JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The association of maternal anaemia with adverse maternal and foetal outcomes in Somali
women: a prospective study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study entailed collection of data of the patients who delivered at the health facilities over
the study period from their case files, so it was a retrospective study and not a prospective study.
The manuscript had some typographical errors which may need to be corrected:
1. under the background, line 5 the Hb value should be corrected to 11grams per decilitre
2. The tables appear to be crowded and not properly labelled, the authors can try to make the
tables more presentable
3. Table 1 may be separated into 2 to  make it more presentable
4. under the Discussion on paragraph 4 line 1 delete the'' but '' in the sentence
Title: Delay in seeking treatment and associated factors among women with pelvic organ
prolapse in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Hospital based mixed method study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Eskinder Wolka
Reviewer's report:
Spelling, grammar and other editorial corrections needed
The interpretation of OR should be corrected in the document
Sampling procedure needs clarification
The denominator should be corrected in some of the analysis
Some reasons in discussion section need justification
Title: Delay in seeking treatment and associated factors among women with pelvic organ
prolapse in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Hospital based mixed method study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
thank you for raising this exciting yet rejected community problem but I have some concerns.
1. the back ground is not focused to the title
2.  the relevance of the  study is not well narrated. the author should  be explain in detail the
complications and health impact of delayed management of POP
3. who made the diagnosis of the staging of POP?. was  POP Q method used fro diagnosis of
advanced POP staging?
4.   the author mentioned only the patient factor for the delay seeking but how about service
related factors?
5. is the POP service not free of charge?
6. regarding  to reason for delay seeking, the author mentioned important variables ut what is
cultural influence/ lack of information for ? what about wrong belief /weather treatable or not.....
7.the recommendation is not going with the results so it should be rewritten?
Title: Delay in seeking treatment and associated factors among women with pelvic organ
prolapse in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Hospital based mixed method study
Version: 3 Date: 11 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors could continue to address the points brought up by previous comments as follows:
Point 1: The sampling technique is still unclear. Please describe the sampling technique such
that another research could easily replicate the technique in another study.
Point 2:  Incorporate the answer provided into the text.
Point 3: The authors did not respond to this point.
Point 4: The "homogenous sampling technique" is unclear. Please describe sampling methods
clearly such that they can be easily replicated.
Point 5:  resolved
Point 6:resolved
Point7: Incorporate the answer provided into the text.
Point 8: resolved
Point 9: resolved
Point 10: Unclear if this is the upper median income class or the poverty line. Please clearly
describe.
Point 11: resolved
Point 12: resolved
Point 13: resolved
Point  14: resolved
Point15: resolved
Title: How do women comply with cancer screenings?  A study in four regions of France
Version: 2 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript concerning the compliance of women
to screening in 4 departments in France.
I have the following comments/suggestions:
Abstract
Line 4 - the term "departments" is used throughout the document. It is not clear if these are
different villages, or different department like the department of surgery, ob/Gyn, internatl
medicine ect. Please clarify this term.  I believe it means 4 different coordination cancer
screening centres (Line 86) but I'm not sure.
It would help the reader to understand the current process of receiving screening tests in France.
Is it only by invitation, is it by physician order, is it by client request in a pharmacy ect.
Background
Line - 49 - which 3 cancer screenings are you referring to - cervix?, breast?, genetic?. Please
be clear.
Line 50 - what is meant by "different proposals"? Is it different strategies, different
frequencies?????
Methods
Line 64 - Are the departments - 4 villages, 4 hospitals, 4 clinics????
Line 64 - What are the 3 invitations for breast and for colon. Are these 3 sequential invitations ?
Are these letter or text invitations? How frequently are these invitations?
Line 82 - what is a closed question - ie., researchers provide the answer and respondent circles it?
Line 84 - I was not able to open the additional file
Line 89 - were the questionaires paper based or on line? If paper based was their a stamped self
return envelope? Were there any reminders sent?
Results
No statistical tests were used for any of the quantitative material.
Conclusion
Line 278 Authors only list one limitation.  There are several that could be documented.
Title: How do women comply with cancer screenings?  A study in four regions of France
Version: 2 Date: 11 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study examined the participation patterns of women aged 50 and older in colorectal and
breast cancer screenings in France. While this area of research is important, I have concerns
with the paper that I will highlight below.
The start of the introduction outlines the history of organized screenings for breast and colorectal
cancers, which is useful background information for the reader, however, it reads very clinically.
The guaiac test and faecal immunological test are both mentioned but not defined. I also
believe the paper would benefit greatly from a native English speaker proofreading it prior to
submission.
The Methods section was quite clear overall. However, I was unsure how to interpret the
following sentence under the “Questionnaire mailing and return” subheading: “It also provided
the address of a web site delivering more information since the start of the project and, when
available, the results.” What kind of information, aside from the results, was posted on this
website? I would like to see a more in-depth explanation of the qualitative analysis conducted.
Were qualitative responses transcribed and analyzed manually or using a particular computer
software? What happened when there was discordance among the two coders?
The reporting of the number of women in each category, questionnaire return rate, and level of
education by category were clear. However, the subsequent Results subsections were difficult
to follow at times. The qualitative quotes were not always necessary to convey the points of the
authors and made the passages more difficult to read. It often felt quite choppy.
Many strong assertations were made in the Discussion section about the barriers to and
facilitators of cancer screening engagement, but the sentence structure or word choice felt
forced and awkward. Again, I would encourage a native English speaker to read the manuscript
prior to journal submission. The presentation of the limitations and strengths of the study was
cumbersome and ends with a sentence fragment.
While I believe the authors present important statistics on women’s participation in cancer
screenings in France, I recommend the aforementioned issues be addressed prior to publication.
Title: How do women comply with cancer screenings?  A study in four regions of France
Version: 4 Date: 02 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Overall,  I am pleased with the changes made to this manuscript. Still, I would suggest
proofreading for spelling (e.g., line 264), basic errors (e.g., extra space in line 245), and grammar
(e.g., line 288- "were" should be "was").  Once these simple changes are made, I would
recommend publication.
Title: How do women comply with cancer screenings?  A study in four regions of France
Version: 4 Date: 28 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved
in the following ways
Abstract
-In the conclusion part, it is necessary to specify the researcher's proposal to improve the
conditions and use of the beneficiaries
Introduction
Please bring the following items
- Definition of the research problem
- The magnitude and importance of the study variable
- Bringing the variable epidemiology information of the study at the world level, the country
of India and the place of study
- Expressing the necessity of conducting the study
Finally, the practical purpose of the study should be stated
Methods
-please include the inclusion and exclusion for participants
-please add the details of  validity and reliability
Conclusion
To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section the following
studies are suggested, please if possible to use, cited, and add to article reference
-Prevalence of postpartum depression in women amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
-Domestic Violence against Women Working in Four Educational Hospitals in Iran
-Attitudes of Iranian Nurses toward Spirituality and Spiritual Care
Best regard
Title: How do women comply with cancer screenings?  A study in four regions of France
Version: 5 Date: 05 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author(s)
This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved
in the following ways
Abstract
-In the conclusion part, it is necessary to specify the researcher's proposal to improve the
conditions and use of the beneficiaries
Introduction
Please bring the following items
- Definition of the research problem
- The magnitude and importance of the study variable
- Bringing the variable epidemiology information of the study at the world level, the country
of India and the place of study
- Expressing the necessity of conducting the study
Finally, the practical purpose of the study should be stated
Methods
-please include the inclusion and exclusion for participants
-please add the details of validity and reliability
Conclusion
To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section the following
studies are suggested, please if possible to use, cited, and
add to article reference
-Prevalence of postpartum depression in women amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
-Domestic Violence against Women Working in Four Educational Hospitals in Iran
-Attitudes of Iranian Nurses toward Spirituality and Spiritual Care
Title: How do women comply with cancer screenings?  A study in four regions of France
Version: 5 Date: 21 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
General Impression:
The authors conducted a study to question the reasons behind the lack of adherence to the
colorectal and breast cancer screening programs and opted to identify its influencing factors
among a population of female participants. The study’s aim is sound and important. The authors
followed a good methodology and included a satisfactory sample size. However, the results are
superficial and lack organization of presentation. Somehow, these fail to answer the research
question. My main recommendation is to try to rewrite the results section in a better manner and
run a better statistical analysis. My detailed comments are below.
Comments:
1. In the background section of the abstract, please try to reflect on the rationale behind this
study by discussing briefly the ideas of the introduction (lines 41-51). In this form, the abstract
is vague and one does not really know the real benefit of this research.
2. In the methods section of the abstract (line 6), I guess the authors meant “categories of
participants” instead of “categories of participation”. Please correct this sentence.
3. In the methods section of the main text (line 70), please write “positive results” instead of
“positive return”.
4. In the methods section of the main text, please explain how patients' data are registered in your
center so they are called for the screening programs whenever they should undergo screening.
I mean, we are all familiar with the data protection regulations in Europe, so I was wondering
how patients are initially registered in the screening centers.
5. In the methods section of the main text, line 102 is not clear. Please rewrite in a clearer and
easier-to-understood manner.
6. In the methods section of the main text, please add an additional description of the quantitative
analysis; what sort of descriptive statistics you used? Did you determine the data normality? If
so, how? Did you compare means or medians? If so, how? In addition, how did you analyze
categorical data? Did you test the significance of the differences between groups? I would advise
running the analysis again using SPSS and testing the statistical significance of the differences
and then reporting back the results. Only then, the results could be taken into consideration.
7. The results are not organized and it is very easy to miss the concept. I suggest writing them in a
more organized manner and running the required statistical tests to interpret them in a good way.
8. In the results section of the main text (line 110), please write “and” instead of “et” because
the last is not an English word.
Title: How do women comply with cancer screenings?  A study in four regions of France
Version: 8 Date: 30 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
General Impression:
The authors conducted a study to question the reasons behind the lack of adherence to the
colorectal and breast cancer screening programs and opted
to identify its influencing factors among a population of female participants. The study’s aim is
sound and important. The authors followed a good
methodology and included a satisfactory sample size. However, the results are superficial and
lack organization of presentation. Somehow, these fail to
answer the research question. My main recommendation is to try to rewrite the results section
in a better manner and run a better statistical analysis.
My detailed comments are below.
Comments:
1. In the background section of the abstract, please try to reflect on the rationale behind this
study by discussing briefly the ideas of the introduction
(lines 41-51). In this form, the abstract is vague and one does not really know the real benefit
of this research.
2. In the methods section of the abstract (line 6), I guess the authors meant “categories of
participants” instead of “categories of participation”. Please
correct this sentence.
3. In the methods section of the main text, please explain how patients' data are registered in
your center so they are called for the screening programs
whenever they should undergo screening. I mean, we are all familiar with the data protection
regulations in Europe, so I was wondering how patients are
initially registered in the screening centers.
4.  In the methods section of the main text, line 102 is not clear. Please rewrite in a clearer and
easier-to-understood manner.
5. In the methods section of the main text, please add an additional description of the quantitative
analysis; what sort of descriptive statistics you used?
Did you determine the data normality? If so, how? Did you compare means or medians? If so,
how? In addition, how did you analyze categorical data? Did
you test the significance of the dierences between groups? I would advise running the analysis
again using SPSS and testing the statistical significance
of the dierences and then reporting back the results. Only then, the results could be taken into
consideration.
6. The results are not organized and it is very easy to miss the concept. I suggest writing them
in a more organized manner and running the required
statistical tests to interpret them in a good way.
7. In the results section of the main text (line 110), please write “and” instead of “et” because
the last is not an English word.
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with underweight among 15–49-year-old women in
Sierra Leone: A secondary Data Analysis of Sierra Leone Demographic Health Survey of 2019.
Version: 1 Date: 13 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
Background
1. Since this topic is one of global health, it would be interesting to present data/conditions from
both the perspectives of less developed and developed nations.
Study sampling and participants
1. It is great to describe how many provinces and districts across the country. The use of two-
stage stratified sampling techniques is then obvious. Perhaps, the authors could illustrate the
sampling procedure with a diagram.
Statistical Analysis
1. “SPSS analytic software version 24.0 complex samples package was used for this analysis”
Please put the reference here. Is this SPSS accessed freely or licensed?
2. How did the authors generate the variables used in the analysis? This should be clear as in
this session the authors did not mention all variables and came up with other variables in the
findings e.g listening to the radio etc.
Results
1. Kindly provide a clear title of the tables, including the year.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
1. It seems that this approval was from the big survey. Did the authors ask for a permit to use
this secondary dataset from relevant institutions?
References
1. It is strongly suggested that the authors use the most recent references (if possible 5-10 years).
Please reconsider reference number 48.
Title: Social distancing and mental health among pregnant women during the coronavirus
pandemic
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript covers an important topic, examining the relationship between social distancing
and mental health outcomes among pregnant women. It includes a diverse sample of pregnant
women in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and looks at social distancing in multiple contexts—work,
friends and family, and public places. I would like to see more discussion on what the findings
reveal and the practical implications of these findings. Some questions and comments I have
are noted below.
1. How does this study identify a key population to target for intervention in the future?  Pregnant
women with higher levels of anxiety need access to opportunities to mitigate isolation caused by
social distancing. Would this be a potential policy and or practical implication for the identified
subgroup?
2. Was there any attempt to differentiate between social distancing and physical distancing in
this study? Many creative approaches have been used to mitigate COVID-19-related risks. These
safer practices included physical distancing rather than social distancing (e.g. use of online
gatherings across friends and families; community-based social support groups online, outdoor
and/or masked events). While this may not have been a pervasive practice in the first 6-12 months
of the pandemic, I think it’s important to recognize that it has and will continue to play a role in
future interventions to address the mental health of pregnant women in the COVID-19 context.
3. The manuscript states the importance of a pregnant women’s mental health due to its effects
on physical health, family functioning, and child development. Are there any more ties you can
draw to these broader topics based on the findings?
4. Is it possible to give more specific information about the COVID-19 context and local policies
related to COVID-19 containment (e.g. shut-downs, indoor masking requirements) that were
implemented at the time and in that geographical location?
5. Were there any findings related to participants’ mental health for those who practiced less
social distancing behaviors?
6. Are there any ideas about why depression was lowest for people in the middle group for social
distancing?
7. Do you have data on whether participants were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the course
of the study and/or their pregnancy?  I wonder if this might also affect social distancing practices,
especially in the latter stages of the study.
Finally, I think it’s worth mentioning that the harms of social distancing (inclusive of physical
distancing) include increased rates of domestic violence, especially for pregnant women. The
social isolation facilitated by law, policies, and practices undoubtedly afforded batterers more
opportunities to victimize pregnant women away from prying eyes. Thus, I note that it is
unfortunate that experiences with domestic violence and its relation to social distancing and
mental health were not measured here.
Title: Pre-operative and early postoperative health-related quality of life of breast cancer
woman: a Lebanese prospective study
Version: 2 Date: 02 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to find out the factors affecting the quality of life before and after surgery in
breast cancer patients. In the meantime, many previous studies have reported that factors such
as body image and fatigue negatively affect the quality of life of breast cancer patients.
Conducting this study due to the lack of studies on breast cancer patients in the Middle East
may have limitations in generalizing the findings. Therefore, the scientific basis for conducting
research needs to be supplemented.
Please describe the rationale for excluding patients with bilateral breast cancer.
Please provide information on whether the tools used in this study have been translated and
back-translated into Middle Eastern languages for validation purposes.
In this study, a regression analysis was conducted to find out the factors affecting the difference
in quality of life before and after surgery. Demographic and disease-related factors and
preoperative quality of life were used as influencing factors. In this case, it is thought that there
will be a problem of increasing autocorrelation. In this case, autocorrelation problems may arise.
As a result of the analysis, preoperative body image was identified as one of the factors
significantly affecting the difference in body image before and after surgery, and emotional and
physical quality of life before surgery was identified as one of the factors significantly affecting
the difference in emotional and physical quality of life.  Before performing data analysis, it
is necessary to review the basic assumptions of regression analysis, and it is recommended to
obtain advice on appropriate statistical analysis for the purpose of research.
Title: Pre-operative and early postoperative health-related quality of life of breast cancer
woman: a Lebanese prospective study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper reported pre- and postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Lebanese
patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). However, there are some inadequacies
in the procedure of the HRQoL survey, and the clinical significance of the results needs to be
clarified. Therefore, I suggest considerable revision. Several specific points are listed below.
Major points:
1. As the authors point out, postoperative follow-up questionnaires may not be sufficient if
administered only on the first postoperative day. In cases with BCS, questionnaires should be
conducted at least after postoperative irradiation because cosmetic appearance is affected by
radiotherapy.
2. Postoperative physical function depends on both breast and axillary surgery. Authors should
describe the breakdown of axillary surgical procedures (sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary
dissection) and whether QOL differed between axillary surgery.
3. To improve postoperative physical and emotional functions and body image, it should be
described explicitly in the discussion how medical professionals should be involved with breast
cancer patients before and after surgery in Lebanon.
Minor points:
1. The description in the results makes it difficult to understand whether “married women”
is a positive or negative factor related to postoperative body image (p.8, lines 237-240). In
the univariate analysis, “married women” was associated with improved body image scores
after surgery. In contrast, it significantly deteriorated body image scores after surgery in the
multivariate analysis.
2. There are quite some unnatural grammar and spelling mistakes. The manuscript has to be
checked by an English language review before submission.