JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Violence experienced by women, their mental health status, and determinants in favelas
under the pandemic COVID-19 in Brazil
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Generally, the topic of this paper is exciting. However, some problems remain unsolved. I hope
the following comments can help improve this paper further.
*Pay attention to the spelling mistake in line 71
*It would be appropriate to give brief information about logistic regression in the statistical
analysis section.
*In the analysis part, logistic regression marginal effects should be calculated and tabulated.
*A separate title should be opened for literature review.
I would like to see an in-depth literature review.Particularly recent studies should be used.
Ex: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248630
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440241251989
*You also need to give vif values in the tables
The purpose of the study should be expressed more comprehensively (in the abstract and in the
text)
*A separate title should be opened in the study called "Theoretical and practical implications".
I hope the above-mentioned points can help you improve your work.
Title: Violence experienced by women, their mental health status, and determinants in favelas
under the pandemic COVID-19 in Brazil
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Violence experienced by women, their
mental health status, and determinants in favelas under the pandemic COVID-19 in Brazil”.
Assessing the impact of violence against women (VAW) during public health emergencies is
a relevant issue, as it helps to produce evidence that contributes to public polices at addressing
this issue among vulnerable population.
Methods
Regarding the setting, the authors state that it included 26 states and Federal District. It's
valuable that a large country like Brazil is represented broadly across all the states.  What was
the sample distribution among Brazilian regions? Did your findings allows for reflections based
on local or regional particularities, as well as actions to prevent VAW in these specific settings?
Did data collection occur in the women's homes? If so, were the participants invited to participate
when they stay alone at home? How was this recruitment process managed, considering the
sensitive nature of this topic? How did the research team ensure the safety of both the women
and the researcher?
Regarding the validity and reliability of the instrument, did the authors have any data about the
internal consistency of this instrument?
Additionally, it would be beneficial to include some characteristics of this instrument. For
instance, did it use yes/no question or any kind of scale?
Violence against women is a sensitive topic; therefore, it is important to address ethical aspects
during inquiries into this form of violence. Please, include more information regarding the
ethical conduct of the researchers during data collection and the protocols in place to ensure
participant safety.
Discussion
The authors state that police violence exposure appears to be a protective factor.  Have the
authors found similar results in other Brazilian studies? What other reflections could this result
evoke among the researchers?
Additionally, while physical, psychological, sexual violence were explored, other forms of
violence against women, such as patrimonial violence, may have increased during this period.
I suggest including some reflections on this.
Limitations
Possible under-reporting is common when addressing topics such as violence against women. I
recommend including a reflection on this issue in this section.
Minor details
On page 8, line 202 I suggest reviewing the term “newspapers” in this sentence. Did the authors
means “scientific journal”?
Title: Violence experienced by women, their mental health status, and determinants in favelas
under the pandemic COVID-19 in Brazil
Version: 3 Date: 20 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Violence experienced by women, their
mental health status, and determinants in favelas under the pandemic COVID-19 in Brazil”.
After reviewing all the changes in the paper, I accept this final version for publication.
Minor details
On page 10, line 215 I suggest reviewing the term “newspapers” in this sentence.
Please review page 22, line 427, for possible grammatical errors or misspellings, particularly
in the phrase “This studies.”
Title: Violence experienced by women, their mental health status, and determinants in favelas
under the pandemic COVID-19 in Brazil
Version: 3 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank the authors for their meticulous revision. I believe that the study will
contribute to the literature. I wish them success in their future studies.
I have a small note. In the abbreviations section, add the abbreviations here as well: "AME:
Average Marginal Effect; SE: Standard Error; VIF: Variance inflation factor".
Title: Aggressive primary uterine non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma presenting as acute kidney injury:
A case report
Version: 0 Date: 21 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I read with great interest your article entitled " Aggressive primary uterine non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma presenting as acute kidney injury: A case report."
This case report describes an extremely rare presentation of primary uterine non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma (NHL) manifesting as acute kidney injury (AKI). The manuscript is well-structured,
with a clear introduction, a detailed case description, and a comprehensive discussion. The topic
is significant, as it highlights an uncommon site of extranodal NHL.
However, there are some issues that need to be addressed before publication:
• The authors briefly mention challenges related to limited immunohistochemical studies.
Expanding on this point by discussing how access to additional diagnostic resources could have
impacted the case would be beneficial.
• It would be beneficial to elaborate further on the differential diagnosis in the discussion,
specifically comparing primary uterine lymphoma with other gynecological conditions that may
present with similar manifestations, such as uterine sarcoma.
• Some sentences are lengthy and complex. Editing for conciseness and readability would
improve clarity.
Title: Aggressive primary uterine non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma presenting as acute kidney injury:
A case report
Version: 0 Date: 23 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript on cervical lymphoma. I find the work
well done, well-structured, and presented according to logical and comprehensible criteria. From
a syntactic perspective, it is well-articulated, and the language is used correctly.
Title: Aggressive primary uterine non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma presenting as acute kidney injury:
A case report
Version: 0 Date: 13 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
a. Overall Quality and Contribution:
The case presentation requires further refinement for clarity and coherence. Notably, there are
inconsistencies in the description of clinical findings. For example, if the cervix was reported as
normal on visual examination, clarification is needed on the biopsy site and rationale for biopsy.
b. Clinical Details:
The authors should provide more detailed information regarding the aetiology of renal failure
in this patient. Specifically, it should be stated whether the renal failure was due to obstructive
uropathy or secondary to metabolic or biochemical derangements.
c. Reference to Guidelines:
The manuscript should include references to the World Health Organization (WHO)
guidance on the histopathological diagnosis of gynaecological malignancies. Additionally, it is
recommended to cite established guidelines on the standardized management of Primary Female
Genital Tract Lymphoma (PFGTL).
Title: Exploring the Role of Negative Expectations and Emotions in Primary Dysmenorrhea:
Insights from a Case-Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 01 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript suggests that psychological factors, such as anticipatory worry before a
patient's period, are correlated with their level of menstrual pain. The authors posit that this
correlation may be due to a nocebo mechanism, but they should consider framing it as a
potential anticipatory effect since there is no specific "nocebo" device or treatment being
studied. Additionally, it is unclear what is attributable to anticipation and the result of historical
experience, making it difficult to determine causality. This limitation should be clearly stated.
The strengths of this manuscript include the use of validated questionnaires and cortisol
measurements, although there is uncertainty regarding the correct storage and processing of the
measurements without positive controls.
Other potential concerns:
Abstract results should present data. Everything is too vague in the abstract.
Why do the authors think dysmenorrhea is accompanied by circulatory disorders?
“Participants in the high-pain group were required to report a history of severe menstrual pain #
6 on a 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (‘no pain’) to 10 (‘worst imaginable
pain’) [20] during the last three menstrual cycles”  Is that average pain? Is that maximal pain?
How was this determined?
Was there missing data? Did you really have complete data for all participants? The authors
should follow the STROBE guidelines for observational studies to make this and other important
aspects clear.
The participants were told not to use medications. However, compliance was not investigated.
Why are you using two different colors (Fig 1, pink vs Fig 2, blue) for the high-pain group?
The figures are interesting and support the differences between the groups. However, the
correlation matrix is the most interesting. Perhaps plotting the relationship between key predictor
variables (anticipatory worry and mean menstrual pain)? Or making a correlation matrix plot on
selected variables would be most informative.
Title: Exploring the Role of Negative Expectations and Emotions in Primary Dysmenorrhea:
Insights from a Case-Control Study
Version: 0 Date: 09 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
I thank the editor and the authors for the opportunity to review this interesting and well-written
manuscript. The authors used a daily diary approach to compare anticipated menstrual pain and
associated negative emotions to actual experienced menstrual pain among women screened for
a recent history of high and low menstrual pain levels. The authors found that women in the
high pain group anticipated greater pain and negative emotions in the days leading up to the
start of menstruation, and also reported higher pain during menstruation than women in the low
menstrual pain group. However, there are a few minor concerns preventing endorsement for
publication in this current form.
1. I’m curious as to why daily stress, anxiety, and worry, as well as CAR were not collected
during menstruation? This could have provided further insight into the role of stress and negative
emotions within menstrual pain experiences.
2. While the authors interpret the findings to suggest that anticipated concerns about forthcoming
menstruation may enact a nocebo effect that enhances perceived pain during menstruation, this
was observed in a group of women who reported having a history of primary dysmenorrhea.
Could it not be that these women have had painful and stressful menstruations in the past and
recognize a pattern of their own personal experiences, and are thus documenting their awareness
that this pattern will likely continue as before? This is briefly touched upon in the discussion,
and indeed is given support in the Introduction when describing the development of visceral
hyperalgesia within primary dysmenorrhea, suggesting a physiological mechanism for increased
pain during menstruation. As such, more discussion of this – along with tempered language in
relation to nocebo effects (e.g., “This pioneering study confirms that…” in the Conclusion of
the Abstract) – would be valuable.
3. The authors state in the Limitations that participants may have experienced less stress during
the pandemic, without empirical support, when multiple studies show that people tended to be
more stressed during this time.
Title: Exploring the Role of Negative Expectations and Emotions in Primary Dysmenorrhea:
Insights from a Case-Control Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the manuscript by Thomann et
al., exploring the role of negative expectations and emotions in primary dysmenorrhea. The
manuscript is well-written and addresses a relevant topic affecting a large proportion of women
in reproductive age. As the manuscript has already undergone a thorough revision, let me add
only few comments and suggestions regarding possible further improvements:
- While I acknowledge the issue of multicollinearity when entering intercorrelated variables,
it might still be informative to add exploratory regression analyses to identify and quantify
the predictive power of the psychological measures on menstrual pain and disability in this
prospective study, even when causal inferences are not possible.
- Statistical analyses: Please clarify the rationale for using parametric statistics for CAR, non-
parametric tests for NRS.
- Please add Fisher’s exact test in the statistical analyses.
- Results – sample: The authors report on 20 women per group after exclusion. It is not entirely
clear why in the low-pain group, use of pain medication is reported in 2 out of 18 women.
- In the results section, the authors refer to their measures as anticipated or expected pain and
disability. However, these are labeled as “anticipatory” pain and disability in Figure 1A, in
Figure 3A as well as the text related to Figure 3 and the figure legend. This does not seem to
accurately reflect the measures assessed here. Please correct.
- Please check for consistency in spelling out numbers, e.g. section anticipatory negative
emotions “Over the 10 days…” then later in this section “…anticipatory emotions across both
the last ten days and the last three days…”
- Figure 3: The figure looks as if several datasets were missing here, I could only identify 8
datapoints in 3A, 9 in 3B and 7 in 3C for the low pain group, for example. Please adjust the
figure to also indicate when datapoints overlap, e.g. in case of scores of zero.
- Please align the 3 illustrations in Figure 3 to the same size, 3A seems to be overall smaller.
- Table 1, Relationship: Please correct the p-value, as it cannot be 1.
- Table 2, why is no exact p-value provided for CAR?
- Anxiety scores as assessed with DASS, while significantly increased in the high pain group,
were not elevated in either group, but well within range for all subscores when considering
DASS cut-offs. This could be stated somewhere in the manuscript for clarity.
Title: Exploring the Role of Negative Expectations and Emotions in Primary Dysmenorrhea:
Insights from a Case-Control Study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
This exploratory prospective case-control study involving 20 cases and 20 controls suffering
from primary dysmenorrhea highlights the potential impact of negative pain expectations on
anticipatory emotions preceding dysmenorrhea and pain.
Almost all previous reviewers’ comments have been adequately addressed. However, to improve
the manuscript, I might add the following suggestions.
1. Table 1 and the figures suggest that the low-pain group may effectively represent a no-pain
group, as many pain intensity data points fall below 2 on the 11-point NRS. I recommend
using visualization techniques informing about individual participant data and data distribution
(e.g., scatter). Moreover, given that the minimum clinically important difference in pain is
considered to be 2-3 points on the absolute pain scale (see Farrar et al., 2000), readers might
question whether these patients truly experience dysmenorrhea. What measures did the authors
implement to prevent misclassification bias? Did they apply any specific diagnostic criteria or
conduct case reviews?
2. Reviewer 1 highlighted a potential limitation in the baseline pain assessment. Whether
participants rated their minimum, average, or worst pain levels during this assessment remains
uncertain. Based on the authors’ reasoning, switching to mean and maximum pain in their
outcome assessment seems contradictory. Additionally, I noted that Margueritte et al. (2024)
evaluated average pain (refer to Supplement). Considering the study's exploratory nature (with a
small student sample not representing the target population of all women suffering from primary
dysmenorrhea), which should be emphasized rigorously throughout the manuscript, this should
at least be discussed in the limitations section. In the future, more extensive studies should
implement a baseline period and evaluate the same assessment during baseline and outcome
assessments.
Title: Application of high intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of uterine fibroids in
overweight/obese women
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Livio Leo
Reviewer's report:
-The exclusion criteria for malignant disease as assessed are unclear.
-the laparoscopic suture technique is not explicitly stated whether it has been standardized or
with which threads it was performed
-There is no follow up reported regarding pregnancies in women seeking children and what
indications have been given regarding the possibility of spontaneous uterine rupture during
pregnancy and what type of delivery has been recommended
-It seems that the incidence of post-operative fever is high. What kind of intraoperative
prophylaxis is done?
-Did the interventions benefit from a pharmacological preparation? Was contraception
recommended in the postoperative period? If so, for how long?
- There is no clear international classification of myomas and whether diagnostic or operative
hysteroscopy has been carried out in submucoses
-In the figure the reduction is evident but remains a doubtful pathological uterus not symptomatic
Title: Application of high intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of uterine fibroids in
overweight/obese women
Version: 1 Date: 25 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I read your article investigating the application on HIFU for the treatment of uterine fibroids in
overweight/obese patients. Overall, the topic and findings are of great interest to the audience.
However, there are some major issues that should be addressed.
1-" Traditional treatments, such as laparoscopic myomectomy [4], although effective, are
associated with higher surgical risks, prolonged recovery periods, and potential impacts on
fertility, especially in overweight/obese women.". Please provide references for the associated
risks in overweight/obese patients, otherwise revise this sentence.
Also enrich the intro by speaking more of the HIFU treatment and its success in "normal
weighted" population and the several different treatment options for fibroids according to
international guidelines and recent evidence (https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000004401;
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14182046).
2- "The findings are reported as follows.". Remove this sentence.
3- Materials and methods should be completely revised. Indeed, the structure of the article here
is completely inadequate. I suggest to follow a checklist (i.e.: STROBE) in order to provide the
correct pieces step by step. Please include subsections (as requested by STROBE) such as study
design, selection criteria, study outcomes, ethical statement etc .
4- Avoid providing the number of patients included and the comparison of baseline
characteristics in the methods section. These should be reported in the results section.
5- Is maximum fibroid diameter referred to the main one or is it the mean of all the fibroids
diameters detected into each patient?
6- According to WHO, overweight patients have a BMI comprised between 25.0 and 29.9.
Therefore you should provide another reference which explains the BMI ranges you used.
7- How were uterine fibroids investigated preoperatively? US or MRI?
8- Surgical technique section should be more detailed, divided into two subsection, each for a
technique. For example, objective evaluation of blood flow (color score?)
9- "The magnetic resonance imaging changes in the maximum length plane of uterine fibroids
in a 41-year-old woman with menorrhagia before and after HIFU treatment are shown in Figure
1". Remove this sentence. Just cite into the text Figure 1.
10- "with no recurrence or enlargement of uterine fibroids observed in either group". Remove
and place in results section.
11- "Furthermore, HIFU has a minimal impact on fertility, making it an ideal option for patients
who wish to preserve their reproductive function". Provide reference
12- I suggest to discuss the importance of a correct preoperative diagnosis in order to exclude
malignancy (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2023.09.013). Indeed, this may be a contraindication
to HIFU and should be adequately reported.
Title: Application of high intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of uterine fibroids in
overweight/obese women
Version: 1 Date: 26 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Mykhailo Medvediev
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic, significantly contributing to the current
understanding of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) for treating uterine fibroids in
overweight and obese patients.
Consider discussing in greater detail the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, including
possible biases and data completeness, and suggest strategies to mitigate these limitations in
future research.
It would be helpful to clarify your rationale behind selecting a one-year follow-up duration,
addressing how this timeframe impacts the interpretation of recurrence rates and long-term
patient outcomes.
Additional information or suggestions regarding cost-effectiveness analysis comparing HIFU
and traditional laparoscopic methods would greatly enhance the manuscript’s practical relevance
for clinicians and healthcare policymakers.
Further elaboration on challenges encountered with larger fibroids or fibroids located near
critical anatomical structures could provide valuable insights and guide clinical decision-
making.
A brief explanation of the physiological basis of HIFU at the beginning of the manuscript would
make the study more accessible, especially to readers who might be less familiar with this
technology.
Overall, the manuscript demonstrates substantial clinical value and relevance. Addressing these
minor points will further enhance its clarity, comprehensiveness, and practical applicability.
Title: Application of high intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of uterine fibroids in
overweight/obese women
Version: 2 Date: 07 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Mykhailo Medvediev
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the improvements made in this revision have increased the clarity and
comprehensiveness of the study. The discussion of HIFU’s potential advantages—such as
reduced postoperative complications, shorter recovery time, and possibly less difficulty related
to surgical exposure in obese patients—is a valuable contribution to current literature.
Given the current revisions and added clarifications, I believe the manuscript now demonstrates
sufficient merit and clarity to be published. The topic is clinically significant, the methodology
is adequately described, and the findings offer practical implications for gynecologists and
interventionalists. I suggest acceptance after any minor editorial adjustments or formatting edits
required by the journal. Future work could focus on long-term fertility outcomes, cost-benefit
analyses, and larger, multicenter prospective data.