JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: A systematic review of the childbearing needs of single-child couples
Version: 0 Date: 25 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor-in-chief,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The research topic is very interesting.
The manuscript is well written. I hope the comments will help improve the manuscript.
Please write keywords based on MeSH terms.  For example, use “only child” instead of “Single
child”
Introduction
The phrase "the world and Iran" should be removed in the aim of the study.
Method
-It is necessary to mention the references of PRIZMA checklist and MOOSE.
-Please write “STROBE” instead of “Strobe” in the following sentence.
-The quality assessment of the articles was done by Strobe checklist.
Results
-Changes are needed in Table 2.
Delete “2011” in the fourth column.
Delete title of article. Usually, the titles of the studies are not stated.
In the studies by Wang et al, and Basu et al, please mention the design of the studies.
Discussion
-It seems that it would be better to make a comparison between the mentioned countries in order
to determine what the needs are in different regions of the world.
Title: A systematic review of the childbearing needs of single-child couples
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Parvaneh Isfahani
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor of BMC Women's Health Journal
Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “A
systematic review of the childbearing needs of single-child couples”. The topic is quite
interesting. I list some comments that should help the author work in refining the paper.
Please check the translation of the article again. In some cases there are spelling mistakes
(Inclusion criteria were all observational studies incuding descriptive, page 6)
Title and Abstract:
• Software of data analysis should be mentioned in the abstract
Introduction:
• The Background is long. It can be reduced.
Methods
• In Figure 1, two numbers are mentioned. Which one is correct? (Records identified through
( 3162) database searching (1,581))
• MEDLINE (via PubMed)?? Please check again
• In figure 1, what language do you mean? According to the review of Persian articles, the
language should be determined( No English ( n=5))
• Have the books been reviewed?
• I suggest the author provide the full electronic search strategy for at least one database,
including any limits used, such that it could be repeated, as a supplementary file.
• Data analysis should be mentioned in full.
• Is it possible? “1044 duplicate articles were removed”
• What score were the articles included in the study?
Result
• “Records identified through (3162) database searching (1,581))”. Please check again
• The results of Figure one are mentioned in the method. It is repeated in the results.
Title: Neisseria gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance patterns and associated risk factors in
women of childbearing potential in northwestern Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 06 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I read your paper titled “Neisseria gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance patterns and associated
risk factors in women of childbearing potential in northwestern Ethiopia”.
The study is very well structured, the design of the study, the methods of laboratory analysis of
pathogen isolation and evaluation of antibiotic resistance are sufficiently clear. Moreover, the
sample of patients is substantial and tables are useful for the reader.
I only have a few points to report:
• At line 136 the word “were” is duplicated
• At line 146, what is Amie’s transport medium?
• In Table 1, 2 and 3, in the total row, the Frequency and Negative columns are reversed
• Could you clarify the role of using both disc diffusion and E-test methods?
• Can You provide an example of the “three-part questionnaire” used to create the study
variables; moreover, how did the illiterate patients fill the questionnaire? Were they interviewed?
Please specify.
This article is not the only one as the topic of AMR and Gonorrhoea treatment in Ethiopian
populations is absolutely present in the literature.
However, a review of the existing literature at the time and highlighting the originality of one's
own would be useful. For example, rather than as a survey, there is added value in the sample
size. Ethiopian studies already conducted should therefore be cited and compared with one's
own or I suggested to added this one: PMID: 23007248
Since you state a higher incidence of AMR as a significant finding, a focus on the issue in terms
of preventive as well as curative strategies, in light of the customs and traditions of the Ethiopian
population, would be desirable.
Title: Neisseria gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance patterns and associated risk factors in
women of childbearing potential in northwestern Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 22 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you to allow me to review this interesting manuscript.
The manuscript is well written, There are some typos in the text and  in the tables and I suggest
to correct them. However the manuscript  is  well structured taking in consideration a big sample
of patients and this gives value to the study. Also the conclusions of the manuscript add value
to a very relevant topic in developed and developing countries. In my opinion, after corrections,
the manuscript is suitable for publication
Title: Neisseria gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance patterns and associated risk factors in
women of childbearing potential in northwestern Ethiopia
Version: 5 Date: 31 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the revisions made. I think it may be useful to update the references of the
paper with more recent articles or such as PMID: 37383604, PMID: 24594737, PMID: 23007248
Title: Utilization of Modern Menstrual Methods and related unmet needs among college going
women in Coimbatore district: A descriptive cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The research topics and the manuscript provides adequate information about the common
problem faced by adolescents.
1. How did you make sure the list of colleges was all inclusive?
2. Reason for choosing 6 colleges?
3. The 'discussion' section lacks authors reasonings for the study findings.
Sharing the details of other comments on review of the manuscript.
Title: Utilization of Modern Menstrual Methods and related unmet needs among college going
women in Coimbatore district: A descriptive cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study is commended for adopting a comprehensive approach by assessing the utilization
of modern menstrual methods and investigating associated unmet needs. The study uses the
validated Menstrual Practice Needs Scale (MPNS-36), which adds credibility to the study. The
topic has a huge significance in women's reproductive health. Nevertheless, this paper may not
be deemed suitable for publication in BMC Women's Health Journal for the following reasons.
• While the quantitative approach is valuable, the study could incorporate qualitative components
for MMMs (because of low user proportion), such as interviews or focus group discussions, to
provide a more nuanced understanding of women's experiences and perceptions.
• The use of convenience sampling introduces bias, potentially limiting the generalizability of
the findings.
• The study does not assess changes in menstrual hygiene practices over time or establish
causation. A detailed statistical analysis or model may be employed.
• The study does not profoundly investigate the reasons for the low adoption of modern menstrual
methods.
• Cultural barriers are briefly mentioned without thorough exploration. A more in-depth
discussion on how cultural factors impact the adoption of modern menstrual methods is
recommended.
• The paper mentions environmental concerns but does not explore the broader environmental
impact of menstrual hygiene methods.
• The paper briefly mentions alternative methods without exploring their prevalence and impact,
which could be an area for further investigation.
• This study did not calculate the sample size using a specific formula or basis for the selection.
Thus, the representativeness of the sample is questionable.
• The manuscript's current formatting is unsuitable for submission; it looks casual and hard to
follow.
• The Figure also needs to be reformed for missing parts.
• The manuscript requires intensive writing corrections before resubmission.
Title: Prevalence and predictors of risk factors for cardiovascular diseases among women aged
15- 49 years across urban and rural India: Findings from a nationwide survey
Version: 1 Date: 16 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments
This study investigated the prevalence, predictors, and regional distribution of risk factors for
cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among women aged 15-49 years in both urban and rural areas
of India.
1. The study's strengths lie in its large and nationally representative sample, regional analysis
highlighting disparities by each studied risk factor, and has potential to inform targeted public
health interventions for women in India.
2. Methodology: “The sample size was calculated taking into multiple considerations into
account.” – this should be explained further, i.e multiple considerations such as?
3. Were assumptions of the regression models checked? And what factors were considered?
4.  Data collection during Phase II (phase 2 in January 2020 to April 2021) appears to have
occurred during peak of the Covid-19 pandemic – were there any restrictions or issue due to
this especially with regard to obtaining the anthropometric measurements and blood pressure,
random blood glucose?
5. Tables should be self-explanatory – abbreviations should be explained in the footnote if not
the table
6. Figure 1 – could there be a map provided (as a supplementary figure if possible), that shows
the different regions in the country and names of the states?
7. Regarding caste – are you able to provide further description on the subgroups, for eg. Others
(as it is used as the reference group for the regression analysis)?
8. Were all models adjusted for all independent variables/covariates? – this could be specified
in the footnote of Table 3
9. There doesn't seem to be a description of the wealth index – how was this determined (using
what variables)?
10. Could the values/presentation for Table 2 be clarified? For example, for tobacco use – do
you mean 4.8% of the rural population are smokers vs 2.5% of the urban population?
11. Can the total population numbers for the urban vs rural regions be specified in Table 1?
12. Referring to a statement in the discussion – what is the proportion of urban vs rural among
those who used tobacco?
13. The variability of alcohol consumption across states is discussed – would the proportion of
religion groups be a factor as well?
14. As the models show each risk factor individually - is there a validated risk assessment tool
that could be used to compute a CVD risk score to see the distribution of the risk of developing
CVD risk?
15. Did you consider looking at the average number of risk factors by the demographics?
16. Spelling and grammar to be checked. Decimal points for values should be consistent.
Title: Quality of life and symptoms of pain in patients with endometriomas compared to those
with other endometriosis lesions: a cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 12 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
-Thank you for your greatly impressive work with deep analysis by stastical tool R. The authors
addressed the issues relating to endometriomas in their population through external validation
of questionnaire tool. Moreover, the athors would like to establish cause-effect relationships
between different types of endometrioses and quality of life or pain experiences.
- Firstly, many methods to determine the endometriosis. The accurate diagnosis may be different.
Meanwhile, the gold standard is laparoscopic surgery with histology.
- Size of endometrioma is important, but not mentioned.
- Frequency of deep pelvic endometriosis in non-endometrioma is also not mentioned.
- Mean time to complete questionnaire and the staff (doctors, nurse, or anyone…) who
introduced and were responsible to observe the procedure needed to described.
- The tool “Responsiveness of the Dutch Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30)
questionnaire” is needed to be provided with external validation.
- The study used this document “Translation and Cultural Validation of the WERF EPHect
Endometriosis Patient Questionnaire into Canadian French”. However, the sample size in this
study was only 17 women, the smal sample size for an external validation.
- The use of pain-killer drug and anti-depressive drugs at home is needed to be added? This data
can be used to explain why the percentage of patients in non-endometrioma group relating to
Central component of pain (CSI # 40) is greater than that in endometrioma group.
- The variable “Superficial dyspareunia/ Deep dyspareunia (Intensity/Severe)” needed to
defined.
- Gravida, obstetric history including vaginal birth/cesarean needed to be added in Table 1.
- Hormonal treatment in endometriosis needed to be added if presence.
- N analysis/ N cohort (Fig 2) and N outcomes/ N group (E1/E0) are required to be described.
- This study based on qualitative responses from the patients, thus bias cannot be avoided.
The study did not exclude all the medical conditions related to pelvic pain as well as diseases
influence to results of questionnaire survey, this is required to be indicated or mentioned in
limitations.
- The study enrolled premenopausal women, thus, please be attention to the symptoms of
menopausal transition and the symptoms of endometriomas. Particularly, this study included
only endometriosis patients, without the healthy control group.
- The another limitation, the study did not follow-up the patients and wait for the responses of
questionnaire after treatment.
- Did the study used “Cronbach’s alpha coefficient” to check the reliability of factors?
-  All related questionnaire paper needed to be attached in supplementary file.
- Introduction needed to be expanded, please add more similar research to mention on the
importance of this study.
- Please correct the format of Ref 5.
Regards,
Title: Quality of life and symptoms of pain in patients with endometriomas compared to those
with other endometriosis lesions: a cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 19 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Firstly, I congratulate the authors for the article. The topic is very relevant and can contribute to
the advancement of public policies for this population of women.
The statistical analyzes were very well explored and the graphical presentation was excellent.
However, I suggest reviewing/modifying some details of the manuscript:
- I suggest modifying the first sentence of the conclusion of the article, for example "In the
sample studied, the presence of endometriomas was not associated with quality of life...".
- In the statistical analysis item, the sentence that starts on line 101 and ends on line 105, and
the sentence that starts on line 106 and ends on line 108, should not be included in this item in
the "Materials and methods" section.
- In Figure 1 I suggest including the total and percentage of the two groups in the studied sample.
Furthermore, the description of more details of this figure can be included in the results (such
as losses, diagnostic methods, etc.)
- The collection of all variables included in the results (Table 1) must be described in the
"Materials and methods" section.
- The title of Table 2 should be more detailed.
Title: Quality of life and symptoms of pain in patients with endometriomas compared to those
with other endometriosis lesions: a cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Ref: Quality of life and symptoms of pain in patients with endometriomas compared to those
with other endometriosis lesions: a cross-sectional study
Dear authors,
Thank you for your detailed responses.
After reading your comments, the paper is more clarified now.
Despite limitation in external validation of  questionnaires concerning QOL , the study
contributes to the literature two important points:
- First, the presence of endometriomas is not associated with a greater or lesser quality of life.
- Second, the  differences in specific symptoms of dyspareunia were identified among
endometriomas patients.
Congatulation on your interesting work.
Best regards,
Phuc Nhon Nguyen MD, MSc
Tu Du Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Title: Knowledge and Practice of Breast Self-Examination among Breast Cancer Patients in
Damascus, Syria
Version: 1 Date: 28 Feb 2023
Reviewer:  Fatmah Alsharif
Reviewer's report:
abbreviation needs to mention first time and the use the it all over the manuscript
the title is long. needs to shorter
overall English editing is required
remove abbreviations  in the key words
aim must be match exactly the title  in the background
mention is it qual or quantitative design
are you looking for effect or only knowledge ?
write it complete. what do you mean by CDC
add some studies relevant from other countries to support the significant and the importance
of the study
usually aim of the study must to add it at the end of background
type of design?? in the method section
what is the data collection type? purposive pr convenient sampling??
you mentioned readier that the period is from November 2021 to April 2022 . please clarify ?
what is the inclusion and exclusion criteria?
add the IRB reference number within text ??
usually we ask for written consent to assure the approval from the participants ?
mention the name of tool and validity and reliability
scoring not clear. likert sale ?? describe
do you mean Chi ?
very long for discussion section. four on main results
use same font for all sections including references
Title: Knowledge and Practice of Breast Self-Examination among Breast Cancer Patients in
Damascus, Syria
Version: 1 Date: 13 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Text of fig 1 shows results that 55.20% had low knowledge of BSE but in graph, it shows that
55.20% has good knowledge.
Table 1 shows that 20 college students included in the study while in occupational category
number of student given as 1.
Mention duration 15/11/2021 to 18/12/2021 seem too short duration for the recruitment of 500
BC patients
General comments:
1- Objectives are not clearly stated
2- There is a lot of repetition.
3-  Must be revised for grammatical mistakes.
4- The discussion section is not arranged in order according to the results.
5- There seems to be ambiguity in defining 'Subjects', recruited.
Title: Knowledge and Practice of Breast Self-Examination among Breast Cancer Patients in
Damascus, Syria
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
You have incorporated all indicated mistakes.
There is still something to mention in the discussion section
1- First letter of the discussion section starting with a small letter  " Regarding"
2- On one hand, around       'the' instead of than
3-BSE (54.2%) and the number of women who knew exactly how to perform It (28%),
------------------- ' it'  instead of It
Please correct all such small grammatical mistakes.
Title: The Causal Effect of Reproductive Factors on Pelvic floor dysfunction: A Mendelian
Randomization Study
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors present an interesting study regarding the correlation of pelvic floor dysfunction in
females and reproductive characteristics, by means of Mendelian randomization analysis. The
text is well written and the analysis methods are well described. However, a major concern is
related to one of the limitations stated by the authors, namely that the dataset used for this study
comprises both males and females. This issue should be explained in more detail in the methods
section of the manuscript, with a clear explanation as to how the outocomes of their study are
not impacted by this mix of genders in the analysis.
Some minor issues need to be addressed:
- abbreviations in the abstract should be defined at first use (FGP, SUI and TSMR are not defined
in the abstract)
- in the figures, annotations on the X and Y axis are very small and hard to see, it would be of
great use to readers and it would help the reader get an idea of the scale used.
Title: The Causal Effect of Reproductive Factors on Pelvic floor dysfunction: A Mendelian
Randomization Study
Version: 0 Date: 11 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for your great work. The authors revealed caudal relationship between some factors
and pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) as well as stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The method of
analysis is great, except for the  study population was not representative  for the whole world.
I suggest some revised points in the  constructive way:
-Abbreviation word should be sufficiently written when it first appears. For example: SUI,
TSMR,...So any parts of the paper are separately, the reader can understand.
- The introduction could be added shortly with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system
(POP–Q) and the management of PDF and SUI.
-Study critera  including definition for PDF and SUI should be mentioned in Materials and
Methods.
-Did the study  concern on  inclusion/exclusion criteria?
-Some variables concerning occupation,  smoke, body mass index, physical exercise, parity,
gravidity, method of delivery (cesarean section, assisted  vaginal birth, vaginal delivery),
episiotomy, hysterectomy, urinary tract infection, and sexual transmitted diseases, etc should be
analyzed and discussed since all of these factors may affect to function of pelvic floor. If the
data was missed, please mention it in discussion or limitation part.
-In table 4, did the study add the adjusting factors for calculating the adjusted odds ratio? Please
mention clearly.
-Implication and future research needed to be mentioned.
-The strengths and limitations should be mentioned in the last paragraph of discussion part
instead of conclusion.
-Conclusion should be shorten and focused following the objectives and findings.
Regards,
Phuc Nhon Nguyen MD, MSc
Tu Du Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Title: Factors influencing cervical cancer re-screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Eposi C Haddison
Reviewer's report:
The authors present the prevalence of cervical cancer re-screening and factors associated with
adherence to re-screening. This topic is very relevant as cervical cancer screening is one of the
pillars for cercal cancer elimination.
General Comments
The article is very well written, nevertheless minor changes are required.
Title: This should be modified to show that the study was carried out in Cameroon. As it stands
it sounds like a multinational study
Methods:
-Explain the random selection carried out
-State how qualitative data was analysed
Discussion: Paragraph 3, the first two sentences should be broken down to shorter sentences and
if possible, give examples of these suggestions in other settings.
Limitations: The last sentence should be clarified
Specific comments:
Abstract: First sentence in results should read “completed”
Methods: Study site, second sentence, what council is being referred to?
Discussion: Paragraph 6: The first sentence on cultural beliefs is too long and should be broken
down. In the same sentence what high percentage is the author referring to?