JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) as a potential marker of endometriosis: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Somayeh Abdolahian
Reviewer's report:
Based on this sentence "We did not impose any language restriction regarding the original
language of the identified articles "Did you have an article in a language other than English?
Data extraction and quality assessment: please add names of reviewers.
Have you tested whether two poor-quality studies change your study results?
Eligible criteria: explain more information about the included criteria
Fig 1: you excluded 13 articles. please provide some reasons for this section.
Please state the information of the software used for data analysis
please provide limitations about your study.
Title: Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) as a potential marker of endometriosis: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 5 Date: 12 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Somayeh Abdolahian
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much for answering the questions
In the case of my question  "Please state the information of the software used for data analysis."
Response: Revman and STATA were used for analyzing the current study".
It is usually answered about the version used.
Good luck
Title: Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy- related genes and mitophagy-related lncRNAs
for patients with ovarian cancer
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Gullo
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below. Authors should
consider the following recommendations:
In my opinion you have to improve the paper refering in the text how  lncRNAs han been related
also to ohther malignanices as endometrial cancer where as request a fertility sparinf treatments
and where these pts have several indication to cryopreserve their gametes by vitrification before
gonadotsic treatments.
I suggest to read and refer citing the updtaed literature:
Circulating miRNAs as a Tool for Early Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer – Implications for the
Fertility-sparing Process: Clinical, Biological and Legal Aspects
Fertility-Sparing Strategies for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Stepping towards Precision
Medicine Based on the Molecular Fingerprint
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced-stage ovarian cancer – state of the art
Endometrial Cancer in Reproductive Age: Fertility-Sparing Approach and Reproductive
Outcomes
Fertility-Sparing Approach in Patients with Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer Grade 2 Stage
IA (FIGO): A Qualitative Systematic Review
Fertility preservation in female cancer sufferers: (only) a moral obligation?
Biomolecular and Genetic Prognostic Factors That Can Facilitate Fertility-Sparing Treatment
(FST) Decision Making in Early Stage Endometrial Cancer (ES-EC): A Systematic Review
Open vs. closed vitrification system: which one is safer?
Title: Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy- related genes and mitophagy-related lncRNAs
for patients with ovarian cancer
Version: 0 Date: 16 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion, the analyzed topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.I think
that the abstract of this article is very clear and well structured.
In my opinion, the discussion could be studied in depth and extended. Maybe, it could be
useful the evaluation the correlation of MRGs and MRL-signature in patients using PARP-I
analyzing the role of PARP-I. In particular, I suggest this article to get deeper in the topic: PMID:
37314974. FIgures are very intersting.Because of these reasons, the article should be revised
and completed. Considered all these points, I think it could be of interest for the readers and, in
my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy- related genes and mitophagy-related lncRNAs
for patients with ovarian cancer
Version: 0 Date: 08 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear [Authors],
I hope this report finds you well. Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled
"[Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy-related genes and mitophagy-related lncRNAs for
patients with ovarian cancer],". I appreciate the effort and dedication you've put into your
research. After careful evaluation, I would like to provide you with some recommendations to
further improve your manuscript before resubmission:
1. Revise the Abstract: Ensure that your abstract succinctly summarizes the study's objectives,
methods, results, and conclusions. Aim for clarity and avoid excessive technical jargon.
2. Strengthen the Introduction: Provide a clear and comprehensive introduction that establishes
the research context, outlines the research problem, highlights the significance of the study, and
offers a concise literature review.
3. Detailed Methodology: Expand the methodology section to include thorough descriptions of
your study design and potential sources of bias. This will enable readers to evaluate the validity
of your approach.
4. Organize Results Presentation:Organize the results section with clear headings, figures, and
tables to present your findings coherently. This will facilitate readers' understanding of your
research outcomes.
5.Consistent Terminology: Maintain consistency in the use of terminology throughout the
manuscript. This will contribute to clarity and prevent confusion.
6. Discuss Limitations: Address the study's limitations in the discussion section. Clearly
articulate how these limitations may impact the interpretation of your results.
7. Broader Implications:Discuss the broader implications of your findings within the context of
the existing literature. Highlight how your study contributes to the field and potential avenues
for future research.
8. Concluding Remarks: In the conclusion section, provide a concise summary of your study's
key findings and their implications. Reinforce the alignment with your research objectives.
9. Citation Accuracy: Ensure accurate and complete citations throughout the manuscript.
Properly credit previous research to uphold academic integrity.
10. Formatting and Layout:Adhere to the journal's formatting guidelines, including font,
spacing, and layout. A polished presentation enhances the manuscript's visual appeal.
Please consider these recommendations as you revise your manuscript. Your efforts to address
these points will significantly enhance the overall quality and readability of your work. I
encourage you to take this feedback into account as you prepare your revised submission.
Title: Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy- related genes and mitophagy-related lncRNAs
for patients with ovarian cancer
Version: 3 Date: 21 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I hope this message finds you well. I have carefully reviewed your article and have identified
several areas that require attention to improve the overall quality of your work. These comments
are intended to help you revise your article to make it more concise, clear, and impactful.
Abstract:
1. The abstract needs a concise summary of the main conclusions and clinical implications of
the study.
2. Specific findings from the study should be mentioned in the abstract for better
informativeness.
Background:
1. Condense the background section for improved readability.
2. Summarize the studies related to mitophagy in OC, avoiding overwhelming detail.
3. Minimize repetition of the role of mitophagy in OC.
4. Simplify technical terminology for broader accessibility.
Methods:
1. Summarize key methodological steps for a general audience.
2. Organize the methods section into subsections for clarity and ease of navigation.
3. Simplify the explanation of data analysis methods.
4. Provide more details on validation methods and criteria.
5. Eliminate repetitive terms and concepts for clarity.
Results:
1. Improve the organisation and clarity of the results section.
2. Define abbreviations clearly upon first use.
3. Ensure consistency in terminology and formatting.
4. Explain the figures and their key findings.
5. Connect each finding explicitly to the research questions.
6. Elaborate on the validation process and statistical significance.
7. Discuss the biological and clinical implications.
8. Mention data accessibility for transparency.
Discussion:
1. Address limitations related to data sources and sample size.
2. Highlight the need for experimental validation.
3. Discuss generalisability and clinical applicability.
4. Explore the biological relevance of MRLs to OC.
5. Consider ethnic and demographic factors.
6. Explain statistical methodology and thresholds.
7. Elaborate on potential clinical implications.
Conclusion:
1. Acknowledge data source limitations.
2. Specify the sample size and experimental validation needs.
3. Discuss external validation and clinical relevance.
4. Address ethnic and demographic considerations.
5. Explain statistical methodology and thresholds.
6. Suggest the required experiments for further study.
References:
1. Include primary sources for reliability.
2. Diversify your sources in terms of authorship, location, and type.
3. Prioritize peer-reviewed sources for credibility.
4. Properly cite statistics and data sources.
5. Ensure the credibility of your sources.
6. Include recent research for up-to-date information.
Thank you for your dedication to advancing this field of research, and I look forward to
reviewing your revised article.
Best regards,
Title: Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy- related genes and mitophagy-related lncRNAs
for patients with ovarian cancer
Version: 3 Date: 26 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Gullo
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below. Authors should
consider the following recommendations:
Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
I suggest to refer how these pts usually heed to preserve their fertility for oncological
reasonbefore a fertility sparing treatments (FST) by freezing thier oocyte for future use.
I also suggest to compare refering to other malignancies as endometrial and cervial cancer as
well that needed similar treatments.
Read and cite these pertinents articles:
Fertility preservation in female cancer sufferers: (only) a moral obligation?
Endometrial Cancer in Reproductive Age: Fertility-Sparing Approach and Reproductive
Outcomes
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced-stage ovarian cancer – state of the art
Circulating miRNAs as a Tool for Early Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer-Implications for the
Fertility-Sparing Process: Clinical, Biological, and Legal Aspects
Fertility-Sparing Strategies for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Stepping towards Precision
Medicine Based on the Molecular Fingerprint
Title: Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy- related genes and mitophagy-related lncRNAs
for patients with ovarian cancer
Version: 5 Date: 23 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear respected Author's ,
I trust this message finds you well. I have had the opportunity to review the revised version of
your article titled "[Comprehensive analyses of mitophagy- related genes and mitophagy-related
lncRNAs for patients with ovarian cancer]" and would like to commend you on the thoroughness
and diligence with which you addressed the comments and suggestions from the initial review.
After careful consideration of your revisions, I am pleased to recommend the acceptance of
your article for publication. The changes you have made not only align with the concerns raised
during the previous review but also significantly enhance the overall quality and clarity of the
manuscript.
Thank you for your commitment to excellence in research, and I look forward to seeing your
article published in the BMC women's health journal
Best regards,
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 19 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
This is a good manuscript reviewing “Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related
quality of life in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-
controlled trial”. The subject of the manuscript is fully consistent with the aims and scope of
the journal «BMC Women's Health».
1- The study was overall well-conducted and could be accepted after addressing the following
issues.
2- Please write the full word when used for the first time in the text (line 7 &24).
3- How have completed the questioners by participant? What questions were asked and by whom
or face-to-face interview with trained researcher? Please explain in the method section.
4- Did dietary intake have evaluated such as a 24h food recall two times by research, in beginning
and end of the intervention.
5- The placebo and synbiotic sachets are described similar in packaging, texture and taste.
Perhaps a photo of the two forms of capsules could be added to the supplementary material so
readers can see how similar were. Please include packaging.
6- a photo of the two forms of capsules could be added to the supplementary material so readers
can see how similar were. Please include packaging.
7- How well does Synbiotic survive in the GI tract or is it absorbed quickly and acts systemically?
Perhaps more on ADME could be added to the introduction or discussion.
8- Is normal in a trial to get possible adverse effects such as headache or nausea that are reported
equally in both the placebo group and the test group. Were there really no possible adverse
effects or was it that there was no difference between the placebo group and the test group?
9- Do researcher see the Synbiotic really benefits the patients by limiting the symptoms.
10- This line implies no analysis using "intention to treat" statistics but this is mentioned
elsewhere so why not do ITT as well as the analysis reported?
11-  Please explain analyze the data both with and without these four patients. Did researcher
do no analysis using "intention to treat" statistics
12- The discussion section is too long to facilitate the understanding.
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 27 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. In the materials and methods section, the pharmaceutical company that produced the symbiotic
and placebo sachets was not mentioned.
2. Table 1 reveals some participants on antidepressant or antianxiety medications. Since the
study attempts to assess the effects of synbiotics on the mental health of PCOS patients,
excluding these participants to avoid bias might be better.
3. In the Study Design section, Eligible patients were block stratified randomized based on the
use of menstrual-regulating hormonal drugs and metformin. These data can be shown in Table 1.
4. In the Study Design section, about medication compliance, it shows that participants who did
not receive 10% of their supplements were excluded from the study. Is 10% too lenient?
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors explore whether symbiotic supplementation impacts on quality of life
in women with PCOS. The study is of interest. However, I have some concerns.
Major concerns:
1. I would like to suggest the use of participants with PCOS instead of PCOS patients.
2. In the abstract and in the text the probiotics name was misspelled, please correct:
“Lactobacillus rhamnus” to Lactobacillus rhamnosus.
3.  The authors should state what is the link between a healthy gut microbiome and quality of
life. The direct effects of probiotics and symbiotics in depression and other mental illness are
not included in the introduction and in the discussion.
4. The sample size calculation was based on a study with a different intervention; therefore it
is important to calculate the power of the study for the primary outcome and include that in the
disussion.
5. The authors should improve their analysis statistics, I would recommend GLM or GEE.
6. In the results it is important to describe the change of body weight along the trial, did it differ
from baseline?
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 25 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The author can clearly answer most of my questions.  However, I still have one concern.
According to the author’s answer to Question 4, it would be better to rewrite that sentence, such
as “..or received less than 90% of their supplement,  they were excluded from the study.” That
would be less confusing.
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 04 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Editor-in-Chief
BMC Women's Health
I am writing to express my opinion regarding the revised manuscript titled "Synbiotic as
an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with polycystic ovary
syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial", which was recently submitted
to BMC Women's Health. Having thoroughly reviewed the revised manuscript and the authors'
responses to my inquiries and comments, I would like to share my thoughts on its acceptability
for publication.
Sincerely,
Farnaz
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 3 Date: 17 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dears authors,
Thank you for the updated version of the MS.
Minor concern:
- ANCOVA results are more important than paired and independent t-testes results, so I
recommend including them in tables and not just in the text.
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 5 Date: 02 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Editor-in-Chief
BMC Women's Health
I am writing to express my opinion regarding the revised manuscript titled "Synbiotic as an
ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with polycystic ovary
syndrome.
A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial", which was recently submitted to BMC
Women's Health. Having thoroughly reviewed the revised manuscript and the authors'
responses to my inquiries and comments, I would like to share my thoughts on its acceptability
for publication.
Sincerely,
Farnaz
Title: Synbiotic as an ameliorating factor in the health-related quality of life in women with
polycystic ovary syndrome. A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Version: 5 Date: 09 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editors,
The authors have solved my concern. I would like to share my opinion that the revised
manuscript could be acceptable for publication.
Sincerely,
Siyuan Zheng
Title: Association between Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores and metabolic syndrome among
Iranian women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 31 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The English writing of the manuscript should be improved; for example, some words in main
text should not be initiated with capital letters. Lifestyle factors like dietary intake plays (not
play), …..
Please revise the Keywords according to main heading terms of the MeSH.
In "Introduction" section, it has been mentioned that "There is limited research to determine diet
quality and the MetS risk among Iranian populations". I found some studies such as following:
Mirrafiei A, Hasanzadeh M, Sheikhhossein F, Majdi M, Djafarian K, Shab-Bidar S. Association
of main meal quality index with the odds of metabolic syndrome in Iranian adults: a cross-
sectional study. BMC Nutr. 2023 Mar 21;9(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s40795-023-00711-2. PMID:
36945062; PMCID: PMC10031905.
Hamid Ghalandari, Moein Askarpour, Mehran Nouri, Ali Reza Safarpour, Mohammad Reza
Fattahi. Quality of diet and odds of metabolic syndrome in Iranian adults: Baseline results from
the PERSIAN Kavar cohort study (PKCS). 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2023.04.017
It is expected to cite to more recent evidence in "Introduction" section; especially, wherever
the authors aimed to describe the extent and importance of the main subject of the research.
However, the first references have been published in years 2009, and 2011, respectively.
Title: Association between Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores and metabolic syndrome among
Iranian women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Mahbanoo Farhadi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Dr. Asghari,
I am writing to express my appreciation for the effort and dedication that you put into revising
your recent article. As a reviewer, I had some concerns about the original version of the paper,
but I was impressed with the thoroughness and attention to detail that you demonstrated in your
revisions.
Thank you again for your efforts, and I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future.
Sincerely,
Reviewer 1
Title: Association between Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores and metabolic syndrome among
Iranian women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 5 Date: 25 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Mahbanoo Farhadi
Reviewer's report:
Dear  Author's,
I recently read with great interest your manuscript titled "Association between Healthy Eating
Index-2015 scores and metabolic syndrome among Iranian women: A cross-sectional study" I
would like to express my appreciation for the insightful work you and your team have conducted.
Once again, I would like to express my gratitude for your valuable work and wish you continued
success in your research endeavors.
Sincerely,