JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Self-efficacy and positive thinking as predictors of health-related quality of life in women
with stress urinary incontinence
Version: 1 Date: 24 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editorial Team and Authors, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for considering
me to review the manuscript titled “Self-efficacy and positive thinking as predictors of health-
related quality of life in women with stress urinary incontinence during COVID-19 pandemic”.
I got through your manuscript. The authors did well regarding the aforementioned problem and
I appreciate the effort they have been through. I have some comments and suggestions below.
1. General comments: grammar and topography
1. From your title and objectives, I can’t see the relevance of the phrase “during COVID-19
pandemic”. Hence, avoid it.
2. Abstract: replace the objective with an introduction
3. Introduction: the sentences from line number 5&6, and line number 12&13 are talking about
the same thing, it is about the effect of SUI. So, I suggest you merge it.
“Another study found that prostate cancer patients with a greater perception of positive thinking
have a better prostate cancer-specific quality of life, especially in the dimension of functional
well-being, emotional well-being, and social/family well-being”. I think this sentence is not
appropriate. Since your study subjects were females.
4. Method: from your exclusion part, why did you exclude study subjects with depression? Since
you are studying HRQOL, the problem (depression) could be due to the symptom of SUI which
might underestimate your study result. Of course, I understand your concern, but have you seen
other options to get their data?
5. Estimated sample size: in your sample size determination, you have used a correlation
coefficient, r = 0.52 between positive thinking and HRQOL previously reported in a prostate
cancer study. The study was from a different population. Instead, Why not use the correlation
coefficient between self-efficacy and HRQOL?
6. Distress caused by symptoms of urinary incontinence: This scale has criterion, convergent,
and discriminant validity- please show us the sensitivity and specificity of the tool and whether
it is validated in your country. And the same is true for others like positive thinking and quality
of life.
7. Discussion: the similarity and disparity of your study with other studies need explanation.
Also, I suggest authors put the conclusion and recommendation separately from the discussion.
I think your study has limitations and please add a limitation section in your discussion.
8. From the table: age classification is like below or above 65, what is your ground?
9. In Table four, we could see the p-value and its strength from the last column and avoid it
from the last row.
Good luck!
Title: Self-efficacy and positive thinking as predictors of health-related quality of life in women
with stress urinary incontinence
Version: 1 Date: 03 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Astawus Alemayehu
Reviewer's report:
First, I wish to congratulate the authors for their nice works. Overall, the topic was interesting,
it is good if this topic was studied using a large sample size. I have some minor comments for
you but it is not fatal that much.
# Abstract
- well written
- what about factors result
# Introduction
- well written
# Methods
- well written
- why you don’t use other measurements tool to assess the quality of life? why only HRQOL???
# Result
- well written
# Discussion
- lack of logical justification, so it needs revision
- Also, why don’t you use more than one study to compare the finding of your study?
- why don’t you recommend for other concerned bodies or else do you think there is no necessity
of recommendation for other bodies?
- what is the reason for not writing the limitation of your study under the separate heading
“Limitation of the study”
Title: Effectiveness of a self-management mobile app on the quality of life of women with breast
cancer: a study in a developing country
Version: 5 Date: 28 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revision.
If QLACS is categorised into several subdomains, such as negative feelings, positive feelings,
financial problems, distress-family etc, mean and SD for different subdomains and p-value
should be provided. Such as Table 3, the mean and SD for the subdomain negative feelings
better should be provided.
Title: Design and Psychometric Evaluation of the Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors Scale
Based on the Health Action Model (HAM)
Version: 3 Date: 02 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper is not bad. However, there are some questions that need authors to think about
thoroughly.
This paper focuses on the screening behavior of breast cancer patients, which is a vital part of
early diagnosis.
Background
In the background, could you provide more information about the importance of researching on
effective factors that affect screening behavior? Besides, it is hard to grasp your point based on
comparing with existing tools. Please clarify more clearly the significance and advantages of
this new tool. According to the purpose of this paper, what is your specific goal? And why do
you focus on Iranian women?
Materials and Methods
The methodology has not been clearly specified. How to design and revise the item pool under
the guidance of HAM? At each stage, how to integrate the evidence into the final version of
the tool? Before conducting a psychometric analysis, how many items do you have? During
psychometric analysis, what kind of index do you use to evaluate the psychometric properties?
Results
Why do you choose the five demographic factors in this study? The process of item selection is
unclear, please try to use the flowchart to demonstrate it. The type and clarity of tables still need
to be improved. As you mentioned, please provide the path diagram of the CFA model. How
many items and dimensions are in the final version of the tool? How to use it in clinical?
Discussion
The discussion is satisfactory but should be updated by incorporating the revised findings. The
limitations section addresses several significant limitations, however, strongly suggests authors
to thinks again and revise this part.
At last, the manuscript requires English editing to correct the grammar and flow.
Title: Design and Psychometric Evaluation of the Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors Scale
Based on the Health Action Model (HAM)
Version: 3 Date: 11 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
The proposal of the study is very interesting. However, it is important to explain what the
dimensions or elements of the health action model consist of and to improve the justification
for its use for breast cancer detection behaviors. The method section could be better organized,
indicating each phase of the construction of the instrument, some data is necessary such as the
participation rate (this data is considered important since the extension of the instrument is long),
the indicators that the experts evaluated, the questions in the interview. For the results, it is
also suggested to organize by sections, if the data is available, indicate what knowledge and
practice of the detection methods the participants had. Expose the data obtained in the content
validity analysis, the value obtained from the analysis carried out, could be added to the table,
together with the factor loads. It is suggested to put a figure of the confirmatory factor analysis.
In the discussion section, avoid repeating the results and discuss the implications of obtaining
this instrument, according to its dimensions.
Title: Variations in the patterns of tobacco usage among Indian Females - findings from the
Global Adult tobacco Survey India
Version: 3 Date: 25 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Rohini Ruhil
Reviewer's report:
Use of abbreviations SHS, SLT and PHW in Abstract without giving their full forms in the first
usage.
Similarly the use of the abbreviation LMIC in the Introduction without giving its full form in
the first usage.
Give full form of WHO FCTC on its first usage.
Authors may give a flow-chart to explain participants at different stages of the study.
In 1-2 lines authors may explain the Rank method that was used to classify households into
wealth quintiles.
Table no 1 is not labelled properly regarding what the various numbers show i.e. whether these
are n or percentage or OR.
Title: Uptake of and Adherence to Oral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis among Adolescent Girls and
Young Women at High Risk of HIV-infection in Kampala, Uganda: A Qualitative Study of
Experiences, Facilitators and Barriers
Version: 1 Date: 19 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
I commend the authors for this useful manuscript.  Please see my comments below:
Methods
Study population and sampling: Please describe here or elsewhere if PrEP can be given to under-
age persons (<18 years?) without parental permission in Uganda.  Describe the PrEP regimen
(daily, event-driven, etc.?) prescribed to IPAD participants.  Also describe the housing situation
for these participants, especially if they lived with their parents or relatives at home or lived
independently.
Please spell out first use of SEM.
Findings
Table 1 and Individual factors paragraph: Please use consistent capitalization
“…factors such as age, education level, employment or marital status were not associated with
PrEP awareness” Given the small sample size and qualitative study design, can/should you even
try to assess such associations?
“To help AGYW make an informed decision on whether to join the IPAD cohort study and
to support their adherence, they received group education, covering what PrEP was and its
purpose.”  This statement about events occurring prior to this qualitative assessment seems out
of place and should be moved to Methods or Background.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Please review the described consent process. You state that for all participants parental
permission “was waived in order to keep volunteer confidentiality about involvement in sex
work” implying that all participants engaged in sex work, and yet in the quotes (Findings section)
under-age AGYW are also described as being mature/emancipated minors because they cater
for their own livelihood or drug and alcohol dependence, not mentioning sex work.
Title: Uptake of and Adherence to Oral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis among Adolescent Girls and
Young Women at High Risk of HIV-infection in Kampala, Uganda: A Qualitative Study of
Experiences, Facilitators and Barriers
Version: 4 Date: 07 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made a good attempt at addressing the previous feedback and strengthening
the manuscript. A few comments for consideration.
1. I would invite the authors to rethink whether they really want to prime 'awareness' as a
separate construct in the introduction. The organization of the findings as per the SEM highlights
awareness as one among many other constructs, and not the key construct. However, the findings
resonate with the constructs of barriers and facilitators to uptake and adherence. My suggestion
would be the authors delete awareness from the abstract (line 39), on the study objective (line
123) and discussion (line 681). They should also consider deleting the additions in line 82-85,
and line 87-91, which describe awareness approaches in other countries relative to Uganda.  The
authors should use that introductory paragraph to only focus on oral PrEP scale up in SSA and
Uganda, rather than hone into awareness. In line 87, describe a little more the current state of
PrEP scale up in Uganda after technical guidance was issued e.g. Is PrEP nationally available
in all health facilities, or is it limited to research initiatives, how many people have benefitted
from PrEP since the guidance was issued and from which populations e.t.c.
2. Could the authors consider reorganizing their findings in the abstract to provide a better
flow for the reader e.g., 1) facilitators to uptake, 2) barriers to uptake, 3) facilitators to
adherence, 4) barriers to adherence. Alternatively, they can address; 1) facilitators to uptake,
then adherence, 2) barriers to uptake, then adherence. Whichever approach they adopt, give
flow to the reader. In addition, because the paper addresses both barriers and facilitators, careful
choice of terminologies is warranted so that you don't leave the readers making assumptions,
some which may be wrong. For instance, in line 57 "PrEP uptake was influenced by perceptions
that one’s own or partner’s sexual behavior was high risk...". It would have been helpful to state
if PrEP uptake was positively or negatively influenced by the partners sexual behavior.
3. Line 106, rephrase the statement "......FSW become 'commercial' sex workers as
adolescents...." Proper terminology excludes the word "commercial" and just refers to 'sex work'
or 'sex workers', or 'female/male sex workers'.
4. Introduce Figure 1 (Line 227) in the text to help the reader situate its relevance.
Title: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for the preservation of ovarian function in
survivors of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for haematological diseases
Version: 1 Date: 29 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Mario Palumbo
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to review this paper “Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for the preservation
of ovarian function in survivors of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for haematological
diseases”
The methodology used by the Authors is appropriate for the purpose of the article description.
The English language is fluid and well understood. Nevertheless, minor revision is needed.
For the abstract I found clear the division of the parts and the schematization of the content.
Regarding the introduction you can add this paper to deepen the topic.
DOI:  10.1080/17425255.2020.1789591 (here are some excellent insights into ovarian function
in general even if the topics are different)
As regards the paper’s structuring (methods/discussion): There is a good structure of the project.
The clinical pregnancy rate (42.4% vs 52.9%, p=0.392) and live birth rate (21.2% vs 29.4%,
p=0.444) were similar between LNG-IUD group and control group: In light of these data, if you
relate them to what you find in the literature, can you explain these results better?
How important is it to set the age of 40 as an inclusion limit in the study?
The GnRHa administration was timed as early as possible, usually longer than 7–14 days before
starting chemotherapy: have you found different data in the literature on this subject?
The primary objective was to evaluate the POI rate, which was defined as persistent
hypergonadotropic amenorrhea (FSH # 25 U / L on at least two occasions) and low E2 levels.
Explain in more detail why.
Subgroup analysis revealed that GnRHa may be beneficial in lymphoma patients but not in
leukaemia patients: add some more in-depth data found in the literature.
Results
- The statistical structure seems to me well done;
- Good subdivision into subparagraphs.
- Excellent to mention the limitations of the study.
Conclusion
Increase the number of references;
The data obtained are good with respect to the structuring of the work.
Title: Additional dydrogesterone for the treatment of chronic endometritis treated with antibiotic
in premenopausal women with endometrial polyps: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 05 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Very glad to assert that the current paper is well written and well organized. The introduction
and background reasonably give the premise of the paper and the tables are really clear and
usable, even if maybe some pictures might help. I suggest to add a note concerning the diagnostic
criteria used by pathologists for the diagnosis of CE and maybe some pictures of specimens.
This paper tries to assess the efficacy of dydrogesterone in treatment of chronic endometritis
that are usually treated with just antibiotics in premenopausal women with endometrial polyps.
The procedures are clear and intuictive too: two group of women with CE (diagnosis after
hysteroscopic polypectomy), the first was treated with antibiotic only and the second with
antibiotic plus dydrogesterone. Moreover, it’s descussed the role of endometrial scratching in
improving cure rate of  CE, even if I suggest that it could be managed in future studies as an
independent variable and not only in synergy.
As some variants in the population like age and BMI were not normally distributed, the use
of nonparametric methods to analyze data is strategic and correct in statistical terms.  The
experimental apparatus is quite standard, and is appropriate for the study, especially given that
the main focus of the paper is not to develop a protocol for infertility, but to demonstrate the
effects of dydrogesterone.
In conclusion I don’t think any additional experiments are necessary to validate the results
presented here, but I suggest to specify that further studies are needed to reason on the clinical
rationale of what is claimed.
Title: Additional dydrogesterone for the treatment of chronic endometritis treated with antibiotic
in premenopausal women with endometrial polyps: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The method states that dydrogesterone was given to prevent the recurrence of endometrial
polyps, but it was evaluated whether there was a recurrence of chronic endometritis. As a
purpose, dydrogesterone was evaluated in the treatment efficacy of chronic endometritis in
patients with endometrial polyps. So it is not clear which is the real purpose. This suggests that
the article was written carelessly. Also, what is the place of the endometrial polyp in this study?
How does it contribute to the author's previous work? How the recurrence of the endometrial
polyp was evaluated, is not specified.
Is the control with outpatient hysteroscopy in the next cycle after antibiotic treatment of chronic
endometritis a routine practice? Why was it performed?
If this is a retrospective study, how was written consent obtained from the patients?
Since there are many question marks about the method of the study, I do not think that the study
is of the quality to be published in this journal.
Kind regards
Title: Additional dydrogesterone for the treatment of chronic endometritis treated with antibiotic
in premenopausal women with endometrial polyps: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Rajasri G Yaliwal
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author
Title: It dose not mention the study type
Method: The study sates that it is retrospective. However it has been mentioned that all
participants consented for the study. Clarification of the study design is required.
Diagnostic criteria for chronic endometritis needs to be elaborated.
Endometrial scratching. Was this procedure done in both the groups? Specify the timing of the
procedure. Was it done along with endometrial biopsy?
Was CD138 studied prior to the hysteroscopy? How was the  endometrial sample taken.
Why were the patients excluded?
Immunohistochemistry: the procedure has a reference???
There is no reference 21, 22 cited in the article .
Fig 1. Please clarify the method by which the consent was taken and how it was declined.
There is no need to mention the  N=0 in each of the allocated groups.
Title: Additional dydrogesterone for the treatment of chronic endometritis treated with antibiotic
in premenopausal women with endometrial polyps: a retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 18 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Rajasri G Yaliwal
Reviewer's report:
The article has been revised as per the comments of the reviewers. The answers given to the
comments are fairly satisfactory.
However, the study design comprising of consents taken for retrospective and prospective
components of the study is barely justifiable.
Title: FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH DEPRESSION AMONG YOUNG FEMALE
MIGRANTS IN ETHIOPIA
Version: 4 Date: 13 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. Recall that I felt it appropriate to
include a mention about gendered historical rural-urban migration patterns. Upon reflection and
further research, I discovered that sub-saharan Africa may be an anomaly and patterns here not
being female dominated. Please forgive me and allow me to withdraw my previous comment.
I feel that it is substantially improved after these revisions and only find that there is one
additional acknowledgement that I would lik to see and I also have one final suggestion:
1.  Please include an acknowledgment in your limitations (line 286
and following) that these are cross-sectional data and therefore do not prove causal links
between the variables. Feel free to mention those factors that still make you confident in the
interpretations.
2.Given the attention paid to the possible importance of social support as a causal influence,
it may be appropriate to reference articles that have found social support to be an important
difference between sex workers and workers in other occupations in a sub-saharan location :
Ngugi, E. N., Benoit, C., Hallgrimsdottir, H., Jansson, M., & Roth, E. A. (2012). Family kinship
patterns and female sex work in the informal urban settlement of Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya. Human
Ecology, 40(3), 397-403.
Title: Evaluating women’s acceptability of treatment of incomplete second trimester abortion
using misoprostol provided by midwives compared with physicians: a mixed methods study
Version: 3 Date: 09 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is much improved with the edits based on suggested revisions.
A few remaining minor points:
-I still think it is useful to have a Table 1 describing the demographics/characteristics of the
sample and I wouldn't recommend deleting it completely. Rather,  provide the sociodemographic
characteristics JUST for this analytic sample (e.g. the  1140 rather than the 1187). That
information is still useful for putting the multivariable results into context.
-The edits that the authors have made to the concept of acceptability are much clearer throughout
the manuscript. I would just double check that they make sense as read. Some examples are
in line 807: "There was a trend of reduced acceptable PAC..." could be rephrased as "There
was a trend in reduced PAC acceptability...", and line 810, "Acceptable PAC was also 41.6%"
rephrased to "PAC was also 41.6% more acceptable in women....".
Title: Pathways to ovarian cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, it is a well written manuscript
and covers an important topic area. I found it was easy to follow the rationale for the work and
what had been done in the study. The findings and their interpretation were presented in detail.
and covered the necessary aspects of the work.
My main suggestions revolve around the overall impact of the manuscript.  First of all I was not
clear about what this work offered that was unique. I think this needs to be emphasized  more
clearly. Many of the aspects reported have been revealed previously. Also, I would suggest the
findings would be augmented by providing a table of quotes according to themes to allow the
reader to gain additional insight. Finally, I think the discussion could be shortened and thereby
made more impactful for a reader. What are the most significant findings to emphasize?