JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Evaluation of whether there is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation at
Cam and Sakura City Hospital: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 08 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Ali B. Roomi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking my opinion about the manuscript titled ##"Histopathological evaluation
of whether there is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation: A retrospective cohort
study". #
#I believe that this manuscript should #be #MAJOR revision:#
Q1. It is very important to change and modify the title. The title #is not appropriate.#
Q2. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study clearly stated? #
#Q3. In the abstract, the research gap was not clearly #stated. In #addition, the authors need to
rewrite the study #objectives #to be more academic writing
#Q4. In the introduction, include the  #study's significance #and #novelty. What makes the study
different #from #the rest #and #what #does it add to the current knowledge?#.#
Q5. In the introduction, the authors #should #have #explained #the #purpose of this study and
the #existing gaps #in #this field #and #explained why this study was #conducted.#
#Q6. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the #results presented to match the methods
described?#
Q7. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study #provide an advance in the field? Is the
data plausible?#
Q8. References are relevant, correct, and not #recent. #The #number #of #references should be
increased.# #please add some #references. since this is a scientific #review, all the sentences
need #to be supported with #references.#
This study is very beautiful. I liked the sequence and #enjoyed #reading. Please add more
references on similar #studies.#
#Q9. There are a lot of grammatical errors. This #must #be #taken #care #of and addressed.#
#Q10. What are the limitations of the study?# A description #of #limitations is missing at the
end of the discussion #section.#
Title: Evaluation of whether there is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation at
Cam and Sakura City Hospital: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 14 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Abstract: The introduction in the abstract should be re-written to make logical sense. The
current form is simply a statement of the objective. The first statement in methods has a
grammatical error. The methods section does not indicate  at what point and how some results
like "blood loss " were obtained. The names of the comparison groups should be written in full
all through. The sentence in the conclusion section of the abstract has grammatical errors
2. Background
A bigger part of the background is simply describing the author's surgical experiences. This
should be completely revised into scholarly writing. (What has been found in previous studies?
What is the gap? How did the study address the gap?)
3. Methods
This section also needs revision. The time points of data collection are not indicated so it is
difficult to tell the study design.  The description of the  study methods (design, variables,
inclusion and exclusion criteria) surgical technique should be distinct from the description of the
surgical technique. In its current form, the methods section focuses on describing the surgical
technique and ignores the basic components  of study methodology. In the analysis plan, there
seems to be a mix-up in the names of the statistical tests. The number of participants included
is not clear. Is it 70? if this is it, then the number 560 should be excluded from the write-up.
Results: The initial sentence still talks about 560 participants being included, which is inaccurate.
The tables  comparing characteristics of the two groups should indicate the proportions in both
groups all the time.
Discussion: The discussion is generally well-written.
General comment: The research is novel. However the writing needs to be  improved all through
and this should include correction of the multiple grammatical errors. The title should include
where the study was carried  out from.
Title: Evaluation of whether there is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation at
Cam and Sakura City Hospital: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Ali B. Roomi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking my opinion about #the #manuscript #entitled ##"Evaluation of whether
there is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation at Cam and Sakura City Hospital:
A retrospective cohort study". #
#I believe that this manuscript should #be #major revision:#
Q1. It is very important to change and modify the title. the #title #is not appropriate.#
Q2. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study #clearly #stated? #
#Q3.# In the abstract, the research gap was not clearly #stated. In #addition, the authors need to
rewrite the study #objectives #to be more academic writing
#Q4. In the introduction, include the  #study's significance #and #novelty. What makes the study
different #from #the rest #and #what #does it add to the current knowledge?#.#
Q5. In the introduction, the authors #should #have #explained #the #purpose of this study and
the #existing gaps #in #this field #and #explained why this study was #conducted.#
#Q6. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the #results presented to match the methods
described?#
Q7. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study #provide an advance in the field? Is the
data plausible?#
Q8. References are relevant, correct, and not #recent. #The #number #of #references should be
increased.# #please add some #references. since this is a scientific #review, all the sentences
need #to be supported with #references.#
This study is very beautiful. I liked the sequence and #enjoyed #reading. Please add more
references on similar #studies.#
#Q9. There are a lot of grammatical errors. This #must #be #taken #care #of and addressed.#
#Q10. What are the limitations of the study?# A description #of #limitations is missing at the
end of the discussion #section.#
Title: Evaluation of whether there is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation at
Cam and Sakura City Hospital: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Ali B. Roomi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking my opinion about the manuscript titled 1"Evaluation of whether there
is residual polyp tissue after hysteroscopic morcellation at Cam and Sakura City Hospital: A
retrospective cohort study.". #
#I believe that this manuscript should #be major revision. #
Q1. It is very important to change and modify the title. The title is not appropriate.#
Q2. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study clearly stated? #
#Q3.# In the abstract, the research gap was not clearly stated. #In #addition, the authors need to
rewrite the study #objectives #to be more academic writing
#Q4. In the introduction, include the  #study's significance #and #novelty. What makes the study
different #from #the rest #and #what #does it add to the current knowledge?#.#
Q5. In the introduction, the authors #should #have #explained #the #purpose of this study and
the #existing gaps #in #this field #and #explained why this study was #conducted.#
#Q6. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the results #presented to match the methods
described?#
Q7. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study provide #an advance in the field? Is the
data plausible?#
Q8. References are relevant, correct, and not #recent. #The #number #of #references should be
increased.# #please add some #references. since this is a scientific review, #all the sentences
need #to be supported with references.#
This study is very beautiful. I liked the sequence and #enjoyed #reading. Please add more
references on similar #studies.#
#Q9. There are a lot of grammatical errors. This #must #be #taken #care #of and addressed.#
#Q10. What are the limitations of the study?# A description #of #limitations is missing at the
end of the discussion section.#
Title:  The impact of COVID-19 on menstrual cycle’s alterations, in relation to depression and
sleep disturbances: a prospective observational study in a population of medical students
Version: 2 Date: 15 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Sadaf Konain Ansari
Reviewer's report:
This is a good work. However there are multiples minor revisions are required  that needs to be
addressed. Please see the review and correct them, including supplementary document.
Title:  The impact of COVID-19 on menstrual cycle’s alterations, in relation to depression and
sleep disturbances: a prospective observational study in a population of medical students
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. I read the article carefully.
While it is an interesting topic to review, several concerns lead me to recommend major revisions
for this manuscript.
The abstract section is not acceptable in its current form. In the methods sub-heading, the authors
should mention the study design, study time, study area, number of participants, sampling
method, instruments, and statistical analysis methods. Besides, the overall conclusion does not
rise to the level of conceptual advance. This subheading should be briefly described the practical
implications of the study, followed by recommendations for future studies.
The written structure of the article is such that it is not very reader-friendly. Sentences and
paragraphs are very fragmented and sometimes unrelated to each other. I believe that the use of
the STROBE checklist might increase the quality of the submitted work and expedite the peer-
review and publication process of this article. Moreover, the introduction section is more like
a narrative review and does not reveal the importance of each of the study variables. Authors
should make more efforts to provide valid reasons and theories, as well as introduce study
hypotheses based on it.
My main concern is related to the methodology section. It is unclear that did authors perform
power analysis? They should describe the sample size, power, and precision. I also believe that
proper randomization was not achieved in this study, so one cannot be sure that the sample
obtained is representative of the population for analysis.
It is unclear how your added research will dispel many of the misunderstandings surrounding
this difficult situation since the data was only described and you did not contribute significantly
to better manage these problems.
The article is full of abbreviations that sometimes make it difficult for the reader to understand.
My suggestion is to limit abbreviations as much as possible. Additionally, before using
acronyms, define them separately in the abstract and main text.
Finally, English grammar and expression fall short of the standard expected in a quality
international journal such as BMC Women's Health. Authors need to seek assistance from an
expert in this area.
Title: The association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk in Chinese
women: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 02 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Review:
The objective of this study was to explore the connection between mammographic density (MD)
and breast cancer risk in Chinese women, which is an intriguing subject. To my knowledge, this
analysis hasn't been conducted previously.
It's commendable that two assessors were involved. I recommend including kappa values for
each step, specifically for title selection and full-text selection. This would offer insight into the
agreement between assessors at each stage.
The results exhibit considerable heterogeneity, and it would be beneficial to report the indicator
for homogeneity (I2) when discussing the figures in detail. Currently, the data are presented in
the figures but not mentioned in the text.
The primary intriguing conclusion is drawn from Figure 5. However, I find it challenging to
comprehend how this figure is constructed. Upon reviewing Tables 1 and 2, I don't observe
studies presenting data solely for post- or premenopausal women. Consequently, I'm puzzled
about how the author conducted this analysis. Given this ambiguity, I harbor reservations about
the validity of this work.
Title: Psychometric evaluation of the Endometriosis Impact Questionnaire (EIQ) in an Iranian
population
Version: 1 Date: 22 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Masoumeh Namazi
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for sending the manuscript. Here is some suggestions:
-Introduction: in the first line please cite to the reference book for definition of endometriosis.
-Introduction: explain more about the necessity of research. When you have ERHQ scale in
Iranian setting what is the necessity of translating this tool.
-Data collection: in one place you mentioned you have used SPSS version 20 and in another
one, you used version 21. which one is correct?of course the version is too old and you should
use new version.
-Lots of grammatical mistakes should be corrected, for example: valid and reliable tools,
probability values of p< 0.05, Descriptive statistics were used ,.... please revise the manuscript
grammatically.
-for face validity at first you used qualitative method not quantitative one. please correct it. Also,
in this step you should ask the opinion of patients instead of experts.
-explain about all items of impact score in the formula.
-Discussion is written weak. please revise this section.
-Strengths, limitations, and conclusions are not related to your study. you have explained about
EIQ  not your study. please revise this section.
Title: Psychometric evaluation of the Endometriosis Impact Questionnaire (EIQ) in an Iranian
population
Version: 2 Date: 04 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Masoumeh Namazi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thanks for revising manuscript. All of my previous comments have been done. please revise
referencing style of the manuscript according to the instruction of journal. In some of the
references, the name of journal is missed. please revise them.
Title: Psychometric evaluation of the Endometriosis Impact Questionnaire (EIQ) in an Iranian
population
Version: 2 Date: 12 Feb 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: The authors have addressed the reviewers' concerns; and also revised
the manuscript (yellow highlighted). I think this is satisfactory.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None"
Title: Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention among
medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand
Version: 0 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Komsun Suwannarurk
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
The place of the study should be stated in general not specific place. There was no clinical
interest to reader if the study imply only one specific area in specific person in small number.
It could be applied to the other area.
Table
Table 1 and 2 should be merged together. It was redundancy table.
Table 3 should be summarized and abbreviation word for precise table. The legend of the
abbreviation should be stated in the table for autocompletion of table. In table, there was no
accept of tab, enter or space bar in table. Please use the function of excel in table creation.
Keywords: too much, suggestion only human papillomavirus, cervical cancer, screening,
prevention, knowledge, medical student
Material and methods
The authors study the knowledge of the last year medical student. When investigating the
knowledge, the authors should present the basic demographic educational data of study. The
participant who had good score during examination in OB&GYN might be the more corrected
answer than those who had less score during examination. The author chose the duration of the
medical student after finishing the rotation of OB&GYN practice. This study conducted in the
university. The score of examination should be presented in standard score more than raw data
as presented.
Comparison of this study was an interesting. However, the questionnaire of this study was
difficult or easy than the previous study. There was no standardize questionnaire. Comparison
to the other studies would be impossible.
Title: Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention among
medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand
Version: 0 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
It is good to have this kind of study from Thailand University to express the existing situation
about HPV and cervical cancer prevention in Thailand.
As the authors mentioned in the limitations of the study, the research data were collected
from only the sixth-year medical students of Chulalongkorn University (only single medical
university) therefore it lacks to show the generalization in its strength. Since it is not
representative to other medical students from other universities in Thailand, it is advisable to
change the title as " Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention
among medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand " . If the study have
consisted the medical students from the junior years of the same faculty, the resulting data would
become more colourful and more stronger than the present findings.
The questionnaire included only 12 true/false questions. I feel personally that it is very limited in
number of questions which reveals difficulty to get the overall image of this important scenario.
The role of existing HPV vaccination programme in Thailand,  sources of knowledge about HPV
vaccination, awareness and participation of male students in this campaign, attitude towards
premarital sexual behaviour, etc  are the missing information.
Similar studies had been conducted in various countries like India, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia,
Nigeria, UK, Scotland, USA , China, Poland, Turkey, etc. The authors have mentioned some
of these in this manuscript.
Medical students as future health professionals and leaders of the society should be well-
informed about HPV infection, cervical cancer and HPV vaccination.
However, I do recognize the efforts of the staffs from the Department of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology  from the Chulalongkorn University. If they did include the Public Health expert(s)
in their research team, the design and outcome of this study would be more stronger than it is.
Title: Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention among
medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand
Version: 0 Date: 21 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Is “Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus
and cervical cancer prevention among medical students in Thailand." topic interesting enough
to attract readers' attention.
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;
- To date, the management of HPV infection/ cervical dysplasia represents still a challenge.
Considering topic of this study, it would be interesting to discuss how various factors could be
crucial in the development of cervical cancer and how could influence the persistence and / or
recurrence of cervical pathologies. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point,
referring to PMID: 36992282
- I suggest that authors to add a reference to evaluate obstetric outcomes after cervical diseases,
highlighting the importance of early and accurate diagnosis of these pathologies. 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: Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention among
medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand
Version: 0 Date: 22 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Kavitha Dhanasekaran
Reviewer's report:
I thank the editor for giving me this opportunity to review this manuscript.
After thoroughly reviewing the manuscript, I have a few suggestions for the authors.
1. The authors must correct the grammar and punctuation in the entire manuscript. The sentences
are complex, which makes them difficult to read and understand.
2. In abstract: The sentence “In their primary healthcare role—the role most accessible to
the general population—general practitioners perform a crucial function in the cervical cancer
screening program” may be rewritten for more clarity.
3. The sentence “This study highlights a lack of understanding of HPV infection and vaccination
and cervical cancer screening guidelines among Thai medical students” may
4. In the introduction section, in the sentence “Furthermore, effective screening methods include
cytology and HPV testing,” VIA may be included as a screening method.
5. The sentence “In Thailand, most doctors who work in district hospitals—which are within the
primary healthcare system—are general physicians” may be rewritten for clarity.
6. In the introduction section, the details on the current cervical cancer prevention program in
Thailand are to be included. The details on the current research gap and a brief paragraph about
why this study was conducted are to be included.
7. The authors must provide the questionnaire with the correct answers in the methods section.
8. The results must be tabulated with a better approach.
9. Total number of students approached for participating in the study, number of refusals to be
included
10. In the Conclusion section, the authors should only write about the conclusions from their
study findings.
Title: Knowledge regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention among
medical students from Chulalongkorn University in Thailand
Version: 0 Date: 23 Oct 2023
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 round of language revision, in order to correct a few typos and improve
readability.
- Discussions can be expanded by citing relevant articles about long-term risk factors for the
recurrence of HVP-related lesions (see PMID: 37401466 and 37747763).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? 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.