JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: ‘PAINTING MY PAIN’ – THE USE OF PAIN DRAWINGS TO ASSESS MULTISITE
PAIN IN WOMEN WITH PRIMARY DYSMENORRHEA
Version: 1 Date: 17 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Initially, I would like to congratulate you on your study. Primary dysmenorrhea is a frequent
cause of pelvic pain and may even be a risk factor for chronic pain in the future. Despite this,
she is underrated.
Although the topic is highly relevant, and the study provides interesting information, I have
some comments.
1) Several international societies recommend the use of diagrams for reporting pain sites. I
recommend that the authors deeply explore the reasons or evidence that the proposal presented
in this study adds relevant clinical information. If possible, point out how this measure could
contribute to improving care for women with primary dysmenorrhea.
2) There was a loss of approximately two thirds of the sample. This may compromise the
generalizability of the results. I recommend that authors discuss this in detail.
3) How did the authors make inferences about the validity of the measurement? Just by the
correlation with the NRS? If so, what gain would there be in filling in the drawing and not just
pointing out the locations?
4) How many raters rated the images?
5) I found the limits of agreement to be high with some potential outliers. I recommend that
authors discuss this in detail.
6) The use of the ICC requires that all assumptions for ANOVA are presented. Did the authors
even consider the CCC (concordance correlation coefficient)?
7) Regarding the casuistry:
- Were these women using hormonal contraceptives? If yes, which ones?
- The authors report that they excluded patients with a known diagnosis of endometriosis or
leiomyomatosis. What criteria are used to consider the diagnosis of these diseases? self-report?
Referee? Hospital or health registry? Also, were the women included previously investigated
or evaluated?
Title: ‘PAINTING MY PAIN’ – THE USE OF PAIN DRAWINGS TO ASSESS MULTISITE
PAIN IN WOMEN WITH PRIMARY DYSMENORRHEA
Version: 1 Date: 29 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to this study evaluating the psychometric properties of this quick and easy but
yet so valuable assessment in women with primary dysmenorrhea. I really enjoyed reading your
paper.
I have three remarks with the request for clarification in the methods section:
Page 6, Lines 139-140: Although you cite a previous paper about the measurement of pain with
the aid of software, it would be nice for the readership if you could roughly explain the method
so that it could be understood in its fundamental principles without necessarily having to look
up the cited reference.
Page 6, Lines 140-141: Could you please provide more details of the raters, for example their
professions, their former training with regard to pain assessment as well as their experience.
This could also be worth acknowledging the factor rater and its influence in your discussion.
Page 7, Lines 157-162: Could you please provide your reasoning why you use measurements
of pain intensity for the validation of an assessment of pain locations? It seems reasonable that
the results of pain intensity measurement and of pain locations did correlate only moderately as
they measure different dimensions of the concept pain. So would not your validation more be
divergent validation rather than convergent validation? In addition, would a suitable comparator
for convergent validation not rather be a measurement of pain location, for example locating
pain via manual palpation?
Title: ‘PAINTING MY PAIN’ – THE USE OF PAIN DRAWINGS TO ASSESS MULTISITE
PAIN IN WOMEN WITH PRIMARY DYSMENORRHEA
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
In your article, you mentioned that "In this study, many women had problems printing or filling
the Body Map twice; this was a limitation because many women did not have a printer." Could
it be possible if we use a digital pain map which participants can paint online, by email or
WhatsApp?
Title: Utilisation of modern contraceptives by sexually active adolescent girls in Rwanda: a
nationwide cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Erigene Rutayisire
Reviewer's report:
Comments to Author’s:
Manuscript title: Utilisation of modern contraceptives by sexually active adolescent girls in
Rwanda: a nationwide cross-sectional study.
Generally the manuscript is well written but some analyses need to be revised.
Specific comments:
- The study includes girls aged 15 to 19 years, and the legal age of marriage in Rwanda is
21 years.  Saying that 13.6% of these young girls are married is contradicting the meaning of
marriage in Rwanda. It is possible for girls in such age bracket to be living with a partner, but
this may be called cohabiting. Author’s need to provide more explanation for this variable on
page 5 paragraph one.
- In Table 2, 94 girls were using modern contraceptive during the survey, this should be used as
denominator when estimating the proportions on the types of modern contraceptive they were
using. N is no 539 on the types of modern contraceptive it should be 94 who were using modern
contraceptives.
- To make it clear, it better to indicate p-value for each variable indicator in table 3 and 4. It is
not clear what p-value presented on each variable mean, I guess this may come from chi-square
analysis but I do not see the importance of presenting it in table 3 and 4. Tables are showing the
results from logistic regression analysis. The author’s may say that bivariate analysis ( e.g chi-
square test) were perform, and tell the readers  variables ( based on p-values from chi-square
test) that were fit for logistic regression analysis in narrative way.
Title: Utilisation of modern contraceptives by sexually active adolescent girls in Rwanda: a
nationwide cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript  is well written and structured . They have used the recent available data from
DHS 2019-2020.
However, there is  one important concept that  was not discussed.  Does Rwanda policy allow
young adolescent students to use modern contraceptive methods?  the age groups analyzed are
for young girls in school, it is important to look at factors influencing the low uptake.
Title: Trends and correlates of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victimization in Rwanda: Results
from the 2015 and 2020 Rwanda Demographic Health Survey (RDHS 2015 and 2020)
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author’s
This is an important article that examines the trends and correlates of Intimate Partners Violence
victimization for men and women in Rwanda. It is meant to provide the magnitude to IPV
victimization to inform the government on what can be applied to reduce IPV.
The following are my few comments:
Abstract:
To more understand the strength of the association in multivariate analysis the authors must
add 95%CI corresponding to the given AoR. Authors must separately demonstrate the risk
factors associated with IPV for men and then for women. The last statement looks incomplete
on P2,L27.
Background:
On P3, L11-12: Authors need to further explain why male victims of IPV are less likely to be
reported. This may be influenced by culture in most African countries, I agree low prevalence
of IPV among the men is not directly mean that is actual low, the authors need to provide more
explanation in Rwanda context.
Methodology:
P 4, L27-27: DHS data is for both men and women, “The data is based on nationally
representative surveys of women of reproductive age” this statement is not correct, please revise.
Authors must be consistent for example on P5, L25-26, they said that “The ages of the women
were included as a categorical variable with the following ranges: 15-24, 25-34, and 35-49 for
women, and 15-24, 25-34, 35-49, and 50 and above for men” while P6, L5 said that “man’s age
(15-24, 25-34, and 35-49)”. Which one is correct?. The same inconstant is reported in results
table 1 (Partner’s age) where 12.9% women are aged 50 and above, how this possible while only
women in reproductive age were included in the analysis.
Results:
Table1: I do not see the role of having Totals under each variable while the number (N) did not
change across all variables. I suggest removing totals. I also suggest to indicate n(%)  for each
variable indicator, this applies to all tables.
In table 2: use 3 decimals for p-values
Title: Trends and correlates of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victimization in Rwanda: Results
from the 2015 and 2020 Rwanda Demographic Health Survey (RDHS 2015 and 2020)
Version: 2 Date: 21 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Elisabbete Silva
Reviewer's report:
The study approaches IPV in a clear and objective way, bringing a differential for evaluating
the violence suffered by men as well.
ABSTRACT
It is well structured and written in a concise and easy-to-read form. However, I suggest going
into more detail on the methods.
Regarding the results, confidence intervals (CI) were not included. What is AOR? It's Adjusted
Odds Ratios? The acronym needs to be described when used the first time.
INTRODUCTION
It presents the study problem in a concise and well-structured manner, placing the significance of
the study based on relevant and updated literature. Defines the objectives of the study adequately.
However, some adjustments are needed.
• Page 3 - First paragraph: as the references in the journal are numerical, the Ellsberg et al. 2014
reference must also be numerical and is not in the reference list. The World Health Organization
(2010) reference is also not included in the reference list and must also be placed numerically.
• Page 3 - Second paragraph: The authors put a WHO sentence but cite references numbers 1
and 9 which are not from the WHO. I suggest putting the original WHO reference or putting
the results of references 1 and 9.
• Page 4 - First paragraph:
o The numerical order of the references was not followed. From reference 13, reference 16 is
already placed.
o A sentence should not begin as follows: “According to Article 16 of the...” You must enter
the author's name, for example: Dunkle et al. [16].
o The acronym GBV needs to be described in full in order to be used.
METHODS
Methods should be more detailed. I suggest further detailing the statistical analysis.
It is necessary to be clear why some variables have unfilled boxes.
In the multivariate analysis, does AOR mean adjusted odds ratio? If yes, which variables were
used as adjustment variables?
RESULTS
I found the tables confusing. Why doesn't Table 1 have a description of all the variables?
The variables of respondents and partners are very mixed. It is possible to put in the same table
all the variables of the women and after the partners.
• Page 13 - Second paragraph: I did not find the information of the following sentence in Table
1: “On the other hand, more than two-thirds of the women in the two samples were currently
working (see Table 1).”
• Page 14 - Third paragraph: Check the OR values because the values are different from what is
placed in Table 3. I suggest putting at the bottom of the table what the * means.
DISCUSSION
Discussion of results is reasonable. However, the advantages and limitations of the study and
the practical implications, both for women and men, were not presented.
REFERENCES
References are up to date and well organized, just check references 14 and 15 to put them in
the correct order.
Title: Trends and correlates of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victimization in Rwanda: Results
from the 2015 and 2020 Rwanda Demographic Health Survey (RDHS 2015 and 2020)
Version: 3 Date: 20 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Elisabbete Silva
Reviewer's report:
The authors considered the reviewers' suggestions. The changes made to the manuscript made
it more consistent and ready for publication.
Title: Menstrual Cycle Irregularity and Examination Stress Among Female Medical Students
at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
The authors said that 457 of female students aged 18–30 years were selected through stratified
random sampling but the results showed 450 students participated in the current study
Introduction
Deficient
The authors said at the end of the introduction that this study aimed to determine how
examination stress affects the menstrual cycle among female medical students in King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Is examination stress highlighted in the current manuscript?
Actually these menstrual irregularities can occur to all female students regardless of examination
stress
Methodology
Where is the formula for sample size calculation?
Where is the validation of the used questionnaire?
Results
Very weak and not fit the objectives of the current study
Remove "sales" from fig 1
48.2% of the students have menstrual irregularities not 48% in fig 1
Unequal class intervals of the age in Table (1)
Where are students in the 1st academic year in Table (1)
Definitions of menstrual irregularities shouldn’t be mentioned in Table (2). It should be
mentioned as operational definitions in the methodology
The number of students who have menstrual irregularities is 217 but the summation of these
irregularities is 559. This means that some students suffered from more than one menstrual
irregularity (more than one answer had been reported). This should be highlighted
Examples of premenstrual symptoms Such as mood swings, tender breasts, food cravings
shouldn’t be mentioned in Table 2
The summation of the medications used to relieve menstrual irregularities is 132 not 131
Is there a family history of menstrual irregularities in Table 2 : the number is 217 not 127
Table (4, 5, 6): statistically not right
No logistic regression analysis was done
Title: Menstrual Cycle Irregularity and Examination Stress Among Female Medical Students
at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Nouf A Alshamlan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper with the title: Menstrual Cycle Irregularity
and Examination Stress Among Female Medical Students at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia
The article is interesting. However, it needs a revision, especially in the method section.
I recommend some changes to improve the manuscript which is as follows:
1. Title: I suggest to modify the title to reflect the actual work. Such as: Menstrual Cycle
Irregularity during Examination Among Female Medical Students at King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2. Abstract
Results: must mention the associated factors here.
Conclusion: it is just a copy from the results section
2. introduction:
Kindly include more studies aiming to assess the associations between examination stress and
menstrual irregularities.
I suggest to modify the objective to reflect the actual work. Such as: This study aimed to
determine the menstrual cycle abnormalities during exams among female medical students in
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
3. Methods:
- The authors must mention more details about the study setting (King Abdulaziz University)/
- The authors mentioned here (Female medical students (n = 457) at King Abdelaziz university
participated in the study. Participants were all female medical students, in their second to sixth
years)
However, in the abstract they said (A total of 457 female students aged 18–30 years were selected
through stratified random sampling)
This must be clarified.
- How do the authors test the validity of the study tools used?
- what was the language used? If Arabic, How is translation conducted? Details must be
mentioned here.
- in statistical analysis (To assess the relationship between variables, qualitative data was
expressed as numbers and percentages, and the chi-squared test (#2) was used. Quantitative data
were expressed means and standard deviations (mean ± SD), and non-parametric variables were
tested using the Mann-Whitney (U) test.) Kindly revise this part
4. Results:
- The results did not answer the study objective; the authors did not assess examination stress. I
suggest to modify the objective according to the actual work as I mentioned previously.
- there are many variables about menstrual irregularity not clear for me how the authors asked
about in the survey. I suggest to add the questionnaire as a supplementary file
5. Discussion:
- Kindly make the appropriate modifications according to the previously mentioned comments
- kindly include in the limitations that you can not exclude some factors that may be a
confounder, for eg: the authors did not ask about the usual menstrual pattern of the participant,
the other habits during the exam period that may have effects on the cycle such as: lack of
exercise, caffeine intake, sleeping problems,…etc.
6. The paper requires English editing.
I hope that this information is useful to the editors and authors.
Title: Menstrual Cycle Irregularity and Examination Stress Among Female Medical Students
at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Version: 4 Date: 20 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Nouf A Alshamlan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised paper with the title: Menstrual Cycle
Irregularity and Examination Stress Among Female Medical Students at King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
The article is interesting. It is much improved than before. I have one minor comment
- The authors must mention more details about the study setting (King Abdulaziz University)
in the methods section
- (Medical education in KAU is about six years divided into two stages after freshman year. 2nd
and 3rd year are basic sciences medicine. 4th, 5th, and 6th are clinical, and students learn by
attending with physicians in a hospital setting.)
I suggest moving this statement from discussion into the methods section.
Title: Menstrual Cycle Irregularity and Examination Stress Among Female Medical Students
at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Version: 4 Date: 21 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for responding to the comments
Just remove the Equation for sample size calculation because you already used this program
(online Raosoft sample size calculator) for sample size calculation
Check reference 29 : it should refer to Raosoft sample size calculator
Title: Identification of cervical squamous cell carcinoma feature genes and construction of a
prognostic model based on immune-related features
Version: 1 Date: 10 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a study of immune-related genes in cervical squamous cell carcinoma subtypes, in which
comprehensive bioinformatics analysis was did to identify and construct prognostic model based
on immune-related genes of CSCC. This is an interesting and hot topic currently, which would
have great potential in the treatment and prognosis of cervical cancer.
There are several suggestions listed below:
1. It was stated in the Introduction section that Li et al.(reference 09 in the current
manuscript: doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-4085.) which is also about the tumor immune
microenvironment of squamous cell carcinoma(including CSCC and other SCCs) based on
TCGA database, I assume that the current study have advantages compared to the previous
one. Then, I am wondering what are the main advantages of the current study? This could be
discussed in the Discussion section so that readers could understand better.
2. I suggest revise the Introduction to make it more concise.
3. The 1st paragraph in the Discussion section, more discussion about immunotherapy in cervical
cancer instead of immunotherapy in other tumors might be more appropriate.
4. It would be interesting to do further clinical validation . I am wondering whether the clinical
validation be in the next study plan?
Title: Identification of cervical squamous cell carcinoma feature genes and construction of a
prognostic model based on immune-related features
Version: 1 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting topic in gynecologic oncology field.
But I have some concerns about this manuscript e.g.
1. There are many specific term related to molecular used as a result of reading difficulty.
2. The primary objective of this study is unclear. Consequently, adequate sample size calculation
should be defined.
3. ESTIMATE analysis/ score/algorithm should be explained in part of introduction.
4. Correlation among molecular subtypes, CSCC expression, co-expression network, and
immune-related traits should be described.
5. Why did this study use three immune subtypes? (be explained by scientific reference, clinical
important)
6. Abstract of this study should be revised to decrease level of difficulty to read.
7. Multivariate survival analysis should be included some significant clinical prognostic factors
such as FIGO staging, primary treatment, tumor size, and underlying disease.
Title: Identification of cervical squamous cell carcinoma feature genes and construction of a
prognostic model based on immune-related features
Version: 3 Date: 07 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
- This revised manuscript is written well and more easy to read.
- Previous studies from  "Colombo, Nicoletta, et al. "Pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent,
or metastatic cervical cancer." New England Journal of Medicine 385.20 (2021): 1856-1867."
may be added in introduction part.
Title: Prevalence of chronic pelvic pain and primary dysmenorrhea in women of reproductive
age in Ecuador
Version: 1 Date: 26 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
1.English writing of the manuscritpt is not of publication quality and requires improvements in
terms of removing major and minor errors  and improving style.
2. Discussion section is the most important part of the manuscript in which the purpose and
objective of the article needs to be reiterated.
3. Authors have suggested that 'only a quarter of women with the disease use contraceptives,
which can relieve symptoms and potentially prevent the progression of the condition or future
deleterious associations' (line no 367-368). cite reference for this
Title: Prevalence of chronic pelvic pain and primary dysmenorrhea in women of reproductive
age in Ecuador
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The article is interesting and well written but needs some adjustments.
1. Modality of the first diagnosis of CPP is not specified in the text. It should be adequately
reported to let the reader understand the true first inclusion criteria.
2. Presence or absence of menstrual cycles should be reported. There could be patients with
premature ovarian failure not specified in the text.
3. How long was the data collection? How much time the authors needed to include this number
of patients?
4. Line 149: random  procedure is not explained.
5. Why did you use 4% as the value of prevalence in sample size analysis? I suppose it is the
prevalence of another study.
6.  Line 177: how were the re-interviewed patients selected?
7. From line 206 to 208 correct template should be used.
8. References for definition of dyspareunia (line 225) and abnormal menstrual pattern (line 226)
are missing.
9. Methods section should be reviewed to allow a better understanding of study construction.
Some paragraphs could be mixed together (for example, Participant Eligibility Criteria could be
mixed with Study design and Variables ).
10. Article needs proper bibliography style (numbers for each reference).
11. Legends of tables are not reported nor detailed.
Title: Prevalence of chronic pelvic pain and primary dysmenorrhea in women of reproductive
age in Ecuador
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. The article abstract is well presented.
2. Introduction  has been well explained by the need to do the work.
3. Flowcharts related to participants in the method are added.
4. Explain the validity and reliability of the tools used in the method.