JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Predictors for the change in intimate partner violence among adolescent married girls
aged 15-19 years: Estimates from random effect model
Version: 1 Date: 27 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study that investigates intimate partner violence and its association with
different individual factors. The sample is systematically recruited and nationally representative.
It focuses on  adolescents, while most studies, in particular large, deal with adult women.
The study provides important findings that are not commonly investigated e.g.  the sample
explores caste differences, implications related to increased violence against low-caste women
and differences between communities with dowry traditions. All of this makes the study to stand
out.
My suggestions to the Authors:
1. I suggest using systematic reviews for a review of IPV risk factors.
2. You seem to imply here that coercive control is not  a form of IPV:
‘Empirical evidence suggests adolescents and younger women who are controlled by their
husbands are more likely to face IPV [10, 23].’
I suggest reformulating e.g.
‘Empirical evidence suggests adolescents and younger women who are controlled by their
husbands are more likely to face other forms of IPV [10, 23].’
3. I do not agree that face-to-face interview is a limitation of this study, as it can also be
considered a strength. Well-trained interviewers may not only explain IPV what improves
reporting, but also offer emotional support and signpost to services.
4.  The definitions of emotional and sexual violence are extremely limited in this study, moreover
the study does not acknowledge coercive control as a form of partner abuse.  It might be worth
to address it.
5. Where the authors discuss gender differences and equality it is important to point out the
difference when women v. men use violence – a battered women might also hit her partner e.g. in
self-defense but the injuries and emotional and social impact will be less severe in a patriarchal
society compared to when men use violence against women.
Title: Adherence to Mediterranean dietary quality index and risk of breast cancer in adult
women: A case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
- Throughout the paper the Authors cited the "linkage". According to the reviewer, it is better
to refer to "association"
- Sample size calculations are not given. What is the hypotesys to be tested, and the relevant
figures?
- Some relevant publication is missing, such as the following
doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202107_26246
doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02346-6
- What are the possible implications from a public health perspective? Tjois must be discussed
in the Discussion section
Title: Adherence to Mediterranean dietary quality index and risk of breast cancer in adult
women: A case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting study in a specific population, that confirms the important rule of
mediterranean diet in contrasting breast cancer. I suggest also to cite the study of Amabile et
al (10.3390/jpm10040227) that highlights the metabolic aspects in management and prognosis
of metastatic breast cancer.
Well done!
Title: Adherence to Mediterranean dietary quality index and risk of breast cancer in adult
women: A case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for letting me reviewing this interesting article.
The methods are clear end the results are well-showed.
I would recommend to better explain in the discussion the effect of a non-mediterranean diet in
the incidence of breast cancer, referring to the published literature and even eventually to add
a table with the summarising results.
Title: PCGEM1 promotes cell proliferation and migration in endometriosis by targeting
miR-124-3p-mediated ANTXR2 expression
Version: 1 Date: 21 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “PCGEM1 promotes cell proliferation and
migration in endometriosis by targeting miR-124-3p mediated ANTXR2 expression”, which
falls within the aim of this Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified.
- The Authors did not mention the sample size calculation for their study. It is essential to specify
this data in order to guarantee an adequate significance of the results obtained by the Authors.
- In the Results section, the Authors have simply reported the p values, from which however it
is not possible to deduce the real clinical relevance of the highlighted statistical significance. In
order to better understand the obtained results, I suggest reporting not only the p values, but also
the corresponding confidence intervals
- Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research (EQUATOR) network guidelines? It would be mandatory to declare about this
element.
- Accumulating evidence suggests that immune cells, adhesion molecules, extracellular matrix
metalloproteinase and pro-inflammatory cytokines activate/alter peritoneal microenvironment,
creating the conditions for differentiation, adhesion, proliferation and survival of ectopic
endometrial cells. I would discuss these points in the light of new theories about the pathogenesis
of endometriosis, referring to: PMID: 23154237; PMID: 31663401
- I recommend to add further elements to highlight the molecular and cellular differences
between eutopic and ectopic endometrium, especially regarding the expression of neurotrophic
factor which plays a key role for pain exacerbation: PMID: 22633194; PMID: 28100109; PMID:
23545214.
Title: The Relationship between Diet Quality Indices and Odds of Breast Cancer in Women:
A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 09 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Fatemeh Toorang
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
Please consider fallowing comments:
Abstract:
Why you reported OR and Pvalue for DED, when the association was not significant.
Why you claim your finding will guide prevention in pre-post-menopausal women, when you
don’t have any finding based on menopausal status.
Method:
Why you excluded liquor users only from control group?
Why you matched case and controls based on BMI category and why you excluded subjects
with BMI>40?  Body mass index is an intermediate variable in the causal pathway of diet and
breast cancer, and its adjustment reduces the probability of observing an association between
diet and cancer.
Reference 24 is not a validation study or study which describe the FFQ
Reference 24 and 25 should be edited. Maybe you should say:  “Energy and nutrient intake was
estimated using Nutritionist IV software. This software uses the USDA food composition table
and changes have been made based on the Iranian food composition table.”
WC was measured in your study. Don’t use estimated.
How you defined outliers? How many subjects in cases and controls were excluded as outliers?
Did excluding outliers changed the distributions to normal ?!
Why you said mean values of more than two groups were assessed using analysis of variance?
There are only two groups. Why you did not use t-test.
What do you mean by “the data were presented as mean+sd ? In which table and which data.
There are lots of categorical variables in your study.
Why you considered “long haul diet changes “as an excluding criteria in control group and why
not in patient group. If you excluded subjects with “long haul diet changes “from the study, why
you put this variable in model3.
What is the logic of models? It seems that you put cofounders in models randomly.
Title: The Relationship between Diet Quality Indices and Odds of Breast Cancer in Women:
A Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 21 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper examines the  relationship between diet quality indices and odds of Breast Cancer in
Women: A Case-Control Study. It covers an important topic and represents a significant amount
of work done by the authors. The rationale for the paper is outlined and the results are interesting.
The study is interesting but result and discussion should be better presented and explained. It
would be great if can discuss details of DQI indexes and relation of health at the introduction.
Major Revisions:
# All the tables titles are missing. It is mandatory  to understand table content
# DQI-I, MAR, DED related more info need to provide in the literature review ( introduction)
to make it more clear to the audience
# The authors need to amend the manuscript for further improvement. There are mixtures of
American and British English and plenty grammatical errors. Please either take the help of a
Native English speaker or paid services
# In the intro you are telling "Extensive research has focused on the role of lifestyle-related
factors, especially nutrition and diet, as preventative measures for BrCa because these factors
are potentially modifiable" then later part of introduction you are telling "To our knowledge,
studies on investigated how these dietary quality indices (DQI-I, MAR and DED) relate to BrCa
are limited." Please justify clearly why and how DQI indexes are different from nutrient and
diet research?
# In this Hospital-based case-control study, 253 patients with BrCa and 267 non BrCa controls
were enrolled. If case and controls are 1:1 then should be same number
# Need to justify total number of sample size
# In the statistical analysis you mentioned  -a priori selected potential confounders
need to elaborate how you selected the confounders
# Discussion first paragraph need to revise. Need to elaborate the main finding of the study
Minor Revisions:
# Please provide abbreviation of DASH
Title: Reusable period products: Use and perceptions among young people in Victoria, Australia
Version: 3 Date: 07 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Ayat Mahmoud Tawfik
Reviewer's report:
Your work is really interesting, innovative and informative,. Please consider the following
comments:
1. Please clearly explain the questionnaire used in quantitative and that for qualitative data
collection. Mention its source, validation, language, items covering what concepts, no. of
questions, …., etc.
2. Explain the process of conducting qualitative data collection, no. of participants, used
approach like in-depth interview or small group discussion.
3. How was sample size calculated?
4. Please explain where (Individuals who completed the survey in past years) this happened?
How you accessed these populations?
5. Is age <18 years allowed to give consent to participate?
6. What does (disposable income) mean?
7. Had the qualitative data collection done by only one question? As the following statement
is mis-leading (Qualitative data collection. At the end of the set of menstrual health questions,
participants were presented with an optional open text question asking: “Is there anything else
you’d like to tell us about making menstrual product choices or the use of reusable products?”)?
8. Please make the subtitle (Analysis) as data analysis.
9. Add a footnote for table (1) for what is PR and CI.
10. How did you classify participants as Has or does not have enough information about reusable
products? Based on what criteria?
11. What are the concluded themes for qualitative analysis? Illustrate.
Title: Reusable period products: Use and perceptions among young people in Victoria, Australia
Version: 3 Date: 30 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Congratulations for putting this manuscript together! Kindly address the following comments
1. Topic: use after the semi-colon should be block letter
2. Abstract
a. Include the p-values in your result section
b. Your recommendation must be directed to specific stakeholders. As it stands, it is too open
and not a good way of writing.
3. Your keywords should be limited to at most five words
4. Background: Your back ground lack conceptualization of keywords such as young people
and reusable period products. the focus of your background must be on reusable materials and
previous studies conducted on reusable materials in Australia and tell us the gap that informed
your study. I did not see that clearly coming from your work.
5. Line 1 should read "Women  and adolescent girls who ..."
6. Provide reference for lines 11-12
7. Line 27 should read "mixed methods study of women  who..."
8. Line 27: (18-55)? women menstruate at age 55?
9. Line 40 should read "more environmentally and cost-effective products. Thus, the present
study: ..."
10. Line 14 under METHODS: What is the mean age for menarche in Australia? why start from
age 15? (15-29). what about those experienced menstruation from say age 12 -14?
11. Line 19-20 "For this study, the sample was limited to participants who reported having a
menstrual period in the last six months (n=596). " this statement is ambiguous.  (any reason(s)
for the past six months?  Are there young people who did not menstruate in the last six months?)
GENERAL STATEMENT
1. Proofread your work thoroughly. There are a lot of grammatical errors.
2. Note that period (.) comes after in-text citation and not before. Kindly correct this throughout
the manuscript.
3. Kindly check that your reference list contains all in-text citations and vise versa
Title: Candidiasis profile at the Outpatient Department of the University of Cape Coast hospital
in the Central region of Ghana: A retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 11 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors sought to describe the profile of candidiasis over 8 years in one of the Teaching
Hospitals in Ghana and determine the diagnostic performance of pus cells, epithelial cells and
RBCs and yeast cells for diagnosis of candidiasis.
The intent of writing this paper is generally good as the diagnostic performance could inform
health professionals about alternatives to the diagnosis of candidiasis in resource-limited
countries.
The analysis method employed is inappropriate to answer the study objectives. Authors need to
use more rigorous analysis to answer their study objectives.
Authors should observe the following:
1. The line numbers should be introduced  in the manuscript to aid in revision
2. Font sizes and styles should be uniform. The author's names provided are in different formats
3. The abstract methods should indicate the study area, designs used and laboratory methods
employed.
4. Results: Authors intended to find out if microscopic examination of  EC, Pus, RBCs and Yeast
could predict candidiasis infection using culture as the gold standard.
For such a study, authors will have to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive
values, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and receiver operating characteristic of
each parameter or a combination of these in predicting candiasis.
The analysis presented where EC is compared with Pus or RBC is not appropriate and appears
meaningless. Again authors should note that each specimen being urine or vaginal swabs
has  different diagnostic performance. Combining candida from urine and vaginal swabs and
conducting pooled analysis is also not appropriate. If authors desire to do this, then it should
be done separately.
It's also not clear why diagnostic performance analyses are presented for different years. This
is not meaningful. It's also not clear why the authors chose to use the relative risk of cells to
describe diagnostic performance. I can't figure out what exactly they seek to communicate.
The discussion and conclusions are flawed based on the poor analysis presented in the
manuscript.
Authors should consider these comments as major address it.
Title: Candidiasis profile at the Outpatient Department of the University of Cape Coast hospital
in the Central region of Ghana: A retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 02 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have attempted to address some of the comments but others are still pending.
1. Comments 4: Authors have indicated that the gold standard for comparison is wet prep plus
culture. If I understand,  samples positive for both wet prep and cultures were used as the gold
standard. Culture is the confirmatory method  for wet mount and should identify the organism
as candida albicans or otherwise. Authors will therefore have to make reference to "candida
albicans positive" as the reference and not yeast cells. Authors should amend this throughout
the manuscript and also in table 4
2.  Comment 6: It will be good for authors to provide reference to their definition of "severe
candiasis". This will be helpful for the readers
3. Comment 7: I don't agree   the explanations by the authors. The fact that results for urine
and vagina are similar does not mean you should combine them for analysis. Urine and vaginal
swabs are collected for difference purposes. Urines are for diagnosis of urinary tract infection
and vaginal swabs for vaginal infections. You conducted a retrospective study of data available
from a hospital. I'm not sure these urines were requested purposely for diagnosis of candidiasis?
Even if so, their predictive performance could differ compared to vagina swabs.  Again the
goal of your study was not to compared performance of urine and vaginal swabs for detection
of candida? Readers should be clear in their mind the import  of the results referring to either
vaginal swabs or urine. I would wish you exclude data from urine if you feel the number is small.
This will bring some more clarity to your findings
4.  Comments 8: The explanation for this is not also satisfactory. If authors intend to assess the
influence of sample preparation, personnel and skills of microscopists on diagnosis of candiasis,
then they should have  controlled for such variables in the analysis.  Well, if authors will still
like to keep this then they should include another row for the overall summary of the diagnostic
performance based on pooled analysis.
Title: Candidiasis profile at the Outpatient Department of the University of Cape Coast hospital
in the Central region of Ghana: A retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 28 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have done a good work in providing answers to most of the previous comments. The
work is near a suitable state for publication however, there are still a few issues to be resolved.
The methodology section both under the abstract and the methods still requires a little review.
Authors provided that the Chi-square test and and sensitivity and specificity tests were used
to assess the statistical significance among microscopic candidiasis profiles. This appears
inaccurate. The appropriate terminologies for the test statistics should be used. The Chi-square
test is a test statistic used to assess statistical association or difference between two variables. I
am not sure is there is test statistic named sensitivity or specificity test. If I am right, I think the
sensitivity and specificity including other test outcomes such as PPV, NPV, PLR, NLR and the
Youden Index are test outcomes from the Receiver Operator characteristic (ROC) test in every
statistical software including the GraphPad Prism statistical software used in this study. Authors
should revise. Authors should also state that all statistical analysis was done using GraphPad
Prism version 9.3.1. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Data in table 1 presents information on prevalence of candidiasis stratified by type of specimen,
type of cells, age, and year under review. The 95% CIs is important in giving us the confidence
of the proportional point estimates. Thus, for example, the prevalence of urine is 13.4%. Per my
calculation using the Clopper Pearson test statistic, this falls within a 95% CI of 11.3-16.0.
Authors can utilize the “confidence_interval_proportion_V07.xlsx” tool available for download
on the internet to determine the 95% Cis.
Title: Candidiasis profile at the Outpatient Department of the University of Cape Coast hospital
in the Central region of Ghana: A retrospective study
Version: 7 Date: 17 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have generally addressed most of the issues raised. Authors may have to attend to
some further few typos and calculations.
Line 25 should read : All urine and high vaginal swab samples were processed using wet mount
and further cultured on Sabaurauds dextrose agar.
Line 37, 41, 46, line 171: Abstract - “Candida albicans” is a scientific name hence should be
italized throughout the manuscript.
Line 35-38: Authors should double check their calculations of the percentages in the entire
manuscript. Example percentage of candida infection in female was 831/856 which is 97.1%
not 96.1, pus cell percentage is 825/856 which is 96.4% not 95.4%, epithelial cell is 845/856
which is 98.7% not 97.7% and RBC percentage is 7.6% not 7.5% and Candida albicans is 63.2%
not 62.5%.
Title: Candidiasis profile at the Outpatient Department of the University of Cape Coast hospital
in the Central region of Ghana: A retrospective study
Version: 8 Date: 15 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments to authors
The manuscript is now near ready for publication. Authors should address the few lapses in my
comments below.
Abstract
Results
Lines 41-43: Remove “The sensitivity for detecting Candida albicans positive versus red blood
cells was compared to Candida albicans positive vs pus cells or Candida albicans positive vs
epithelial cells”. This information should be in the methods section.
Supplementary tables
My previous comment recommended that only the overall diagnostic accuracy of the makers
of candidiasis assessed be presented. Authors have indeed reported so in the manuscript and in
their response indicated that only the overall diagnostic accuracy of the markers of candidiasis
was presented. This is supposed to mean that the yearly diagnostic accuracy was no longer
relevant to the entire study. As I pointed out in my previous comment, “It doesn’t bring to bear
any relevant scientific knowledge and certainly wouldn’t form part of any scientific discourse
to eventually effect any change in the diagnosis of candidiasis”. Why then are these yearly
diagnostic accuracy results still presented in the supplementary tables? The supplementary tables
are no longer needed and should be taken out entirely from the manuscript. Meanwhile, authors
should have presented the overall diagnostic accuracy for HVS samples and for Urine samples
as these are two different samples. Authors should kindly revise.
What is the meaning of the * attached to the Age categories/year in table one. Define it under
the table
Take out the degree of freedom in table 2 and present the p-values to three decimal places
Table 3: Define the dash (-) under the table. For ratios that results in 100%, write only 100 in
parenthesis and not 100.0. For example, prevalence of PC < 5 among patients aged 5-15 is 9
and the denominator for this age group is 9; this gives us a PC < 5 prevalence of 100% among
patients aged 5-15 i.e., 9/9 (100) and not 9/9 (100.0).
Under the CAP*/HPF, the headings pos with the plus (+) sign and neg with the munis (-) sign
should be revised to indicate just one of them. + is the same as positive and – denotes negative.
I suggest the words pos+ and neg- be changed to yes and no respectively since the caption CAP
in itself is leaned towards the presence of Candida albicans per high power field.
Discussion
Line 248: acrsoss should be revised to across
Lines 259-264: The diagnostic accuracy of RBC in predicting or diagnosing VVC is poor per
the analytical outcome as presented in table 4; the interpretation hence provided does not seem
to support the results. The conclusion as made is also wild and largely not supported by the data.
If there is anything that is clear so far is that PCs, ECs and RBCs possess very poor diagnostic
accuracy in diagnosing VVC. Authors should revise.