JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Prevalence of high-risk Human Papillomavirus genotypes and viral load correlated with
squamous cell inflammation among women in Gabon
Version: 4 Date: 16 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Major comments
1. For table 1, are these category associated with Inflammation, ASCUS, and viral load? Some
ANOVA test is enough and it would be great if the authors can add these to the table 1.
Minor comments
1. It would be great if authors can have line and page numbers so that the reviewer can better
locate their questions.
2. “This is why it becomes necessary”. This sounds a bit informal in scientific writing.
3. The authors should disclose their analysis codes.
4. I’m not clear about the usage of 3-d bar plot in figure 3, instead of 2d plot. Same for figure 4.
5. It would be great if authors can spell out ASCUS when they first introduced it.
Title: Prevalence of high-risk Human Papillomavirus genotypes and viral load correlated with
squamous cell inflammation among women in Gabon
Version: 4 Date: 16 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
The study provides valuable insights into the prevalence and effects of HPV in this
specific population, particularly regarding the correlation between viral load and squamous
cell inflammation. However, the article would benefit from a larger sample size, clearer
methodological details, and stronger contextualization with existing research. The findings are
promising but should be presented with caution, particularly regarding the use of viral load as
a predictive marker.
I recommend major revisions before the article is considered for publication.
Below are some recommendations to improve the quality of the article:
Method Details: The methodology section lacks specific details about how the HPV genotypes
were determined and what criteria were used to classify “high-risk” versus “low-risk” genotypes.
Providing more detailed information on the laboratory techniques and criteria used would make
the study more replicable and scientifically sound.
Absence of High-Grade Neoplasia: The study notes that no high-grade cervical neoplasia was
found, which is an important point. However, the authors should discuss possible reasons for
this result in more depth. Is it due to the stage of infection in the sample population, or could
other factors be at play?
Viral Load as a Screening Tool: The study suggests that viral load could be a useful marker
for disease progression, but the authors should be cautious in making such recommendations
without further longitudinal studies. Viral load measurement is not yet a standard screening tool
for HPV, and more evidence is needed before making such clinical recommendations.
In the first paragraph of the discussion, mention the most important finding of the study.
Title: Prevalence of high-risk Human Papillomavirus genotypes and viral load correlated with
squamous cell inflammation among women in Gabon
Version: 5 Date: 27 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Prevalence of high-risk
Human Papillomavirus genotypes and viral load correlated with squamous cell inflammation
among women in Gabon".
Almost all reviewer’s comments and recommendations were considered.
Title: Development of Predictive Models for Pathological Response Status in Breast Cancer
after Neoadjuvant Therapy Based on Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes
Version: 0 Date: 20 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Development of
Predictive Models for Pathological Response Status in Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Therapy
Based on Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes".
However, I have some comments and recommendations:
Comments:
Title: - Is appropriate for the content of the article.
Abstract:- Represents a suitable summary of the work.
Article content:- The methods and results have been well explained.
Conclusions:- Are justified on the basis of the study.
Recommendations:
Discussion:- Mention the strength of the study.
References:- Stick to the format of the journal.
General:- Revise language, grammar and syntax.
Title: Development of Predictive Models for Pathological Response Status in Breast Cancer
after Neoadjuvant Therapy Based on Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes
Version: 0 Date: 21 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Authors did a decent job on statistical analysis, there are some issues that need to be addressed.
multivariate logistic
the analysis done was multivariable analysis instead of multivariate analysis, two of them are
fundamentally different, if authors are not clear about these terms, please refer to this article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518362/
“in the Lasso model was cross-validated ten-fold based on the minimum criterion”
Was this done before or after “The patients were randomly divided into a training and validation
set in a 7:3 ratio.”, if this is only using training data, please reorder the sentences in the Statistical
analysis
“The follow-up programme was conducted at the following intervals: every three to four
months for the initial two years, every six months for the subsequent three years, and annually
thereafter.”
The follow up is not uniformed, the later years are more like an interval censoring, which is not
appropriate for the right censoring analysis. For the purpose of this study the analysis is still ok,
but the violation has to be declared in limitation.
“K-M curves”
Please write “Kaplan–Meier curves”
“The observed differences in survival between each two groups were statistically significant.”
Please specify test used and p-values.
Title: Development of Predictive Models for Pathological Response Status in Breast Cancer
after Neoadjuvant Therapy Based on Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Development of
Predictive Models for Pathological Response Status in Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Therapy
Based on Peripheral Blood Inflammatory Indexes".
Almost all reviewer’s comments and recommendations were considered.
Title: Fertility Knowledge, Childbearing Intentions and Attitudes Towards Social Egg Freezing:
a Study of Female Students of a Private University in Kumasi, Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 26 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised most of the comments I raised. However, there are a number of
typographical errors to address in the text as well as a few comments to respond to. these are
indicated below:
- Line 81 – The spelling of the word 'sstigmatisation' should be revised
- In response to my comment about their choice of a convenience sample, the authors mention
that due to smaller class sizes in the school they used a convenient sampling approach. This
rather suggests to me that the study was targeting all students, and thus, aimed to carry out a
census. I am not sure if this is what was done.
- Line 168 – 'REF' should be changed
- Line 214 – 'FreezinMore' should be changed
- Line 233 – it is not clear from the table heading what the dependent variable in the cross tab
is. It is understood that there is a crosstab between attitudes towards social egg freezing and
another egg donation variable, but it is not clear what the “egg donation” means from the title
unless you read the text.
- Line 233 – the test for significance has not been carried out for this crosstabulation. Is there
a reason why?
- Line 235 - Associations between sociodemographic factors of respondents and their likelihood
of freezing eggs should be reported on before the 'attitudes to egg freezing' crosstab, in order
for the story being told to flow better.
- Line 240 – Table 5 – should report percentages instead of observations.
- Line 237 – the p-value of 0.05 should be stated as being marginally significant.
- Line 275 – the sentence ‘…while only that one out of four…’ should be revised
- Line 299 – The spelling of Addittionally should be revised
- The authors should review the entire manuscript for other typographical errors
Title: Incidence and risks of excessive distension absorption in hysteroscopic surgery using 5%
mannitol solution: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 1 Date: 06 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Asem Moussa
Reviewer's report:
It is a good manuscript  revisiting important issues in hysteroscopic surgeries in Asian
communities illustrating and highlighting  the value of anticipating the  deficit of fluid that
complications could happen
Title: Incidence and risks of excessive distension absorption in hysteroscopic surgery using 5%
mannitol solution: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic. The presentation of the manuscript partially conforms to
the Journal's guidelines for Authors.
I would suggest taking into account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another language revision round to correct typos and improve readability.
- I find it interesting to include a reference about the use of oral nomegestrol acetate/estradiol for
rapid endometrial preparation before office hysteroscopic polypectomy (see PMID: 38897097).
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.
-What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? It is
important to report the results obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to
adequately highlight what contribution this study adds to the existing literature on the topic and
future study perspectives.
- Some pathological conditions such as adenomyosis or uterine fibroids may worsen
premenstrual syndrome in some women. The authors should discuss by referring to the following
PMID: 37568356 the impact on QoL of the above-mentioned conditions.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths of their study. It would be better
to explain these points.
Title: Incidence and risks of excessive distension absorption in hysteroscopic surgery using 5%
mannitol solution: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Antonio Bandala-Jacques
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors - I have read your your revised manuscript and offer the following comments:
INTRODUCTION
A) There are still some language issues that should be addressed in the manuscript, for example,
in your first paragraph, I don't think the word "unpleasant" is the one you mean to use. I would
omit it all together
B) I would avoid starting a sentence with a number ".5% mannitol solution..." If required, I
would spell it out
C) You should end your introduction with a clear objective or hypothesis. It is in the abstract,
but should be explicit in the manuscript too
MATERIALS AND METHODS
D) Your inclusions and exclusions would greatly benefit from a flowchart, as the source
population is in one paragraph, and the study population in a different one.
E) I would also be clear with the study design, as "retrospective" can be very vague
F) The methods needs a statistical analysis section , which should adhere to the proposed addition
of an objective to your introduction
RESULTS
G) With a low final sample size, I would use one decimal at most
H) You should operationalize all of the covariates you mention here in the methods
I) The inclusion of new techniques is adequate, as recommended in prior revisions
J) The discussion needs significant language editing. There are several isolated ideas and phrases
that make some paragraphs difficult to read
K) You mention "The risk of excessive distension absorption would be eliminated through
certain procedures, such as endometrial preparation, reducing surgery time, avoiding
unnecessary deep myometrial resection, and improving the proficiency and safety awareness of
the surgeon"
This is a strong statement, and although some of the assertions might be obvious from available
literature, I don't think your study design can make these assertions, as it is subject to issues
such as inverse causality. I would rephrase this in a way that does not overstate what you can
conclude given your study design,
Title: Incidence and risks of excessive distension absorption in hysteroscopic surgery using 5%
mannitol solution: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 4 Date: 27 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Tarek Tawfik Amin
Reviewer's report:
All inquires and questions had been addressed by the authors, the manuscript is now
methodologically more clearer and informative
I would like to recommend final editing to correct potential typographical and or grammatical
errors (for example symptom instead of symptoms in figure 1).
Title: Incidence and risks of excessive distension absorption in hysteroscopic surgery using 5%
mannitol solution: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 5 Date: 18 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Tarek Tawfik Amin
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors:
-The title should include “a retrospective study from single centre in China”
- 30.77% of the patients could not tolerate the fluid deficit of less than 2500mL which was set as
a threshold for isotonic distending media and presented with circulation overload related signs
or symptoms. Please do not start your sentence with a number and use the effective digits in
expressing your findings???
- Please consider formulating the practical implications of your study in the conclusion
section???
- The action verbs used in both the abstract and the late introduction section are different “clarify
in the abstract- determine in the introduction” please be consistent???
- In the methods section: the setting should be included: the center, how many beds, academic
or not, how many patients annually etc.,
- Use gravidity instead of gravida in the methods section???
- Use subtitles in the methods section (procedures, statistical analysis etc.,)
- These forty-nine cases included sixteen cases of TCRF, fourteen cases of TCRA (all diagnosed
severe IUA ,European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy Grade#III), nine cases of RPOC
removal, six cases of HSR and four cases of TCRE. In this section use counts following the
forty-nine cases, included 14 cases with------9 cases---- and 6 cases ----
- Use the same comment in displaying the rest of the results???
- Figure 2: was it one sing/symptom or multiple (clinical signs and symptoms) and why using
%? In the foot note - Or properly above each sub category of the included variables (mention
the total number of cases)
- Please mention in the results section, how complications were managed and the patients’
outcome???
- The discussion should start with the answer to your research question???
- At the end of the discussion section; Mention all the possible limitations for this study including
being single center, data quality, retrospective nature etc.,
Title: Incidence and risks of excessive distension absorption in hysteroscopic surgery using 5%
mannitol solution: a retrospective descriptive study.
Version: 5 Date: 23 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Incidence and risks of excessive
distension absorption in hysteroscopic surgery using 5% mannitol solution: a retrospective
descriptive study.”
Comments:
Dear author good work but you need to re write the conclusion to give take home message
regarding what should be done by the surgeons to decrease this complication not to re write the
result as you already did in conclusion sector.
Regards
Title: Mental health on two continua: mental wellbeing and common mental disorders in a
community-based cross-sectional study with women in urban informal settlements in India
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Kaaren Mathias
Reviewer's report:
Mental health on two continua: mental wellbeing and common mental disorders in a community-
based cross-sectional study with women in urban informal settlements in India
Reviewer comments
Introduction
Generally excellent scene setting for this study. A few points
1. Noting this sentence: In India, estimates of the prevalence of mental illness range from
2% to 57% in the general population [25, 26] and 8% to 61% in urban informal settlements
[27-29]. The prevalence of depression in another study set in informal settlements in North
India suggested as low as 6%  (Mathias K, Goicolea I, Kermode M, et al Cross-sectional study
of depression and help-seeking in Uttarakhand, North India BMJ Open 2015;5:e008992. doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008992 Please consider revising this text and ensuring you have covered
relevant literature.
2. The relationship between social determinants  and wellbeing and mental health is being teased
apart in other for a – and I wonder if useful to further engage with the literature. Eg This article:
Burgess, Rochelle A. "The struggle for the social: rejecting the false separation of'social'worlds
in mental health spaces." Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 59.3 (2024): 409-416.
Methods
3. Selection of participants is not well described. The authors state: After a three-month training
program, a group of 16 women interviewers mapped study areas and residences, visited homes,
and developed a list of potential respondents. Data were obtained from 100 women aged 18-49
years in each cluster by selecting every second residence from a random starting point.This is
confusing – were participants selected from a list or systematically from the random starting
point? Please clarify
4. Noting the use of psychometric tools used in this study which I believe were developed in
WEIRD settings and linked to this, their well recognised shortcomings in identifying mental
health problems and presentations -  it would be useful to discuss or reference concerns with
the ongoing use of tools like PHQ9 as identifying mental distress in other settings/ cultures
where presentations  are often different. E.g. Kohrt, Brandon A., et al. "Cultural concepts of
distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global
mental health epidemiology." International journal of epidemiology 43.2 (2014): 365-406. And
Jacob K,  Patel V. Classification of mental disorders: a global mental health perspective. Lancet
2014;383:1433–5. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62382-X
Results / Discussion and Implications are crisp and clear.
Thank you for this important and interesting paper.
Title: Mental health on two continua: mental wellbeing and common mental disorders in a
community-based cross-sectional study with women in urban informal settlements in India
Version: 4 Date: 17 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Kaaren Mathias
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful responses to reviewer comments. The paper reads
very well and I believe the presentation of the two continua provides an important contribution
to our understanding of mental health which is interesting and important. I have nothing further
to add.
Thank you
Title: The suture fixation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device with hysteroscope
for the treatment of adenomyosis in patients at high risk of device expulsion-a prospective
observational study
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
- In the title of the study, write the type of study
- Change the title to news
- In the abstract section at the beginning of the introduction, write a short sentence about the
importance of the study
- Make it clearer how to select samples and access in the working method section
- What tool was used to collect information, write the specifications
- In the significant results section, write the reduction of dysmenorrhea
- Write all the numbers for the main variables
- The application of the study should be added to the conclusion section
- Match keywords with mesh
- The introduction is very short and incomplete
- You have not brought the importance of the issue at all
- The reason for conducting the study is not written
- Write a review of the texts
- The work method is incomplete and scattered
- How to collect data and write entry and exit criteria
- How the study was conducted
- Bring the moral cases
- Check the tables again in the results section
- Check the relationships between the variables
- Discuss with the results of both internal and external studies with favorable and contradictory
results
- Write the application of the study
- Limits and suggestions should be written
Title: The suture fixation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device with hysteroscope
for the treatment of adenomyosis in patients at high risk of device expulsion-a prospective
observational study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Hee-Choon Shin
Reviewer's report:
The 21 patients: I understand it would be difficult to recruit many (more than 21) patients. Could
you rationalize why do you think 21 is "sufficient"? Similar studies in the past with about the
same or less  number of patients?
Table 1 shows some demographic data and preoperative and operative condition of the 21
patients. If available, could you add additional data such as education, employment status,
income, ...?
All operations were done by Dr.  Yuan-Hong Li. If they had been done by another experienced
surgeon, are we going to see  the same results? In other words, was there any reason for not
randomly assigning doctors to patients?
"correlation between groups using the linear regression.": Unclear. Are you referring correlation
between two variables? Or Test of correlations between two variables among groups? Just make
it clear.
Let's mention that instead of comparing treatment and control groups, this study is to compare
the outcomes before and after treatment as shown in Table 2.
Title: The suture fixation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device with hysteroscope
for the treatment of adenomyosis in patients at high risk of device expulsion-a prospective
observational study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Vittorio Agrifoglio
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript, 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.
- 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
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths of their study. I suggest clarifying
these point
- 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 .
- Was this study registered? I could not find any information about this point Evidence shows that
Adenomyosis has been challenged with many alternative treatment. I would suggest to spend
few more lines about this topic (authors may refer to PMID: 37837497 )
Title: The suture fixation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device with hysteroscope
for the treatment of adenomyosis in patients at high risk of device expulsion-a prospective
observational study
Version: 3 Date: 26 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Hee-Choon Shin
Reviewer's report:
This reviewer appreciates the authors' careful responses to the comments/questions on the initial
manuscript. All my questions/comments were adequately addressed in the revision.