JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The causal relationship of female infertility and psychiatric disorders in the European
population: A Bidirectional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study
Version: 0 Date: 09 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Shraboni Patra
Reviewer's report:
First, I would like to thank the authors for taking up an interesting, little-explored area of
research on female infertility in association with psychiatric disorders and attempting to fill the
methodological gap.
I would like to put forward the following suggestions on this manuscript:
1.  Mention the study area/location /which place the study population belongs to, possibly in
the title.
2. The objective/purpose of the study needs to be mentioned clearly before the method section.
3. The description of the inclusion of the sample (sample size) should be clear and needs to be
in the method section, not in the result section of the abstract, as well as in the main document.
4.  Mention the time (year) of this research conducted in the method section.
5. The analysis of the influence of confounding risk factors i.e., exposure and outcome should
be the part of method section.
6. The causal association between exposure and outcome variables is found less significant (a
high p-value ranges between 0.5 and 1), or may not be strongly associated and may occurred by
random chance (Figure 2), as mentioned in the study limitation.
7. Each Table and Figure must have a number and heading.
8. Some traits like BMI, weight, and current tobacco smoking do not show a significant
association with the psychiatric disorder (Table S1).
9. The discussion section should have a clear and lucid account of the findings of the present
study supported by the findings of the previously published research, particularly literature
should be provided where it says, “Prior research has indicated that depression may act as a risk
factor…….” (p 8, paragraph 3, line 4).
10. Overall the findings of the study suffer from data limitation i.e., homogenous data.
11. Methodology is the strength of this study, though findings are contradictory.
Title: Single versus double blastocyst transfer in first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer
cycle in advance-aged women: a two-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 11 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have attempted to answer a clinically significant question.
They analyzed the pregnancy outcomes after SBT and DBT in the first and second FBT cycles,
stratified by maternal age. They conclude by stating that the number of blastocysts transferred
to women aged 35–42 years should be determined by age as well as the FET cycle rank.
I have major concerns regarding this study.
1. Abstract concluded that 'SBT regimen is the best choice for both, the first and second frozen-
thawed embryo transfer cycles, for women aged 35–37 years'. This conclusion seems to be
contradictory to the data presented in table 3. In Table 3, DBT showed better live birth for women
in cycle one aged 35-37, which is statistically significant. There was no significant difference in
the live birth rate between SBT and DBT in cycle 2. Similarly, the conclusion statement given
on page 14, lines 260-262, is also not supported by the data in table 3.
Page 13, lines 237-238. Is the study adequately powered to draw this conclusion (cycle one n=
324 vs. cycle two n =147)?
The conclusion on page 16, lines 288-290, does not corroborate with the data table.
2. A demographic comparison of the women who had SBT vs. DBT or cycle 1 vs cycle 2 was
not given. Also, Did all women that underwent cycle 2 fail cycle 1? if not, what was the number
of women who underwent cycle 2 that had failed cycle 1? Would this additional information
influence the conclusion of this study?
3. Was any univariate logistic regression analysis performed to select factors for multivariate
logistic regression analysis? If so, please provide the data. (page 15, lines 269-271).
4. Table 3,  Please provide the age-specific miscarriage rate. This will be an important factor
in clinical decision-making.
5. Twin delivery rate was stratified with different age group sets (35-39 & 40-42). This is
different from other analyses (35-37 years & 38-42 years). Please explain.
Title: Single versus double blastocyst transfer in first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer
cycle in advance-aged women: a two-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors aimed to evaluate the effect of the number of transferred blastocyst
embryos on pregnancy outcomes in the first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET)
cycles of advanced-aged patients (# 35 years). The main finding was that the live birth rate
was higher in the double blastocyst transfer (DBT) regimen compared with the single blastocyst
transfer (SBT) regimen in patients aged 38–42 years in the second FBT cycle.
Comments;
• Introduction:
The introduction section should be improved according to the literature gap.
In recent years, the number of FET cycles has gradually increased in ART centers globally.
Thus, the impact of the FET cycles should be added to this part with a few sentences between
the first and the second paragraphs.
The aim of the study should be mentioned in a separate last paragraph.
• Methods:
Language and grammar should be re-checked and corrected.
Ethical approval number and date should be added.
What is the content of uterine malformation? Does it comprise uterine pathologies, including
uterine fibroids or polyps, etc.? Did the authors exclude patients with uterine surgery? If so, add
the number of these patients to figure 1.
Line 132: Luteal phase support was administered or continued? The correct word seems to be
''continue'' according to the flow of the paragraph.
When did you perform ET? The duration of progesterone before ET should be described for
NC and AC.
The statistical analysis part could be better. Tests used for either normally or non-normally
distributed continuous variables should be described in the statistical analysis part. The statistical
approach used for the model assessment in multivariate logistic regression analysis should be
added (for example, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistics).
Determine only categorical covariates, not all variables, in this section, if any.
• Results:
Line 186: the word should be …association, not correlation.
• Discussion:
The discussion part should be reorganized and summarized.
Line 210-230: The first paragraph should be divided after the study's main findings.
Line 231-246: The second paragraph should be shortened because some results have already
been given in the first paragraph.
Line 260-262: In patients aged 35–37 years, you could not say the favorable impact of the SBT
regimen, according to table 3. The LBR was higher in the DBT regimen than in the SBT regimen
in these patients, as you mentioned at the beginning of the first paragraph.
Line 271: The TDR was unacceptable in patients older than 40 years (the results showed almost
0% in figure 2).
Describe the strengths of this study in addition to weaknesses.
Title: Single versus double blastocyst transfer in first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer
cycle in advance-aged women: a two-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 20 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have assessed the revised manuscript and appreciated the authors' efforts to respond to all
recommendations as well as possible.
Comments;
• Keywords should be added from MeSH (Medical Subject Headings).
• Introduction:
I did not see the revision according to my recommendations. The authors should have given
more information about the favorable impact of the FET regimen compared to the fresh cycles.
This study is about frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. The last paragraph should have
indicated these cycles and hypotheses.
• Material and Methods:
Uterine pathologies, such as polyps and fibroids, may affect the chance of pregnancies.
Favorable outcomes could be obtained with appropriate endometrium and good-quality
embryos. Thus, uterine pathologies should have been excluded to achieve a precise conclusion.
Line 151: ‘All continuous variables were approximately normally distributed’ is not an accurate
statement. Normality tests, including visual (histograms, probability plots) and analytical
methods (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), should have been performed to determine the normal
distribution of variables before analysis. Parametric (Student’s t-test) and non-parametric
(Mann-Whitney U test) tests should be used after this evaluation.
• Discussion:
Although the authors revised some parts, the discussion section is still too long and confusing.
It should have been summarized.
Line 281-284: I could not see any changes in this part. The favorable impact of the SBT regimen
is unclear, according to table 4. The LBR was higher in the DBT regimen than in the SBT
regimen in these patients, as you mentioned at the beginning of the first paragraph (Lines
235-237).
Title: Single versus double blastocyst transfer in first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer
cycle in advance-aged women: a two-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 28 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Conclusion statement: The present study demonstrated that the SBT regimen is the best choice
for both the first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles for women aged 35–37 years.
-The data analysis does not support this.
The authors' explanation was, "Although DBT showed better live birth for women in cycle one
aged 35-37 and similar live birth for women in cycle two aged 35-37, there is one problem that
is impossible to circumvent. The twin delivery rate among women aged 35 to 37 years was
high both in cycle 1 (13.1% to 18.7%) and in cycle 2 (18.4% to 20.7%), therefore, after full
consideration, we conclude that "SBT regimen is the best choice for both, the first and second
frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles, for women aged 35–37 years".
1. The data from the study do not support this conclusion. The conclusion statement should
reflect the data derived from the study. (LBR is better with DBT than SBT in cycle 1 in the 35-37
age group (p = 0.001), but multiple pregnancy rates are higher. Hence a "recommendation" for
SET can be made based on the study's data rather than deriving a strong conclusion as stated
above.
2. Page 7, line 122: this is "modified natural cycle," not natural cycle.
3. line 133: Seven days after natural LH surge, FET was performed - this is for the natural cycle.
But the protocol described "hcg trigger" was used. Please clarify.
4. line 145: Miscarriage rate - definition should include till what gestational age (<20 weeks).
Title: Single versus double blastocyst transfer in first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer
cycle in advance-aged women: a two-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 6 Date: 09 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Even after 2 revisions several differences between the study groups  still exists that precludes
derivation of a meaningful conclusion of this study.
For example
- Line 105 The methodology section talks about transfer of cleavage stage embryos and
the remaining supernumerary embryos were grown to blast stage and subsequently  frozen/
transferred. So, were cleavage stage embryos were transferred too? No info regarding that in the
manuscript. If so how can can both cleavage and blast transfers were analyzed together?
-Whether any PGT cycles included? if not it was not mentioned in the methodology
- Different endometrial preparation methods were used  - mNC and HRT cycles- different
progesterone regimens were used in these protocols (oral vs vaginal P4 were used). These factors
are not adjusted for in the logistic regression analysis.
-Line 134 mNC - is the transfer not based on trigger date (hcg+7 days)?
Per authors - the timing was seven days after natural LH surge.
-Basic methodological issues as stated above. Grouping these patients in 2 groups and not
accounting for the differences in the groups makes the validity of the conclusion questionable.
Title: Single versus double blastocyst transfer in first and second frozen-thawed embryo transfer
cycle in advance-aged women: a two-center retrospective cohort study
Version: 7 Date: 13 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed the revised manuscript and appreciate the authors' efforts.  After revision, the
manuscript is more acceptable now.
Table 1 and Table 2: It should be mNC  instead of NC.
Title: Does the birth plan match what is relevant to women? Preferences of spanish women
when giving birth
Version: 1 Date: 12 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors on the manuscript. Some changes have already been made to the study.
Some considerations must be made:
The conclusion in the summary must be more objective, in order to respond to the objective
of the research.
The text should also include the impact of the study results on the area of women's health. What
can they enable? What are your contributions to the area?
Title: Does the birth plan match what is relevant to women? Preferences of spanish women
when giving birth
Version: 4 Date: 08 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Héctor González-de la Torre
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
Thank you for allowing me to revise this manuscript again. Most of the comments have been
answered and changes have been made that in my opinion, improve the manuscript. As far as I
am concerned, it can be published. I point out some errata for correction
-Table 1 : Change W-DEC-A for W-DEQ-A
-Page 3 Line 1 change "disadvantages of these techniques" for disadvantages of these
techniques".
-Revise the figure foot numbers.
Best regards
Title: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Postpartum Depression among Women Attending Primary
Healthcare Centers in Northern of West Bank/ palestine : A cross-sectional study, 2022
Version: 4 Date: 19 May 2023
Reviewer:  Jarurin Pitanupong
Reviewer's report:
This is a valuable, and interesting study. However, to make this study more valuable, some
points should be revised.
1 Title:
Prevalence and Risk Factors of Postpartum Depression among Women Attending Primary
Healthcare Centers in Northern of West Bank: A cross-sectional study, 2022.
- The title is completed for meaning.
2 Abstract:
- All domain is completed.  But there are some additional points, for example, the age that
appears in both the method and the result should have the unit "year".
- Keywords: Postpartum depression, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Risk factors, West
Bank, Primary healthcare, should be written in alphabetical order as Edinburgh Postnatal
Depression Scale, Postpartum depression, Primary healthcare, Risk factors, West Bank
3 Introduction or background:
Those are clear.
4 Study design (including population, tool, and statistical analysis):
This is a cross-sectional study of 380 mothers, ages 18 and 44, visiting vaccination clinics with
their infants after 7-12 weeks of delivery between 1 May 2022 and 30 June 2022.
- Why the inclusion criteria are women who were between 18-44 years old??? not include 45
years old and older?? And why do the participants include only 7-12 weeks after delivery, not
include 6 weeks or less?  Because the group older than 45 years or the group after giving birth
within 1-6 weeks may be a group with a higher risk of PDD. Therefore, this study design may
or may not underestimate the results of PDD prevalence.
5 Result:
Their salary ranged from 2000 to less than 4000 shekel (55.5%, n=211).
- In addition to the salary range, please specify the income level for readers in other countries
to understand such as low, middle, and high income.
- Please add information to show what weeks of delivery or the postnatal period the participants
are.
- The age that appears in both the method and the result should have the unit "year".
- Too many tables. Unnecessary tables should be collapsed and rewritten as content instead,
such as Table 1.
6 Discussion:
- Overall, it's well written. But there is something worth discussing: the selection of a sample
group that may not cover all risk groups. If this study has any confounding factors, please discuss
to improve this manuscript to excellence and be valuable for the reader.
- Finally, please add more the recommendation or benefits of this study.
7 Reference:
- Most reference is appropriate, but please rewrite the reference according to the correct form.
8 overall
- Overall, the writing style is incorrect. There should be no topic numbers such as 1 2 3 ...6  or
3.1.1, 3.1.2.... and should not use abbreviations in the table such as CS.
- Sentence patterns should be edited to be more formal or written. In addition, the use of
capitalization in table headers, tables, sentences, and references should be corrected.
Thanks and good luck
Title: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Postpartum Depression among Women Attending Primary
Healthcare Centers in Northern of West Bank/ palestine : A cross-sectional study, 2022
Version: 4 Date: 01 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Fatemeh Abdollahi
Reviewer's report:
Due to high prevalence of PPD globally, especially after the pandemic of Covid-19, the study
in a country with difficult circumstance is very valuable.
Please;
1. The English writing should be improved.
2. According to the definition of postpartum depression, the sampling of the study should be doan
within 4 weeks of giving birth.Begin of the sampling after 7 week may be loss some depressed
women.
3. As the title is to determine the  risk factors of postpartum depression, one note should be
added in conclusion in abstract, about this objective.
4. Contraventional studies on risk factors of PPD should be mentioned in introduction.
5. The women who experienced of depression and used medication should be excluded from
study.
6. It was better the validity and reliability of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was
examined in the population under study.
7. The ethical code should be mentioned at the end of method section.
8.At the result section under Characteristics of participants subtitle, the range of 26 and what???
9. The income should be mentioned as dollar  too.
10. It is proposed the method of  analysis is mentioned in titles of the tables 2 and 3, e.g. chi
square, t.test ,…
11. The result of analysis (relationship reports) that presented in tables 2 and 3 should be
presented as text briefly.
12. The stressful events in pregnancy that presented in tables should be defined in method
section.
12. The first paragraph of discussion section, is not related to discussion .it is proposed in the
first paragraph of discussion talk about the objective of the study.
13. in limitation section; as The EPDS asked the participant about their feeling in past 7 days,
recall bias could not be the limitation of the study.
Title: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Postpartum Depression among Women Attending Primary
Healthcare Centers in Northern of West Bank/ palestine : A cross-sectional study, 2022
Version: 10 Date: 06 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Akihiro Seita
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
thank you for your revisions to the original manuscript. i found it now well prepared and clear
to read. Only one comments is as follows:
I find a contradiction between your first comment and the second comment in response to my
reviews. Please revise the manuscript accordingly.
In your first comment, you replied "Women with high depression scores were told immediately
and urged to seek PHC treatment, emphasizing the necessity of managing the symptoms. The
results were shared with the PHC medical centre director to argue for systematic screening
tool adoption to ensure no female was left out, but no personal data was shared with the
administration."
This time, however, you replied that "All individuals who tested positive during the screening
process were then referred for additional examination". Your first comment suggests the at-risk
patients were merely advised to seek psychological diagnosis/care without referral arrangement,
and only unidentifiable data was shared with PHC, while the second comment mentions you
prepared a referral pathway in advance. This contradiction undermines the credibility of the
manuscript, as it gives the impression of being simply overwritten.
Title: Reproductive outcomes among female health care workers
Version: 2 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
In the abstract, method, it is necessary to state how the fertility consequences were measured.
The results in the abstract must be presented in the language of numbers. It is not common to
use words like risk factor and link in statistics. Pay attention to this issue in other sections. At
present, the results are written without reporting things like correlation coefficient, p-value, and
mean, similar to conclusions. The results are so similar to conclusion nor results.  The results
should be read in line with the general purpose of the study.
The entire text needs to be edited.
Introduction
Explanations First of all, the introduction about occupational hazards is too many and it is
necessary to be more concise.
Nowhere in the statement of the problem was seen that the authors report how many percent of
people in Iran or the world are exposed to occupational injuries.
On the second page of the statement of the problem, there are many explanations about the
definition of premature birth, infertility, low birth weight baby, which do not need to be reported
and should be deleted.
The necessity of doing the study is not written correctly. It needs to be rewritten.
Most of the studies done in this field in the world and in Iran need to be limited to a few new
studies.
Method
Regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria, is a person who has a birth control method and
has not a desire to have a child included in the study? Or someone who has no children and has
never had a history of pregnancy???
The results are very short and at the same time ambiguous, and it is necessary to report the
explanations of the tables in the form of linear and logistic regression results in the text.
On what basis has the relationship between variables been examined with linear and logistic
regression??? Are all variables included in the model? Why are beta values and odds ratios not
reported???
It is necessary to discuss the results that are opposite to results and discuss the reason for the
difference.
Clinical implication and suggestions for future research need to be reported.
Title: Reproductive outcomes among female health care workers
Version: 2 Date: 31 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your valuable article. The following are comments to improve the article
The introduction is not thoughtful and critical and the literature is not deeply discussed. In
its current state, the introduction reads as cumulative information on different reproductive
outcomes without a critical stance on the existing models and data that builds upon to create
the need for the current study. This leads us to a point where the choice of variables for the
intervention is not well grounded
The whole introduction needs to be reviewed so that the authors create a solid and sound rationale
for their study, its novelty, and its relevance. The methodological choices need to be grounded
too.
What question or questions were the authors trying to answer with this work? please write in
the final paragraph of the introduction.
Are all hospital departments the same in terms of work difficulty?
inclusion criteria are not clear. Does the history of illness, length of the marriage, length of
infertility,  etc. have an effect?
Why are men not considered in this article? Is the participation of men ineffective in fertility
outcomes? While your title is general.
The sampling method is not clear.
Please ensure that all software and devices used in this manuscript are explicitly mentioned,
including version number if applicable, manufacturer, and manufacturer location.
Did the authors consider evaluating psychological maladjustment or psychological distress,
namely stress? Is this a limit of the study? If so, please cover it in the limits section as well as
all limits that apply.