JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Short-term effects of a new resistance exercise approach on physical function during
chemotherapy after radical breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 01 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled: “Short-term effects of a new
resistance exercise approach on physical function during chemotherapy after radical breast
cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial.”
• Some sentences are complex and could be simplified for better clarity. Additionally, the
writing style is somewhat technical, which might pose a challenge for readers without a strong
background in the field.
• The article discusses the impact of a neuromuscular joint facilitation (NJF) method on
the physical function of breast cancer patients experiencing shoulder dysfunction during
chemotherapy after radical surgery.
• The article could benefit from a more concise and focused introduction that clearly states the
research question and objectives.
• The article mentions the use of statistical methods such as ANOVA, but the presentation of
results is somewhat confusing. The tables could be better organized and labeled to enhance
clarity.
• It would be helpful to include effect sizes and confidence intervals along with p-values to better
understand the clinical significance of the findings.
• The methods section lacks information on the randomization process, blinding procedures, and
potential biases. The details about NJF intervention, its components, and its application are not
clearly outlined.
• The study's sample size calculation could be more thoroughly explained, and the rationale
behind the chosen variables and assessment methods should be justified.
• The article briefly mentions the economic burden of breast cancer in China but doesn't discuss
the broader context or relevance of the study. Providing a more extensive literature review and
contextualizing the findings within the existing body of research would strengthen the article.
• The discussion section lacks a comprehensive comparison of the study's findings with existing
literature. It would be beneficial to discuss how the NJF intervention compares to other
rehabilitation methods and whether the observed improvements are clinically significant.
• The study acknowledges a lack of data on drug and radiotherapy effects. This information is
crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing the outcomes. Including
this data or at least acknowledging its absence would improve the study's validity.
• While limitations are mentioned, a more detailed discussion on the implications of these
limitations for the study's validity and generalizability would be beneficial. Additionally, the
article briefly mentions future research plans, but a more detailed outline of the proposed work
could enhance the conclusion.
Title: Quantitative analysis of the effect of docetaxel-induced edema on quality of life in patients
with breast cancer and related factors: a prospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Firstly, I would like to congratulate the authors on the article "Quantitative analysis of docetaxel-
induced edema and the influence on patients' quality of life: a prospective cohort study of patients
with breast cancer". The topic addressed is of great relevance given the current prevalence of
breast cancer, and the importance of quality of life in affected women.
However, I have some comments, which are extremely important for the adequacy of the article.
Summary:
- Rephrase the objective, as it is not in line with the article title;
- Specify the tools used to assess quality of life and nutritional aspects.
Introduction:
- Review the objective of the study.
Patients and methods:
- Is the study approved by an Ethics Committee? This information must be included.
- The edema assessment methodology and cutoff points should be included in this session as a
separate item and not within the statistical analysis topic.
- What muscle mass and fat mass indicators were used, and what cutoff points were adopted?
- Why was quality of life not included in the logistic regression? I suggest adjusting the
regression results for confounders such as metastatic disease, disease characteristics, and
treatment and diuretic use.
- Figure 1: describe the acronyms QOL-ACD and BDHQ (footnote); include nutrition data
collection.
Results
- Table 2 (review the entire table): difficult to understand the variables, the cutoff points used
must be included (in the table or footnote); What indicators were used for muscle and fat mass?
BMI assessment was not included in the methodology, nor were cut-off points; replace "P" with
"p-value".
- In the item "Relationships between systemic edema and QOL" it is not clear what was
significant or not.
Discussion/conclusion:
- In the first or second paragraph, all the main results of the study must be presented.
- The main objectives and results of the study should be the focus of the discussion.
Title: Quantitative analysis of the effect of docetaxel-induced edema on quality of life in patients
with breast cancer and related factors: a prospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 21 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for responding to all requests. I suggest correcting some details to make the article
more complete and understandable to the reader.
- Describe the Ethics Committee, for example: "The study was approved by the Ethics
Committee of the University of ......".
- In the methods section of the article, I suggest placing the items "Evaluation of systemic
edema" and "QoL questionnaire for patients being treated with anti-cancer agents" after the item
"Demographic information" since they are variables of greater importance in the article.
- I suggest paying more attention to the order in which the results are presented both in the results
section and in the discussion section of the article. Furthermore, authors should exercise greater
caution when exploring non-significant results.
Title: Quantitative analysis of the effect of docetaxel-induced edema on quality of life in patients
with breast cancer and related factors: a prospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 26 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Luz-Ma-Adriana Balderas-Pena
Reviewer's report:
The authors enhance the issues this reviewer identified in the first review round. The manuscript
can be published after typo mistake correction and minor language issues.
Title: Quantitative analysis of the effect of docetaxel-induced edema on quality of life in patients
with breast cancer and related factors: a prospective cohort study
Version: 5 Date: 11 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded to all comments and made the requested modifications.
Regarding non-significant results, the authors were more cautious in their interpretation,
although I still question the need to emphasize some results.
However, I believe that the article can be published, if the other reviewers agree with the
decision.
Title: Women’s use of online health and social media resources to make sense of their polycystic
ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis: a qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting journal article which will be very useful for those women experiencing
PCOS as well as health professionals.  Overall it indicates that social media and online support
is helpful and complementary to women's interaction with healthcare professionals and formal
literature.   I consider it worthy of publication although I have indicated  via comments on the
pdf where some more clarity is required.  Some attention to grammar will help with readability.
My recommendation is that the work be published following minor revisions.  I enjoyed reading
it and commend the authors on their work.
Title: Women’s use of online health and social media resources to make sense of their polycystic
ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis: a qualitative study
Version: 4 Date: 30 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer 2: Further comments and minor revisions
This paper has identified a gap in the knowledge base for how women with PCOS engage
with online sources to help them manage/adapt/accommodate/learn about their condition.  The
information they seek is both clinical and experiential and the study has a reflexive component
that adds to its authenticity and is qualitative in its approach.  Listening to people’s stories is
powerful and the article makes a unique contribution to our knowledge of this area that will
help other women experiencing PCOS as well as health care providers.  Many lay people also
search academic literature and may identify with the women whose stories are so poignantly
explored here.
The authors have responded to this reviewer’s comments satisfactorily although I do note the
following typos/queries which will provide a little further clarification and editing improvement:
-Lines 10, 13 and 14: Repetition of ‘anxiety and depression’ as symptoms.  If you wish to repeat
these as symptoms in health complications, perhaps state “as previously mentioned”??
-Line 104: Given that dollars are a currency used in other countries e.g.: Australia, you might
like to note that the vouchers were USD? Same for GBP??
-Table 1: Typo – P15 1 years (should be year)
-Line 161: Should ‘draw’ be in the past tense in keeping with the rest of the paragraph?
-Line 167: Repetition of word ‘developed’ in the same sentence.  Consider using ‘emerged’ for
the sub-themes. Also, with ‘participants’, are you talking about each individual participant? Or
participants plural? The former requires an apostrophe before the ‘s’ as in the text; the latter
after.  I think you do mean participants’ strategies (plural).
-Line 338: Should read “result in feelings of reassurance” rather than “of feelings…”
-Line 426: Should you clarify what spectrum here? E.g.: The PCOS spectrum? If you are
worried about too many ‘PCOS’s (e.g.: in Line 428), you might consider changing that to ‘their
condition’ or similar??
-Line 460: For clarity, should you change ‘periods’ to menstrual cycles here and anywhere
else?  Given that the US also refer to full-stops as periods, and it is probably more clinically
appropriate, the use of ‘periods’ (unless in a quote) might be a little confusing for an international
audience.
-Line 482: Presumably it was not just their understanding that improved with increased
knowledge, but also their confidence?
-Line 486: Was it a single finding? Or were there ‘findings’ (plural)?
-Line 514: Can you say the initial phase of what exactly?
-Line 526: Can you say what type of information?  Even just “information around PCOS”?
-Line 594: Should be ‘at’ different stages
-Lines 597 and onwards: Great discussion in Limitations sections including suggestions for
further research. Nicely done.
Title: Women’s use of online health and social media resources to make sense of their polycystic
ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis: a qualitative study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Jan 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is a well written and conducted qualitative study focused on
women's experience of being diagnosed with PCOS. The authors provide a very clear description
of how the study was conducted. The authors do an excellent job summarizing the information
showing how this fits with other research both theoretically and in the disease area.  This is
clearly a study where the authors put extensive time into based on the quality of this paper.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have very few concerns with this paper and all of them are minor.
1. Please provide explicit discussion on why the authors didn't think more about saturation.
I know in the reviewer comments there is discussion, but it would be helpful for readers to
understand this point and not all interested readers will be familiar with RTA.
2. Please provide additional clarification in the text of the paper that the authors were using a
constructivist approach. Again this was in the reviewer comments but could be made clearer
in the manuscript.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
none
Title: Women’s use of online health and social media resources to make sense of their polycystic
ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis: a qualitative study
Version: 7 Date: 12 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I consider this paper in publishable  form.  It makes an important contribution to new knowledge
and will be useful to clinicians, researchers and other healthcare providers as well as those with
lived experience of PCOS who are seeking information. While not proposed as an aim  of the
research,  the study  provides some interesting findings such as the wide use of health-related
apps for people with complex and chronic health conditions such as PCOS.
Title: Women’s use of online health and social media resources to make sense of their polycystic
ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis: a qualitative study
Version: 7 Date: 16 Feb 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have fully responded to my comments on the manuscript
and have made changes within the manuscript to address my concerns. This manuscript is well
done. I have no further concerns.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None
Title: Effects of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, the copper IUD and the levonorgestrel
implant on testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin and free testosterone levels: Ancillary
study of the ECHO* randomized clinical trial
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Excellent manuscript.
Although androgenic progestins can contribute to hair loss, there is no evidence that endogenous
free testosterone causes hair loss. The androgenic progestins can block the androgen receptor
and prevent free T effects at the AR. There are many mechanism s which the synthetic progestins
may affect hair loss. To infer an increase in free T would be causative may not be founded.
It would have been really interesting to see simultaneous reports on symptoms. We have seen
consistent hair re-growth in age-related hair loss in women with testosterone implant therapy
with or without finasteride.
Title: Effects of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, the copper IUD and the levonorgestrel
implant on testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin and free testosterone levels: Ancillary
study of the ECHO* randomized clinical trial
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This is an interesting study that  compares testosterone and sex hormone binding globulin
(SHBG) levels between participants allocated to DMPA-IM, the copper IUD and the
levonorgestrel (LNG) implant in the context of a rigorous randomized clinical trial.
The manuscript is well written. Congratulations.
However, the manuscript should be  revised, specially regarding statistical analysis because it
lacks details.
1. Which statistical  normality test was used to verify data normality ? It should be clearly stated
at  Data analysis section.
2. Statistical tests used in data analysis should be revised. Mann-Whitney test  is used to compare
2 groups and not 3, as it is in the paper.
4. Data is divided into baseline and after 6 months. The authors should consider using Repeated-
Measure ANOVA  as there is 3 groups and in which group there is baseline and 6 months
testosterone assessment.
5. Which post hoc statistical test was used after ANOVA?
Patient and public involvement should be better explained  and the discussion section should
be more detailed.
Title: Effects of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, the copper IUD and the levonorgestrel
implant on testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin and free testosterone levels: Ancillary
study of the ECHO* randomized clinical trial
Version: 7 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The intra-individual CV of serum testosterone and free testosterone is not mentioned as a
disclaimer. There is daily variation up to 28% in testosterone levels. Could this have affected
the results?
Title: Effects of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, the copper IUD and the levonorgestrel
implant on testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin and free testosterone levels: Ancillary
study of the ECHO* randomized clinical trial
Version: 7 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The study is really interesting and important. However, some considerations should be made in
order to better understand the study.
Line 151, page 8: the objective should be rewritten. The way it is written,  the study aim is not
clear.
Line 167, page 9: the authors mention that "Blood samples were collected at baseline and at the
3-monthly visits". However, hormone levels were compared at baseline and  at 6 months. Why
haven't the authors compared hormone levels at 3 months, as well?
It is really important to use statistical methods that are able to control for confounders. It is
known that metabolic syndrome, visceral obesity and some medication can modify testosterone
levels. It should be taken into account.  If it is not possible to do so, it is really important to
clearly state that and explain why confounders were not taken into account, in the Limitations
paragraph (line 288, page 16).
Title: Effects of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, the copper IUD and the levonorgestrel
implant on testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin and free testosterone levels: Ancillary
study of the ECHO* randomized clinical trial
Version: 8 Date: 20 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. It seems like Comment 1   from my previous review on inclusion of p-values for comparison
of baseline factors Table 1 was no addressed nor commented on.
2. It looks like the 4th comment from my previous review, regarding reference to the use of
"Mixed regression models"  on their manuscript was not addressed nor answered.
3. The authors keep referring to their ancillary study as a randomized study in their manuscript
despite using about 60% of the randomized sample and only among those with available lab
results. Authors may want to refer to my previous review about this.
Title: Post-abortion needs-based education via the WeChat platform to lessen fear and
encourage effective contraception: A Post-abortion Care Service intervention-controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 17 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I greatly appreciate innovative
strategies for medical education and agree these interventions should be evaluated using well
designed research studies.
Suggested revisions:
1. " induced abortion can injure women physically and psychologically." This  sentence
should be revised. I assume they are talking about unsafe abortions? Abortions are life-saving
procedures that generally reduce the person's risk of dying (since the mortality rate is much
higher with childbirth than abortion). There is significant data on the physical and mental safety
of abortion care.
2. It's weird that so much of the background focuses on unsafe abortions but this study's
intervention was done in the medical setting. Generally abortions provided within a medical
system are not unsafe abortions. Consider refocusing the background
3. "Contraception, which shields women, especially adolescent girls, from pregnancy-related
health concerns, is the best strategy to avoid unintended pregnancies."  consider revising the
wording to "most effective strategy".
4. "Patient anxiety was the secondary outcome; patient-friendly, effective contraception was the
primary outcome." Primary outcome should be listed first.
5. Results seem to be mixed into the methods section at times.
6. Need more detail on qualitative analysis. You mention that the authors categorized the content.
Were these inductive or deductive coding? How many authors reviewed each message? What
was the inter-rater agreement?
7. FIgure 1 Y axis- what is the unit? If the bar hits 50 on the first column, that means there were
50 comments on that topic in 1 day? But when the bar hits 50 on the 9th column, does that mean
50 comments in 2 weeks? Needs clarification.
8. Do not use the phrase "ditto" In the tables.