of this study is its comparative design. The comparative nature of this study
is one of the significant strengths of this project. However, alongside these merits, some areas
need to be improved.
Suggested changes:
Suggest use of the phrase “unknown HIV status” instead of “undiagnosed HIV” in the title and
through-out the manuscript.
Results:
Tables: Add footnotes to tables to explain notations eg what does “f” denote) under table 1? Also,
for tables 2 and 3 include under the headings n (%) [eg Diagnosed HIV status n (%) to indicate
that 186 (31.0) mean 186 women and this was equal to 31.0% of the total]. Please check the
figures as the numbers don’t always add up to 600 and percentages don’t always add up to 100%
for each HIV status (there is no explanation of why they may not-so I think these are probably
typos). For example table 2 variable “I don’t think I can get cervical cancer” for diagnosed HIV
status, the agree and disagree adds up to 171.7%! In Table 4 there is a footnote * but this there
is no corresponding * in the table. Please check for alignment in all the tables.
I am confused by the presentation of social characteristics. A simple descriptive narrative of
the characteristics and how they differ between the two study groups maybe more helpful to
the reader.
Discussion:
Lines 320-321: According to the authors, there were similar proportions in each age category
for both HIV positive (tested) and unknown HIV status (not tested). How did they conclude that
this supports evidence about older women testing for HIV?
Line 355-357: One assumes that when you say a certain variable is associated with HIV status it
indicates that there are observed differences between diagnosed HIV and unknown HIV status-
or am I missing somethings?
The discussion may need to be rearranged better for clarity-it seems like under perceived
susceptibility and perceived benefit there are subscales where the is no difference between the
two study groups and other subscales which differ.
Title: ‘The cultural and structural influences that ‘hide’ information from women diagnosed
with breast cancer in Ghana: an ethnography’
Version: 1 Date: 12 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Qualitative research method employed
Strengths.   
                                     
Provided some detailed information to highlight
Important sensitive hidden issues. 
Data collection method appears cost efficient and more suited for gathering data on sensitive
operational, treatment decision and care issues
Limitations
More difficult to analyse; the data structure does not fit neatly into standard categories
Data collection is usually time consuming and
Non representative sample size used.
General statements and extrapolations will be difficult to make about age at presentation,
hospital incidence, most common stage at presentation etc in real nominal terms.
Abstract is concise and communicates highlights of the paper effectively. In spite of weaknesses,
the study reveals complex issues and reasons for low awareness and low participation in decision
making in the management of breast cancer cases in Ghana. Some care givers seem to have
an over bloated aura that cows patients into submission and subjects them to the fear of the
unknown. It highlights qualitatively and not quantitatively as the investigation set out to do. The
quality of care information and dispositions of patients and relatives are not in sink to enhance
cure and improve survival. Although statistically deficient of reproducible desriptive frequencies
and inferences.The study is fit for purpose and good for addressing; quality assurance, informed
participation of patients, optimization of care and service delivery challenges.
Dr. Frank Naku Ghartey,
Department of Chemical Pathology,
CoHAS, UCCSMS, Cape coast,  Ghana.
Title: Effects of early estradiol valerate administration on bone turnover markers in surgically
induced menopausal women
Version: 2 Date: 14 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
In the results the authors wrote that 7 out of 27 in no treatments group loss follow up
So the data to be compared should be 21 in treatment group and 20 in no treatment group  as the
follow up results include only 41 subjects not 47 subjects
Title: The healthy behaviours and COVID-19 mortality among Iranian women: A case-control
study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on your study as it contributes to the understanding of this disease that still
plagues the population worldwide. My considerations can be found below.
Abstract: The abstract is described accordingly.
- Please consider aligning the objective described in the abstract with the one described at the
end of the Introduction Section.
Introduction:
- The 7th line: Please consider reviewing the sentence ‘ From the reports, … “vis”…Italy and
Mexico’.
Methods:
- Please consider reorganizing your description of the eligibility criteria of the case and controls
and the sample size estimation. It is confusing the way you described them.
- In the first paragraph of page 5, it seems to me that 515 was related to Control Group. Is it
correct? Please consider reviewing this information. Again, it seems to me that the number 778
was related to both groups. Please consider reviewing this information too.
- In the Abstract Section you described the dependent and independent variables. Please also
describe them with details in the Methods Section.
- Please consider describing the chronic disease as you did in underlying disease ‘underlying
disease (diabetes, cardiovascular, lung diseases)’.
- In Data Analysis, how did you manage the missing data? In table 1, two patients are missing
according to the table’s description. (261+515 = 776 (2) = 778).
Results:
- Please include the total of patients of each group and give reasons for two missing participants
according to the description of table 1 (261+515=776). It would be informative if you could
include a flowchart figure, describing the steps of the study. In table 2, the numbers are not also
matching (264+515=779).
- In the text regarding (fig. 1) you described that ‘the highest mortality occurred in individuals
with underlying diseases in the age group over 80 years’. In the description of Figure 1, it is
written ‘chronic disease’. This happened again in the text regarding table 3 (‘In the case of the
women with underlying diseases, the mortality rate was 4.14 times (95% CI: 1.61 to 10.64) more
than that of women without chronic diseases’).  Please clarify the definitions.
Discussion:
- It would be informative if you could summarize the main findings of your study in the first
paragraph of your discussion.
Title: The healthy behaviours and COVID-19 mortality among Iranian women: A case-control
study
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
• Introduction must be updated.
• Only the start date of sampling is mentioned. What is the end date?
• Is it enough that the control group included by inpatients? Is there a PCR or other tests? In
fact, how is the accuracy of the controls done?
• In the method section, for the sentence "The COVID-19 mortality rate was considered as the
dependent variable ...", is the mortality rate really the response?
• In the summary, you have mentioned uni-variate analysis, while it has not been mentioned in
the continuation and part of statistical analysis.
• What was the method of choice for Multivariate logistic regression? What was the reason for
including all variables in the final Multivariate analysis? Have you achieved similar results using
other methods and with / without other variables?
• Has there really been no country, city or region in the world with similar conditions to Ardabil?
There is no mention of it in the text. In addition, the results of other studies with the presence of
men can be compared and discussed. In general, the subject of the work has an interesting title,
it is only better to write more fluently and instead of repeating the results of the study in most
parts of the text, intuitive and logical discussions should be presented.
Title: The healthy behaviours and COVID-19 mortality among Iranian women: A case-control
study
Version: 5 Date: 01 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
Respectfully,
The totality of the work was desirable and well corrections have been made. The answer to my
ambiguities has been somewhat resolved. However, it is necessary to pay attention to a few
points.
• One, what is the reason for the article's insistence on applying univariate analysis when neither
a table has been reported nor details in the text? Please address this issue.
• Secondly, the article with the following link has compared reports of the differences in the
death ratios of men and women in many countries. For example, for India or Pakistan, the death
ratio of females has been higher for a certain period of time. There are articles like this that can
help you have a smoother discussion.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378512220302668
Title: Effect of physical activity and exercise on endometriosis-associated symptoms: a
systematic review
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The article is well designed and written. However, there is a current systematic review
that handles the same topic in the literature (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33999412/).
Therefore, the decision of publication should be made by editorial. In my opinion, the study has
a good quality and originality to be published in this journal. I have a few suggestion:
1. Please check the knowledge about perceived stress levels in the study of Friggi Sebe
Petrelluzzi et al. in line 274-275.
2. Please check the 3rd reference.
3. Please write the 25th, 26th and 35th reference according to the guideline of the journal.
Sincerely.
Title: Family planning providers and contraceptive users in Rwanda employ strategies to prevent
discontinuation
Version: 2 Date: 03 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Comments and suggestion to authors
Family planning providers and contraceptive users in Rwanda employ strategies to prevent
discontinuation
This is a very interesting paper  trying to  better understand how providers and contraceptive
users in Rwanda navigate one of the greatest challenges to family planning programs:
Contraceptive discontinuation in Rwanda.
1. Introduction
a. Line 8: “Globally, that suggests that 25….” It is confusing.
b. The authors need to include recent references
2. Methods
a. Line 7: “NGO” needs to written in full
b. Line8:” CHWs” what does it mean?
c. “The districts were selected purposively…” but it is not clear how you have selected the focus
groups.
d. The authors need to clarify the age limit
e. I wonder if there is no foreigner in Musanze or Nyamasheke who does not know Kinyarwanda
or you have excluded them from your study?
3. Results
Fear of Side effect
Page 9:” I knew many rumors that said kids will grow funny if you use family planning and it
will cause many side effects so I refused to use it. “This particular woman refuses to use family
planning. Why did you include her in focus group? Check page7 3rd line ” The 32 in-depth
interviews were conducted in July of 2018 with mostly current modern contraceptive users who
were at least 18 years…” some contradiction.
Page24. Switching hormonal method: I think it is better to mention the type of hormonal used
in contraceptive.
General questions
1. I wonder why no question(s) addressed to partner, do you think partner does not have effect
on discontinuation of family planning?
2. Based on your results what is your contribution to public health or any institution related to
family planning in Rwanda?
3. In your title “Family planning providers and contraceptive users in Rwanda employ strategies
to prevent discontinuation” where are strategies in your findings? I suggest to slightly change
the title or clarify the strategies.
Title: Significance of the viral load of high-risk HPV in the diagnosis and prediction of cervical
lesions: a retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 06 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe their findings of a study of high-risk HPV infection viral load and cervical
intraepithelial lesions. The manuscript raised several concerns as outlined below:
1. Background is unduly long. The details of the pathogenetic role of HPV in cervical lesions
are not required.
"Studies showed that the type of HPV infection is closely related to the severity of cervical
lesions and treatment prognosis [10-12], but there are inconsistent results from the studies on
the correlation between the HPV viral load and the severity of cervical lesions ". The authors
should provide some details of the inconsistency of results to place their study in perspective.
2. Methods: "There were no exclusion criteria". Having no exclusion criteria for a study of HPV
and cervical cancer is not appropriate. Please reconsider.
"cervical cancer screening according to the latest version of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines ". The manuscript does not provide any
information on cervical cytology in these patients. The ACOG guidelines do not recommend
the use of cervical biopsy for screening.
Detection of HPV-DNA load - The methodological details of the working of HC2 are not
required.
The years of experience of gynecologists and pathologists are irrelevant to the study.
3. Results: "265 patients, aged 20-73". HPV detection for cervical cancer screening is not
recommended for women less than 30 years of age. Having younger females in this study likely
confounded the results.
"125 in the normal group" - Please provide colposcopic characteristics of these patients. Was
only a four-quadrant biopsy taken in them? What were the cervical cytology findings? Could
some of them be a false-negative biopsy due to the lesion being higher up in the cervical canal?
"Taking the normal control group as a reference, the correlations between all grades of cervical
lesions and viral load were analyzed and compared using multivariable analysis". The table
provided for multivariable analysis only includes age and the various classes of HPV viral load.
This does not actually qualify as being called a multivariable analysis. Other risk factors of
cervical cancer should have been included in this analysis and the manuscript.
Were the patients in normal and CIN1 groups with high HPV viral load followed up? Going by
the authors' conclusion that HPV viral load indicates a risk of high-grade cervical lesions, this
information is very important for the readers.
4. The manuscript has a lot of grammatical errors. HPV is misspelled as HBV in one place.