JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Minimum Important Difference of the ICIQ-UI SF Score after Self-management of
Urinary Incontinence
Version: 5 Date: 23 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing an extensive review of your manuscript. Still, I have few comments:
- There are abbreviations in your text that should be used instead of the full-written word. Please
report always the same abbreviation;
- I still think your Figure is not  self-explained. Although you might consider that number should
be present in tables, Figures should be auto-explained to the readers. Therefore, my suggestion
is to add the MIDs and the Cis in Figure 1;
-  Even though you haven’t found differences according to the age range of the participants,
18 to 98 years old is a very broad age range. You cannot compare a participant with 18 years
old to a woman with 98 years old. You should consider the hormonal changes, gynecological
and obstetrical history, and other factors. If you would like to report the general MID for this
population, I recommend you add a new table or a new column and provides the values of
MID according to the age range as well. Therefore, even for clinical trials, readers will be more
clarified about your data and, they will be able to make a decision by choosing which MID is
more suitable for the population they want to include in their trials. If it cannot be changed, I
suggest you add this fact as a limitation of your study.
“Reviewer comment: Line 97-99: “All participants that submitted the 98-follow-up
questionnaire were included, regardless of whether they had performed PFMT with 99 the app
or not, but no questionnaire was sent if the user did not open the app.” I understood that authors
did not check the fidelity with the treatment. Could it have influence in the outcome, especially
according to the self-perception of improvement?”
- Although you provided an answer to this comment, I suggest that you add an brief comparison
and explanation related to the compliance with the treatment. You only added one sentence to
the discussion to mention it could be a factor, but you did not compare it with previous results.
- Still lack to provide information about the recruitment of the participants, who sent the
questionnaires, for which e-mail address and so on. If all this information is provided in the
primary study, please refer to it and add a sentence to clarify to the reader it can be find in a
different study, not in your manuscript
- Line 148/: please provide references for these classifications
- The correlation of the anchor and the change-score is a question that helps to classify the
quality. Please check the following manuscript: ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1714
- In table 3, provide a subtitle that explains the comparisons among letters, it is not clear right
now.
Title: Minimum Important Difference of the ICIQ-UI SF Score after Self-management of
Urinary Incontinence
Version: 7 Date: 17 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Once more, thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I agreed with the changes
made by the research group.
However, there is still a concern about the MIDs provided according to the age range of the
participants. Although authors concluded that it is not an age-dependent score, we can find an
inconsistency comparing the numbers from the tables inserted in the manuscript and the MIDs
provided according to age range. Is it statistical significative?
This factor should be pointed out by the authors in the main text, as different MIDs may lead to
an over- or underestimation of the treatment effects.
Moreover, the correlation between anchor and the mean-change score of the patient reported
outcome has already been highlighted as an important score for increasing the credibility of
MIDs, as there is still an inconsistency about the topic in the literature.
Title: Examining Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis of Pregnant and recently delivered Women in India.
Version: 6 Date: 24 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
After a thorough examination of the manuscript, it is evident that the author(s) have diligently
integrated the majority of the suggested comments. I would like to express my gratitude and also
propose a minor adjustment to the article's title. Given that the study focuses on women who are
either pregnant or have recently given birth, I recommend that the authors either eliminate the
term "pregnant" from the title or consider a rephrasing that explicitly includes recently delivered
women. This modification would enhance the precision and clarity of the study's scope within
the title.
Title: Proportion of Stillbirth and Associated Factors among Women Who Deliver at Public
Hospitals in Bahir Dar city, North-West Ethiopia
Version: 0 Date: 12 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Review comments on manuscript - Ref: Submission ID 9e271105-9570-45a2-a2a1-
afec65056832
A.  Cover page: is note legally written. See the highlighted ones
B. Abstract: Line 23-24 are not well constructed
Line 33-34 bivariable and multi variable and somewhere (line220) multiple logistic analysis
show that the analysis is not done correctly. Why you said those?
Line 38; result who completed primary school and above and line 41 contradict each other
C. Introduction: is not well done and needs correction. Seethe highlighted
D. Methods:
Line 33 data are plural
Exclusion criteria ‘patients’ are they?
Operational definition: Line 159=169, could you have some sort of references?
Data collection: line 176-177 what type of checklist did you used?
E. Result
Line 217-218 are not well constructed
Line 220 what do you mean? “Multiple variable logistic regression”.
Line 230 needs period
F. Discussion line 232-234, what is consistent and where is Aksum? It may not be clear for
readers.
Line 241 is not well constructed, it needs plural noun agreement.
Line 258, 8 times likely is not clear for readers. What do you want to show?
G. Acknowledgement: Line 290-291 is not well done
H. Authors’ contribution: line 295  is not well done
I. Tables and figures :
Table -1 and 2, what is the difference between N and n? Are the on their appropriate places?
Table -3 hx abortion is not clear for readers. You said that primary school and above as
determinant factor but on the table it is seen that primary school is the factor associated with
still birth.
**Others is it as a foot note or what?
Did you test your model fitness? If so could you please put as a foot note?
Table 1 and 2 need formal table construction
Figures: the tittle of them is not at its appropriate place and they are not complete.
J. General comments:
The manuscript needs grammatical and English correction. It also needs rewriting.
Consider all the highlighted texts in the manuscript
Thank you
Title: Assessing the relationship between gut microbiota and endometriosis: a bidirectional two-
sample Mendelian randomization analysis
Version: 0 Date: 01 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for your very great work. The authors have found no relationship between  gut
microbiota species and endometriosis. This is an important conclusion addressed in the literature
against some previous reports.
The detection of gut microbiota species does not help in diagnosis. Since it varies following the
diet and population. Meanwhile, diagnotic test using salivary  may be more helpful.
Validation of a Salivary miRNA Signature of Endometriosis — Interim Data ,NEJM Evid
2023;2(7), DOI: 10.1056/EVIDoa2200282.
Particularly, the authors used a good statistical method for analysis of the result.
Most importantly, please emphasize the method for data collection of gut microbiota species
based on study population.
Congratulation for your findings.
Best regards,
Title: Assessing the relationship between gut microbiota and endometriosis: a bidirectional two-
sample Mendelian randomization analysis
Version: 0 Date: 18 Dec 2023
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?
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 - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: *What is your overall impression of the study?
The overall impression is that the manuscript provides new information. An extensive number
of samples were analyzed from a registered biobank using a novel analysis that provided
information from microbial taxa and single nucleotide polymorphisms.
*What have the authors done well?
The process of obtaining and processing the data from the authors appears to be satisfactory
*In what ways does it not meet best practice?
In some paragraphs of the manuscript, the authors mix up terms such as gut microbiota or even
species without expressing the proper word taxa.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Authors could improve the manuscript by using the word taxa throughout the whole text. In the
abstract, the authors mention 211 species, and here the use of taxa is more appropriate. Italicize
the species and genera.
The use of language appears to be appropriate, but there are a few typos. As a question from the
authors, other statistical analyses among Mendelian randomization are possible with the present
data?
Title: Assessing the relationship between gut microbiota and endometriosis: a bidirectional two-
sample Mendelian randomization analysis
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jan 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: My previous comments have been addressed in a proper manner by
the authors, and the manuscript now reads well and appears to be more organized. It was very
helpful to have the authors respond to all my doubts and concerns in such a professional manner
Title: High-Protein Diet Scores, Macronutrient Substitution, and Breast Cancer Risk: Insights
from Substitution Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 01 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor,
In this manuscript, the authors have reviewed different high-protein diet scores and protein
substitution in diets and risk of breast cancer using substitution analysis. The manuscript is
well designed and the findings are well reported. However, the substitution method needs to be
explained in more detail in the statistical analysis section.
Language editing is needed in some parts of the manuscript.
I suggest that a reviewer with expertise in nutrition review the findings
Title: Assessing the Survival Time of Women with Breast Cancer in Northwestern Ethiopia:
Using the Bayesian Approach
Version: 1 Date: 02 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a valuable study. However, it should be written more carefully. please explain the
following comments.
1.The manuscript has frequent spelling errors that need to be corrected.
2.Is the aim of the study to extract the survival time or the factors affecting the survival time or
both? Please match the aim reported in the title, abstract, and entire text.
3.In Abstract, Background section, it is written that "in more than 100 nations" and “There are
not many investigations in this field" should be deleted.
4.It is also better that the sentence in the abstract, method section, not to start with "in a hospital".
5.Were all the people included in the study 382 outpatients or inpatients? Or were only 148
outpatients? Did all 382 people die or only 148 people died? Wasn't the investigation until the
death of all patients? Inconsistency is reported in the entire text and abstract, please correct it.
6. The Conclusions section in the abstract, should be corrected, because, the results have been
replicated.
7. Please write the keywords based on the mesh.
8. The order of the disease report should be observed at the beginning of the introduction
section( First, the overall rate of cancer (new rate), then breast cancer ), and the introduction
section should be written more concisely and coherently.
Title: Assessing the Survival Time of Women with Breast Cancer in Northwestern Ethiopia:
Using the Bayesian Approach
Version: 4 Date: 31 Oct 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?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The point-by-point response is generally not satisfactory.  The
authors disagreed with about 30% of the comments raised by the reviewers and the overall
impression is that this revised manuscript is very general, does not add new findings to the
literature and would be suitable for a local journal in Ethiopia rather than an international journal.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
A significance level of 25% is unheard of.  The manuscript lacks scientific rigor and the
continuous arguments and disagreement of the authors to the valid points raised by the reviewers
does not make a case for publishing this poorly written and executed manuscript.  I think that this
manuscript is worthy of rejection as it the study is poorly executed and written and the reviewers
wanted to improve it but the authors' response is not satisfactory.
Title: Assessing the Survival Time of Women with Breast Cancer in Northwestern Ethiopia:
Using the Bayesian Approach
Version: 4 Date: 01 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Irene iavarone
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the present Manuscript which falls within the aim of the 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 points and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic.
For all those reasons, I suggested performing the minor revisions.
- Regarding inclusion criteria, Authors should specify whether enrolled patients suffered from
comorbidities and whether they were administered with any treatment regimen;
- Exclusionary criteria should be clarified in the Methodology section. Please, add the relative
paragraph;
- In Discussion, Authors should parallel their findings to novel evidence about the use of the
Bayesian model to assess the survival time of women with breast cancer. Please, consider:
“Teng J, Zhang H, Liu W, Shu XO, Ye F. A Dynamic Bayesian Model for Breast Cancer
Survival Prediction. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2022;26(11):5716-5727. doi:10.1109/
JBHI.2022.3202937”;
- Authors have not adequately highlighted the strength and limitations of the study. I suggest
better specifying those points.
Title: Assessing the Survival Time of Women with Breast Cancer in Northwestern Ethiopia:
Using the Bayesian Approach
Version: 7 Date: 27 Jan 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?)
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major 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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors did not respond satisfactorily to the reviewers
comments.  The authors focused on the statistical aspect of the study only but it clear that they
have no information about oncology, epidemiology, field cancer research, cancer mortality, or
application to cancer prevention and control.  The Methods section, at least, is poorly written and
the conclusions based on the presented recruited plan has fatal flaws.  Selection bias is evident
and any conclusion based on the described methods of recruitment and inclusion and exclusion
criteria and misleading.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I recommend rejecting this manuscript.  Poorly done study and misleading conclusions.  Also,
poorly written.
Title: A Retrospective Study for Long-term Oncologic and Obstetric Outcomes in Cervical
Intraepithelial Neoplasia Treated with Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: Focus on
Surgical Margin and Human Papillomavirus
Version: 2 Date: 28 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " A Retrospective Study for Long-term Oncologic
and Obstetric Outcomes in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Treated with Loop Electrosurgical
Excision Procedure: Focus on Surgical Margin and Human Papillomavirus”, topic interesting
enough to attract readers' attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- The persistence of HPV infections is one of the most significant predictors of the risk of
recurrence after local treatment for cervical diseases. I suggest that authors add references about
recent evidence of these topics. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point,
referring to PMID 37747763
- I suggest reading and adding recent evidences about the relationship between surgical treatment
of cervical diseases and obstetric outcomes. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important
point, referring to PMID: 33140628
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: A Retrospective Study for Long-term Oncologic and Obstetric Outcomes in Cervical
Intraepithelial Neoplasia Treated with Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: Focus on
Surgical Margin and Human Papillomavirus
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jan 2024
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.
The methodology is accurate and the data analysis supports conclusions. The tables and figures
are clear and interesting.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another language revision round to correct a few typos and improve readability.
- The introduction could be studied in depth. Some aspects should be highlighted. In particular,
the importance of cervical cancer screening and vaccination should be improved by analyzing the
positive margins persistence in patients treated for preinvasive lesions. This could emphasize the
importance of screening. I suggest these articles to get deeper into the topic:  PMID: 36992282.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
- Discussions can be expanded by citing relevant articles about long-term risk factors for the
recurrence of HVP-related lesions (see PMID:  37401466).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research?
It is important to report the results obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and
to adequately highlight what contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the
topic and to future study perspectives.
Title: A Retrospective Study for Long-term Oncologic and Obstetric Outcomes in Cervical
Intraepithelial Neoplasia Treated with Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: Focus on
Surgical Margin and Human Papillomavirus
Version: 5 Date: 16 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for going through the manuscript and the reviewers' points
In my honest opinion, the authors have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers’ criticisms.
The manuscript is well written and falls within the aim of this Journal.
Title: A Retrospective Study for Long-term Oncologic and Obstetric Outcomes in Cervical
Intraepithelial Neoplasia Treated with Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure: Focus on
Surgical Margin and Human Papillomavirus
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors replied in detail to all reviewers' comments and significantly improved the article.
In my opinion, the paper deserves to be accepted and published in its current form.