JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Age affects the association between socioeconomic status and infertility: a cross-sectional
study
Version: 3 Date: 10 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors had replied to most of my comments.
Can I seek the authors to emphasize the following point in the conclusion,
"....In the future, it is hoped that more safe and effective treatment strategies will enable those
infertile patients to achieve parenthood as soon as possible. It is vital to continue exploring the
relationship between SES and infertility across different countries and ethnicities which can
potentially impact the outcomes in different populations."
Title: Age affects the association between socioeconomic status and infertility: a cross-sectional
study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revision. The manuscript reads much more clearly now.
For figure 2, I recommend more description in the title of the figure instead of the paragraph
added. For example: "Figure 2 Distribution of PIR values (median and interquartile range) in
patients with  and without infertility grouped by age"
Title: Decomposing the rural-urban disparities in overweight and obesity among women of
reproductive age in Nigeria
Version: 1 Date: 16 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. The research identifies some notable points on overweight and obesity however, it fails
to provide adequate data in support of the variation and disparity across rural and urban
communities in Nigeria.
2. No adequate information to support the detrimental effect of obesity and overweight on child
and adult health.
3. There is a need for the authors to review more research works on overweight and obesity
and provide adequate support for the present increase among developing countries...Could it be
traced to nutrition, diet, living standards, modernization, globalization etc....
4. The conclusion failed to show clarity on the disparity found across rural and urban areas.
Title: Decomposing the rural-urban disparities in overweight and obesity among women of
reproductive age in Nigeria
Version: 2 Date: 15 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Authors have adequately addressed the issues I raised.
Apart from use of words such as 'determinants', which arguably can give a sense of causation
(outside the scope of this work being cross-sectional in design), I have no further comments.
I gladly recommend this work for acceptance.
Title: Pelvic organ prolapse: Women’s Experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations
for Improvement
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a great piece of work.  The age range of the women are below average for POP reported
in the literature.  Is it worth mentioning this?  I think it is a positive and not a limitation, as we
need more research in younger women with POP.
Title: Pelvic organ prolapse: Women’s Experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations
for Improvement
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Thomas Gray
Reviewer's report:
This is a valuable paper, providing a useful qualitative data on the challenges of accessing care
for PFDs.
The background and context is clearly defined, the method are clear and replicable.
The results are presented comprehensively and are clearly laid out within the structure of the
results section in a way which is helpful for the reader.
The discussion is detailed and includes appropriate references and valuable insights from the
new data.
The authors present their limitations
The only minor thing missing for me, was a brief paragraph on the strengths of your paper.
This will become a helpful reference in a canon of literature relating to how women with PFDs
have challenges to accessing care.
Title: Pelvic organ prolapse: Women’s Experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations
for Improvement
Version: 2 Date: 05 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is clearly important that women are better informed about the natural history of pelvic floor
disorders  and  particularly about management options.
However I am concerned (and you have discussed this) that you have surveyed a specific subset
of women who  are possibly unusually concerned about pelvic floor issues  - ie involvement in
Facebook group and agreeing to be interviewed.  And I have a few questions regarding your
group . Most women with Stage 1 and the bulk with Stage 2 prolapse are asymptomatic so it
is a little surprising that most 11/14 had only minimal prolapse. Do you know the self-reported
prolapse stage is accurate?  Also many of the associated pelvic floor symptoms described  may
be associated with vaginal laxity but are usually not due to prolapse itself.  Urinary incontinence,
frequency, pelvic pain, dyspareunia, faecal urgency are likely separate pathology. Sensation of
incomplete bladder emptying  needs to be confirmed.
Your conclusions re antenatal /postnatal education, greater health professional awareness,
screening etc are  probably absolutely valid - or at least for this group of patients.
However it would be more valuable to survey  a large group of asymptomatic patients attending
for some other indication eg for cervical screening and assess for symptoms and signs of
prolapse, ask about previous experiences etc. This may give a more accurate picture of the
situation in the community.
Title: Pelvic organ prolapse: Women’s Experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations
for Improvement
Version: 4 Date: 06 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I feel you have disregarded  the comments about the unrepresentative nature of this group of
patients. And hence you have drawn conclusions about  the inadequacies of health care provider
knowledge & management based on the reports  of a relatively atypical group.
Of course patients with minor postpartum vaginal laxity but disproportionate concern should be
properly assessed, reassured and if indicated, referred for pelvic floor physiotherapy.
But GP or specialist assessment is not really appropriate unless conservative therapy options
have been exhausted, symptoms are severe, renal function is compromised etc.
Your work has correctly highlighted deficiencies in antenatal and postnatal education plus
difficulties in accessing allied health care in the community. This is where we fail  women.
Title: Pelvic organ prolapse: Women’s Experiences of Accessing Care & Recommendations
for Improvement
Version: 6 Date: 03 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
You have  done well to try to identify factors other than prolapse itself which may have
contributed to these women's negative experiences. Certainly central sensitisation is a complex
and poorly understood condition which may not be familiar to general practitioners or
gynaecologists. This could result in a perceived dismissive response  when somatic symptoms
are disproportionate to observed pathology. Increased awareness is clearly important.
Your suggestions for improved community care are also valuable.
Title: Assessment of Knowledge and Practices of Exclusive Breastfeeding among Rural Women
during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Egypt: A Cross Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 07 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Asmaa Younis Elsary
Reviewer's report:
BMC Women's Heath
Assessment of Knowledge and Practices of Exclusive Breastfeeding among Rural Women
during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross Sectional Study
Original Research Article
General comments
• Manuscript importance: the topic is very important and interesting. It show impact on child
and maternal health, and reflected in family and community health.
• Language/English quality of the article: need language revision for grammar
• The title of the article is suitable: the relation between covid pandemic and study is not clear
in the whole article
• References sufficient and recent
• Ethical consideration: add date and ID of ethical approval
Detailed comments
Abstract:
Key words : arrange it alphabetically
Introduction:
Add more information about effect of covid on breast feeding
Knowledge gab that could be filled by current work should be cleared and provided in more
details.
Study aim
Methods
Study design: the inclusion and exclusion criteria is same author should clarify exclusion criteria
in another way as female with chronic disease.
Results
Table 1 : sample did not included illiterate mothers or mothers with basic level of education is
that reflected from community educational level ???
figure 3 : put axis title and separate knowledge frm practices or make it as stacked column type
Discussion
Author need to spot light on covid and breast feeding more in discussion as all discussion only
build on exclusive breast feeding regardless covid
Line 256-258 author explain reasons of low knowledge on education and socioeconomic
although about haif of sample were university education with income around 5000 pounds which
suitable for rural area in Egypt.
Line 260-262  need clarification and rephrasing
Line 266-272 need rephrasing
Line 280" SSC" mention the full word of it in the first time
Conclusion
Need to be rephrased to reflect results of current study
References :
Recent and sufficient
Need to be numbered
Title: Assessment of Knowledge and Practices of Exclusive Breastfeeding among Rural Women
during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Egypt: A Cross Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Respected authors, thank you for your effort. This is my  review for the manuscript
entitiled"Assessment of Knowledge and Practices of Exclusive Breastfeeding among Rural
Women during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross Sectional Study", please considere the
following comments:
-Did you calculate CVI or CVR for your questionnaire to assess the validity?
- In sample size calculation ; why didn't you consider 10% responce rate?
- Regarding the knowledge section in the questionnaire; you  stated that "Each question had two
alternative answers: correct and incorrect". why didn't you add the option I don't know? how
do you record the answers of the mothers who don't know if the item you asked about  is either
true or wrong?
- I  think you should calculate p value for camparing knowledge, practice items in Table 3 and
table 4 as well as fig. 2
- I think that some factors in the obstetric history  of the participants may affect  mainly their
practice as parity, gestiational weight and mode of delivery. So why didn't you assess this
factors?
- I suggest perdorming regression anlysis to assess the factors predicting knowledge and
practice.
-  what are the limitations of this study?
Title: Adverse childhood experiences and depressive symptoms among lesbian and bisexual
women in China
Version: 1 Date: 04 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Kiley W. Liming
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This manuscript describes a
study that examined the relationship between ACEs (in multiple ways) and depressive
symptomology; the study yielded promising results. Strengths of the study include: 1) among a
marginalized population, the authors contribute to the field by examining ACEs and depressive
symptoms; 2) the authors examine ACEs in a variety of ways; 3) important demographic
and sample characteristics are examined and controlled for. Weakness have to do with
missing methodological information (i.e., missingness? Power analysis?), the use of passive
language, clarity/organization of introduction and discussion, and confusion with abuse/neglect
as individual ACEs or reference to the Kaiser-CDC ACE dimensions. With revisions, I
recommend this article for publication. I believe this article fills a critical gap in examining
ACEs among a marginalized population and the relationship with depressive symptomology.
In the attached document, I use track changes to highlight suggestions where the manuscript
could be strengthened/clarify some details. Again, thank you for this opportunity to review. I
look forward to reading the revised manuscript.
Title: Adverse childhood experiences and depressive symptoms among lesbian and bisexual
women in China
Version: 1 Date: 05 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper presents a valuable data set, and it is generally well-written. Below are my suggestions
for corrections for some parts of the article:
Line number 2: This expression means the period of adulthood. However, individuals over the
age of 16 were included in the study.
Line no 16: The introduction should also begin with ACE.
Line 39-58: Starting the introduction with the definition of a lesbian takes the reader in a different
direction. However, an initial entry like the summary will make it more systematic.
Title: Adverse childhood experiences and depressive symptoms among lesbian and bisexual
women in China
Version: 4 Date: 29 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Kiley W. Liming
Reviewer's report:
I submitted two Word documents to the editors on 11/29/2022 - They include Round 1 and
Round 2 revisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. I would like to preface my
comments by stating it appears that my round 1 revisions in Track Changes (via Word document)
were not received by the authors with the written comments. Therefore, in an effort to not
be redundant, I am only submitting revisions on the authors limited revisions in the revised
manuscript. I have resubmitted the initial round 1 changes via track changes to the editors, as
well. The round 1 track changes revisions should be considered with the revisions mentioned
below.
The newly suggested revisions are spelling/grammatical recommendations made on the limited
revisions made by the authors in round 1. In general, I strongly recommend that the authors check
consistency with verb tense (use of “is” instead of “are”, for example), passive/active language,
check for missing words such as “the, is, and), eliminate/limit the use of starting sentences with
“and”, and check for correct use of plural words.
Suggested revisions below:
• Title: Female does not need to be capitalized
• Font of manuscript is size 10 – please confirm this is the correct font size preferred by the
journal.
• Line 16: Adverse does not need to be capitalized.
• Line 17: Change “conducted” to “researched”
• Lines 31 – 32: Extra spaces are included – check entire manuscript for additional spaces.
• Line 40: Start sentence with “Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)”
• Line 42: Change to read “…that early adverse life experiences”
• Lines 42 -43: Change to read “ACEs increase the risk of poor health outcomes, including: …”
• Line 45: Change “showed” to “shown” and remove “close” from sentence. Please check the
entire manuscript for verb tense/usage.
• Line 46: remove “whole”
• Line 47: add “s” to bisexual
• Line 50: Unclear what is meant by the authors stating that “female sexual minorities are less…”
– suggest to remove this language/reword.
• Lines 56 – 58: This statement needs a citation; or, reword to temper language used.
• Line 59: Make sentence more concise, use active language.
• Line 63: change the to “their”. Add citation to sentence.
• Lines 63 – 64: Reword sentence.
• Line 65: Modify sentence to not begin with “and”.
• Line 68: Change “had” to “have”
• Line 69: Add space after likelihood, prior to parenthetical; modify sentence to no begin with
“and”.
• Line 72: change “is” to “are associated with…”
Noting here that the authors have few revisions throughout the remainder of the manuscript,
and therefore, I am stopping my round 2 revisions here and will review the manuscript once the
initial round 1 revisions have been received/made by the authors.
Title: Adverse childhood experiences and depressive symptoms among lesbian and bisexual
women in China
Version: 5 Date: 19 Jul 2023
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have made important changes to the manuscript but not
all of the needed changes. Results are still in the methods (page 4, line 146) which should be in
results section. On page 6, the statistical analysis - authors used t-test and perhaps chi-squared
tests to examine differences 1) participant characteristics and depressive symptoms and 2) ACEs
and depressive symptoms - not bivariate correlations. You examined differences by groups for
those - not associations or correlations. For Tables 3-4 - please remove associations as you used
t-tests and examined differences. For Table 5 - please include your models below the table so
that the reader fully understand what you have done in this analysis. Lastly, please check your
manuscript to ensure you have beta symbols versus the letter B.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
See above.
Title: Adverse childhood experiences and depressive symptoms among lesbian and bisexual
women in China
Version: 6 Date: 11 Sep 2023
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: Thank you to the authors for making the last of the suggested
changes. Having the full statistical results including beta values with confidence intervals very
much improves the reader's ability to interpret the findings on their own. No further comments.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None."
Title: Lymphadenectomy and optimal excise lymph nodes count for early-stage primary
fallopian tube cancer: a SEER-based study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Ioannis Alagkiozidis
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study using data from the SEER database to assess the impact of lymph
node dissection(LND) on overall survival  (OS)and cancer specific survival (CSS)of patients
with early stage fallopian tube cancer. The authors found that LND is associated with improved
OS and CSS. The identified 11 lymph nodes as the optimal cutoff for adequate staging.
Specific Comments:
1. The study is methodologically sound with high quality data and is worthy of publication.
2. The authors briefly discuss limitations of the study in the ‘Discussion’. The main limitation
is that a small lymph node count may be related to frailty and comorbidities that wouldn't allow
proper staging. These factors are not captured in their model. Also socioeconomic factors may
affect the quality of surgical treatment. All these factors can affect the OS and CSS. The authors
should discuss these limitations in the ‘Discussion’
3. There is a few grammar and vocabulary errors and professional editing is required prior to
publication.
Recommendation:
Minor revision
Title: Lymphadenectomy and optimal excise lymph nodes count for early-stage primary
fallopian tube cancer: a SEER-based study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
1
in 'methods'
the definition of ald and iald, and how they were determined
2
table 1
the number of both nld and ld in iptw group is larger than the unmatched group
how did this happen (as I am not a statistician, I am also asking)
if this is correct, an explanation of this in 'methods' will help readers understand
as most of them must be clinicians
3
in 'discussion'
authors wrote about the lymphatic systems
rather, focusing on the possible reasons for different results with the lion trial could be more
helpful in understanding this study's result
thank you
Title: Lymphadenectomy and optimal excise lymph nodes count for early-stage primary
fallopian tube cancer: a SEER-based study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Lymphadenectomy and optimal excise
lymph nodes count for early-stage primary fallopian tube cancer: a SEER-based study”, topic
interesting enough to attract readers' attention.
Authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- Considering topic and results of this study, it would be interesting to add few lines about
current evidence of the role of lymphadenectomy in advanced ovarian cancer, considering the
advantages and limitations of this procedure. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important
point, referring to PMID: 32036457
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: The Carolina Hysterectomy Cohort (CHC): A novel case series of reproductive- aged
hysterectomy patients across 10 hospitals in the US South
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Is “The Carolina Hysterectomy Cohort (CHC):
A novel case series of reproductive- aged hysterectomy patients across 10 hospitals in the US
South." 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 topic of this study, I suggest that authors to add a reference to highlight the
importance of current evidence about hysterectomy surgical approaches, considering various
outcomes, evolution and improvement in last years. I would be glad if the authors discuss this
important point, referring to PMID: 36498515.
- The authors should discuss about evaluation of the impact that this surgical therapeutic
approaches could have in patients with various comorbidity and older age, and the possible
application of the comorbidity index (I suggest authors to read and insert in references the
following article PMID: 35793638
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.