JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The Carolina Hysterectomy Cohort (CHC): A novel case series of reproductive- aged
hysterectomy patients across 10 hospitals in the US South
Version: 0 Date: 25 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The strengths of this article are its detailed data sample and inclusion of uninsured patients.
However, it was unclear the advantage of this approach compared to other non-claims-based
national databases, such as the National Inpatient Sample or the National Discharge Sample,
which include insured patients. Further comparison of this study to other database studies would
highlight its contribution to the literature.
Abstract
- What are symptom burden differences? If the goal is to see pathways from symptom to
hysterectomy differ, you would need to look at management trajectories prior to hysterectomy.
- Is the study objective the same as the objective of the cohort?
- Preliminary results are similar to the data obtainable from National Inpatient or other samples.
Introduction
- Clear definitions given.
- Are there breaks between the paragraphs?
- Study objective?
Methods
- Are Cesarean hysterectomies included?
- The methods highlight a lot of meaningful information that is not reported in the results section.
I would suggest limiting the content or explicitly stating this will be explored in other work.
- How did you account for surgeons practicing in more than one location?
Results
- Why are the results preliminary?
- There is a typo in last sentence of first paragraph.
- Can you provide any further detail on insurance type? Medicare coverage in this age group is
not that common and may account for patient differences (e.g, ESRD or disability).
- How did listed diagnoses correlate with primary diagnoses? Was there a discrepancy between
billing codes and surgeon documentation in operative notes?
- Much more detail on provider characteristics (and probably worth calling them surgeons) is
needed. Were the high propensity practices the gyn onc practices? How did individual surgeon
volume correspond to practice volume (i.e., where hysterectomies concentrated in a certain
number of surgeons)?
- How does the surgeon analyses link to the patient analysis? Were patients without insurance
more likely to have surgeon with a low-volume surgeon (other studies have found this)?
- What did you do with census tract data?
Discussion
- Is the marital status finding in the results?
- This paper veers between a methods paper and a results paper. I think it would be stronger if
it was more in one direction, e.g., what are the clinical takeways? Or the methods takeaways?
- How does the study population compare to other NC samples or other health systems?
- The data collected seems to be human-intensive based on Figure 2. How is this method of data
collection generalizable to other settings?
- There was no discussion of symptom severity or burden, which were the focus of the intro.
Title: The Carolina Hysterectomy Cohort (CHC): A novel case series of reproductive- aged
hysterectomy patients across 10 hospitals in the US South
Version: 4 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for going through the manuscript and the reviewers' points
In my honest opinion, the authors have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers’ criticisms.
The manuscript is well written and falls within the aim of this Journal.
Title: The Carolina Hysterectomy Cohort (CHC): A novel case series of reproductive- aged
hysterectomy patients across 10 hospitals in the US South
Version: 4 Date: 18 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This revision is much improved, but it feels disjointed and does not focus on its hypothesis:
"that the uninsured patients, who are often excluded in studies using insurance claims-based data
sources, differ from insured patients". These results are rich in data about the cohort, but I agree
with the other reviewer that this paper oscillates between a results and methods manuscript -
are the authors trying to simply give a descriptive presentation of this cohort, or actually draw
conclusions?
For example, there continues to be no (or limited) discussion on certain results. Specifically,
the discussion does not mention anything regarding symptom severity, something that was
highlighted in the introduction. It also does not really discuss physician data other than a
concluding sentence "to understand the extent to which minority patients may be treated [by]
low volume surgeons...enabling us to gain some insight". What is this insight? If that won't be
discussed in this paper (or evaluated in respects to payor groups, as per the hypothesis statement),
then that data should not be included.
Title: Bilateral or Unilateral Tubo-ovarian Abscess: Exploring its Clinical Significance
Version: 2 Date: 18 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion, the analyzed topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.I think
that the abstract of this article is very clear and well structured.
In my opinion, the discussion could be studied in depth and extended. Maybe, it could be useful
the evaluation of the therapeutic options in order to complete the topic exposed. In particular, I
suggest this article to get deeper in the topic: PMID: 32153165. Because of these reasons, the
article should be revised and completed. Considered all these points, I think it could be of interest
for the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Bilateral or Unilateral Tubo-ovarian Abscess: Exploring its Clinical Significance
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
In my opinion, the analyzed topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. I think
that the abstract of this article is very clear and well structured.
In my opinion, the discussion could be studied in depth and extended. Maybe, it could be useful
the evaluation of therapeutical options for this condition in order to complete the topic analyzed.
In particular, I suggest this article to get deeper in the topic:  PMID: 32153165. Because of these
reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considered all these points, I think it could
be of interest for the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published after
minor revisions.
Title: Bilateral or Unilateral Tubo-ovarian Abscess: Exploring its Clinical Significance
Version: 2 Date: 23 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors compared the outcomes of women with unilateral tubo-ovarian abscess (TOA) and
bilateral TOA. The authors found that women with bilateral TOA were more likely to have
bilateral salping-oophorectomy. Unfortunately, I’m sorry to say that the investigations for TOA
were insufficient and the results of current study add no new findings to the current evidence.
The reviewer’s comments are as follows.
1. Please check and revise the several typos before submission.
Abstract
The authors mentioned that “It is reasonable to believe that these findings can help optimize
medical treatment and can shorten duration of hospitalization, antibiotics exposure and
resistance”.
2. I think this representation is a bit exaggerated. Since the results of current study were limited,
please weaken the expression.
M&M
3. Please clarify the type of antibiotics used by the authors.
4. This retrospective study was conducted between 2003 and 2017. Since this is a retrospective
study, please clarify how the authors decided on the duration of the study.
5. Please explain the reason why the end of this study is not recent.
6. Please clarify the version of SPSS.
7. A complication of PID may be a TOA, which is an inflammatory mass involving the fallopian
tube, ovary, and, occasionally, other adjacent pelvic organs (e.g., bowel, bladder). This may
manifest as a tubo-ovarian complex or a collection of pus (TOA). I think the definition of TOA
in the present study is ambiguous. In several cases, I think PID and unilateral TOA are difficult
to differentiate. This point is a weakness of current study and is difficult to address.
Title: Bilateral or Unilateral Tubo-ovarian Abscess: Exploring its Clinical Significance
Version: 2 Date: 23 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Anis Cerovac
Reviewer's report:
Article is excellent.
Very interesting and clinically usable.
Please make small corrections.
Throughout the text, you constantly mention interventional treatment, if it is operative treatment,
mention surgery. Then describe the type of operative treatment, salpingectomy or adnexectomy,
drainage.
You also often mention the word lateralization, the meaning remains unclear in that context...try
to find a more adequate term.
Usually the word lateralization is used when referring to a neurologic lesion and lateralization,
but not in the context of the side of a tuboovarian abscess.
Title: An Acceptance Analysis of a Sexual Health Education Digital Tool in Resource-Poor
Regions of Kenya: An UTAUT based Survey Study
Version: 2 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
An interesting paper and quite relevant as the world embrace digital technologies to enhancing
adolescent-friendly health services. i have a few comments mostly on the methodology.
On the background line 53 I wouldn't be so definitive to say Kenyan women often have "no"
access to healthcare but stick to insufficient.
Methods line 103 typo the word affect should be effects.
Line 165 was there any ethical approval from a Kenyan IRB- please include the details. if not
give reasons why there was no ethical review from a local ethics committee.
line 166 is the procedure described afterwards doesn't match the qualitative research.  If
qualitative methods were used as well, please provide details of the procedure.
Provide more details on the sampling - what was the target sample size and the response rate,
how many refused? - 77 participated out of how many.
Line 383 spelling sub-Saharan.
line 405 not clear.
Title: An Acceptance Analysis of a Sexual Health Education Digital Tool in Resource-Poor
Regions of Kenya: An UTAUT based Survey Study
Version: 5 Date: 25 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. The literature review section is still lacking an explanation of how the variables are linked.
Authors have merely stated that " literature suggest a linkage between the variables" but you
need to explain how they are related. This bit is still missing. You can refer to other papers to
have an idea of how to write the literature review to establish a relationship between variables.
2. I also suggest that the manuscript should benefit from proof-reading by an English language
expert.
Thank you.
Title: An Acceptance Analysis of a Sexual Health Education Digital Tool in Resource-Poor
Regions of Kenya: An UTAUT based Survey Study
Version: 8 Date: 18 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has benefitted from some revisions based on the initial comments. However,
I still want authors to demonstrate how the exogenous variables are directly related the
behavioural intentions. This explanation is not clear in the literature review. Authors stated that
"because we primarily aimed to investigate the construct's
impact on BI, and not the constructs within each other." I agree to this. So please demonstrate in
your literature writing how the various constructs relate with or impact BI. By merely quoting
authorities does not reflect an explicit explanation on the relationships.
Secondly, there are still grammatical errors in the writing. Authors are advised to send the
manuscript for proofreading.
I believe that if these two key recommendations are addressed, the manuscript will be fit for
final publication.
Thank you.
Title: An Acceptance Analysis of a Sexual Health Education Digital Tool in Resource-Poor
Regions of Kenya: An UTAUT based Survey Study
Version: 9 Date: 25 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I have provided a sample review below on how to establish a relationship between two variables
from a published m-health paper for your consideration.
Relationship between Perceived risk and behavioral intention
It is defined as the degree to which a person’s judgment that using certain information technology
may produce bad results [44]. Issues related to perceived risk pose a obstacle to the adoption
of m-Health [45, 46]. The increase of perceived risk could directly reduce person’s behavioral
intention to use m-Health [47]. Hsieh et al. [48] studied medical workers’ willingness to
use health cloud technology and pointed out that perceived risk impacted negatively on their
behavioral intention. Kim et al. [41] showed that patients’ perceived risk of health information
technology negatively affected their intention to use health information technology. Whether
mobile apps are secure or not is related to nurses’ psychological cognition [47]. Therefore, the
variable of perceived risk in our study is defined as a nurse’s judgment that using a mobile
nursing app may produce bad results. Previous studies have pointed out that perceived risk
negatively affects individuals’ intention to use m-Health [40, 47, 49]. At the same time, mobile
applications may disclose users’ personal information, which brings some risks to users [26].
Nurses may perceive that the use of a mobile nursing app will harm their own interests, such
as binding software, privacy disclosure, etc., which may lead to a decrease in the intention of
nurses to use a mobile nursing app. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H5: Perceived risk will be negatively associated with nurses’ behavioral intention.
Title: Infectious vaginitis among women seeking reproductive health services at a sexual and
reproductive health facility in Kampala, Uganda
Version: 1 Date: 07 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study site needs to be described further in terms of staffing levels, laboratory capacity,
whether the health facility is HC2, 3, 4 or above, depending on the MOH grading.
section 2.2. The sample size formular provided does not correspond to the citation provided.
The authors should specify the nature of consent (written informed consent or verbal consent).
section 2.3. The use of the word interview is much more bent on qualitative research, yet this
was a quantitative study. The authors should look for a better word that fits the study. For those
who declined, had they given consent? You can not include any participant in your study if they
have not consented in the first place.
section 2.4. The transport medium has to be described in detail, manufacturer details, batch
number etc.
Did the authors follow any laboratory SOPs while performing laboratory experiments? This has
to come out clearly.
section 2.5. STATA has to also be described (developer details)
section 2.6. What do the authors mean by the term "written permission from potential
respondent"? There also has to be consistency in usage of the words "participants" and
"respondents".
Table one: Some of the numbers in some cells for specific variable categories dont add up to
the said 361.
The authors should remember that their outcome variable is infectious vaginitis. Moreover, this
outcome variable is categorical. so they must perform multivariate logistic regression analysis
for all categories of the outcome variable, not just picking out two of the five categories.
The authors should also reduce on the number of tables. some columns can be removed
(frequency, posit, negat) such that you merge bivariate and multivariate tables.
The authors are reminded that a given variable is concluded on as a risk factor after multivariate
analysis.  So, your results to report should be only those ones at multivariate analysis.
In the discussion, line 231-233, 248-250, you need to provide references to your assertions.
In lines 253, 276, 283, 290, 301 and 314, what is being reported is not anywhere in your
multivariate results.
Your discussion does not present strengths, weaknesses or limitations of your study. These must
appear there.
Also, your discussion does not present scientific explanations/arguments. Mere comparisons are
not enough.
In your conclusion, you are reporting risk factors that were not actually significant at
multivariate. this is an anomaly.
You need to list your abbreviations.
Title: Infectious vaginitis among women seeking reproductive health services at a sexual and
reproductive health facility in Kampala, Uganda
Version: 1 Date: 15 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
General comment: The work is relevant to clinical practice. The knowledge on the prevalence
of the different classes of infectious vaginitis is welcome. Although the author’s approach of
analyzing association for BV and VVC is acceptable, I think it would have been clearer if an
analysis was done for factors associated with infectious vaginitis as a whole. Infectious vaginitis
can then be defined as having had any of the 3classes. However, the current approach to analysis
can be maintained.
Abstract: Generally well-written.  Abbreviations should not be used before being written in full
prior to the abbreviation.  The lack of generalizability although noted as a limitation for the study
need not appear in the abstract.
Background and methods: Well-written.  The methods show clearly how the results were
generated. In the methods section, please describe clearly how the samples from the two swabs
were appropriated to test for the 3 different types of vaginitis. Also in the analysis plan, indicate
clearly that the logistic regression was not for factors associated with infectious vaginitis as a
whole but the specific classes of infectious vaginitis (BV and VVC).
Results:  The number of participants analyzed (N) should be indicated in all the tables. Table
1 and 2 have variations in the number of participants for the different variables. In some parts,
the frequency percentage total to more than 100. Please revise. The descriptive tables should
be combined into one or two tables.  In line 247, correct the spelling of "prevalence". Should
you choose to maintain the current approach of analysis, please mention that there was no factor
associated with BV.
Discussion; Factors which were only significant on bivariate analysis are discussed as if they
were significantly associated with BV. This needs to be revised.
Conclusion: This needs to be shortened. Regarding “factors associated”, only the factor which
was significant on multivariate analysis should be mentioned in the conclusion.
Title: The Social determinants of mental health disorders among women with infertility: a
systematic review
Version: 0 Date: 20 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Masoumeh Namazi
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written manuscript with an attractive title. Here are some suggestions:
- In the first line of introduction, please cite to a gynecology textbook to define infertility.
-In result section (Religion and spirituality), please explain why Muslim women experience
higher depression.
Regards
Title: The Social determinants of mental health disorders among women with infertility: a
systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 08 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the revised manuscript. I do still believe that societal outcomes and
the way they are measured should be defined a bit more. I've also realized that a new result
concerning the partners included, please make sure mentioning this in the method section as well.
There are vague statements in the manuscript, such as " only high-quality articles " or "alcohol" ,
please define these in more detail, such as published in peer review journals or alcohol
consumption or problematic alcohol consumption, if that is what you mean.
Please take some time to read one more time the conclusions stated in the discussion part and
make sure they are based on this particular systematic review.
Title: The Social determinants of mental health disorders among women with infertility: a
systematic review
Version: 2 Date: 13 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for making the many, significant changes. For me, the paper
reads much better. I enjoyed reading the paper and I'm happy with the changes and comments
made. The authors do not explain their decision to limit their search strategy from 2010 - and I
think a justification is warranted. However, the paper is  exciting and a good read.
Title: Survival rate of Cervical Cancer in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-
analysis
Version: 1 Date: 01 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, " Survival rate of Cervical Cancer in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis "The subject is important for physicians and health managers. But for getting
more valuable of results authors should be considered following comments.
1- In the key words, Insert "meta analysis" and instead of  "survival" insert "survival rate"
replace.
2- In the abstract, In the methods, should be inserted the mesh word to search the database.
3- In the abstract, conclusion should be shorter for example I think the first sentence  can be
remove.
4-  In Appendix 2, row 7, there is a study from Spanish country.
5- In Appendix 4, there is typing error. The ten is miss in the subscript of figure title.
6- There are some mistake in the result and table 1. For example the total of paper include in
study have mentioned 111 but in this table last line and overall column mentioned 317 . Also
the number of study have been obtained in the the one-year, three and five years survival in this
table and the content of the results is not the same.
7- In discussion consider the low difference between survival rate the three, five and ten  can
improve the value of manuscript.
8- Age is important factor in survival rate and if there is information about it,  insert them in
the results  can be valuable.
9- In comparison of survival rate between different country such as Kuwait and Iran should be
pay mentioned the number of studies and  small sample size. In table 1 there is just one paper
from Kuwait.
Title: The Psychosexual and Psychosocial Impacts of Polygamous Marriages: A Cross-
Sectional Study among Somali Women
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
How was the sample size determined?
How is polyamory differentiated from polygamy?
In the methodology, you have mentioned the type of study as prospective, while the study seems
to be analytical cross-sectional study.
What was the reason for limiting the evaluation of the results to the results of sexual function,
self-esteem, somatization, depression, and anxiety? Why were sexually transmitted diseases,
sexual violence or domestic violence, betrayal, etc. not assessed?
Title: The Psychosexual and Psychosocial Impacts of Polygamous Marriages: A Cross-
Sectional Study among Somali Women
Version: 1 Date: 20 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The content and subjects of the study are interesting for me.  However, there are some corrections
which should be done:
References are not exact; some sentences are given from secondhand sources. It means that the
sentence in the referenced article is referred to another reference.
It is not clear why a prospective study is mentioned. It does not seem to be prospective, if it is
prospective, exposure and outcome data and duration of follow-up should be mentioned.
The reliability and validity of the tools was not mentioned.
The method of calculating the scores of the FSFI does not seem to be accurate. The tool contains
the coefficients to be applied after summation.
Figure 1 does not add any new information to the study. Delete it.
Compare two groups in one table and have a total column in it, so one of the tables one or two
must be deleted.
You can also check the effect of demographic variables on the outcomes of the study in univariate
and multivariate form and report the results in a table.
Write in the discussion why you think that women in polygamous marriages were worse off in
terms of the study outcomes.
Title: The Psychosexual and Psychosocial Impacts of Polygamous Marriages: A Cross-
Sectional Study among Somali Women
Version: 3 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript was revised and it is much better. The reliability and validity of the tools should
be come after description of them.  Considering the many analyzes that have been done and the
results of the study, the discussion section seems very short.