JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Factors influencing menstrual regularity among female workers: a cross-sectional analysis
study
Version: 2 Date: 06 May 2024
Reviewer:  Iván Fernández-Suárez
Reviewer's report:
The considerations made in the first review have been applied appropriately. An improvement
is seen in the contextualization of the study, incorporating the COVID variable, which increases
the rigor and validity of the study. The article is accepted for publication.
Title: Mobilizing stakeholders for implant removals in Burkina Faso using landscape
assessment data
Version: 0 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I wish to congratulate the authors for addressing the issue of implant removal-which if carried
out properly as per the standard checklists, does contribute in significant ways in the provision
of quality family planning services not just in Burkina Faso but in other developing countries.
The authors have adequately articulated the importance of the issue in the background section
of the manuscript. However, the manuscript can benefit from reorganizing some sections to
help readers appreciate what was done, how they did it, what were the results and the overall
conclusions based on the data or results.
Title: Mobilizing stakeholders for implant removals in Burkina Faso using landscape
assessment data
Version: 3 Date: 13 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall feedback:
The authors have done an excellent job with the revision and have addressed all previous
concerns.  Please see the few minor points below.
Abstract:
• Line 49, consider softening word “violation” to “limiting”.  This kind of wording can raise red
flags for donors and unless there’s a real violation occurring, it may be best not to use the word.
Results
• Line 321-313: your percentages of confidence with provider removal don’t align with the
table and there is an extra clause at the end of the sentence that repeats the same info with a
different percentage.  I think the table has errors as I believe the 6% providers that are confident
in removals might be 60%.
• Table 6: is it possible to subdivide facilities with equipment for simple vs difficult removals?  It
looks rather alarming that no facilities have the equipment for removals, yet are doing removals.
I suspect that at least some have the key equipment needed for simple removals.  It would be
worth listing out the items needed for simple vs difficult removals and reporting by item if
possible.
• Lines 368-369: I’m not clear on the shift change times because, from your text, I’m reading
that the only times implant removals are recorded are from 3-5 PM.
Title: JAM3 promotes cervical cancer metastasis by activating the HIF-1#/VEGFA pathway
Version: 3 Date: 05 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Dong Ma
Reviewer's report:
Jiali Peng and Aijun Yin studied the role of JAM3 in cervical cancer, which is novel. Some
points should be considered comprehensively.
1. In part of introduction, it mainly plays an oncogenic function in endothelial cells [7,8], while
it promotes cell proliferation in tumor cells [9]. However, in this study, JAM3 was confirmed
to promote migration and invasion in cervical cancers without proliferative effect.
2. How to activate HIF-1# signaling pathway maybe more interesting here.
3. Endothelial cell localization and expression experiments are necessary in human and mouse
cervical cancer tissues.
4. The basic information of the two groups of patients needs to be provided in a list.
5. Product number for all cell lines was also provided.
Title: JAM3 promotes cervical cancer metastasis by activating the HIF-1#/VEGFA pathway
Version: 3 Date: 06 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Peng et al. demonstrated that JAM3 was over-expressed in cervical cancer
with lymph node metastasis, and its biological roles were mainly related with promoted cell
metastasis via regulated the EMT procedure and the HIF-1#/VEGFA pathway. Generally, this
a quite complete study focusing the expression and fuctions of JAM3 in cervical cancer, which
provided a series of evidences for further understanding the features of this common female
malignancy. A minor revision was recommended to improved their writing and data interpreting
before acceptance.
1. There are a few errors about spelling, typing and others, please carefully check and revise
them;
2. An ethical statement should be added in the section of “patients and tissue samples”;
3. A summarized information about the 16 patients who provided tissues should be provided,
such as age, FIGO stage, histologic subtypes. This is will help us to better understand the results;
4. Many primary antibodies were used in western blot, you’d better provided the concentration
of each one, this is important for repeating this experiment;
5. For the primer sequence, not “AGCCAATCCCAGATTTCGCAA”, it usually starts with “
5’- ” and end with “ -3’ ”;
6. In the section of results, the key data like P value, HR values, should be clearly provided,
not only in the figure legends;
7. The IHC figure was not clear enough. You’d better provide ×100 (low-magnified field) and
×400 (high-magnified field) pictures;
8. In discussion, please mainly focus on the major findings of the current study, and discuss the
agreement and disagreement with previous studies. There are already many researches about the
roles of JAM3, more discussions are needed to clarify the results of present study. And more
important, a few sentences might be better about the limitations of current study.
Title: JAM3 promotes cervical cancer metastasis by activating the HIF-1#/VEGFA pathway
Version: 3 Date: 08 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " JAM3 promotes cervical cancer metastasis by
activating the HIF-1#/VEGFA pathway.”, topic interesting enough to attract readers' attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- I suggest reading and adding recent evidence about the importance of adequate management in
patients with cervical cancer,  with the aim to improve prognosis and the possibility of tailored
management considering results of this study. I suggest authors to read and insert in references
the following article: Tullio Golia D'Augè, Andrea Giannini,  Giorgio Bogani,  Camilla Di Dio,
Antonio Simone Laganà,  Violante Di Donato,  Maria Giovanna Salerno,  Donatella Caserta,
Vito Chiantera,  Enrico Vizza,  Ludovico Muzii,  Ottavia D’Oria. Prevention, Screening,
Treatment and Follow-Up of Gynecological Cancers: State of Art and Future Perspectives. Clin.
Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023, 50(8), 160. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5008160.
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: JAM3 promotes cervical cancer metastasis by activating the HIF-1#/VEGFA pathway
Version: 3 Date: 08 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is very poor written and significant revision need prior re-submission to in this
journal.  English is very poor and some paragraph is not completely understandable. In addition,
numerous grammatical mistakes.
1. In the ‘Introduction’ and ‘discussion’ section, it is suggested that the author add the research
background of JAM3 in cervical cancer. Methylation of JAM3 correlates with CIN progression,
so how is JAM expression in CC compared to CIN?
2. In the figure 1, the data of OS comes from TCGA, so does the author have the data of his
own hospital to support it?
3. In the data of transwell, the scale should be added.
4. In the figure 5, since JAM3 may work through HIF1A/VEGFA, and it was suggested that
angiogenesis test should be added.
5. As we all know HIF-1A was instability, the expression of HIF-1A in caski was so high?
6. In the figure S1, the expression of JAM3 in WB was one band or two bands?
Title: JAM3 promotes cervical cancer metastasis by activating the HIF-1#/VEGFA pathway
Version: 3 Date: 09 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
The abstract perfectly summarizes the contents of the manuscript. The methodology is accurate
and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. The figures are clear and interesting.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, to correct a few typos and improve readability.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the new treatment strategies currently in use for
the treatment of  cervical cancer (see PMID: 38159033).
-What is already known on this subject?
-What do the results of this study add?
-What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? It is
important to report the results obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to
adequately highlight what contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the
topic and to future study perspectives.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy as Monotherapy in Patients with Recurrent
Intermediate/High-Risk Factors Following Radical Hysterectomy for Stage IB-#A Cervical
Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 15 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
The purpose of this article is to explore the safety and efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy alone
after radical surgery for cervical cancer. However, the study design has flaws due to the lack
of a control group, so the results cannot demonstrate the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy
alone. These findings only suggest no significant differences in prognosis and adverse reactions
between different risk groups with chemotherapy alone. Caution is advised in interpreting the
study results. Additionally, my concerns are as follows:
1. Please add a reference for "WHO criteria for grading adverse reactions in cancer therapy" in
'1.2.2 Postoperative CT'.
2. Please provide the original reference for "The annual report for patients by the Japan Society of
Obstetrics and Gynecology Committee on Gynecologic Oncology in 2017[11] indicated... The
results showed that postoperative adjuvant CT could offer a superior prognosis to RT and CCRT
by remote control" in '3 Discussion'. I could not find comparative results in the annual report
regarding the impact of different postoperative adjuvant treatment regimens on the survival
prognosis of cervical cancer patients.
3. The conclusion stated in '3 Discussion' regarding the study by Iwasaka et al.[20] does not
match the research findings. The RT group had a significantly higher proportion of pelvic
metastasis, and the P-value < 0.01 in the literature only indicates a different distribution of tumor
recurrence between the two groups, not a difference in recurrence rate.
4. In '4 Conclusion', should "RRCT group" be "CCRT"?
5. In 'Table 1', change "Yes" and "No" in the "Specimen incisal margin (n)" column to "Positive"
and "Negative".
6. In 'Table 3', the format for "X2" is incorrect, "P" needs to be italicized, and the use of Fisher's
exact test should be noted.
Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy as Monotherapy in Patients with Recurrent
Intermediate/High-Risk Factors Following Radical Hysterectomy for Stage IB-#A Cervical
Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 18 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Safety and Effectiveness of Chemotherapy
as Single Treatment Modality in Patients with Recurrent Intermediate/High-Risk Factors after
Radical Hysterectomy for Stage IB-#A Cervical Cancer”, topic interesting enough to attract
readers' attention.
Authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- The authors could extend the discussion by evaluating and citing current evidence about
the comparison of different surgical approaches for surgical treatment of cervical cancer,
considering various outcomes, possible complications, different patterns of recurrence of the
disease and how each patient's tailored-treatment could be improved. I would be glad if the
authors discuss this important point, referring to PMID: 36293758 and 37862783.
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed.  Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy as Monotherapy in Patients with Recurrent
Intermediate/High-Risk Factors Following Radical Hysterectomy for Stage IB-#A Cervical
Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
The abstract satisfactorily summarizes the contents of the manuscript. The methodology is
accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. The tables and figures are clear
and interesting.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, to correct a few typos and improve readability.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the new treatment strategies currently in use for
the treatment of cervical cancer (see PMID: 38159033).
-What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? It is
important to report the results obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to
adequately highlight what contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the
topic and to future study perspectives.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy as Monotherapy in Patients with Recurrent
Intermediate/High-Risk Factors Following Radical Hysterectomy for Stage IB-#A Cervical
Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 28 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Ruifang Chen
Reviewer's report:
The revised paper solves the doubts I raised and is suitable for publication.
Title: Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy as Monotherapy in Patients with Recurrent
Intermediate/High-Risk Factors Following Radical Hysterectomy for Stage IB-#A Cervical
Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
Version: 3 Date: 29 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has improved thanks to the changes made. I think it could be of
interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published.
Title: Clients’ expectations and experiences with providers of menstrual regulation: A
qualitative study in Bangladesh
Version: 1 Date: 22 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overall
- Please refer to COREQ on how to report qualitative findings (https://www.equator-
network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/) and state in the manuscript that you report according
to their checklist.
- This sounds like a really important study and I hope to see it published, but I do think there’s
some extensive editing that needs to be completed first
Background
- Really appreciate the footnote about language usage re "women" versus "people"
- Line 69: state that knowledge of services has decreased since 1979, but present data from 2001
and 2014
Methods
- Line 122: Where might these individuals have procured pills? At health centers and hospitals?
In pharmacies? How might they differ from the other recruited clients?
- Line 126: I am on unclear on recruitment. Can you explain more about recruitment decision-
making? The individuals at the clinic and hospital were interviewed immediately after receiving
services, but do you mean after they received pills or surgical MR or after their follow up visit
(if they used pills)? For individuals on the phone, I have the same question — they call when
they have or want pills, but are they interviewed before or after taking the pills and following
up with a clinician?
- Line 153: What are the approval numbers for each of the approving agencies?
Results
- Line 158: I’m curious about how this compares to the general population. Do most individuals
at hospitals/clinics receive surgical MR?
- Line 183: I would suggest including the type of MR the individual received in the quotes.
- Lines 197 and 205: You use "another client" to start two sentences in a row.
- Line 247: Can you include a quote to demonstrate this rush that you write about in the clinic
and hospital?
- Lines 255-264: I think if you’re going to include two quotes in a row, you should add some
context for each.
- Line 266: I’m unclear how this sub-section differs from the previous one and think they can
be combined unless you can further differentiate them.
- Line 309: Other sub-sections give neutral titles, so I would do the same here.
- Overall, I would think about restructuring and combining some sections together. There is
significant overlap between them as they are now.
Discussion
- Line 399: I think you need a much more comprehensive limitations section including things
like:
- Inclusion of only married women
- Oversampling of individuals at the call center compared to other sites
- Unclear how you determined when to stop recruitment
- Did you find that individuals with positive expectations had positive experiences? I am curious
about the impact of recall bias on results, especially without knowing the timeline for interviews.
- Other biases that may be present
Title: A meta-analysis of efficacy on dexamethasone and clomiphene in the treatment of
polycystic ovary syndrome patients
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
Please, these recommendations be revised or responded:
- In the search strategy:  what is filters and limits used? Web of science? Scopus?...
- Search key words wasn’t based on Mesh.
- Whether wasn’t infertility keyword?
- Specify the methods time of search from…to? (In abstract and full text method)
- In the first paragraph discussion: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context
of other evidence.
- The discussion is very poorly reported. You should be explaining and specify this results with
other researches.
- Methods of bstract revise.
Sincerely
Title: Achieving NPVR # 80% as Technical Success of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound
Ablation for Uterine Fibroids: A Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 13 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Achieving NPVR # 80% as Technical Success of
High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation for Uterine Fibroids: a cohort study”, which falls
whithin the aim of BMC Women's Health.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
Methods and Patients:
The article could benefit from including a flowchart to illustrate the patient selection process
and data analysis.
Results:
The text could benefit from greater clarity regarding the results concerning the diagnosis of
adenomyosis and thyroid and breast cancer during patient follow-up.
Discussion:
The discussion could be expanded to include a critical evaluation of the study limitations, as well
as recommendations for future research. It would be helpful to consider additional comparative
studies to compare USgHIFU with other treatment options, such as myomectomy. In this regard,
it could be useful to read and cite PMID: 37796281 and PMID: 34763580. Additionally, it would
be crucial to at least mention one of the most promising perspectives in the minimally invasive
treatment of fibroids (myolysis) and its potential impact on patients' reproductive chances, citing
recent literature (PMID: 37165870, PMID: 32178351, and PMID: 31855088).
Conclusions:
The conclusions should be strengthened to reflect the specific results of the study and emphasize
the clinical implications of the findings obtained.
Title: Achieving NPVR # 80% as Technical Success of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound
Ablation for Uterine Fibroids: A Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. In this study, the authors report the long-term
re-intervention of patients with uterine fibroids after ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused
ultrasound (USgHIFU) ablation, and analyse the influencing factors of re-intervention in group
of NPVR #80%. Overall, I feel the research topic is interesting and the article appear well-
designed and well-written. I suggest that the manuscript is appropriate for publication in the
BMC Women's Health. I have no critical comments to improve the quality of the article.