JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Reviewer's□report 
□Oral□contraceptive□use□before□first□birth□and□risk□of□breast□cancer:□A□case□control□study Title: 
Authors: 
Elina□MD,DrPh□Hemminki□( elina.hemminki@stakes.fi )
Tapio□MSc□Luostarinen□( tapio.luostarinen@cancer.fi )
Eero□PhD□Pukkala□( eero.pukkala@cancer.fi )
Dan□MD,PhD□Apter□( dan.apter@vaestoliitto.fi )
Timo□ScD□Hakulinen□( timo.hakulinen@cancer.fi )
□2□ □11□Mar□2002 Version: Date: 
□Dr□Aluisio□J□D□Barros Reviewer: 
□A□paper□whose□findings□are□important□to□those□with□closely□related□research□interests Level□of□interest: 
□Accept□without□revision Advice□on□publication: 
The□revised□version□of□the□paper□has□shown□considerable□improvement.□It's□clearer,□and□adresses□ 
directly□and□honestly□limitations□the□study□carries.□I□believe□it's□ready□for□publishing.□The□reader□should□ 
bear□in□mind,□however,□that□this□is□tiny□piece□of□information□in□a□complex□puzzle,□where□a□large□number□ 
of□researchers□have□tried□to□unveil□the□relationship□between□use□of□oral□contraceptives□and□breast□ 
cancer. 
Competing□interests: 
None□declared.
Reviewer's□report 
□Oral□contraceptive□use□before□first□birth□and□risk□of□breast□cancer:□A□case□control□study Title: 
Authors: 
Elina□MD,DrPh□Hemminki□( elina.hemminki@stakes.fi )
Tapio□MSc□Luostarinen□( tapio.luostarinen@cancer.fi )
Eero□PhD□Pukkala□( eero.pukkala@cancer.fi )
Dan□MD,PhD□Apter□( dan.apter@vaestoliitto.fi )
Timo□ScD□Hakulinen□( timo.hakulinen@cancer.fi )
□3□ □18□Jul□2002 Version: Date: 
Reviewer: 
□not□specified Level□of□interest: 
□Accept□without□revision Advice□on□publication: 
I've□read□the□revised□version□of□the□manuscript,□and□it□fully□satisfies□my□previous□comments.□I□have□no□ 
further□reservations□or□suggestions.□In□my□view,□it□deserves□pubblication□on□BioMed□Central□in□its□ present□version.□ 
Competing□interests: 
None□declared.
Reviewer's□report 
□Investigation□of□KIT□gene□mutations□in□women□with□46,XX□spontaneous□premature□ovarian□failure Title: 
Authors: 
Kyoko□Shibanuma□( ShibanumaK@aol.com )
Zhi-Bin□Tong□( TongZ@cc1.nichd.nih.gov )
Vien□H□Vanderhoof□( VanderhV@mail.nih.gov )
Konstantina□Vanevski□( Vanevski@mail.nih.gov )
Lawrence□M□Nelson□( Lawrence_Nelson@nih.gov )
□1□ □21□Jun□2002 Version: Date: 
□Nanette□Santoro Reviewer: 
□A□paper□whose□findings□are□important□to□those□with□closely□related□research□interests Level□of□interest: 
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication: 
The□authors□have□performed□a□preliminary□analysis□of□42□women□with□premature□ovarian□failure.□They□ 
have□specifically□looked□for□mutations□in□the□KIT□gene,□based□upon□animal□data□tnat□has□associated□ 
mutations□of□this□gene□with□a□severe□reproductive□phenotype.□The□data□imply□that□mutations□in□the□KIT□ 
gene□are□unlikely□to□be□a□common□cause□of□premature□ovarian□failure.□ 
1.□The□authors□did□not□study□the□regulatory□regions□of□the□KIT□gene□and□they□correctly□point□out□that□ 
mutations□that□would□affect□KIT□regulation□cannot□be□identified□by□this□study.□ 
2.□It□is□interesting□that□two□women□who□had□'no□known□karyotypic□abnormality'□(as□discussed□under□ 
'Subjects')□had□partial□monosomy□of□the□X□chromosome.□Subject□selection□is□somewhat□unclear.□Were□ 
women□screened□with□a□karyotype□prior□to□enrolling□in□this□study?□Were□only□20□cells□counted□in□these□ 
karyotypes?□If□so,□it□may□be□important□for□the□authors□to□point□out□the□usefulness□of□careful□cytogenetic□ 
screening□in□women□with□premature□ovarian□failure.□ 
Competing□interests: 
None□declared.
Reviewer's report
 Investigation of KIT gene mutations in women with 46,XX spontaneous premature ovarian failure Title:
Authors:
Kyoko Shibanuma (ShibanumaK@aol.com )
Zhi-Bin Tong (TongZ@cc1.nichd.nih.gov )
Vien H Vanderhoof (VanderhV@mail.nih.gov )
Konstantina Vanevski (Vanevski@mail.nih.gov )
Lawrence M Nelson (Lawrence_Nelson@nih.gov )
 7  19 Jul 2002 Version: Date:
 Dr Andrew Shelling Reviewer:
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
 Accept without revision Advice on publication:
I have read over the response by Dr Nelson, and I am happy with the changes 
that he has suggested. I am happy for this publication to go ahead with 
BioMed Central. 
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 ARE WOMEN AND PROVIDERS SATISFIED WITH ANTENATAL CARE? Views on a standard Title:
and a simplified, evidence-based model of care in four developing countries
Authors:
Ana Langer (alanger@popcouncil.org.mx )
Jose Villar (villarj@who.ch )
Mariana Romero (mromero@cedes.org )
Gustavo Nigenda (gnigenda@funsalud.org.mx )
Gilda Piaggio (piaggiog@who.ch )
Muneera Al Osimi (mun16@hotmail.com )
Georgina Rojas (rojas@infomed.sld.cu )
Muneera Al-Osimi (mun16@hotmail.com )
Jose Belizan (belizanj@clap.ops-oms.org )
Ubaldo Farnot (farnot@infomed.sld.cu )
Yagob Al-Mazrou (yalmazrou@hotmail.com )
Guillermo Carroli (gcarroli@crep.org.ar )
Hassan Ba'aqeel (hassanbaaqeel@hotmail.com )
Pisake Lumbiganon (pisake@kk1.kku.ac.th )
Alan Pinol (pinola@who.ch )
Per Bergsjo (p-bergsj@online.no )
Leiv Bakketeig (arosenkrantz@health.sdu.dk )
Jo Garcia (jo.garcia@perinat.ox.ac.uk )
 2  8 Jul 2002 Version: Date:
 Dr A Handler Reviewer:
 not specified Level of interest:
 Other (see below) Advice on publication:
I think the paper is greatly improved but I am still concerned that the author's do not link their work to 
much of the prior work on satisfaction with prenatal care. They seem to only be grounding their findings 
in research trials that used a similar study design. This seems very incomplete to me. Here is a list of references on women's satisfaction with prenatal care at least some of which I would expect to see referred to in a current article on women's satisfaction with prenatal care. There needs to be more 
attention to prior work on measurement of women's satisfaction with prenatal care and to previous 
findings about the relationship between satisfaction and other care characteristic variables (e.g., time spent with provider, waiting time. (They do include Handler et al., 1996). The following articles all link various care characteristics to 
satisfaction (Sullivan and Beeman; 1982; Shear et al., 1983; Flynn, 1985; Lazarus and Philipson, 1990; 
Martin, 1990; Oakley, 1991; Beech and Ruzek, 1992; Graveley and Littlefield, 1992; Kelley et al., 1992; Brown and Lumley, 1993; Omar and Schiffman,1995; Handler et al, 1996; Handler et al, 1998). 
This article would be strengthened by a demonstration that they have examined the general satisfaction 
with prenatal care literature and show how their findings compared to prior findings in this area.
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's□report 
□Pulse□pressure□and□age□at□menopause Title: 
Authors: 
Riitta□Luoto□( riitta.luoto@uta.fi )
A□Richey□Sharrett□( SharretR@nhlbi.nih.gov )
Marsha□Eigenbrodt□( meigenbrodt@HealthyArkansas.com )
Donna□Arnett□( arnett@epi.umn.edu )
□2□ □31□Jan□2002 Version: Date: 
□Jan□Staessen Reviewer: 
□A□paper□whose□findings□are□important□to□those□with□closely□related□research□interests Level□of□interest: 
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication: 
Luoto□and□colleagues□reported□that□early□age□at□menopause□may□be□related□to□greater□ 
increase□in□arterial□stiffness.□ 1.□I□would□suggest□changing□the□order□in□which□the□results□are□reported,□starting□with□the□ data□based□on□recalled□age□of□menopause□at□enrolment□in□the□ARIC□Study□(Table□2),□then□ 
the□last□paragraph□of□page□9,□and□finally□the□prospective□pulse□pressure□changes□by□age□ 
group□(Table□1).□This□is□also□the□order□in□which□the□authors□summarize□their□findings□in□ the□first□paragraph□of□the□Discussion.□ 2.□The□results□reported□in□the□last□paragraph□of□page□9□are□not□easily□understood.□I□would□ 
suggest□that□these□results□are□also□tabulated.□The□pressure□on□publication□space□is□not□so□ 
high□for□electronic□publications.□The□authors□should□also□explicitly□state□how□the□results□ reported□in□the□last□paragraph□of□page□9□differ□from□those□reported□in□the□last□paragraph□of□ page□8□(Table□2).□How□many□women□were□included□in□the□analysis□reported□in□the□last□ 
paragraph□on□page□9?□ 
3.□I□believe□that□the□authors□should□run□an□electronic□literature□search□to□better□identify□what□ has□been□published□before□either□as□observational□studies□or□as□intervention□trials□(see□for□ instance□reference□list□of□J.□Hum.□Hypertens.□2001;□15:511-15).□ 
4.□It□might□be□helpful□if□the□authors□in□the□interpretation□of□their□findings□against□the□back□ground□of□the□ 
literature,□could□make□a□distinction□between□functional□and□structural□ changes□of□the□large□arteries□occurring□after□(early)□menopause.□ 
Competing□interests: 
None□declared.
Reviewer's□report 
□Pulse□pressure□and□age□at□menopause Title: 
Authors: 
Riitta□Luoto□( riitta.luoto@uta.fi )
A□Richey□Sharrett□( SharretR@nhlbi.nih.gov )
Marsha□Eigenbrodt□( meigenbrodt@HealthyArkansas.com )
Donna□Arnett□( arnett@epi.umn.edu )
□2□ □11□Feb□2002 Version: Date: 
□Dr□Angelo□Scuteri Reviewer: 
□A□paper□whose□findings□are□important□to□those□with□closely□related□research□interests Level□of□interest: 
□Unable□to□decide□on□acceptance□or□rejection□until□the□authors□have□responded□ Advice□on□publication: 
to□the□compulsory□revisions 
The□manuscript□deals□with□a□very□interesting□topic□and□has□an□original□ 
approach□to□the□issue□of□the□relationship□between□postmenopausal□period□and□ increased□risk□for□CV□disease.□ 
However,□there□are□some□aspects□deserving□further□attention.□ 
Compulsory□revisions□ 
Methods:□p□6□1st□par:□pulse□pressure□is□not□only□affected□by□ 
antihypertensive□medications□but□by□hypertension□per□se,□too.□ 
Results□last□5□ll□1st□par:□longitudinally□a□significant□relationship□between□ 
changes□in□PP□and□age□at□baseline.□So□is□there□a□squared□relationship□with□ 
age?□Alternatively,□is□this□due□to□the□increasing□incidence□and□prevalence□ of□hypertensive□condition□with□aging?□ 
Discusssion□p10:□further□analyses□are□suggested□to□better□understand□the□ 
relevance□of□the□conclusion□outlined□in□the□first□paragraph□of□the□ discussion.□If□the□analyses□had□already□been□performed,□it□looks□worthy□to□ mention□their□output;□if□not,□they□should□be□preformed.□ 
a-□what□happens□if□PP□changes□are□expressed□as□%□from□the□baseline□rather□ 
than□as□absolute□values?□This□approach□may□help□to□"adjust"□for□the□ potential□confounding□coming□from□different□prevalence□of□hypertensive□ subjects□in□different□age□groups□(see□also□comment□about□the□Result□ 
abovementioned).□ 
b-□What□happens□if□age□at□menopause□is□introduced□into□the□model□as□a□ continuous□variable,□rather□than□as□categorical□one?□ c-□What□happens□if□normotensive□and□hypertensive□subjects□are□analysed□ 
separately?□ 
Discretionary□revisions:□ 
Abstract:□verbage□last□paragraph□of□the□Results□ 
Intro□p□3□ll□8-10□more□than□"disappearance",□"closing□the□gap□of□the□ 
gender□difference□in□arterial□stiffness□after□age□50"□seems□more□ 
appropriate.□ 
Competing□interests: 
None□declared.
Reviewer's report
 Pulse pressure and age at menopause Title:
Authors:
Riitta Luoto (riitta.luoto@uta.fi )
A Richey Sharrett (SharretR@nhlbi.nih.gov )
Marsha Eigenbrodt (meigenbrodt@HealthyArkansas.com )
Donna Arnett (arnett@epi.umn.edu )
 3  24 Apr 2002 Version: Date:
 Dr Angelo Scuteri Reviewer:
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded Advice on publication:
to the compulsory revisions
Briefly, I am very interested in the topic of the manuscript submitted to my revision. However, I do not 
think it is so impressive in the present form nor that my former questions have beenn addressed. 
The Authors have been so kind to enclose a detailed list of their additional analyse: none has been 
mentioned in the revised version of the manuscript. 
Of course my opinion is just one among million of opinions and not necessarily is the most prominent, 
but I did not ask for additional analyses just to give troubles to teh Authors. 
More in details, 
- the bibliography has been extended: very good. May I suggest to include also the longitudinal study we
recently published on Annals of Internal Medicine? 
- point 3 ("New analyses..."proportional approach"..):the issue does not look addressed in any part of 
the revised manuscript. Tables N3 adn N4 analyzed NT and HT separately, thus not accounting for 
different prevalence of HT with aging since the NT and HT population were kept separated. 
- "Table N2: results do not differ from the conslusion based on absolute values": looking at both Tables 
N2 and N5, it seems that %change is similar, whereas absolut change differs. 
- Tables N3 and N4: agegroups are categorized differently from other Tables. 
- Table N4: is the ffect observed driven by age group 53-55 yrs only? that's what appears. 
- Table N5: comparison has been made within age groups of NT and HT separately. No formal analyses
have been done concerning the potential interaction of HT (an interaction term? an ANCOVA analysis?)
In conclusion, I hope the manuscript can be accepted with a further revision. It is not ready for 
publication in the present form. 
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 Pulse pressure and age at menopause Title:
Authors:
Riitta Luoto (riitta.luoto@uta.fi )
A Richey Sharrett (SharretR@nhlbi.nih.gov )
Marsha Eigenbrodt (meigenbrodt@HealthyArkansas.com )
Donna Arnett (arnett@epi.umn.edu )
 4  21 Jun 2002 Version: Date:
 Dr Angelo Scuteri Reviewer:
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
 Accept without revision Advice on publication:
in my opinion the manuscript is acceptable in the present version.
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 Representation of women's health in general medical versus women's health specialty journals: A Title:
content analysis
Authors:
Jocalyn P Clark (j.clark@utoronto.ca )
Georgina D Feldberg (ginaf@yorku.ca )
Paula A Rochon (paula.rochon@utoronto.ca )
 1  11 Jun 2002 Version: Date:
 Dr Florence Haseltine Reviewer:
 A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:
 Accept after discretionary revisions Advice on publication:
The paper adds to the literature of how women's health is viewed. It is important to keep this type of 
article in the public arenae becasue not enough scientists are examining the sex difference data seriously.
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's□report 
□Prescribing□patterns□in□premenstrual□syndrome Title: 
Authors: 
Katrina□M□Wyatt□Dr□( k.m.wyatt@ex.ac.uk )
Paul□W□Dimmock□Dr□( oga03@keele.ac.uk )
Martin□M□Frischer□Dr□( m.frischer@keele.ac.uk )
Peter□W□Jones□Professor□( p.w.jones@maths.keele.ac.uk )
Shaughn□PM□O'Brien□professor□( sharoncammillare@hotmail.com )
□1□ □22□Apr□2002 Version: Date: 
□Dr□Ellen□Freeman Reviewer: 
□A□paper□of□considerable□general□medical□or□scientific□interest Level□of□interest: 
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication: 
This□is□a□data-based□analysis□of□prescribing□patterns□for□PMS□in□Britain□ 
for□the□years□1993-98.□One□of□the□main□messages□is□surprising□--□that□ 
prescriptions□for□the□disorder□declined□by□half□in□the□studied□interval.□ 
The□report□clearly□shows□that□progesterone□continues□to□be□the□primary□ 
prescription□for□PMS□in□spite□of□lack□of□evidence□for□its□efficacy□in□ 
randomized□controlled□trials.□The□report□is□clearly□written□and□provides□ 
useful□information□for□researchers□in□women's□health□and□clinicians□who□ 
treat□PMS.□ 
Addressing□the□following□comments□would□clarify□material□that□is□unclear:□ 
*□Why□was□the□particular□time□period□chosen?□Was□there□any□advantage□or□ 
disadvantage□to□the□years□selected?□Were□the□years□after□1998□unavailable?□ 
*□p□5,□para□2:□clarify□the□time□period□for□the□survey□of□ref□#7.□It□needs□ 
to□be□clear□that□surveys□were□done□in□years□prior□to□the□current□ information□on□efficacy.□ 
*□p□8,□statistical□analysis.□Please□provide□sufficient□information□to□ 
understand□the□analysis□that□was□used.□ 
*□p□9,□line□3:□this□appears□to□mean□the□total□GRRD□female□population,□but□ 
it□is□unclear□what□the□population□is□and□needs□to□be□clarified.□ 
*□Can□the□authors□comment□in□the□discussion□about□the□large□increase□in□ 
dydrogesterone?□What□affected□this,□etc?□ 
*□p□13,□para□1.□It□would□seem□important□to□include□the□published□meta□ 
analysis□of□progesterone□and□further□emphasize□the□evidence□for□lack□of□ 
efficacy.□ 
*□p□14,□end□of□para□1.□Can□the□authors□comment□further□on□the□repeat□ 
pattern□for□SSRIs,□which□were□only□more□recently□prescribed?□ 
*□p□15,□line□3.□Please□provide□information□on□what□the□concerns□are.□ 
*□Figure□2:□cannot□distinguish□the□progesterone□and□MPA□bars.□ 
*□Table□1.□Please□provide□the□full□name□rather□than□abbreviation□for□BNF□ 
and□MIMS□in□the□headers.□ 
Competing□interests: 
None□declared.
Reviewer's report
 Prescribing patterns in premenstrual syndrome Title:
Authors:
Katrina M Wyatt Dr (k.m.wyatt@ex.ac.uk )
Paul W Dimmock Dr (oga03@keele.ac.uk )
Martin M Frischer Dr (m.frischer@keele.ac.uk )
Peter W Jones Professor (p.w.jones@maths.keele.ac.uk )
Shaughn PM O'Brien professor (sharoncammillare@hotmail.com )
 1  14 May 2002 Version: Date:
 Prof John Studd Reviewer:
 not specified Level of interest:
 Other (see below) Advice on publication:
I think this paper is very good and advise you to publish it.
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 Effects of long-term moderate exercise and increase in number of daily steps on serum lipids in Title:
women
Authors:
Hiroko Sugiura (hirokos@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Haruo Sugiura (sugiura@gifu-pu.ac.jp )
kazue Kajima (kajima@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Seyed M Mirbod (mirbod@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Hirotoshi Iwata (eisei@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Tosio Matsuoka (matsuoka@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
 1  6 Oct 2001 Version: Date:
 Dr David C. Nieman Reviewer:
 A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:
 Accept after revision, which I do not need to see Advice on publication:
Subjects were randomized into exercise and control groups, with lipids/lipoproteins monitored 5 times 
over 
2 years. HDL-C increased and TC:HDL-C decreased in the exercise group relative to controls. These are interesting data, and I have just a few recommendations: MAJOR 
1. I feel the data should be analyzed using a 2x5 repeated measures ANOVA, with significant 
interaction effects noted. Group comparisons at a certain time points should be made using a t-test with a Bonferroni correction for multiple measures. The results section should be rewritten to express 
the interaction data. 
MINOR 1. Abstract: Check results section (HDL-C was increased compared to controls). 2. Check grammar and sentence structure throughout paper -- should be rewritten. 
3. Discussion: emphasize weaknesses of design in discussion (small subject numbers, lack of dietary 
control (or measurement of diet). 
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 Effects of long-term moderate exercise and increase in number of daily steps on serum lipids in Title:
women
Authors:
Hiroko Sugiura (hirokos@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Haruo Sugiura (sugiura@gifu-pu.ac.jp )
kazue Kajima (kajima@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Seyed M Mirbod (mirbod@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Hirotoshi Iwata (eisei@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
Tosio Matsuoka (matsuoka@cc.gifu-u.ac.jp )
 1  12 Nov 2001 Version: Date:
 Dr Tommi Vasankari Reviewer:
 A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:
 Other (see below) Advice on publication:
Major comment 
1) This study investigated the effects of 24-mo exercise intervention on lipids in menopausal women. 
The major diffuculty in thsi study is the low number of the subjects. The low number of subjects would be all right if the status of menopause would be the same in all patients, now it varied a lot. And the results should be presented as subgroups aggording the chanhe of menopause stage, but the number 
is not high enough. 
Minor comments 
1) In abstract age was first mentioned as 40-60 y then 2) In abstract TC was mentioned in results twice 
to be unchanged 
3) Page 3: minuets sould be minutes 
4) Page 7: Why TG and LDLC wa analysed only in 8 subjects in exercise group and all other parameter 
for 14 subjects?
Competing interests:
None declared.
Reviewer's report
 Laparoscopic management of fallopian tube prolapse masquerading as adenocarcinoma of the Title:
vagina in a hysterectomized woman
Authors:
Mustafa Kucuk (mustafakucuk@trakya.edu.tr )
 1  2 Jan 2002 Version: Date:
 Dr Vorapong Phupong Reviewer:
 A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
 Accept after discretionary revisions Advice on publication:
This case report is interesting because it is rare. 
This article will be more valuable if the author adds the recent references, i.e., Aust NZ J Obstet 
Gynaecol 2001;41:106-8, J Reprod Med 1988;33:467-9, J Reprod Med 1996;44:915-20, South Med J 
1999;92:963-6. 
Abstract section, 
Conclusions part: 
The words "should be" should be deleted from the sentence "The abdominal or vaginal approach should
be...." 
Background section, 
The 2nd paragraph: The word "oophorectomy" should be used instead of "oopherectomy" 
Case Presentation section, 
The 1st paragraph: The words "A 39-year-old woman" should be used instead of "A 39 year old woman". The word "salpingo-oophorectomy" should be used instead of "salpingo-oopherectomy". 
The sentence "Acute and chronic inflammation were present" should be used instead of "Acute and 
chronic inflammation was present". 
Method section, 
The sentence "Simultaneous vaginal and standard laparoscopic technique with additional puncture in 
the suprapubic region and at McBurney's point were used because of cystic appearance of the right ovary" should be used instead of "Simultaneous vaginal and standard laparoscopic technique with additional puncture in the supra pubic region and at Mc Burney's point because of cystic appearance of 
the right ovary were used". 
The words "in on" should be deleted from the sentence "Thick and thin pelvic adhesions....mesosalpinx." The words "....sharp dissection, freed..." should be used instead of "...sharp dissection free..." in the 
sentence "We made an elliptical incision.....and ovary." 
Discussion section, 
The 2nd paragraph: 
The author should discuss the factor contribute to FTP in this case if it is possible. 
The sentence "FTP after vaginal hysterectomy is more common than abdominal hysterectomy ( )." should be added in the last sentence. 
The 3rd paragraph: 
The word "present" should be used instead of "our". The word "salpingo -oophorectomy" should be used instead of "salpingo -oopherectomy". The author should provide the pathological result of the right fallopian tube and ovary if it is possible. 
References section, 
The author should add more recent references. 
Competing interests:
Non declared