JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The impact of diabetes, anemia, and renal function in the relationship between
osteoporosis and fasting blood glucose among Taiwanese women: a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Hsien-Wen Kuo
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the revised manuscript, and I appreciate the efforts made in addressing the
comments. However, I would like to seek clarification on the following points:
1. Hypothesis Description: In the manuscript, please ensure a clear and comprehensive
description of the hypothesis guiding the study. It is crucial that all results directly contribute to
testing this hypothesis and are adequately presented in the respective table.
2. Stratification of Variables (Table 6): The manuscript incorporates the stratification of three
variables—diabetes, anemia, and renal function—in Table 6. Could you please confirm that
measures have been taken to verify that these variables do not act as confounders in the
association between osteoporosis and fasting blood glucose? Considering previous studies
indicating a potential high correlation among diabetes, anemia, and renal function, it is important
to address the risk of over-adjustment in the results. Please provide insights into how this issue
has been considered and mitigated in the analysis.
3. I've noticed the inclusion of Table 7 and Fig 2 in the revised manuscript, and I'm seeking
clarification on the rationale behind their addition. Given that the study is observational in
nature, it may be less suitable to delve into the mechanisms underlying the association between
osteoporosis and fasting blood glucose. I would recommend focusing on concisely presenting the
study findings, centered around testing the hypothesis. Any discussion of potential mechanisms
could be appropriately reserved for the Discussion section.
I appreciate your attention to these matters and look forward to your response.
Title: The impact of diabetes, anemia, and renal function in the relationship between
osteoporosis and fasting blood glucose among Taiwanese women: a cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you again for your clarified responses.
Although some existing issues that the authors explained in revised paper, the results can not
change anymore due to the  limitation of national data extraction, the manuscript remains its
positively great value.
I note that the paper is well improved now and therefore,  I support for the publication in this case.
I hope that the authors could also conduct  another  similar study in order to improve your
limitations in the future.
Congratulation for your best work!
Regards,
Phuc Nhon Nguyen MD
Tu Du Clinical Research Unit (TD-CRU)
Tu Du Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Title: The Effectiveness of Educational Intervention based on the Health Action Model )HAM)
in Improving Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors
Version: 1 Date: 24 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Ayat Mahmoud Tawfik
Reviewer's report:
The Effectiveness of Educational Intervention based on the Health Action Model )HAM) in
Improving Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors
• From abstract till the end of manuscript, please unify the description of your intervention. E.g.,
training program, or educational program …. Make it one expression all over the manuscript.
• What do you mean by the statistical population in your study? How did you considered them
to be statistical?
• Please provide that there is a diagram of the sampling technique: A multi-stage random
sampling method, in the text.
• For this technique: The convenience and snowball sampling methods were carried out in the
centers until the desired sample size was reached, it is not random sampling at all against what
you reported earlier in methods and abstract. Please correct it to be as non-random.
• Why it is quasi- not experimental. Clarify?
• The components of the questionnaires were repeated before and after the validity and reliability
sections. Please make it written once after.
• The questionnaire was completed by the target group in three periods, before, three and six
months after the educational intervention. For what purpose? Clarify.
• When the two participants left the study? Mention.
• Add to limitations, the sampling technique, the great difference between group as regards being
working or housewife.
• Add the table no which is assigned to each comment in the results section.
• Remove “the mean±standard deviation of the scores” from table 2 title.
• Remove “before, three and six months after the intervention” from table 2 title.
• Shorten the title of table 3.
• The first paragraph of discussion is a summery for the whole manuscript. Remove it and just
keep the discussion of the study’s findings.
• Provide a separate section for recommendations.
• Re-write the conclusion based on what the main findings were supporting your hypothesis or
not.
Design and Psychometric Evaluation of the Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors Scale Based on
the Health Action Model (HAM)
• In abstract, re-phrase “The research population consisted of 210 30-69 years old females based
in Kashan who were selected through simple random sampling”.
• with the help of a team of experts consisting of health education and promotion specialists and
experts of the non-communicable diseases unit (n=7). Usually (n) is assigned to sample size not
the number of experts.
• Please clarify in detail what are the tools in quantitative part and qualitative part. It needs re-
writing in a better clear way. No quantitative design was reported. Explain why?
• Provide a separate section for limitations.
• Re-write the conclusion based on what the main findings were.
Title: The Effectiveness of Educational Intervention based on the Health Action Model )HAM)
in Improving Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors
Version: 6 Date: 16 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s comments
I thank the authors who have revised the manuscript and tried improving it. Overall, this is a
good piece of scientific work that will contribute to more scientific works and potentially inform
policymakers on possible adjustments/ shift. However, it is recommended that the author review
some comments attached to the reviewed document (i.e some would require to paraphrase a
section or rewrite it in order to be clear or support author's arguments). Thus, if this document
is well /slightly revised, it can be accepted for publication.
Specific comments
1. Read carefully the manuscript and avoid self-repetitions that remain one of the main issues
in this study. After you address the concerns raised, you an review and editing performed by a
person whose English is the first language.
2. Please, try to strengthen methods sections by addressing the comments I provided in the
manuscript. For example; write the inclusion and exclusion as a paragraph to make them clearer.
Second, remove the information about factor analysis (e.g. CFA) because I am missing them in
your analyses and in the supplementary documents. Third, please, clarify the analyses sections
because sometimes you provide some information, which are not true. Considering an example
of Alpha of Cronbach, this is the statistical parameter used to assess the internal consistency. It
becomes good when the value is more than 0.7.
3. In the data collection materials, you said that you used demographic tool. Let me suggest using
“socio-demographic questionnaire”. You said that this instrument has 15 parts, which parts that
constitute socio-demographic questionnaire? Please, try to justify also the 85 parts of the HAM.
If you do not have them, remove these sentences about the parts.
4. In your results section, you indicated the values of t-test, and Chi-square but you only show
the readers the p-values; please, can you provide the value of t-test and Chi-square in your
interpretation and tables respectively?
5. Please, write your limitations and strengths as paragraph. You can refer to the example I gave
you.
6. In your conclusion, I suggest you to improve it and provide further recommendations to the
policy makers and especially to the further researchers based on your results and limitations.
Title: Reconnoitering Correlation Between Human Papillomavirus Infection-induced Vaginal
Microecological Abnormality and Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (SIL) Progression
Version: 2 Date: 16 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Review:
Li, J. et al. Reconnoitering correlation between vaginal microecological abnormality and human
papillomavirus infection and squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) progression.
In their study the authors aim to investigate the relationship between different cytological
findings (SIL, bacteria etc.) and HPV-detection. For this purpose, 383 HPV-positive patients
and 898 HPV-negative volunteers were examined. Differences were found between transient
and persistent HPV-infection and between HSIL and LSIL. In addition, correlations of different
cytological findings among themselves or with markers such as leukocyte esterase, vaginal pH
etc. were reported.
However, some methodological shortcomings are limiting the study considerably:
- “microecological balance” in this paper is in part defined by cytological parameters; however,
they are poorly defined: e.g. flora density and diversity – this can not be equated with microbiome
density or microbiome diversity (tab 3 – 6), which are categories from NGS-based approaches.
- How are “Lactobacillus” measured or assessed?
- The authors have to define / explain, how the mentioned diseases are defined: e.g. bacterial
vaginosis (BV) can best be measured by the Nugent score.
- Does “oil microscopy” included gram staining for the diagnosis of aerobic vaginosis (AV)
- How did they measure catalase, sialidase and leukocyte esterase?
Keeping these deficiencies in mind, the results presented in tab 3 - 6 do not allow extensive
clinical considerations.
In conclusion, the authors have to revise the material and method section to define diseases,
terms, measurements etc. more precisely; since they want to draw clinical conclusions, the
diseases they work with should be defined along the established diagnostic schemes (e.g. BV
by Nugent score).
Title: Reconnoitering Correlation Between Human Papillomavirus Infection-induced Vaginal
Microecological Abnormality and Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (SIL) Progression
Version: 2 Date: 19 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Gabriele Lanzo
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Is “Reconnoitering Correlation Between
Vaginal Microecological Abnormality and Human Papillomavirus Infection and Squamous
Intraepithelial Lesion (SIL) Progression" which falls within the aim of the Journal.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest  following
recommendations:
- I suggest round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability;
- Considering the topic analyzed in this study, it would be interesting to discuss the  role of other
various factors in the persistence/resistance of HPV infection and cervical lesions considering
state of the art in the literature. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point PMID:
37401466 and 36992282)
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Reconnoitering Correlation Between Human Papillomavirus Infection-induced Vaginal
Microecological Abnormality and Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (SIL) Progression
Version: 2 Date: 19 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Mario Antonio Congiu
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, in order to correct a few typos and improve
readability
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the long-term outcomes of patients with cervical
cancer treated with a minimally-invasive approach compared to the "classic" oper approach (see
PMID: 37149905).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
- Discussions can be expanded by citing articles about minimally invasive surgery currently in
use for the treatment of CC (PMID: 35549629).
- I also suggest authors to better organize the discussion section following this ideal structure:
main findings of the study, strength and limitations of the study, implications and comparison
with literature, future directions.
Title: Effectiveness of a Culturally Tailored Text Messaging Program for Promoting Cervical
Cancer Screening in Accra, Ghana: A Quasi-experimental Trial
Version: 2 Date: 22 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Effectiveness of a Culturally Tailored Text
Messaging Program for Promoting Cervical Cancer Screening in Accra, Ghana: A Quasi-
experimental Trial " which falls within the aim of the Journal. In my opinion, this topic analyzed
is interesting enough to attract readers’ attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest the
following recommendations:
-  I suggest round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability;
- It would be interesting to discuss and try to disclose, especially in the study population, how
various factors could be crucial in the development of cervical cancer and how they could
influence the persistence and / or recurrence of cervical pathologies. (In particular, I suggest this
article to get deeper in the topic PMID: 36992282)
- The authors could extend the discussion by highlighting the possible relationship between
surgical treatment of cervical disease related by failure to HPV screening and obstetric outcomes.
I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point, referring to PMID: 33140628
- Authors should discuss robust pieces of evidence about the use of new strategies for cervical
cancer and pre-cancerous lesions screening and diagnosis, even using artificial intelligence and
novel biomarkers (authors may refer to: PMID: 36428831; PMID: 35742340).
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Effectiveness of a Culturally Tailored Text Messaging Program for Promoting Cervical
Cancer Screening in Accra, Ghana: A Quasi-experimental Trial
Version: 2 Date: 30 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Effectiveness of a Culturally Tailored Text
Messaging Program for Promoting Cervical Cancer Screening in Accra, Ghana: A Quasi-
experimental Trial ”, which falls within the aim of this Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
• Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
• In the Results section, the Authors have simply reported the p values, from which however
it is not possible to deduce the real clinical relevance of the highlighted statistical significance.
In order to better understand the obtained results, I suggest reporting not only the p values, but
also the corresponding confidence intervals
• The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest clarifying these points
• Was this study registered? I could not find any information about this point
Title: Impact of residual microcalcifcations on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in
breast cancer patients
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The study was very interesting. I think the manuscript is well prepared, however I have some
questions/ recommendations:
1. Assessment of mammography and MRI
According to the BI-RADS lexicon, the morphology includes amorphous, coarse heterogeneous,
fine pleomorphic, fine linear or fine-linear branching.
The categories of breast density were as follows: a. the breasts are almost entirely fatty. b. there
are scattered areas of fibroglandular density. c. the breasts are heterogeneously dense, which
may obscure small masses. d. the breasts are extremely dense, which lowers the sensitivity of
mammography.
2. The median follow-up time was 71 months, the results would be more interesting with longer
follow-up.
3. I would like to know if a mammography of the excised breast specimen was taken during the
operation to ensure microcalcifications excision?
4. Would breast cancer microcalcifications be located before excision?
Title: Impact of residual microcalcifcations on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in
breast cancer patients
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Seigo Nakamura
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has clinically important evidence and it is worthy to accept.
I n the paragraph of method, please correct the exact numbers. (at OOO and XXX and
Institutional Review Board of OOOOO (OOOO 2018-09033)
Title: Impact of residual microcalcifcations on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in
breast cancer patients
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Hans-Christian Kolberg
Reviewer's report:
The subject of the submitted manuscript, the role of microcalcifications after NAT is an unmet
medical need. The manuscript is well written and structured. However, some points have to be
addressed before publication.
Abstract (methods): please mention what endpoints you investigated. You only described the
abbreviations.
Methods: Please replace the spacers by content.
Results (also in abstract): You mention that the associations with pCR w/mic was "similar" but
did not reach statistical significance. How the about the associations you reported in a more
detailed way? The CIs are wide, were these associations significant? Please also include the
results for pCR w/mic. Did you also compare with and without microcalcifications regardless
of pCR? And then included that in a multivariate analysis to see if it is independent from pCR
(which of course is not the case, but the title of your manuscript implies that this is exactly what
you wanted to look at)? Please perform these analyses and add them.
Discussion: One of the first sentences in the discussion is "We demonstrated that residual
microcalcifications after NAC do not reflect residual cancer." Where exactly do I find that in
the results section? I went through it several times but I could not identify a result that would
justify this statement!
In general you are probably right that microcalcifications have no impact on prognosis in case
of a pCR, probably because the real problem of these patients is not the DCIS component of
their cancer. However, an analysis really looking at that question is missing in your manuscript
which is a major issue, although one that can be easily addressed by adding this analysis.
Title: Impact of residual microcalcifcations on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in
breast cancer patients
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
This article addresses the association between the change of microcalcification due to
neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival outcomes. The authors include much data in this report.
However, I do not agree to the publication of this article.
I believe many readers are not interested in the issue the authors addressed. Furthermore, I felt
hard to read the document because the authors put much data in the article. There are lacks
of elaboration, such as “who underwent NAC at OOO and XXX between March 2015 and
September 2018”, or “Institutional Review Board of OOOOO (OOOOO 2018-09-033)”.
Title: Age affects the association between socioeconomic status and infertility: a cross-sectional
study
Version: 0 Date: 14 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a good way of looking at this question.
To strengthen the study, I would recommend opening the discussion with lay language about
your findings of the impact of age and SES on infertility. It is easy for the reader to get lost in
understanding what the acronyms mean and a good opening sentence explaining this at the start
of the discussion would be helpful to highlight your conclusions.
In the 5th paragraph of the discussion when you mention different causes of infertility with
advancing age, you do not mention the most important one which is a decline in egg quality
leading to increased fetal aneuploidy and I think this is more important than endometrial polyps
for example and should be mentioned with citing associated literature.
The 6th paragraph could be expanded even more. There is pretty good literature out there
showing that age is a far bigger predictor than SES on fertility and pregnancy outcomes.
Here is another example of a paper you could include in your discussion on this topic here:
"Cusimano MC, Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, et al. Evaluation of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes
in Physicians Compared With Nonphysicians. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5):e2213521.
doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.13521 ".
Overall I think the analysis is done well and the tables speak for themselves. I might have likes
a bit more discission about the impact of parity as this may play a role. Are those older high
SES women generally experiencing secondary infertility as opposed to primary infertility being
more prevalent in low SES women?
Overall a worthwhile paper to contribute to the literature and remind us of the importance of
educating allcomers of the impact of age on fertility.
Title: Age affects the association between socioeconomic status and infertility: a cross-sectional
study
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors had made an interesting observation and confirmed that women with high SES
and 35 years and older are facing issues with fertility - primarily due to the personal choice of
delayed child bearing and the biological effects of ovarian ageing. Therefore, the findings are
not surprising and the observations are expected.
Therefore, the findings are not as novel as it appears because these 2 findings have been seen
in many populations. Can the authors compare this population to another cohort of different
ethnicities as this is a primarily US population - how about in large Asian cohorts when
the cultural beliefs of having children is very strong. Does SES and education make such a
difference? This will add on to the novelty of this study - otherwise these findings presented
are not unexpected.
Title: Age affects the association between socioeconomic status and infertility: a cross-sectional
study
Version: 2 Date: 01 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised the manuscript according to both reviewer's recommendations well.
I would just suggest removing the word "Besides" from the start of two of the newly added
sentences as this is a colloquial term and does not fit at the start of a sentence. I would also
suggest changing the wording from "kick a balance" to "find a balance" or "strike a balance"
which is a more commonly used phrase. I recommend an additional grammatical check before
publishing but otherwise, I think this paper is suitable for publication.