JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Exploring Turkish Women's Gynecological Examination Perceptions Based on Their
Metaphors: A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Totally the manuscript has no novelty and does not add to existing knowledge. It was better to
do face to face interview to have better understanding of women's perception.
Also, these are my further comments:
Abstract: In result section provide some information regarding demographic characteristics of
participants. Also, revised the conclusion.
Method: please mention the exclusion criteria for participants.
Title: Exploring Turkish Women's Gynecological Examination Perceptions Based on Their
Metaphors: A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
First of all, Congratulations on the writing of your article and the originality of the subject.
It was an important and very original article in terms of women's health, enjoyable to read,
I found the language and simplicity extremely successful. However, I have a few minor
corrections regarding the article, it will be appropriate to publish the article after these
corrections .
Best regards.
Abtract:
**The conclusion section of the abstract should be more detailed and suggestions for future
studies should be presented through these metaphors.
Background
**In studies conducted in our country, the rate of women who have regular gynecological
examinations ranges from 5.5% to 42.4% [8].- prevalence should be presented with more
references
Metaphors
** In addition to the purpose, the importance of the understanding and knowledge of these
metaphors by health professionals and how they will form a basis for further studies should be
explained in terms of the importance of the research.
Methods
**How was the sampling method determined? was maximum variation sampling used due to the
age group distribution of people or the different cultural experiences of people living in different
cities that effect the metafors and perceptions?
* Are there exclusion criterias for the study?
Data collection form
**It …….was prepared by the researchers in line with the literature. ].- it should be presented
with references
**Line 179 ].- metaphor that binds the entailments together………..)it  should be presented with
more references
** It should be stated that the data collection form was a structured questionnaire. Why weren't
open-ended questions asked to better understand the metaphors and obtain new concepts?
Analysis
**… The analysis in the present study was conducted by all authors.
- the details should be given about how the analysis was carried out by all authors whether
a metaphor book was first created and discussed, or whether each author created a separate
metaphor and finalized it based on the concepts.
** In addition to giving percentages for meatophares, giving them as a “code cloud” would be
more suitable for the nature of the study.
Findings
**Participant numbers should be given in parentheses at the end of the sentence (P5, Age:61)...
Discussion;
* The second paragraph of the discussion may also indicate that women see this as more of a
treatment and do not go for routine examinations. In this sense, the second paragraph should be
discussed with the findings in the literature.
* What are the authors' suggestions regarding these negative perceptions mentioned in the
discussion and how these perceptions can be eliminated in future studies should be explained.
Limitations
*Limitations should also be added to the questions regarding not asking open-ended questions
that would allow for in-depth analysis and not being able to assess the cultural characteristics
of the participants.
Title: Exploring Turkish Women's Gynecological Examination Perceptions Based on Their
Metaphors: A Qualitative Study
Version: 3 Date: 22 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
It is seen that they have reviewed the deficiencies mentioned in the previous revision and
reflected them in the study. Some sections mentioned as deficiencies have been added to the
limitations of the study.
In this respect, I would like to thank the authors for editing my proposal and I find the acceptance
of the article appropriate for me.
Thank you.
Best regards.
Title: Exploring Turkish Women's Gynecological Examination Perceptions Based on Their
Metaphors: A Qualitative Study
Version: 3 Date: 27 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, thank you for your continued work on the manuscript. The revisions you improved
the argument, and I think the word cloud is a much better way to visualize your findings. I
think at this point the paper can be published in its current form, but I have  just some minor
suggestions for improvement:
• Your answers to my comments about the analysis of metaphors, and the context were very
helpful in explaining your thoughts, and adding the first in the limitations section was very
helpful. Just in terms of ease of following for the readers, it would be useful to add a sentence
or two at the beginning of the results about how you categorize whatever your participants said
as metaphor even though they may not be so.
• In terms of your comments about the context, I think that paragraph in your response was great
and should be added into the text.
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 30 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Atar Singh Kushwah
Reviewer's report:
1. The abstract lacks detailed statistical insights, such as exact confidence intervals or effect
sizes, which are critical for understanding the reliability of the findings.
2. The introduction does not justify the focus on Luzhou, China, beyond mentioning regional
disparities in medical access. Comparative references to similar studies in other areas could
strengthen the rationale.
3. Limited integration of global guidelines or broader trends in adenomyosis management to
highlight gaps addressed by the study.
4. Lack of justification for the questionnaire's validity and reliability undermines the robustness
of self-reported outcomes. The absence of uterine volume as an outcome measure is a missed
opportunity, as this factor is critical in adenomyosis management.
5. The study does not explore potential confounding variables, such as socioeconomic status,
which could influence delayed treatment and treatment selection. The data presentation lacks
consistency in reporting percentages alongside raw numbers in several instances.
6. Overemphasis on limitations without sufficiently exploring potential solutions, such as
improved diagnostic protocols or education campaigns for early intervention. Citations for
claims about the efficacy of hormone therapy and surgical options are inconsistently included,
limiting the discussion's robustness.
7. Recommendations for future research are too broad and could be more specific, such as
suggesting multi-center trials or studies exploring economic factors. The emphasis on delayed
treatment does not include actionable recommendations for addressing this issue.
8.
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Kamil Fram
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for choosing me as a reviewer for this research. Please consider the following notes
and clarify any ambiguities before publishing.
The research is full of linguistic and grammatical errors and needs to be reformulated and
reviewed regarding linguistic proofreading.
# In page 4, the authors mention in the inclusion criteria on line 8: (1) premenopausal women
over 18 years of age, but they explain why they kept the upper age limit open. There should be
a clear range for the study's benefit.
# In line 9, they mentioned the exclusion criteria, and the last one was (5) those whose
hysterectomy was done due to non-adenomyosis factors. This raised a big question: Why did
they mention this statement, and what does this add to the manuscript?
# In line 3, page 5, the authors mention the definition of Diffuse adenomyosis as an asymmetrical
myometrial thickening, but the correct definition is that the uterus with diffuse ###nmy##is is
uniformly enlarged and boggy. [best reference is UpToDate, 2025]
# on page 8, line 18: why those patients choose to undergo Uterus-sparing surgery, including
adenomyectomy.
# on line 16, page 9: I think the authors must concentrate on the age, marital status, parity, then
the delayed interval.
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for diverting this nice article to me for peer reviewing.
I will be honest with you by saying that despite this paper is a classic cross sectional study based
on highly scientific data collection methods, treatment's modality diversity, yet there are some
points which needs some clarification.
1- Methods; Actually the author described a total of 6 medical and surgical approaches to the
treatment of adenomysosis. Yet, the method section didn't show how the patients were allocated
to those modalities? Maybe due to the fact that he is not the surgeon or physician who prescribed
the treatment. I don't object this, but I think it needs some clarification or simplification.
2- The author referred in his results that a LINEAR REGRESSION was conducted and showed
some significant association between some variables. As matter of fact I have spent lot of time
where I could find any table in his results showing this regression in the form of r or correlation
coefficient I couldn't find.
3- In the section of statistical analysis no reference was made to the use of any linear regression?
or maybe he didn't use it? I don't know? Maybe it is better for the author clarify this  point.
4- The patient conclusion that patients with symptoms more than 24 months are better treated
by surgery? Did I understand that? It is jot clear from the results of table number 4 how he has
reached this conclusion?
I hope the author answer kindly those questions not me, rather to the reputable Journal Board
members as really I have been left confused in front of this Nice paper?
Decision ; Revise and clarify please
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Yigit Cakiroglu
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
The manuscript has aimed to evaluate the treatment modalities in patients with adenomyosis.
The authors have analyzed in total 1542 patients with adenomyosis in this observational cross-
sectional study in between 2018 and 2022. The heading includes “medium sized”. What is the
criterion for medium size? The MS should overall checked in regards of English (i.e. patients
who had never had sexual behavior, hobbies of tobacco and alcohol…etc).
Abstract:
The abstract section reflects the summary of the whole MS.
Introduction:
Information about adenomyosis, treatment modalities, socioeconomic structure of China have
been given in the introduction section. Aim has been defined in this section.
Material and Methods
Patient selection, inclusion-exclusion criteria, outcome indicators, data collection methods and
measures, outcome indicators, sample-size calculation, statistical analysis have been defined in
this section.
- Would the authors define “delayed treatment interval”?
- Would the authors give a reference for the definition of adenomyosis?
- “Bradymenorrhea, dysspermia” should be defined.
Results
The results have been reported in regards of patients with adenomyosis due to treatment
modalitites.
Discussion
The discussion section states the importance and significance of the findings.
References:
The reference section contains appropriate and number of references.
Tables:
Tables are well-designed and well-organized.
Figures:
Figure-1 is demonstrative.
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports the treatment of adenomyosis in a region of China.
COC, GnRHa, LNG-IUS, DNG, adenomyectomy, and HIFU were the treatment options, and
the paper says the delays in treatment can lead to hysterectomy.
The data is very large, with as many as 1500 cases analyzed based on over 5000 cases.
However, while I generally agree with the content, it lacks novelty and does not reach impressive
conclusions. Some points for improvement are listed below.
(1) The purpose of this study was to understand the actual treatment and its results. However,
if the study only examines the current situation in one region, there is little novelty or insight
in the paper.
(2) When adenomyomectomy is performed for menstrual symptoms rather than for infertility
treatment, the lesion can be excised sufficiently because the residual muscle layer can be
adequately reduced. Therefore, it is not surprising that fewer hysterectomies are subsequently
performed, and reoperation is a treatment that should be avoided compared to other treatments.
Therefore, the present data may not lead to the conclusion that “adenomyomectomy is better
when there is a delay in treatment."
(3) In order to conclude that “there is a delay in treatment in this region,” a comparison with other
regions where this is not the case would be desirable, or at least a discussion of the literature
would be necessary.
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Michael Odida
Reviewer's report:
A fairly well written and interesting manuscript on treatment of adenomyosis. There are some
minor issues to be addressed as follows:
In materials and methods, the exclusion criteria is not very clear. For example, "compounded
with the following gynecological diseases etc, patients who had never had sexual behavior"
What does sexual behavior mean?
Under adenomyosis-associated symptoms, there is a sentence "Reproductive endocrinologists
diagnosed infertility" What does this mean?
In the statistical analysis, there is a statement on control study. Please clarify.
The p values in the text need to be quoted exactly and should be written with small letter not
capital letter.
There are some grammatical  errors to be corrected.
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for re submitting this article again for peer reviewing.
As a matter of fact, when I have reviewed the new version of the article compared to the older
original one, I noticed immediately the significant improvements the author has done to his paper
especially with regard  to conclusion and the tables of the paper.
In his abstract her referred clearly that uterus sparing surgery should be carefully selected as an
option versus hysterectomy. In addition he proved his conclusion in table number 4 in the last
two rows when he found the symptoms relief was found be significantly higher among women
subject to hysterectomy than any other medical or other conservative approach.
In addition in table 3 he has included the cost benefit statistical comparison from bellow 2000
USD to more than 4000 USD and found that the significance level is very high.
--------------
Actually that is the conclusion that most of gynecologist all over the world agree with it.
From my own long term experience with women psyche through my attendance to gynecology
clinics, most women consider their uterus as integral part of femininity, beauty, sense of
maturity, and that is why they refuse initially the removal of their uterus despite having
prolonged menorrhagia, dyspareunia and dysmenorrhea.However,  when the condition mostly
fails to medical treatment for few years, coupled with aggravated symptoms and cost of medical
treatment or even uterus sparing surgical approach, ultimately they change their mind and they
request hysterectomy to get permanent relief.
--------------
Actually this conclusion was expressed in very polite and DIPLOMATIC manner by the author
in his conclusion ( uterus sparing surgery should be carefully selected in the abstract section).
--------------
Most of women with adenomyosis they don't appreciate that this disorder has no real treatment
and resent the option of hysterectomy initially. Only to change their mind few years later after all
other treatment modalities fail. This burden is not only experienced by the patients only, rather
by their gynecologist in charge!
Gynecologists all over the world also experience some burden about women choices and
sometimes they feel upset to comply with women choices for treatment.
Maybe, that is the true message that the author would like to covey through his paper by showing
that hysterectomy for women above 40 years with reasonable family size remains the best money
and effort sparing option for women with Adenomyosis.
Decision; Accept
Sincerely yours
Wisam Akram
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 2 Date: 31 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Michael Odida
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for updating  the manuscript and  incorporating  the suggestions from the reviewers.
On page 14, second paragraph, this sentence is not clear "The quality of life is impacted by a
number of hysterectomy-related effects on females. physical, psychological, environmental, and
social relations are some of these impacts [11]." Please check.
The grammar could also be improved.
Title: The present adenomyosis treatment status in Luzhou, China: a small scope observational
cross-sectional survey
Version: 2 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
I'm so sorry but I still cannot find out novelty from this paper.
This paper is only about a regional situation in China, and there seems nothing new about
treatment strategy.
In addition, it's difficult to conclude that uterine-sparing surgery is better for patients with long
interval after the diagnosis. In this paper, uterine-sparing surgery is almost the same purpose of
treatment as hysterectomy because fertility preservation seems not considered.
However, I agree that information of a regional situation is important. It's better to share this
paper in Chinese paper and compare the regional difference in China in the future.
Title: BVBlue as a Diagnostic Instrument for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: A
Systematic Review
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Marcela López-Hurtado
Reviewer's report:
-The authors report BVBlue as a new diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis but
it is not a new or novel tool, because there are reports of it since 2003, so I consider that the title
of the work should not have the word "new"
-BVBlue detects sialidase activity in vaginal fluid, but  ¿what happen if microorganisms that do
not produce sialidase are present?
-One limitation of the BVBlue Test is that it does not rule out the presence of vaginal yeast
infection, Trichomonas vaginalis infection, or other STIs. In addition, similar to the Amsel
criteria, it does not define the symptom severity of BV.
-Although this article reviews the efficacy of BVBlue as a diagnostic tool, I believe that it alone
is not sufficient to implement its use in the laboratory.
Title: BVBlue as a Diagnostic Instrument for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: A
Systematic Review
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, thank you for your submission. I have a few concerns about the methodology of
your review.
1. There was no stated time period for your search. For example, if you used those Pubmed
search terms today (15/01/2025) - there would be 11 results (not 10).
2. I am not clear why the review did not expand to include other forms of sialidase testing. I
think the authors need to explain their decision to focus on one model/device only.
3.  In essence, the authors presented the range of  sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV from the
include studies - why not produce meta-analysed proportions?
4. on that note, The authors made lots of conjectures about reasons behind variations in assay
performance between studies - but no sensitivity analysis was performed. Was there some
characteirstic that they authors could have stratified the studies into to perform a sensitivity
analysis? For example, the "variations in study population" they keep referring to?
5. If the authors decide to produce meta-analysed proportion for the diagnostic outcome
measures - a graphical representation (like a forest plot) would be essential and enhance the
manuscript.
Title: BVBlue as a Diagnostic Instrument for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: A
Systematic Review
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Maibouge Tanko Mahamane-Salissou
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is very interesting however you can find some concern which needs to be
addressed enclosed with the reviewed main manuscript.
I have listed some issue to clarify here below:
Which one among the tests is your gold standard tests for comparison? Why not choosing only
one gold standards test for comparison instead of two.
In the abstract section could you specify which population are you refereeing to, also how could
variation in normal vaginal flora could impact the efficacity of the test.
In the manuscript several paragraphs need referencing
In the background section There is need to improve the statement of problem section why need
this study must be conducted. Is there inconsistency in sensitivity and specificity across previous
studies that motivated you to conduct this study?
This study only used five articles; I think 5 articles are too small to come up with a solid
conclusion
Mention also the weakness of this study
Few grammatical issues need your attention in the manuscript
In brief more details comments can be found enclosed with the reviewed manuscript
Title: BVBlue as a Diagnostic Instrument for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: A
Systematic Review
Version: 3 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Maibouge Tanko Mahamane-Salissou
Reviewer's report:
author can delete the list of abbreviation below abstract and define each abbreviation when first
in use within the text of the manuscript. Otherwise, author attended and satisfied me to all issue
raised during my review
Title: BVBlue as a Diagnostic Instrument for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: A
Systematic Review
Version: 3 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Marcela López-Hurtado
Reviewer's report:
Authors should remove the word "new" from the conclusions section of the abstract.
Authors should limit themselves to only doing a systematic review of the BVBlue method, and
not propose it as a novel method.
Title: Association of urinary tract endometriosis with physical and mental health: a cross-
sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper on the clinical outcomes of patients with
ureteral endometriosis. This is an extremely relevant topic with significant clinical implications,
as it often requires complex surgical interventions that are best suited to high-volume centers.
The article is well-written, the English is excellent, and the study design is appropriate. However,
the discussion could be enhanced by addressing the following points:
-Classification of Ureterolysis: The paper would benefit from a dedicated section on the
classification of ureterolysis (doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14790. Epub 2023 Apr 17. PMID: 37069787).
-Role of Robotic Surgery: It would be valuable to include a section discussing how robotic
surgery can be utilized in more complex procedures (doi: 10.1007/s13304-023-01724-z. Epub
2023 Dec 22. PMID: 38133880).
-Future Perspectives and Image-Guided Surgery: Adding references to future perspectives,
particularly the potential role of image-guided surgery in tailoring surgical approaches for these
patients, would strengthen the discussion (doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10772-4. Epub 2024 Mar
21. PMID: 38512350; PMCID: PMC11078854)