JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: A randomised controlled trial on the effects of a structural education module among
women with polycystic ovarian syndrome on nutrition and physical activity changes
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have chosen an interesting topic and I appreciated the opportunity to review their
work.
I have concerns regarding the intervention, as the KAB model is outdated because it has
generally been a failure for achieving health behavior change. Exceptions are when behavioral
data are self-reported.  The KAB model here appears to be generally information dissemination
which has a poor record in peer-reviewed literature for effectiveness of behavior change. Where
the intervention describes motivation, stress reduction, and self-discipline, these also appear to
be mostly information dissemination activities. How exactly were general nutritional tips and
information on eating and food choices, healthy recipes, portion control provided weekly to
participants? Do you have evidence that these were received, read, adopted or implemented?
Gynecologists and physicians are not experts in nutrition and physical activity or health
education.
If normality assumptions were not met, why was ANOVA used? For most results, it would
be preferable and most relevant to have mainly condition-by-time interaction for assessing
differential change over time.
The KAB measures lack data on reliability and validity and would also be subject to demand
characteristics such as social desirability bias.
The power analysis does not seem well justified or convincing statistically.
In the key messages, when or how was leisure-time physical activity measured? The message
here does not agree with IPAQ data.
Early citations are problematic and non-specific. For example, #3 is a prevalence study but 1
and 2 do not appear to be so. The #1 reference is incomplete.
It is not clear why random sampling of employees was needed. It is not clear why block
randomization would be used. The allocation ratio is not given and it is not clear how block
randomization worked or ended up with a differential size in each trial arm. Was it a wait-list
control? What would usual care be?
In the discussion, the finding that nutritional education significantly increased nutritional
knowledge is not interesting or novel. It is also only half true regarding the 2 measures of
knowledge (and why were there 2 of these?). Many of the comparisons made to extant literature
in the discussion are not relevant due to major differences in the studies compared.
Suspicious subjects (for PCOS)? That is not an appropriate term.
There are some problems with the composition and grammar throughout this manuscript that
would require additional attention to ensure that information and clear meaning are effectively
conveyed to the reader. Particular attention should be paid to subject-verb agreement. Note the
issue of practice and practise (https://www.capstoneediting.com.au/blog/commonly-confused-
words-practice-and-practise).
Table 1. No need to compare statistically.
Title: A randomised controlled trial on the effects of a structural education module among
women with polycystic ovarian syndrome on nutrition and physical activity changes
Version: 3 Date: 09 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Efforts were made to address my previous comments and to improve the quality of the
manuscript. Unfortunately, the flaws identified during the initial review remain  present and no
amount of post hoc reframing or explanation with additional detail can rectify the flaws that
permeate the manuscript. Efforts to address the profound concerns I hold about internal validity
were minimal, superficial, deflective, and ultimately insufficient at turning a fundamentally
flawed study into meaningful science.
Title: A randomised controlled trial on the effects of a structural education module among
women with polycystic ovarian syndrome on nutrition and physical activity changes
Version: 3 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
BMC WOMEN'S HEALTH
Ref: ID do envio b7376cf3-6ac4-45cd-b4d2-91fc2e 408d08
A randomised controlled trial on the effects of a structural education module among women
with polycystic ovarian syndrome on nutrition and physical activity changes
Comments to the Author
The proposal of this study is interesting and important for PCOS management. The main strength
of the study i the RCT design.   Overall, I appreciated the study. However, there are some points
that I would like the authors to addres
Comments
- The diagnosis of PCOS in the sample should be explained in detail.  A correct diagnosis
requires the exclusion of other disorders, at least disthyroidism, prolactin excess and nonclassical
congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Please add a Table with a complete characterization of the
sample, including androgens levels.
- The features of PCOS are clinical and/or biochemical hyperandrogenism (HA), ovulatory
dysfunction (OD), and polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM). There are three different
diagnostic criteria sets and the syndrome could present with four subphenotypes. PCOS
phenotypes are currently classified as phenotype-A (HA + OD + PCOM), phenotype-B (HA
+ OD), phenotype-C (HA + PCOM), and phenotype-D (OD + PCOM). The authors reported
diagnosis through ovarian morphology by ultrasound. There were no volunteers with phenotype-
B (HA + OD)?
- What is usual care to the control group?
- What is "PCOS suspected"?
- The ISCRTN number of the RCT should be included in the methods’ section?
- I was surprised to see that the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and
management of PCOS (2018) was not referenced. Given the important contribution to the field
this has made I think the authors should consider this. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey256.
- Some acronyms that appear in the text are described only in the tables. Please describe them
in the text
- The process of random sampling and block randomization is unclear
-The first paragraph of the discussion falls under results
-The discussion of the results is not critical enough and the discussion is rather superficial
Title: A randomised controlled trial on the effects of a structural education module among
women with polycystic ovarian syndrome on nutrition and physical activity changes
Version: 5 Date: 12 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Revised version
BMC WOMEN'S HEALTH
Ref: ID do envio b7376cf3-6ac4-45cd-b4d2-91fc2e 408d08
A randomised controlled trial on the effects of a structural education module among women
with polycystic ovarian syndrome on nutrition and physical activity changes
Comments to the Author
The proposal of this study is interesting and important for PCOS management. The main strength
of the study i the RCT design.
Comments
I have evaluated the revised version of this manuscript. Only one observation in the Methods
- Participant section: "written informed consent" appears twice. Is this really so?  Check.
In addition, the authors comply with the comments pointed out. My opinion is in favor of
recommending this study for publication in BMC WOMEN'S HEALTH
Title: Subjective Well-Being’s alterations as risk factors for Major Depressive Disorder during
the perimenopause onset: an analytical cross-sectional study amongst Mexican women residing
in Guadalajara, Jalisco
Version: 3 Date: 27 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
You found that hormonal changes during the transition to menopause, an important period of
women's life, make women more vulnerable to depression. In addition, you also emphasized
that this frequency may vary between societies. It is also important that the work is original and
will inspire future work. However, there are several structural problems that I mentioned below
in the article.
- How the participants are divided into groups should be mentioned in the materials and methods
section.
- References should be organized according to the rules of the journal.
Best wishes
Title: Subjective Well-Being’s alterations as risk factors for Major Depressive Disorder during
the perimenopause onset: an analytical cross-sectional study amongst Mexican women residing
in Guadalajara, Jalisco
Version: 3 Date: 18 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I think that the study will contribute to the literature, as it takes attention to depressive disorders
in the perimenopausal period and is the first study to evaluate SWB's alterations as a risk factor.
However, to improve the quality of the text, I would like to make a few suggestions:
1) Please do not write that a univariate analysis was made in the conclusion of the abstract, and
please indicate the main messages of the study in a maximum of 2 sentences.
2) Please state the main results of your study without referring to other studies in the conclusion
part of the discussion.
3) Please limit the number of references throughout the text to 30 (if it is not a review).
Sincerely.
Title: Subjective Well-Being’s alterations as risk factors for Major Depressive Disorder during
the perimenopause onset: an analytical cross-sectional study amongst Mexican women residing
in Guadalajara, Jalisco
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revisions made by the recommendations. I strongly recommend acceptance
of this high-quality research.
Best regards
Title: The trends of female sterilization in India : An Age period cohort analysis approach
Version: 1 Date: 07 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the reviewers:
The paper delves into a very important topic using an appropriate statistical tool. The paper has
been well conceptualized. However, I have a few important concerns:
1. When the authors say APC, did they adjust for cohort effects?
2. Did the authors try to look into the influence of age at marriage on the sterilization adoption/
practice? It might be good to get an understanding of this from the data.
3. The results could have been written in a more systematic way with subheadings. Giving the
findings and literature review along with the results has made the results section very difficult to
comprehend. Literature review and comparison with studies should be limited to the discussion
section.
4. Conclusion seems to be not in line with the results and needs to be reworked.
Title: The trends of female sterilization in India : An Age period cohort analysis approach
Version: 2 Date: 28 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
General comments
Thank you for your revision and response letter, it answer well the comments of the reviewers
I suggest to just focus in one or two control variables, there are a lot of results that prevent the
reader to focus on the main message
Introduction
Line 13: check the initials for intrauterine contraceptive device
Line 14: Use plural for birth-control clinics
Line 15: Make clear the denominators in the rate, 41 per 1,000 women in reproductive age
Lines 29-30: Check redaction “… male sterilization became practically became in-existent…”
Lines 39-40: What years correspond to NFHS-5 and NFHS-4?
Data sources
Lines 6-12: It is still no clear in the text what is the relation between the NFHS, the DHS and
the Census. In the response letter you answered me that the NFHS takes its sample framework
from the DHS and the Census but in the manuscript, it isn’t clear.
Sample
Lines 1-5: It is still missing a clarification about the nationality of women included, they were
just Indians or Indian residents of any nationality?
Period effects
Lines 12-13: Please review the redaction of “Among the poor and non-poor women, the
sterilization rates were higher compared to non-poor.”
Title: Biopsychosocial risk factors of depression during menopause transition in southeast China
Version: 0 Date: 17 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Shijiao Yan
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to investigate the severity of depression among women experiencing
menopause transition and analyze the relationships between demographic characteristics,
menopausal symptoms, hormone levels, and depressive symptoms, and further reveal the risk
factors for depression.
There are several concerns related to this manuscript.
Major concerns:
1. The author writes in the Introduction section “Numerous studies have shown a wide range
of risk factor domains for depressive symptoms and disorders during the menopause transition,
including……psychosocial factors (upsetting life events, anxiety and depressive symptoms,)”.
There is a logical problem that depressive symptoms cannot be a risk factor for depressive
symptoms and disorders.
2. The author writes in the Methods section “Subjects were recruited from the gynecology
outpatient department of **** between March 2010 and December 2018.”. What does the “*"
here mean?
3. There is no definition when the abbreviations appear in the text for the first time (such as
WHO).
4. Some of the 95% confidence intervals in the Results sections are described with horizontal
lines and some with wavy lines. Please check the full text for unity.
5. How the authors define Perimenopausal and Postmenopausal?
6. In table 1, for BMI, there are 87 missing values, 54 for Perimenopausal and 28 for
Postmenopausal, 54 plus 28 is not 87. Similarly, other variables in the table have this problem,
e.g., Times of abortion, 427 plus 1012 plus 334 equals 1772. Please review the full text carefully
and revise it.
7. The methodology section of the article defines depression as a quaternary variable, but
multivariate analysis appears to define depression as a dichotomous variable, please describe
this part in detail.
8. As the main result, the reference group should be presented in Table 4, and variables and
categories that are not meaningful should also be presented.
Minor comments:
1. There are some grammatical problems with this article.
2. Test statistic (e.g., P value) should be italicized.
3. Appendix tables also need headings
Title: Biopsychosocial risk factors of depression during menopause transition in southeast China
Version: 0 Date: 21 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I read the study titled "Biopsychosocial risk factors of depression during menopause transition
in southeast China". The language of the study is understandable.
The following are the topics that I suggest editing in the study:
In the introduction, information should be given about what this study in China will contribute
to international science. Why should scientists in other countries read these study results out of
curiosity? This issue should be included.
It was stated that the data of the study were collected between March 2010 and December 2018.
For a cross-sectional study, it was observed that data were collected over a very long time period.
Is the very long time interval reflected in the study results? This topic should be mentioned.
In the discussion section, more international resources on this subject should be used.
Kind regards,
Title: Laparoscopic guided minilaparotomy. A modified technique for management of benign
large ovarian cysts.
Version: 4 Date: 07 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I read carefully and with pleasure your article on the study “Laparoscopic guided
minilaparotomy. A modified technique for management of benign large ovarian cysts”. It is
a well-structured and detailed article, especially in the description of the surgical technique
adopted, as well as the object of the study. This is not the first article with this aim.
I must point out some aspects:
- English should be revised
- Many references should be update
- as far as the surgical approach is concerned, since there are countless variants to be considered
for each patient and the pros and cons according to each surgical procedure, a very brief
introductory overview would be necessary as you’ve done;
- Lines 102-103: could the authors explain how to reduce adhesions with this approach?
- Line 118: all women had a 3D ultrasound scan? What parameters do you assess with 3D
ultrasound compared to classic ultrasound?
- Why were women with BMI > 30 excluded?
- Why weren't the cysts put in an endobag?
- It might be useful to have a video of the procedure
- The statistical section should be implemented
Title: Laparoscopic guided minilaparotomy. A modified technique for management of benign
large ovarian cysts.
Version: 4 Date: 09 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
I would like thank authors for the opportunity to review their article. I read the article with great
interest.
My concerns:
Please write the type of study in methods.
LINE 151 – What artery is pulled?
LINE 274 – You can not claim less pelvic adhesions, if you did not study it. Please rephrase
the sentence.
LINE 284 – What is the recurrence rate in patients that have laparoscopicaly removed cysts
larger than 10cm? What is the reference to which you compare your results and claim that your
technique has lower recurrence rate?
LINE 339 – You were not assesing adhesion formation, hence you can not claim that minimal
adhesions are formed in patients undergoing you surgical technique.
LINE 342 – Based on what data do you recommend your surgical technique to women that want
to preserve their fertility? To what studies did you compare your data regarding ovarian reserve?
Title: The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental and Physical Wellbeing in Women with
Fibromyalgia: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study
Version: 4 Date: 20 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting this manuscript. Although this is a interesting topic approaching a
current health problem, there are some points  I believe could be improved to enhance the quality
of the text.
- A "Study Design" subheading in methods is necessary.
- Although the sample was collected from a previous study, the study should reflect the selection
criteria for these participants.
- Sample size calculation is missing.
- Did the authors followed any checklist for reporting observational studies?
Title: The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental and Physical Wellbeing in Women with
Fibromyalgia: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study
Version: 4 Date: 26 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The present study explores the impact of COVID-19 on fibromyalgia patients. Although the
topic is interesting, there are some unclear points that must be clarified. The reviewer hopes that
the comments below will be helpful to improve the manuscript.
- I would suggest rephrasing the introduction by inserting a sentence (line 59) to create a link
between the first part (pandemic) and the second part (chronic pain).
- I would suggest to deepen the psychological aspects related to fibromyalgia, especially with
regard to the presence of trauma, anxiety and depression. So as to make it more understandable
that there are aspects that characterise this clinical population that predispose to a lower capacity
to cope with other traumatic and stressful events. Please see for example:
Romeo et al. 2021 Traumatic experiences and somatoform dissociation in women with
fibromyalgia.
Romeo et al. 2022 Personality, Defense Mechanisms and Psychological Distress in Women with
Fibromyalgia.
-Authors declared that: “100 female FM patients who participated in a prior trial of a
psychosocial intervention for chronic pain were contacted”. I assume that the data collected is
pre-intervention. Please specify.
- I would ask for a more systematic and homogeneous description of the recruitment process:
how many people were initially contacted, how many responded and how many completed the
questionnaires (35? 38?). Add inclusion/exclusion criteria and the response rate in the survey.
-My biggest doubt concerns why the authors did not use a questionnaire to assess anxiety
and depression. Furthermore, we do not know the patients' level of pre-pandemic anxiety and
depression. Please clarify these aspects.
-. There is maybe a typo in the following sentence: ” 21% much worse, and 10% much
worse” (Page 8, Line 164).
-I suggest to modify table 3: the repeating results are not necessary and can be deleted in order
to lighten the table.
Title: Current situation of menstruation and gynecological diseases prevalence among Chinese
women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 16 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Current situation of menstruation and gynecological diseases prevalence among Chinese
women: A cross-sectional study
Reviewer’s comments
This manuscript focused on gynecological diseases and menstruation, and revealed factors
related to them. Though the topic of this manuscript was not novel, the manuscript was
interesting and it was written in detail wholly. However, English had some problem
grammatically. I recommend the manuscript have to be edited by a native speaker.
Moreover, when you use the abbreviation, please spell out at the first usage even in abstract (ex.
Odds ratio: OR; confidence interval: CI).
[Abstract]
- The design of this study is a cross-sectional study, not a retrospective study. Please correct it.
- It is a little strange to include spontaneous abortion as gynecological diseases.
[Methods]
- The design of this study is a cross-sectional study, not a retrospective study. Please correct it.
-Who recruited the participants? Please describe it in Methods section.
- How many populations were eligible for your study, and of these, how many people did you
ask to participate in your study?
- Line 127
“We recruited 1005 women for participation …… <18 years old.”
This sentence should be in Results section.
- Line 130
“A total of 977 women remained …… did not want to disclose their age.”
This sentence should also be in Results section.
- Were participants’ height and body weight self-report?
[Results]
- Please add the title of Figure 1.
- Line 195
“Although in the adjusted model only heavy bleeding …… with increased odds of dysmenorrhea
(OR=5.01, 95% CI: 2.026, 11.10; P=0.000).
Please add “compared with little bleeding” because the reference was “Little”.
- Line 201
(OR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.00; p=0.0048)
I think p=0.048 is correct.
- Line 201
“while moderate bleeding (OR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.00; p=0.0048) was associated with
reduced odds of spontaneous abortion.”
Please revise as follows; compared with women with little bleeding, those with moderate
bleeding had lower odds of spontaneous abortion. Because the reference was “Little bleeding”.
- Line 206
“Although, only heavy bleeding …… with endometriosis in the adjusted model (Table 4).”
Comment is the same as above. Please add “compared with little bleeding”.
- Line 217
“The results also showed that women had early thelarche …… in both the crude and adjusted
models (Table 6).
Please add “compared with women with normal thelarche” and “compared with women with
normal menarche”.
[Discussion]
- Line 285
“infertility rate is decreasing yearly”
I think you could not compare the prevalence simply, because study setting was different from
previous study.
- Line 307
“heavy bleeding with large clots were associated with an increased risk of endometriosis among
Chinese women.”
I think causal relationship is opposite. Please discuss about it.
[Abbreviations]
- Please add CI, OR, and SD.
- There is no word of WHO in your manuscript.
Title: Current situation of menstruation and gynecological diseases prevalence among Chinese
women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Farideh Shiraseb
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the efforts of the present study team who carefully answered all the questions and
comments.
I have only one suggestion that you make changes at your discretion.
It seems that the title of the manuscript does not indicate its analytical approach and is written
only descriptive. I think it's better to rephrase the title to be more descriptive of the article’s
scientific content.