JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Women Post mastectomy For Breast Cancer in
Baheya Foundation (Egypt): ‘A Retrospective Cohort Study’
Version: 6 Date: 18 Jan 2025
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 provided an adequate response to the subject of
missing data and have included this in the revised manuscript
Title: The effect of the work-family conflict, subjective socio-economic status, and physical
activity on the perceived quality of life of working women in Iran: The mediating role of quality
of work life
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Zeinab Aliyas
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "The Effect of Work-
Family Conflict, Subjective Socio-Economic Status, and Physical Activity on the Perceived
Quality of Life of Working Women in Iran: The Mediating Role of Quality of Work Life." The
manuscript investigates the impact of work-family conflict (WFC), subjective socio-economic
status (SSS), physical activity (PA), and quality of working life (QWL) on the quality of life
(QOL) of working women in a city in Iran.
The manuscript is well-written, with clear objectives, methods, and results. However, I have
some suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript before publishing:
1. The full phrases of the abbreviations should be mentioned the first time they appear in the
body of the manuscript.
2. As this study examines several variables, I suggest using sub-headings in the introduction to
clearly present each of the studied variables.
3. I also recommend adding a "Knowledge Gap" sub-heading in the introduction section to
clarify the study's contribution.
4. In Table 2, it should be mentioned each number represents what. I assume its number (%).
5. How was the questionnaire distributed among participants?
6. Was there a pilot study conducted beforehand?
7. How many questionnaires were distributed? What was the response rate? How many of the
received responses were ineligible? These details should be discussed in the methods section.
8. For measuring PA status, is there a validated reference? Additionally, how was leisure walking
defined for the participants?
9. I suggest adding "Implications of the Study" as a sub-heading in the discussion section.
10. The strengths and limitations of the study should be discussed in more detail.
11. Suggestions for future studies should be included in the conclusion section.
Title: The effect of the work-family conflict, subjective socio-economic status, and physical
activity on the perceived quality of life of working women in Iran: The mediating role of quality
of work life
Version: 3 Date: 18 Jan 2025
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?
N/A - there are no statistics in this 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The efforts of the authors in addressing the reviewer comments are
appreciated. The revised version of the manuscript has clarified some of the ambiguities and the
response to reviewers' letter has clarified some of the reviewers questions. The revised version
of the manuscript is worthy of publishing although further elaborations on the policy context
and corresponding evidence based recommendations, as well as a revision of the language for
grammatical and typographical errors would make it the manuscript more robust.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The efforts of the authors in addressing the reviewer comments are appreciated. The revised
version of the manuscript has clarified some of the ambiguities and the response to reviewers'
letter has clarified some of the reviewers questions. The revised version of the manuscript is
worthy of publishing although further elaborations on the policy context and corresponding
evidence based recommendations, as well as a revision of the language for grammatical and
typographical errors would make it the manuscript more robust.
Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Self-Reported Food Insecurity among Women in Burkina
Faso: Evidence from the Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) COVID-19 Survey Data
Version: 3 Date: 29 Nov 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 minor issues
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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used 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 manuscript based on survey done during pandemic  assess the
women's experiences of food insecurity by self-report using a survey research method. The
manuscript was reviewed by me to assess the compliance to reviewers' comments on an initial
version. I also have some additional feedback to the authors in addition to my report about
compliance to reviewers' comments on the initial version.                                                                        All the
reviewers' comments except the discussion about the frequency of food insecurity. this is main
topic of research that needs more insights under discussion section. My additional comments
are listed below.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The analyses carried out is on secondary data that did not have information on drivers on food
insecurity other than demographics. the term vulnerability is not appropriate for this paper since
there no  information about vulnerability to food insecurity in the data.  The authors should
remove the vulnerability from their paper.   The two difference samples used for analyses are
well justified by the design of the questions. however, the term increased food insecurity during
covid-19 based on survey data is rather inaccurate. The term the authors should use is self-
reported increase in food insecurity during pandemic. The term multiple logistic regression is
not so correct. I suggest binary logistic regression. The analyses section clearly mention two
outcome for TWO models on different samples on which binary logistic regression was done.
Specify dependent and independent variables. The tables do not have correct titles that are
descriptive. please revise them.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
all explained as above"
Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Self-Reported Food Insecurity among Women in Burkina
Faso: Evidence from the Performance Monitoring for Action (PMA) COVID-19 Survey Data
Version: 5 Date: 01 Jan 2025
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 suitably revised the manuscript to address the
comments during my review. As the outcome for regression is binary--authors may choose
binary logistic regression instead of logistic regression.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
none
Title: Clinical Characteristics and risk factors to high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia:
A single-institution study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Atar Singh Kushwah
Reviewer's report:
1. The abstract provides a clear summary but lacks quantitative details on sensitivity
comparisons (e.g., cytology versus HPV testing) for VaIN detection. Specific p-values could
enhance clarity.
2. The background highlights VaIN's rarity and importance, but it lacks a critical review of prior
studies that establish the need for this investigation. Some sentences are verbose, such as the
description of histological classifications. Simplifying these can improve readability.
3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are not detailed enough, particularly regarding
"histological normal" cases. The description of HPV testing methods (e.g., PCR specifics) is
technically sound but could benefit from a concise flow diagram for clarity.
4. The results are comprehensive but occasionally overwhelm the reader with data, such as the
extensive HPV genotype analysis. The comparison between high-grade CIN and VaIN groups
lacks a robust discussion of clinical implications.
5. The discussion reiterates findings without deeply contextualizing them within the broader
literature. Potential biological mechanisms underlying observed differences (e.g., age-related
risk) are underexplored. The geographic variability of HPV genotype prevalence is mentioned
but not adequately discussed.
6. The conclusion reiterates findings without emphasizing actionable outcomes, such as
recommendations for screening guidelines.
7. Annotate figures and tables to make them more intuitive for readers. Minor grammatical errors
and verbose phrases should be refined. A language editor could enhance clarity and conciseness.
Title: Clinical Characteristics and risk factors to high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia:
A single-institution study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
In the introduction, it is better to state the statistics of people suffering from the disease in the
world and in the country to help further introduce the disease and the importance of research
on this disease
The text has structural and grammatical problems. It should be written more fluently. Seek advice
from an English language expert
It has many problems in terms of writing (spacing between words, punctuation marks, etc.)
Some of the references are old, they should be replaced with more up-to-date materials and
references (numbers: 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 24, 26 and 28)
Title: Clinical Characteristics and risk factors to high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia:
A single-institution study
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study includes information on factors that precipitate VIN and offers original value. The
methodology is well designed and the findings section is written clearly and concisely. It would
be appropriate to revise it in accordance with the journal's writing rules. I made a suggestion in
the introduction and discussion section. Other than that, it is suitable for publication. A beautiful
and labor-intensive study, I congratulate the authors.
Title: Clinical Characteristics and risk factors to high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia:
A single-institution study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Introdcution
- The introduction provides a good overview of Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia (VaIN) as a
precancerous condition.
-Consider elaborating on "singular diagnostic methods via colposcopy-guided biopsy" to briefly
explain the limitations (e.g., sampling error).
-Specify what kind of "available data" will be analyzed (e.g., clinical data, patient demographics,
treatment history).
-The last sentence about analyzing high-grade VaIN patients could be improved to smoothly
transition to the research objective. Consider mentioning the rationale behind analyzing this
specific subgroup.
Methods
- Consider clarifying the sentence "If a patient had a range of VaIN or CIN severity on biopsy
at initial diagnosis, the highest grade of VAIN was listed as the final pathologic diagnosis." Is
this referring to separate biopsies showing different grades, or within the same biopsy?
- Briefly explain "flow-through hybridization" used in HPV testing for readers unfamiliar with
the technique.
- Consider streamlining the section on cytology. While the relationship between cytology and
cervical lesions is relevant, the focus should be on cytology's role in detecting VaIN.
-The discussion of HPV genotypes could be tightened. It goes into considerable detail about
specific types and geographic differences. Focus on the key findings (e.g., HPV prevalence and
types associated with VaIN) and their implications.
- Briefly discuss the implications of your findings for clinical practice, particularly in early
detection of VaIN.
Title: The Mediating Effect of Intrusive Rumination on The Relationship Between Illness
Uncertainty and Fear of Recurrence in Breast Cancer Survivors
Version: 2 Date: 21 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
- This study is very interesting and opens up new insights regarding the fear of cancer recurrence.
The study was tested very well, and the presentation of the results was processed into a strong
article.
- L229-231: “In this context, the most common psychological problem in cancer patients is FCR
(27), and in this study, the FCR Severity score in the patients was found to be 16.58±7.04. When
the FCR-Severity cut-off value was taken as 12, FCR was detected in 74% of the patients.” What
is the clinical implication of this sentence?
Title: The Mediating Effect of Intrusive Rumination on The Relationship Between Illness
Uncertainty and Fear of Recurrence in Breast Cancer Survivors
Version: 3 Date: 09 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
There has been significant improvement in clarity and accurate reporting of methods. The
manuscript would benefit from expansion of a few topics:
1. What the rationale was for excluding the deliberate rumination subscale of the Event-Related
Rumination Inventory (ERRI)
2. Introduction and explanation of Mishel’s Uncertainty in illness theory, the scale is used, and
the theory is mentioned in the discussion in reference to findings related to uncertainty and
cognitive capacity. Further the theory appears to be referenced, but incorrectly titled, on line
305 which leads the reader to believe an additional theory is being referenced.
3. Clinical implications would benefit from evidentiary support from the literature, including
adding points about the impact FCR, IU, and rumination have on overall outcomes and
interventions identified from the literature to warrant the suggests made in this section.
Title: Pathological and radiological assessment of benign breast lesions with BIRADS IVc/V
subtypes. Should we repeat the biopsy?
Version: 0 Date: 23 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Eva Ruvalcaba-Limón
Reviewer's report:
Table 1. It is incomplete.   The total number of subjects per column is missing (n=), the p value
is missing at the end of each variable (requires placing another column where the p values are
shown).    It is recommended that instead of 0 (0%), only the value of 0 be entered.
Table 2. The table that produces SPSS analysis should not be placed as it is. A table must be
prepared for regression analysis that includes the OR value with confidence intervals and in the
variables, enter what is the reference value that will have the value of OR=1.
Line 109. There is no mention of the reason why a paired case-control study was carried out, the
proportion that was decided between cases and controls, or what the variables or characteristics
were to match the patients.
Line 115 and 135. It is not specified what type of biopsy was in the discordant cases. It is
recommended to specify whether it was with core needle biopsy or excisional biopsy (complete
excision of the lesion) for definitive histopathological study.
Line 173. The box on Table 2 should not be placed at the foot of the table. This text must be
part of the results in the extensive one.
Title: Pathological and radiological assessment of benign breast lesions with BIRADS IVc/V
subtypes. Should we repeat the biopsy?
Version: 2 Date: 30 Dec 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?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this 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 satisfactorily responded to the reviewers'
comments. The manuscript has improved significantly.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
As above
Title: How does BMI correlate with menarche onset? Evidence from the Italian HBSC cross-
sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 30 Oct 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to the points I raised except
for one, and have made modest changes in the manuscript, which they should have but did not
highlight.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
In my review point 2, I stated that "Also I do not understand why in Table 1, the figure for
median age at menarche months does not correspond to the years and months figure".  The
authors have not corrected this but stated in their reply "Kaplan Meyer tool, applied separately
at the age at menarche expressed in year and month and only month". Clearly the 95% CIs refer
to months, but why even bother to include years and months in the table when it makes the table
very confusing?
Title: Home and outpatient electrostimulation in the treatment of urinary incontinence in
women: A systematic review
Version: 4 Date: 08 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Urinary incontinence is a common dysfunction, particularly among older women, that negatively
impacts their quality of life. Addressing the effectiveness of treatments like home-based
electrical stimulation versus clinic-based stimulation is valuable for improving the clinical
situation of this patient profile.
The review is well-structured and clearly explained, but there are some aspects that could be
improved:
#1: The search equation could be more detailed, indicating exactly how search terms were
combined with Boolean operators.
#2: In the second paragraph of the Results section, it states that the included studies were
published between 1998 and 2001. The date "2001" should be corrected.
#3: Only four articles were included in this review, a limited number of studies. Given that the
search was conducted in February, it would be advisable to update the search to see if any new
studies meeting the inclusion criteria have since been published.
#4: Home-based electrical stimulation can be a therapeutic option, but the authors should discuss
in the Discussion section the active role that the therapist or physiotherapist must play in
planning and monitoring treatment. This should include what tasks and functions they perform
to highlight the importance of the professional’s presence.