JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Biological rhythms in premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder: A
systematic review
Version: 4 Date: 22 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to review the article “Biological rhythms in premenstrual syndrome and
premenstrual dysphoric disorder: A systematic review,” which summarizes recent data on
biological rhythms in PMS/PMDD. The authors found that across studies, participants with
PMS/PMDD had lower melatonin levels, elevated nighttime core body temperature, and worse
subjective perception of sleep quality compared to healthy controls. This is a well-written review
in an understudied area, and will be a useful addition to the literature. It would benefit from edits
detailed below, namely including more detail on which menstrual cycle phase was assessed in
each study, but is otherwise a strong manuscript.
Introduction
-The introduction is well written and provides good background.
-Regarding prevalence figures for PMDD, there is longstanding evidence suggesting 3-8%,
as the authors cite. However, there was a recent study in the Journal of Affective Disorders
that found a pooled prevalence of 3.2 % for confirmed PMDD, 7.7 % for provisional PMDD
diagnosis, but a point prevalence in community-based samples using confirmed diagnosis of
PMDD at 1.6 %. How do these prevalence rates fit with those presented by the authors?
-The information about suicidality in PMDD is important to acknowledge. For the figures of 7x
higher risk of suicide attempts, 4x more likely to exhibit suicidal ideation, is this compared to
healthy female controls?
-The authors mention that there is disruption in biological rhythms in other mood disorders. It
would be useful to include a few examples of this for comparison, perhaps in major depression
and/or bipolar disorder.
Results
-Throughout the results, the authors present data comparing people with PMS/PMDD to
controls. However, it is rarely mentioned in what phase of the menstrual cycle these outcomes
were assessed. Given that people with PMS/PMDD are symptomatic in the luteal phase, but
asymptomatic in the follicular, it seems possible that physiologic parameters could look different
between controls and PMS/DD participants when compared in the follicular phase versus the
luteal phase; perhaps there would be no or smaller differences in the follicular phase than the
luteal phase, where between-group differences might be more pronounced. This might explain
why in some studies, there were no differences between groups but in other studies there were
significant differences. If data is available for any of the studies on what phase of the menstrual
cycle the controls and PMS/DD participants were compared it would be useful for the authors
to include this. I would even recommend that the authors add this as a column in Table 1 (e.g.
Phase(s) in which outcomes were assessed) to easily summarize this information.
Limitations
-Similar to the comment above, the authors should mention in the limitations that some articles
(perhaps even including the number and percent) did not differentiate between follicular and
luteal phases, which could have obscured results.
Title: Biological rhythms in premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder: A
systematic review
Version: 5 Date: 23 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I am happy to review “Biological rhythms in premenstrual syndrome
and premenstrual
dysphoric disorder: A systematic review"". The authors have done well by adequately addressing
the concerns raised by both reviewers 1 and 2 which was shown by the point by point responses.
The reviewed manuscript is sound and provides important information in an understudied area.
This systematic review meet best practices by utilizing robust search platforms, established
scientific procedures/methods and quality assessment.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should take note of errors in some places like the use of )) and Inconsistent
referencing style. Some references were written with information on where and when it was
accessed while others weren't.
I recommend that the authors should go through the manuscript and reconcile these few errors.
Additionally, authors should ensure that prolactin is designated PRL at first mention."
Title: Biological rhythms in premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder: A
systematic review
Version: 6 Date: 23 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to the concerns raised, and
have made corresponding changes in the manuscript. The manuscript is well written, following
appropriate scientific techniques and methods, with significant contribution to scientific
knowledge on Biological rhythms in premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric
disorder
Title: Survey on adverse events associated with drug therapy for breast cancer patients
Version: 1 Date: 20 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript reviews the results of a clinical study which questioned patients, with a past
history of breast cancer, about toxicities they experienced and wanted to know about.  Multiple
questions were asked regarding these symptoms.  The following critique is provided.
The following statement is unclear to this reviewer:   AEs with less frequently identified
solutions included neuropathy (20.3%), financial anxiety (21.6%), edema (24.3%), joint pain
(26.0%), and fatigue (26.7%).
The following two statements, from the "discussion section", seem like they might better fit in
the “results section":
1) The percentage of patients who found a solution to AE was as follows: 69.6% for constipation,
66.7% for nausea/vomiting, 58.9% for diarrhea, 55.6% for stomatitis, and 48.8% for fever, with
a higher trend for symptoms for which effective supportive care was available.
2) Patients whose employment status changed due to cancer experienced significantly more
financial anxiety than those whose employment status did not change (40.6% vs. 28.9%,
p=0.012), and the proportion of patients experiencing financial anxiety tended to increase with
a decrease in personal annual income.
Title: Survey on adverse events associated with drug therapy for breast cancer patients
Version: 1 Date: 02 Jul 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 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 language revision round to correct typos and improve readability.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the screening programs for prevention of
gynecological malignancies (see PMID: 38654319).
-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 existing literature on the topic and
future study perspectives.
- Discussions can be expanded and improved by citing relevant articles (I suggest authors read
and insert in references the following article PMID: 38497108)
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths of their study. It would be better
to explain these points.
Title: Associations between birthweight and preterm birth and the ages at menarche and
menopause
Version: 3 Date: 31 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
While the authors responded to the details of the prior review, the manuscript does not yet
provide insight and put the findings in context. Each row in each table and each result is treated
as equally informative. Some examples of these problems:
1. For example, the authors have added the reproductive window but missed the point about
what it means. What does the reproductive window mean vis a vis age at menarche or age at
menopause? If you model the window with the age at menarche or age at menopause, what
would it mean if only one is significant rather than both.  The authors need to think about the
results. The Discussion misses the point of these analyses entirely.
2. The authors stratified results on race/ethnicity and simply placed all the results in
Supplemental Tables. What did they find? What did it mean? If the results were similar across
all groups, then say so and discuss the implications. If there were differences, even if there is
not a statistically significant interaction, this would have implications for future studies.
3. The point in my prior review about trends in age at menarche and menopause is not adequately
addressed in the manuscript with regard to the meaning of the findings. Adding supplemental
tables without any discussion or reporting, even broadly, of the results does not address the issue.
4. The response regarding the difference between SES and education was not satisfactory. It
is helpful to have the definition but stating that WHI requires controlling for both variables is
inadequate. The revised manuscript still does not include the definition that is provided to the
reviewers.
5.
Minor points
1. Line 391 – “precipitating” should be “participating.”
Title: Cervical Cancer Screening Delay and Associated Factors among Women with HIV in
Lesotho: A Mixed-Methods Study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall a well-written article addressing a priority population for cervical cancer prevention in
LMICs - HIV-positive women. Important leveraging of a larger study to obtain quantitative data
using a large sample size , demonstrating screening rates lower than the WHO 70% targets.
See specific comments below
Methods
Line 126: Please define VICONEL
Results
Lines 179-181: Use of term screening vs testing
- We screen for cervical cancer rather than test for it. I would avoid using the word testing as
it suggests a positive test is indicative of cervical cancer. Consider using the term screening
consistently
Line 184: Homeworker – can you define what that is: works in the home? Could you tell the
difference between them and the unemployed?
Lines 187-188: “Most participants ….. had a recent suppressed viral load measurement within
2 years prior to VITAL enrolment.” Is it redundant to say recent and state within two years?
Consider the latter as it’s more accurate
Multivariate analysis:
- How did you decide to use the age 25-29 years as a reference group?
Figure 1: add HIV to ‘baseline viral load,’ clarify that it is serum viral load
Discussion
Lines 339 -343:
- You mention that your findings on the relationship between age and screening delays are in
contrast with the SA and Kenya studies that found women 35 years or older were more likely
to be screened. Did these studies look at the age 60 and above age group? Were the findings
of increased screening likelihood the same in the > 60 years age group compared to age 35-60
years? The findings may not necessarily be in contrast to your findings if the referenced studies
looked at the same age groups as you did. Please clarify this
Lines 343 – 345: “Our study’s findings could be explained by the target screening population
of the recommended Lesotho screening guidelines (screening onset when 25 years old or when
becoming sexually active). “
- Please clarify what you mean by this statement. Is it that because Lesotho’s screening
guidelines are to start at 25 years or when sexually active the reason you think you have the
findings you do? This is not clear.
- Of note, the Kenya cervical cancer guidelines for HIV+ women also state to start screening at
sexual debut for HIV+ women, so this isn’t quite accurate
Title: Cervical Cancer Screening Delay and Associated Factors among Women with HIV in
Lesotho: A Mixed-Methods Study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
I am satisfied with the response and the changes to the manuscript.
However, the authors seem to have misunderstood my comment R1C2. I mentioned adding
the phrase “in the” before “Lesotho trial” [Line 29-31], but the response addressed the word
“VITAL” instead. To clarify, I did not suggest any changes to the term “VITAL”, as I understand
it is a fixed name. My suggestion was to include the phrase “in the” before “Lesotho trial” to
improve clarity.
Furthermore, I suggest that the authors read through the manuscript one more time to address
any remaining grammar issues.
Title: Clinical outcomes analysis of image-guided brachytherapy as definitive treatment for
inoperable endometrial cancer
Version: 1 Date: 08 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is study to evaluate the effectiveness of IGBT +/- EBRT for
IOEC. The authors performed well in this work for 51 IOEC patients. However, this is only a
single-institution study.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. More details about the IGBT and EBRT should be given. 2. The authors should explain
why they did not conduct a multi-center study. 3. The authors need to explain why the patient
acquisition period is only up to 2021 but not 2023. 4. The authors should explain whether
carrying out IGBT with or without EBRT is better.
Title: Clinical outcomes analysis of image-guided brachytherapy as definitive treatment for
inoperable endometrial cancer
Version: 2 Date: 30 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I am satisfied with the modifications and changes from the authors
as per my comments. I found that they have addressed all my concerns.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The presentation and quality of this manuscript are improved.
Title: Diagnostic value and clinical significance of serum miR-134-5p combined with uterine
artery color Doppler ultrasound parameters in endometriosis
Version: 0 Date: 02 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
here are my suggestions:
1- a major English revision is requested
2- Please consider discussing more accurately the role of the gynaecologist, especially in the
early recognition and follow up of patients affected by the disease. This is superficially described
in the intro section (52-60) but may be ameliorated (https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020550).
3- method section needs revision. Please include subsection such as study design, outcomes, aim
of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics, and so on.
4- did you perform power analysis or the recruitment was performed by convenience?
5- What is the protocol number?
6- Why patients underwent laparoscopy? And who did perform surgery?
7- It is not clear: are you comparing a group composed of patients undergone surgery to another
group whose patients have not undergone surgery? This may be a huge bias
8- insert citation for rASRM staging
9- what do you mean with diagnostic criteria for endometriosis? Histological or
ultrasonographic? List the criteria.
10- what do you mean with uterine fluid?
11- consider discussing the impact of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life in the dedicated
section of the discussion (line 218-225: PMID: 22054310)
12- who did perform ultrasound? Expert sonographer? Same sonographer for all exams?
Title: Diagnostic value and clinical significance of serum miR-134-5p combined with uterine
artery color Doppler ultrasound parameters in endometriosis
Version: 0 Date: 24 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
dear
despite good overall merit I have some comments
-please revise language by native speaker
- add, along the list of complaints due to the disease, sexual  and pelvic floor dysfunctions which
are very frequent in these patients (doi 10.1080/0092623X.2019.1676852)
-please add some limitations to the proposed gold standard (diagnostic laparoscopy), since its
accuracy depends on surgical expertise and technical equipment (doi 10.1111/aogs.13866)
- was it a retrospective or prospective study? please clearly state this in the "Materials" section
- what do you mean with "previous uterine surgery"
- how many sonographers performed doppler ultrasound?
- add as limitation the low number of patients and possible retrospective design
Title: Cervical Cancer Screening Adoption Behaviours among Nigerian Women in Academics:
using a Health Belief Model
Version: 1 Date: 04 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
- How many women were the population target of questionnaire? How many invitations for the
questionnaire were sent and what was the percentage of respondent’s women?
- Should the Authors clarify the preventive actions against cervical cancer are available in
Nigeria? Because the too low prevalence of screening coverage (only 4% of women were
screened) suggests an issue in organization of screening activities, not only a low perception of
risk among population targets.
- I kindly suggest to the Authors to remove the results of questionnaire relative to table 3, given
the low number of interviewers: 15 subjects are not a significant result.
- A detailed section about the limitations of the study is needed.
- In the conclusion section, the Authors could mention about “innovative strategies that will
explore different service delivery options for larger coverage” the potential adoption of vaginal
self-sampling for the detection of HPV-DNA, as reported in previous studies [DOI: 10.3390/
healthcare10030459].
Title: Cervical Cancer Screening Adoption Behaviours among Nigerian Women in Academics:
using a Health Belief Model
Version: 1 Date: 04 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Mohammed Mohammed Manga
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much  for the efforts in putting up this manuscript. It is timely and highly
relevant especially  in the context of current efforts to eliminate cervical cancer globally . It is
particularly  imbued with a novel approach to  exploring the views and perceptions of women
in academia on screening for cervical cancer.
Please find below my comments and recommendations on the manuscript:
1. General comments:
Please review and correct all typographical and grammatical errors which are very few in some
sections of the manuscript.
2. Key words: The last key word should be more specific and could be written as "Nigerian
postgraduate female students" OR "Nigerian women in academics"
3. Introduction: Please specify  the method of cervical cancer screening in context. Are you
referring to "Pap" or HPV DNA or any other method? Could there any difference in the methods
especially as it relates to self sampling or specimen collection by a healthcare worker?  This
context should be highlighted in the background and be made reference to in all subsequent
sections as much as possible.  It forms the basis and could determine the variations in HBM
in this regard.
3. Methods: As highlighted above, the method(s) of screening in questions should guide the
methodology.
Results:
It might be better to use the term  "age at sexual debut" or "Coitarche" instead of the age at 1st sex.
Table 4 (page 10); "Jaja" clinic could be replace with "University Health Centre" or any other
universally understood name.
Table 6 (page 12); the title seems not to truly reflect the content of the table  and need to be
reviewed. The table largely highlights the perceptions  on prevention and very few experiences
relating to STIs.  Also not that candidiasis  and staphylococcus aureus are not typically STIs.
Using them in this context could be misleading.
Although not sure if authors have explored any link between HPV vaccine acceptability/uptake
for children/wards of the respondents in  a similar relation to cervical cancer screening. This
might nice to highlight if available.
Discussion: This could be expanded to reflect some of the observations made above.