JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Improving preparedness prior to reconstructive breast surgery via inclusion of 3D images
during pre- operative counselling: a qualitative analysis
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
1) Those who have seen 3D data but decided not to undergo immediate breast reconstruction
were not interviewed. Therefore, there may be a bias that many positive opinions have been
obtained.
2) p9. lines4-18
I agree that 3D image is useful for preoperative counseling to make patients have  more
realistic image about aesthetic outcome.  The authors argue that patients could have increased
preparedness and confidence before surgery by seeing 3D image.
However, is the prediction appropriate? I think post-operative interview should also be
conducted to assess it.
3) Please clarify the number of 3D data presented to the participants and the time spent viewing
them.
4) Does the 3D data include only the breast area? Aesthetic outcome on the donor site in
the abdomen or back area may be important for the patient's decision aid as well as breast
appearance.
5) Did the subject of the 3D image in the database agree to show the image to
other patients?
6) Please add a description about 'Triple assessment clinic' in Fig.1 since it is not commonly
used terms.
Title: Provider Perspectives on the Provision of Safe, Equitable, Trauma-Informed Care for
Intimate Partner Violence Survivors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-presented and clearly structured manuscript about a topical issue. You raise
a number of interesting points and it is welcome to see a qualitative study of providers’
perspectives on support and care for IPV survivors.
Given that you are drawing on qualitative data and you have clearly carried out a rigorous process
of analysis, I think the findings would have benefited from being presented in a more analytical
way. For example, rather than covering a number of sub-themes briefly, it would be helpful
to explore the connections between these themes and/or to choose just a few that you think
are most salient and then explore them in more depth (for example by presenting data shows
similarity or difference of opinion, exploring the implications of findings). This also helps the
reader get a ‘sense’ of the theme and the data that underpins it. In your limitations section, I
would recommend highlighting that you made the reasonable decision to present a breadth of
themes but that this comes at the cost of in-depth exploration.
Just a minor point, but I would recommend explaining early on the article your position on
using the term ‘survivors’ (rather than ‘victims’ or ‘victim-survivors’ or another term). Just a
sentence or two about why this is the preferred term but acknowledging that not everyone who
experiences IPV identifies with it.
In light of some of the points you raise in the findings section, I would recommend adding a few
more points in your conclusion section. For example, what are the implications for workforce
well-being and burnout given the pressures you identified? It seems likely that the impact of the
pandemic will continue to be felt for many years and that this may affect rates of IPV – how
can services be supported to address this?
Title: Provider Perspectives on the Provision of Safe, Equitable, Trauma-Informed Care for
Intimate Partner Violence Survivors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 01 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for carefully considering and responding point-by-point to each comment and
highlighting the changes made in the manuscript. Although there remains a somewhat
unbalanced trade-off between breadth and depth in this article, I am satisfied with the
explicit acknowledgement of this limitation (and suggestions for future research) and with the
amendments made by the authors.
Title: Provider Perspectives on the Provision of Safe, Equitable, Trauma-Informed Care for
Intimate Partner Violence Survivors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for sharing your revised manuscript. I think you have addressed the key issues raised
in the initial review and that the article should be accepted for publication. Well done!
Title: Risk factors of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial hyperplasia: implication
for clinical treatments
Version: 1 Date: 03 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Zhao et al. assessed risk factors of endometrial cancer in endometrial hyperplasia patients. The
study is interesting, but it requires an extensive language revision.
Minor suggestions, as follows:
- Discussion section might begin with hey point findings, which aid to improve the readability.
- Line 121. Please not begin a sentence with “and”.
- Discussion might also be improved by consider immunohistochemical factors in predicting EC
in EH patients (e.g. PMID: 31237034, PMID: 30915635).
Title: Risk factors of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial hyperplasia: implication
for clinical treatments
Version: 1 Date: 03 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors performed a study to risk factors of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial
hyperplasia. Methods should be improved. In particular, study design is unclear (observational
cohort study, retrospective or prospective?) and it should be specified at the beginning. In
addition, EH diagnosis is a pathological diagnosis and not an ultrasound diagnosis (endometrial
thickness # 4mm).
Therefore, if the authors did not include patients based on a pathological diagnosis of EH, they
should be specify that inclusion criterion was ultrasonographic finding of endometrial thickness
# 4mm and not EH. Moreover, it is not clear if hysterectomy was an inclusion criteria since
authors stated that all patients underwent hysterectomy . The authors should also declare if all
patients meeting the selection criteria were included (e.g. all consecutive patients…). The change
in methods section should also be extended to abstract.
Title: Urban -rural differential in the association between household wealth index and anemia
among women in reproductive age in Ethiopia, 2016.
Version: 2 Date: 12 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have identified an important question for targeting anemia interventions.  However,
the manuscript needs substantial editing to be clear to potential readers.
A few comments follow along with a few lines copied from the manuscript that illustrate
grammatical/clarity problems.
How important are physiological adaptions to breastfeeding to anemia status given the fact that
breast milk is quite low in iron?  (Reference #16 could not be found)
Page 6 – Factors associated with anemia-----Is this section Methods or Results?
Page 8 – Table 1 is before Results.  Also, there is considerable discussion of results on page 6-7
Page 9 – Statistical approach for “The bivariate model provides the unadjusted odds ration of
the association between anemia and wealth index with the different explanatory variables” is
not clear to me.
Was number of pregnancies considered as a predictor variable for anemia?  Given the strong
effect of not using hormonal contraceptives, this might be important.
Page 11 – Highlighted statement seems contradictory to your argument
Copies of a few of the statements from the manuscript that need repair:
1) Conclusion: Since the driver of anemia in this study is the palace of residency
2) is the only source of compressive national data
3) when women are live in rural
4) women who were not used hormonal
5) It is plausible that diets of women from low wealth status homes, as with urban residents,
may have diversified diets and supplements, thereby decreasing their chance of nutrition-related
anemia.  Is this statement consistent with your analyses?
6) factors were not incorporate these variables in the analysis.
Every sentence in the manuscript should be carefully reviewed for clarity and grammar for
publication in an important BMC journal.
Title: Urban -rural differential in the association between household wealth index and anemia
among women in reproductive age in Ethiopia, 2016.
Version: 4 Date: 19 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Several grammatical errors are present throughout the paper which will require further revision.
There are also several sentences that require rewording. Please address the following below.
In the abstract, the following corrections are required:
- Line 7: "A cross-sectional design was employed..."
- Line 15: "Women belonging to a low household wealth index..."
- Line 18: "...in women of the low household wealth category compared to women..."
- Line 19 - Reword "The odd of this is not for women who live in urban residency"
- Line 21: Reword "The driver of anemia in this study is residency affecting women of
reproductive age groups."
- Line 22: Change 'consider' to 'target'
In the introduction, the following corrections are required:
- Line 7: "Anemia is associated with a defect in birth outcome including miscarriage, preterm
delivery, placental abruption, low birth weight, and a higher risk of prenatal and maternal
mortality."
- Line 10: "Hence, it is a common public health issue and accounts for more than 89% of the
burden in developing countries."
- Line 15: "Its prevalence is even higher in low-income countries such as Ethiopia due to several
contributing factors."
In the method and materials, the following corrections are required:
- Line 20: "This study used data from the 2016..."
- Line 20: "The EDHS was designed..."
- Line 22: "This survey was conducted..."
- Page 5 line 4: Sentence beginning with 'Implicit stratification..." requires rewording
- Page 5 line 6: "A total of 15,683 women aged 15-49 years were selected or anemia testing..."
In the data analysis, the following corrections are required:
- Page 6 line 12: "Statistical analyses were done while taking into account..."
- Page 6 line 12: Sentence beginning with 'All the estimates..." needs rewording
In the ethical consideration, the following corrections are required:
- Page 7 line 21: "The EDSH survey was carried out by the CSA of Ethiopia." You should not
use the short form of CSA.
- Page 7 line 21: "The study protocol and data collection instruments were reviewed for
adherence..."
In the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample, the following corrections are required:
- Page 9 line 12: "In this study, a total of 14,100 women were included from..."
In the discussion, the following corrections are required:
- Page 14 line 9: "Other than residency and socioeconomic status, potential predictors of anemia
include being within the younger age category, having no education, being married and not using
hormonal contraceptives, which have been reported in several other studies."
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding cervical cancer screening
among women in metropolitan Lima, Peru: A cross-sectional study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
23 May 2020
Reviewer: 
Edmund Ossai
Reviewer's report:
Good research work and well written
My commendations
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is
required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which
controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not,
please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review
is recommended, please specify what aspects require further assessment in your
comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the
manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Title: Prevalence of bacterial uropathogens and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns among
pregnant women in Eastern Ethiopia: Hospital-based cross-sectional study.
Version: 1 Date: 26 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Comment
1. title: it is long title, need to be specific.
Remove the associated factors from the title as well as from the body.
2. abstract:
Methods section: it is very shallow make it clear
Result section: Indicate the prevalence with 95% CI. #line 30:-avoid writing one word both by
word and figure  e.g (Thirty-one (31))
-present AOR with 95% CI rather than p-value
3. Methods
-analysis section is not well described and it lacks how model has fitted and other related issue
were lacked
4. Result
some tables has "0 value" in their cells, it need to regroup some variable to avoid "0" cells
-delete the associated factors from this paper for most of the cell contain very few response.
proportion of outcome variable shall be presented with 95% CI.
Title: The effect of a training program on maternal role adaptation and self-esteem of mothers
with preterm infants: a quasi-experimental study
Version: 3 Date: 17 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors aimed to explore the effect of implementing the training program on maternal role
adaptation and self-esteem of mothers of preterm infants admitted to the neonatal intensive
care unit. The topic addressed is important in light of the potential negative (both in the short
and in the long term) implications associated with the separation between mothers and their
hospitalized infants.
However, I have major concerns in relation to the study’s methods. Specifically, I would like
to know whether the infants belonging to the control group actually receive some kind of
standard care. I believe that each mother is educated on breastfeeding importance and breast
milk expression as weel as the importance of touching her infant, including the implementation
of Kangaroo Mother care  and so on. How does the intervention differ from standard  of care?
Moreover, I believe results should be analyzed also according to the severity of prematurity
and the occurrence of comorbidities. For example, the occurrence of NEC or any other severe
comorbidities could somehow affect mother role adaption and self- esteem. Why did the authors
choose to include only married women ?.  Pleasse, explain. Besides, it not clear when mothers’
enrollment took place. Was it upon admission to NICU? Which was the frequency of the training
sessions (one per week, twice ?)?
Title: Human Immune Deficiency Virus among cervical cancer patients at Tikur Anbessa
Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia: A cross sectional study.
Version: 1 Date: 04 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Line 2: on the title, remove "Retrospective cohort study"
Line 25-30: revise the language
Line 33: replace the study design with a cross sectional study design
line 75: What makes this study a retrospective Cohort study"? where are the controls?  you have
totally used a cross sectional study design, so better to revise it
line 83: "charts not found during a data collection were excluded" if the chart is already not
found it wont be eligible for the study. so remove the word
line 94-97: The operational definition for HIV positivity and Negativity is not necessary
line 96: please describe briefly about substance use. will someone who has used a substance for
a day be called substance user? or do you have any criteria to say some one is a substance user?
Line 108-113: what is the appropriate statistical analysis for cohort study? Binary logistic and
multivariable logistic regressions are appropriate for cross sectional study designs, so try to
revise the study design and align with its appropriate analysis methods.
Line 118-127: Avoid using the word "About" on the result section.  just tell the exact numbers
Line 152: instead of "Cervical cancer patients whose age 30-39 presented with HIV positive
status about three times (AOR=2.83; 95%CI= 1.27, 6.32) more than those age below 30 " try to
write your reports "Cervical cancer patients aged 30-39 were 3 time more likely to be HIV sero
positive than their counter parts....." revise the others as well
Line 170: you have used the word "SEROPOSITIVE" and in another places you have used
HIV positive or negative Status. make it uniform thorough the manuscript using the word sero-
positive or negative
Generally: try to revise the languages extensively, so that it is interesting for the readers
Title: Time to First Birth and Its Determinants among Married Female Youths in Ethiopia, 2020:
Survival analysis based on EDHS 2016.
Version: 3 Date: 20 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
Thanks for the opportunity to review this important manuscript. Time to First Birth and Its
Determinants among Married Female Youths inEthiopia, 2020:.continues to be an important
gap in global health. Their findings are not surprising but they are important to present and can
guide policy. I make a number of specific recommendations, to hopefully, improve the paper
the journal is very strict with textual plagiarism, Plagiarism ratio is high, I recommends that
authors should consider having their manuscripts professionally edited prior to submission; even
more so for authors for whom English is a second language.
Introduction:
Very long section! Please rewrite in own words and reference as there are many copied and
paste paragraphs. (Need to be focused)
This section should briefly state what is known and unknown about the topic.
Please add implications of findings for future research.
Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and conclusions drawn.
What does the study add to what was already known? Especially a study done in Ethiopia (1).
Chernet AG, Shebeshi DS, Banbeta A. Determinant of time-to-first birth interval after marriage
among Ethiopian women. BMC women's health. 2019;19(1):1-6
Methods
I doubt with your sample selection, I think you have selected marriage female youth aged (15-24)
years. Not ever married women? Since, they are different. The total analytic sample should
be 2366 if you had selected that marriage female youth aged (15-24) years. This is a critical
issue, which needs your justification since I have suspected selection bias that could affect your
finding.
The DHS presents data in multiple versions. Did the authors use the individual (women's) data,
the KR Kids' data or the Household data? This can have implications for whether the analysis
is generalizeable to study participant were also interviewed
In the (Ethics approval and consent to participate): no ethical approval was required since you
are used secondary data which was collected by others
Result
Discussion need more in depth details to emphasis other results aspects.
References:
- some reference Need Updating
1. Chernet AG, Shebeshi DS, Banbeta A. Determinant of time-to-first birth interval after
marriage among Ethiopian women. BMC women's health. 2019;19(1):1-6.
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 2 Date: 22 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
this study is considerable owing to supporting existing literature. On the other hand, focusing
only reproductive outcomes and not reporting results regarding routine oncological parameters
of the study population are not acceptable. Here I recommend to improve your article;
1. Please indicate the median follow-up.
2. Please specify 5-10-15 year disease free survival rate (DFSR) and overall survival rate (OSR).
3. Please specify 5-10-15 year DFSR and OSR according to stages.
4. Please remark the risk factors of your study population for reduced DFSR and OSR.
5. Please point out incomplete surgery rate and 5-10-15 year DFSR and OSR of this subgroup.
6. Please point out complete surgery rate and 5-10-15 year DFSR and OSR of this subgroup.
7. Please represent neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) rate and survival difference
of these groups.
8. Please define how administration of AC was decided.
9. Please indicate maximal, optimal or suboptimal debulking rate in methods.
10. Please provide a table presenting reproductive results according to stages and histologic
types.
11. Please provide a table presenting reproductive results in AC and non-AC group. In AC group,
please indicate reproductive results according to AC cycle number.
12. Please stress the strengths of the study in discussion.
13. Please add being a retrospective study to the limitations.
Sincerely.
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 2 Date: 06 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I reviewed the manuscript and I have some recommendations mentioned below:
-The preperation of the manuscript is not inelaborate. There are a lot of grammatical errors,
punctuation errors in the manuscript.
-The discussion section is so complicated. This section should be simplified according to the
results of this study.