JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Awareness, attendance, and attitudes toward cervical cancer screening among HIV-
positive Chinese women in Yunnan province: a cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 29 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
Thank you for an interesting article about awareness, attendance, and attitudes toward cervical
cancer screening among HIV-positive women in the Yunnan province.
I have a few questions and would like you to elaborate on specific elements in your article. The
numbers refer to the lines of your manuscript.
Generally, I would have preferred fewer abbreviations. I find that too many abbreviations in
an article makes it harder and less pleasant to read. For example, the abbreviation WLHIV is
used many times throughout the article. As the target group is HIV-positive women you could
just as well write: “the women”, “the women in our study” or the “participants” as done in line
250 and 251.
Line 84  You have provided a list of abbreviations, but I cannot find “CD4”.
Line 90  What is meant by CC control? Cervical cancer screening?
Lines 92-93 You write that HPV vaccination has an uptake as low as 3% in mainland China.
As a consequence of this and the fact that women with HIV have a high prevalence of high-
risk HPV and precancers “cervical cancer screening (CSS) is substituted as a pivotal method to
mitigate the risk, especially for WLHIV…” Might not HPV vaccination have a role to play in
future in China and also for HIV-positive women or their children? You could elaborate on this
in your discussion or in the conclusion.
Line 167 What is meant by “receive therapy if necessary”? Do you refer to receiving treatment
if having cervical cancer or precursors?
Line 177 What did the “brief health education” consist of?
Line 213-214 This is an example of sentences where I would suggest fewer abbreviations. As
suggested in the following:
287 (69,8%) of the women in our study were aware of cervical cancer screening. In the
multivariate analysis, women with higher education….
Line 255 What is meant by “clinical operation”?
Line 268 Which “prevailing barriers”? Could you elaborate on this?
Line 289 And the “target” is a participant rate of 70% in cervical cancer screening among HIV-
positive women? Could you please explain.
Line 372 Could you please define “precancer screening”?
Title: Awareness, attendance, and attitudes toward cervical cancer screening among HIV-
positive Chinese women in Yunnan province: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 03 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
I have read the revised manuscript, and the changes you have made do meet my expectations as
a reviewer satisfactorily.  I have no further questions.
Just the following remark. I have commented on the use of abbreviations in the manuscript. I
am not against abbreviations as such.
As a qualitative researcher I find it important when writing about a study population, actual
living women, to do so in a way that if they should ever read about the study – which they might
never do because they probably do not read scientific articles – they should feel recognized.
Therefore I suggested  writing "the women" or "the participants" instead of WLHIV. So thank
you for doing this.
Title: Survival trends of patients with metaplastic breast carcinoma with different hormone
receptor statuses: A SEER-based retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 12 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
1.The author defines HR positive as ER positive and PR positive;HR negative was defines as
ER negative or PR negative. So a patient who is ER positive and PR negative is defined as HR
negative?
2.As we all know, since 2010, the critical value of HR positive has changed from 10% to 1%.
What is the critical value of HR state in this study?
3.If the critical value of HR in this study is 1%, previous studies previous studies that the
prognosis of patients with low expression#1%-10%# of HR is similar to that of TNBC. How do
the authors explain the impact of this population on the conclusions of the study?
Title: Survival trends of patients with metaplastic breast carcinoma with different hormone
receptor statuses: A SEER-based retrospective cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors utilize SEER data to evaluate survival trends in metaplastic breast
cancer between 2000 and 2019, and compare outcomes between patients with  HR+ and HR-
disease.
Comments:
1. The definition of HR+ disease that the authors use is non standard. They define HR+ tumors
as those that are both ER+ and PR+.  Typically HR+ disease is considered ER and/or PR+. While
ER-/PR+ disease is rare, and tends to behave more like HR- disease,  non-metaplastic breast
cancers that are ER+/PR- are generally treated as HR+ breast cancer.
2.  In 2010,  ASCO/CAP guidelines standardized  ER and PR testing, and stated that tumors with
1-100% ER or PR positivity be defined as ER+. Thus the increase in HR+ metaplastic BCA pts
in 2010-2019 compared with 2000-2009 may be a reflection of the changes in definition of HR
+ disease, rather than a true increase. This  should be discussed in the manuscript.
3.  When evaluating the impact of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the authors combine patients
who did not receive chemo or RT with patients who had unknown receipt of these modalities.
The authors should specify in how many patients receipt of chemo or RT was unkown.
4. There are several grammatical and sentence structure errors within the manuscript, which
would benefit from a more thorough editing.
Title: Survival trends of patients with metaplastic breast carcinoma with different hormone
receptor statuses: A SEER-based retrospective cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 12 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study used recent data from the SEER database to examine the survival trends of MpBC
based on HR status. By conducting thorough statistical analyses, the authors found significant
survival improvements over the last decade for HR- MpBC patients, particularly in White
patients, while not for HR+ MpBC patients. The findings suggest a potential need to address
racial disparities and improve outcomes for HR+ MpBC patients in future research.
The authors have adequately addressed the previous reviewer comments, revised the manuscript
accordingly, and provided a more detailed discussion of the study's limitations.
The only issue I had is that I believe the paper could benefit from more precise and professional
language use when presenting the research findings.
For example, on page 7-8, the authors wrote: “For HR- patients, HRs for OS and BCSS decreased
significantly, both from 1 in 2000 - 2009 to 0.83 (OS: p=0.021, BCSS: p=0.045) in 2010 - 2019.”
A hazard ratio (HR) is the risk of an event occurring in one group compared to a reference group
over time. Here, the 2000-2009 group is the reference group (thus their HR=1), and we don’t
use “decrease” to describe the HR because the focus is the relative risk instead of a decline.
Usually, people would report the HR and the 95% CI. A more accurate version to describe the
results could be:
"For HR- patients, the hazards were significantly lower in 2010–2019 compared to 2000–2009
in terms of both OS (adjusted HR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.71 - 0.97) and BCSS (adjusted HR=0.83,
95% CI: 0.69 – 1.00), indicating better survival outcomes in the more recent period.”
The sentence that follows “In contrast, HRs of both OS and BCSS showed no changes for HR
+ patients” could be revised to: “In contrast, for HR+ patients, the OS and BCSS did not show
any significant improvements in 2010–2019 compared to 2000–2009”
Similarly, the understanding of OR also seems to be inaccurate and many places in the
manuscript describing OR results need to be revised as well.
Finally, I agree with the other reviewers that the paper’s readability could be significantly
improved with more thorough editing. Although the authors mentioned using a professional
language editing service, it's unclear if these edits have already been made as they were not
highlighted in the revised manuscript. Meanwhile, there are still grammatical and sentence
structure errors throughout the paper, which affect both the clarity of the results and the overall
readability. Thus, further editing is necessary to enhance the manuscript.
When referring to race or ethnicity, please ensure consistency by capitalizing 'White' and 'Black’,
and avoid using inaccurate lowercase forms such as 'white' and 'black'.
Title: Intensive treatment of triple negative breast cancer with residual positive axillary lymph
node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Version: 1 Date: 12 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Francisco Pimentel Cavalcante
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate the authors for the initiative of carrying out this study. Indeed,
identifying high-risk patients and selecting them for additional adjuvant therapies is essential in
the treatment of high-risk triple-negative breast cancer. I would like to make some considerations
and suggestions to the authors
1- In the introduction: I suggest reviewing the translation. This first paragraph is a bit confusing.
2- Tha phrase (second paragraph): "provides a more accurate prognosis than that of other
immunohistochemical subtypes"...This sentence could be better described. In fact, PCR has an
impact on triple negative and HER2, but not on luminal tumors.
3-  methodology: I suggest describing the type of neoadjuvant treatment better. Would
anthracycline be used in a dense dose? From when? In axillary surgery, was sentinel lymph node
biopsy allowed?
4- Why the decision to only consider absence of PCR in the axilla? Many cases respond better
in the axilla than in the breast... many triple negatives are cN0. Without a doubt, this may have
influenced the recruitment rate.
5- In the discussion: the first paragraph is confusing… is this description part of the study? Or
just a description of what happens in the service? What is the reference?. In the description of
reasons for low recruitment, the study design itself was included, which did not allow for breast
assessment.
6- I suggest including a paragraph of limitations before the conclusion. There are many, in
addition to the very low recruitment, there is an imbalance between the groups. It is difficult to
even assess demographic differences.
7- Conclusion: This conclusion based on a study with a small number of patients does not seem
appropriate to me. I would point out that these results should be evaluated with great caution and
that randomized studies with a larger number of patients are needed to confirm these findings.
Title: Intensive treatment of triple negative breast cancer with residual positive axillary lymph
node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Version: 1 Date: 27 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
- This is a really interesting clinical trial that unfortunately did not meet its recruitment objective.
This issue renders the trial to be severely underpowered , with high risk of both false positives
(overestimating effects) and false negatives (failing to detect true effects). Even statistically
significant results should be interpreted cautiously, as the small sample size may amplify chance
findings.
-Since the sample size is too small, it does not allow for the desired power to detect meaningful
clinical differences. Thus, the results are unlikely to provide definitive evidence.
- Moreover, since it was not presented the calculation whether the baseline characteristics were
similar between the two groups, we cannot conclude that the observed differences in survival
are due to the study intervention and not from potential imbalances between groups.
- Regarding safety, we cannot conclude  that the intervention is dafe, since it was not provided
the data regarding total number of AEs, number of Severe AEs,  grade of AEs and frequency,
nor it was presented the difference in distribution between group A and group B.
Title: Intensive treatment of triple negative breast cancer with residual positive axillary lymph
node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Version: 2 Date: 25 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I appreciate your efforts in conducting this clinical trial and addressing my previous comments.
However, I don´t agree with your justification of showing the p-values for the table 1, thus
preventing readers to objectively observe the imbalances between groups.
Best,
Title: Prevalence of thyroid autoantibody positivity in women with infertility: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 11 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Mohammed abu El-Hamd
Reviewer's report:
The title should include the sex of the patient (female).
The discussion and results should be more organized.
Major corrections to the language are essential.
References should match the instructions of this journal.
Title: Prevalence of thyroid autoantibody positivity in women with infertility: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 11 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Yigit Çak#ro#lu
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
This systematic review and meta-analysis has been processed in accordance with the author
guidelines of the journal. The writing style is concise and clear. The manuscript proposes detailed
information about the prevalance of thyroid autoimmunity in infertile women.
A total of 54 trials have been investigated and the results have revealed a higher thyroid
autoantibody prevalance in infertile population compared to healthy controls.
Abstract:
The abstract accurately describes the short-summarized content of the article.
Key words are adequate in quality and number.
Introduction:
The rationale of thyroid autoimmunity, subfertility, correlation in between thyroid autoimmunity
and fertility have been well defined in the introduction section. Aim has been defined.
Materials and Methods
The materials and method section contains briefly and comprehensively the type of the article
with adequate number of studies, search strategy, study selection and data extraction, assessment
of the risk of bias, and statistical methods employed. PRISMA guidelines, registration on
PROSPERO and the detailed literature research have been performed.
Results
The result section contains important and significant findings and observations in regards of the
included studies. Subgroup analysis has been performed in detail.
Discussion
The discussion section states the importance and significance of the findings in a very detailed
way. Conclusion part reflects the main idea of the MS.
References:
The references section contains appropriate and reasonable number of references
Figure:
The figure is demonstrative and clear
Tables:
The tables are well designed.
Title: Prevalence of thyroid autoantibody positivity in women with infertility: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 11 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Marzieh Beigom Bigdeli Shamloo
Reviewer's report:
Hello, the subject is very good and practical, it has pointed out the problem statement well, and
has drawn the research strategy and flow chart of the study, and it has a suitable analysis, it can
be published after literary editing.
Title: Prevalence of thyroid autoantibody positivity in women with infertility: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript of the following as an attachment:
What is the main result of the study should be specified by mentioning the details?
Did you include people with autoimmune disease, chronic disease, and mental illness?
What was the standard of antibody measurement? Suffering? What was the diagnosis?
How have you controlled the duration of the illness and the medications?
How is infertility defined?
Have you taken people undergoing infertility treatment? Or just infertile people without
treatment?
How was the comparison between men and women?
Title: Prevalence of thyroid autoantibody positivity in women with infertility: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
In abstract was written: "...randomised control trial reports, ...were excluded.
This sentence seems to conflict with what is written in the methods:  "The criteria for inclusion
were as follows: (1) controlled and case-control study designs". These points need to be specified
better.
In discussion:  clarify the meaning of the acronym "ETA".
Title: Prevalence of thyroid autoantibody positivity in women with infertility: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 17 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Ali B. Roomi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking my opinion #about #the #manuscript #entitled ##"Prevalence of thyroid
autoantibody positivity in patients with infertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis". #
#I believe that this manuscript should #be #major revision:#
I wanted to bring to your attention that there are several #articles relevant to your article topic
that may be of #interest to you. You might consider citing these references #to enrich your
work and provide additional context. I have #included the links to these articles below for your
#convenience #:#
#[https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qsWZh#0sAAAAJ]. #
#[https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=572##09705942]. #
#[https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5107-5550]#
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: Network analysis of stress and stigma symptoms and their associations with quality of
life among Chinese female infertility patients
Version: 1 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Grzegorz Bakalczuk
Reviewer's report:
Introduction is clear and simple. It explains well the background to the study.
All procedures have been followed for health and safety of all participants.
Methods used for this study were appropriate for its aim. Results are clearly formatted and
presented. The results of all tests are accurately reported .
The conclusions and limitations are also well presented.
Therefore I recommend to accept this paper.
Title: Network analysis of stress and stigma symptoms and their associations with quality of
life among Chinese female infertility patients
Version: 1 Date: 17 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
-The topic is significant and addresses aspects that are highly relevant to patients. The title clearly
reflects the focus of the paper, and the introduction effectively establishes the research context
while identifying key gaps in the literature.
-Methods are described in sufficient detail and appear appropriate for addressing the research
question
-I suggest that the discussion be restructured to improve the flow of ideas, ensuring that each
point leads logically to the next. I also suggest authors cite more literature to support their
arguments, providing a broader context for their findings
-The authors could emphasize more on the impact of their findings, including potential societal
implications.
-A thorough review of the English and sentence structure is recommended.
Title: Network analysis of stress and stigma symptoms and their associations with quality of
life among Chinese female infertility patients
Version: 1 Date: 17 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Totally the manuscript should be revised grammatically.
Abstract: please mention the type of study , time, place, and number of participants in the method
section.Also, remove the figure from abstract.Totally the abstract is not written well and should
be revised.
Introduction: explain more about the status of infertility in china. Also, you should explain about
similar articles in this section.
Method: please mention the formula of sample size. Which type of sampling did you use? How
did you fill the questionnaires? Was it online or in person? Totally you should explain more
about method of your research
Discussion: please mention the strength and application of your research.
Also, please mention the number of ethics code of research.
Title: Network analysis of stress and stigma symptoms and their associations with quality of
life among Chinese female infertility patients
Version: 2 Date: 16 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors investigate a significant
aspect of infertility, focusing on the interactions between stigma, stress, and the quality of
life experienced by women facing infertility. In this version, the authors have addressed the
comments provided from the first round of revisions. However, the manuscript contains few
grammatical and spelling errors that still need to be corrected.
Title: Network analysis of stress and stigma symptoms and their associations with quality of
life among Chinese female infertility patients
Version: 2 Date: 25 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Marcelo De França de França Moreira
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the extensive improvements made to the manuscript. The revisions you have
implemented are sufficient to warrant acceptance of the manuscript at this stage.
However, I would suggest a minor refinement in the presentation of statistical methods.
Specifically, it would enhance readability and comprehension if you refrained from listing each
R package used in the analysis directly in the main text. Instead, consider mentioning only the
key ones that are crucial for understanding the statistical approach, while relegating the detailed
list of packages to supplementary materials or a footnote. This would help maintain focus on
the statistical methodology rather than the technical tools.
Additionally, in certain sections where more detailed statistical descriptions are needed, the
manuscript currently references the specific R functions used, such as the `cor_auto` function.
While this information is useful for reproducibility, it may be more appropriate to emphasize
the statistical methods themselves rather than the exact R commands. I recommend revisiting
these sections to ensure the focus remains on the methodological approach, with R functions
being secondary.
I believe these small adjustments will further improve the clarity and accessibility of the
manuscript without compromising the thoroughness of your analysis.
Title: Network analysis of stress and stigma symptoms and their associations with quality of
life among Chinese female infertility patients
Version: 2 Date: 26 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Grzegorz Bakalczuk
Reviewer's report:
Introduction is clear and simple. It explains well the background to the study.
All procedures have been followed for health and safety of all participants.
Methods used for this study were appropriate for its aim. Results are clearly formatted and
presented. The results of all tests are accurately reported .
The conclusions and limitations are also well presented.
Therefore I recommend to accept this paper.