JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of global, regional, and national cervical cancer prevalence
trends in women of childbearing age (15–49 years), 1990–2021
Version: 0 Date: 21 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript presents a thorough age-period-cohort analysis of cervical cancer prevalence
trends from 1990 to 2021, utilizing data from the 2021 Global Burden of Disease (GBD)
Study. The study aims to understand the impact of age, time period, and cohort effects on the
prevalence of cervical cancer worldwide while highlighting regional variations based on the
socio-demographic index (SDI). By employing Joinpoint regression and an age-period-cohort
framework, the authors provide crucial insights into the trends, identifying significant increases
in the age-standardized prevalence rates (ASPR) and emphasizing the particular burden faced by
women in middle and lower SDI regions. The findings underscore the urgent need for enhanced
public health measures, including greater access to HPV vaccinations and screening, particularly
in low-resource settings. Overall, this research highlights the complex socio-economic factors
influencing cervical cancer prevalence and serves as a call to action for global health initiatives.
Comments:
Please provide a complete description of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) super regions to
enhance understanding of the geographic context of the findings.
A more in-depth explanation of the methodology used for calculating and interpreting
confidence intervals (CIs) is required to clarify the statistical analyses performed.
The manuscript should articulate the public health implications of the findings more explicitly,
discussing how the results can inform policies and interventions aimed at reducing cervical
cancer rates.
Inclusion of details about the GBD modeling framework would greatly benefit readers by
providing insight into how the data was analyzed and interpreted.
Please elaborate on the calculation methods for uncertainty intervals (UIs) to ensure transparency
in the statistical reporting.
The rationale for the study appears weak. I recommend incorporating updated literature to
strengthen the background and justification for this research.
Consistency in decimal representation is crucial. The manuscript should standardize the use of
either one decimal place (e.g., 0.0) or two decimal places (e.g., 0.00) throughout the document
to enhance clarity.
Some references cited in the manuscript are outdated. I encourage the authors to include more
recent literature to provide the most current estimates and discussions surrounding cervical
cancer prevalence.
Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of global, regional, and national cervical cancer prevalence
trends in women of childbearing age (15–49 years), 1990–2021
Version: 0 Date: 23 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your submission. This manuscript evaluates a global health concern by
quantifying the burden of cervical cancer among women of childbearing age (15–49 years)
from 1990 to 2021. Using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2021, the
authors report age-standardized prevalence rates (ASPR), case counts, and regional disparities
stratified by socio-demographic index (SDI). They apply Joinpoint regression to characterize
changing trends over time and an age-period-cohort model to disentangle generational effects.
Key findings include an increase in global ASPR from 91.6 to 105 per 100,000, a rise in total
cases from 1.226 million to 2.047 million, heterogeneous trend patterns across SDI regions, peak
prevalence in the 40–44 age group, and pronounced cohort effects in lower-resource settings.
However, there is significant overlap with recently published work, which raises questions about
the novelty and added value of the current analysis. Specifically, the following studies present
closely related objectives and results:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102713
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-025-02013-1
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11842224/
Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of global, regional, and national cervical cancer prevalence
trends in women of childbearing age (15–49 years), 1990–2021
Version: 0 Date: 24 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is based on the GBD Study 2021, which has been replaced with the GBD 2023.
The GBD Secretariat recommends prior registration before resubmission. International diversity
in authorship is recommended per the principle for all GBD publications.
Title: Age-period-cohort analysis of global, regional, and national cervical cancer prevalence
trends in women of childbearing age (15–49 years), 1990–2021
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of cervical cancer prevalence trends in
women aged 15 to 49 years across global, regional, and national levels from 1990 to 2021.
Utilizing data from the 2021 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study, the authors investigate the
age-standardized prevalence rates (ASPR) with a focus on the influences of age, time period, and
birth cohort effects using Joinpoint regression and an age-period-cohort modeling framework.
The study further examines how socio-demographic factors, reflected in the Socio-Demographic
Index (SDI), contribute to variation in cervical cancer prevalence across different regions. The
results uncover an increasing global burden, with marked disparities between higher and lower
SDI regions, underscoring the critical need for targeted public health interventions such as HPV
vaccination and screening programs, particularly in resource-limited settings.
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 09 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the paper is interesting and well thought out. Reducing SSIs is crucial, especially
since MWAs are indicated for patients who are difficult to treat invasively. This is where the
significance of this paper lies. However, the solution lacks specificity, and there seems to be a
typographical error in the data. The statistical analysis needs to be revised with accurate data
input. Please address and correct the specific areas indicated for revision.
Table2 BMI&ASA
Total number of infection group may be wrong.
Please check. Are these correct data? Because Infection Group is 16 patients.
Table3 Type of Disease&Prophylactic antibiotics
Total number of infection group may be wrong or opposite.
Line192-203
This part is a bit redundant. Please describe it in a more concise manner and include the
discussion that follows.
Line216-217
I suppose it can be said that longer operative time increases infection as well as in other surgeries.
Therefore, please give additional consideration to (1) specific reasons and (2) specific remedial
measures to shorten surgery time in MWA.
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Carlos R Cervantes-Sánchez
Reviewer's report:
In summary:
With some work, this study could add to the body of studies on the safety use of this thera-peutic
management for those pathologies.
Specific points:
Title and abstract
The title is clear but could be more informative if specifying to which pathologies the
management is intended for, as well as the study design.
The abstract is clear and concise and includes the fundamental information to invite you to read
the paper. However, it would be appreciated if the type of study design was appropriately defined
(cohort review).
Introduction and Conceptual Framework
The introduction establishes a clear and concise framework, culminating with the appropriate
formulation of the research question.
Methodological Rigour
Methods need further description, starting with the type of study design and the identification
and description of the main variables. It would also be desirable to follow the STROCSS 2024
guidelines to assure their reproducibility by anyone else.
Results
The results need to be reported in concordance with the methodology design and the STROCSS
2024 guidelines.
Discussion and Conclusions
The discussion needs a thorough analysis of each variable of concern, highlighting the key
conclusions, as well as the implications for clinical practice.
Clarity, Length, and Ethical approval
The paper needs a thorough revision of the English language. However, it is of an appropriate
length, and there is no reason for concern about duplicate publication or “salami slicing”, nor
conflict of interest. The study was approved by an IRB (No. 2024-RE-219).
Recommended bibliography
# Rashid R, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Franchi T, Mathew G, Nicola M, Agha RA. The STROCSS
2024 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies
in surgery. Int J Surg. 2024 Jun 1;110(6):3151-3165. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001268.
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Bogdan Obrzut
Reviewer's report:
Interesting review of the literature. The subject of the paper is relevant for operative gynecology.
In the list of authors, the name Ying Peng is written twice – please check.
In the “Perioperative procedure” subsection, location of the Hospital should be added.
It would be very interesting to examine the potential impact of intraoperative blood lost on the
development of SSI, because the blood transfusion itself may be no objective enough. Please
include this parameter into analysis.
Besides, the review is scientifically sound and objective. The presented results are presented and
interpreted appropriately. The conclusions are coherent.
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Betul Kuru
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your excessive good work.
Title:
The title is clear and exactly shows what the article is about.
Abstract:
In the Methods part of the Abstract it should be better to give information about the inclusion
criteria or patients selection more then explaining about statistical analysis.
Introduction:
Overall very good introduction but to make is more clear in the sentence of  “Thus, early
identification of risk factors is clinically significant.” “Significant” can be changed with
“important” or “crucial” or any other word shows the importance.
Methods:
I understand that you formed two groups but in the Methods part, but you did not mention about
that grouping methodology. Can you mention more about that grouping?
Results:
Last sentence of the result part of the article a sentence starts with “Perhaps”: you should either
remove that part to the discussion part or you should just give information and not make any
assumption about the given information.
Figure 1.
I can honestly say that I can not understand anything from that figure. You should give more
information about the groups and which group the figures belong to. And for the color selection
I recommend you to use color-blind friendly color palette.
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 1 Date: 19 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Amirmohammad Merajikhah
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed your manuscript. The topic is good. But the methodology is completely wrong.
You wrote that your study is retrospective. Your grouping is not homogenous in terms of
population. You have 16 people in the infection group and 195 people in the non-infection group.
In a retrospective (case control) study, you have to go from the outcome to the exposure. It is
better to change the outcome so that the groups are homogenous.
In the study, mention why you took a sample from a hospital.
Write the result of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
It is better to choose the type of test based on the result of the normality test of the data
distribution, not just the continuity or discontinuity of the data.
In Table 3, it is written that in the infection group, 195 people received antibiotic prophylaxis.
While your infection group is 16 people. This is a mistake.
On the other hand, the scales must be observed in the table. For example, tumor size in
centimeters or millimeters or milliliters. This issue should be mentioned in separate tables so
that readers can understand it.
Also, the averages written in parentheses should be mentioned in the title.
Tests should be mentioned in the title of the tables or mentioned in the description.
If the methodology is modified, the study can be examined in terms of results.
good luck
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Suppadech Tunruttanakul
Reviewer's report:
Review of Manuscript: "Risk Factors of Surgical Site Infections After Microwave Ablation of
the Uterus"
Thank you for inviting me to review the revised manuscript. Although most of my concerns
have been resolved, there are still some issues present.
-Regarding my previous comment about why the authors classified ASA status into I and II: it
appears that only two ASA classifications were used in this study. Given that the age of patients
ranged from 18 to 55 years, I find it unlikely that there were no patients with ASA III status—
unless they were excluded, or there was another underlying reason.
-Figure 1 still lacks some detail. I assumed that Group A vs. B represents SSI-present vs. SSI-
absent, and Group C vs. D follows the same categorization. However, since figures should be
able to stand alone, readers should not be left guessing. Moreover, the grouping details cannot
be found anywhere in the manuscript, including the main text.
-There is still no explanation regarding how the authors selected the factors analyzed for
association with SSI. Underlying rationale with relevant references should be provided.
-The sentence on sample size calculation reads: “Sample size calculations indicated that a
minimum of 200 patients was required to achieve sufficient power to detect differences in SSI
incidence.” This is insufficient. The expected difference in SSI incidence and the statistical
power used for the calculation should be stated.
-Minor issue: The table results presented in parentheses (...) are still insufficient for reporting
medians. It should be specified whether the values in parentheses represent the range or the
interquartile range.
-Additional comment: The criteria used for diagnosing SSI in this study should also be provided.
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Carlos R Cervantes-Sánchez
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the authors for accepting the reviewers' suggestions and making corrections ac-
cordingly.
However, it would be appreciated if the authors adhered to the recommendation of the
STROCCS 2024 guidelines regarding the title and guideline citation (items 1 and 5b):
Item 1 Title
The word “cohort” or “cross-sectional” or “case-control” is included. Temporal design of the
study is stated (e.g. retrospective or prospective). The focus of the study is clearly stated (e.g.
population, setting, disease, exposure/intervention, outcome, etc.).
Item 5b Guideline citation
At the end of the introduction, refer to the STROCSS 2024 publication by stating: ‘This co-
hort/cross-sectional/case–control study has been reported in line with the STROCSS guide-lines
[include citation]’.
After that correction, I consider it would be possible to recommend its publication.
Title: Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Microwave Ablation of the Uterus:
A Retrospective Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 12 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Amirmohammad Merajikhah
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed your study. It looks good and needs to be reviewed with a few minor corrections
as outlined below.
1_ Why is the maximum age of patients considered to be 55?
2_ The inclusion criteria should include the absence of active systemic infection.
4_ Evidence have shown that surgical smoke can cause infection and metastasis, and the spread
of tumor cells. Add the following study to the discussion:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35223623/
#Best regard
Title: Factors Associated with Premenstrual Symptoms: A Study among Graduate-Level
Students of the Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University
Version: 2 Date: 01 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Freshteh Osmani
Reviewer's report:
The abstract should explicitly mention the study design (cross-sectional) in the first sentence to
set clear expectations.
The conclusion should avoid direct recommendations like “stopping the consumption of
menstrual delaying medicine” unless causation has been established. Instead, the findings should
be framed cautiously (e.g., “The results suggest a potential association between menstrual
delaying medicine and PMS symptoms”).
The introduction provides a good background, but it needs a clearer transition between the
problem statement and study objectives.
The phrase “population-based research” is ambiguous. Since this study was conducted on a
specific academic population, using “institution-based cross-sectional study” would be more
appropriate.
The exclusion criteria (e.g., PCOD, medication for depression/anxiety) should be justified
further. Did this exclusion impact generalizability?
More details on questionnaire validation (e.g., pre-testing, reliability analysis) should be
included.
The statistical methods are well-described, but the rationale for choosing multiple binary logistic
regression should be explained (e.g., why not multinomial regression if symptom severity was
measured?).
The results are well-organized, but some figures/tables could be better labeled for clarity.
Reporting odds ratios (ORs) is appropriate, but it would be helpful to include an interpretation
of effect sizes.
The finding that stress significantly affects PMS is important but should be discussed in light of
potential confounding factors (e.g., workload, academic pressure).
The discussion could be strengthened by linking findings more explicitly to past research.
The explanation of menstrual delaying medicine and its effects lacks depth—more references
are needed to support these claims.
Limitations should be explicitly mentioned (e.g., self-reported data, potential recall bias, lack
of control for dietary factors).
Title: Factors Associated with Premenstrual Symptoms: A Study among Graduate-Level
Students of the Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University
Version: 2 Date: 03 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Greetings and regards
Please make corrections to improve the article according to the comments below.
Abstract
Background
Summarize and state the purpose of the study at the very end.
Methods
State the inclusion and exclusion criteria
Result
Summarize, and only mention the main findings along with their statistical values and p-values.
Keywords
Write according to the MeSH
Background
The introduction of the article is weak. It is better to use more than one reference per paragraph
or several lines. At the end, the purpose of the study should be stated.
Methods
Explain the method of determining sample size and sampling method.
Discussion
Provide a brief explanation of the purpose of the study at the beginning of the discussion section
The discussion needs to be expanded. Make more comparisons with other studies and provide
more comments.
Conclusion
Needs correction
Avoid using statistical information
References
Some references are outdated. Update them.
Title: Factors Associated with Premenstrual Symptoms: A Study among Graduate-Level
Students of the Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Hossein Salehi Omran
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors Team of the Manuscript,
The manuscript "Factors Associated with Premenstrual Symptoms: A Study among Graduate-
Level Students of the Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University" is an
interesting study evaluating the prevalence and factors associated with Premenstrual Symptoms.
However, some points require discussion before publication.
1. The list of keywords would be expanded to include some important keywords, such as
graduate-level female and associated factors.
2. In the methods of abstract, the abbreviation "PMS" has been mentioned without properly
defining it in the abstract before.
3. the introduction of the manuscript provides valuable information regarding the previous
studies conducted in this field. However, they would be discussed in the discussion instead of
introduction.
4. As mentioned in the limitations part of the study, dietary factors like food intake and nutrition
were not considered in the study and no related data were reported in this manuscript.  As a
matter of fact, discussion about the association between dietary factors and PMS would be better
discussed in the discussion, not in the introduction.
5. A small sample size should be mentioned and discussed as one of the limitations of the study.
6. About the date of conduction of the study as well as the Nepali calendar, the Gregorian
calendar should be mentioned in the methodology of the study.
7.  As well as the limitations of the study, the strengths of the study should be highlighted to
demonstrate its priorities compared to previously conducted studies in this field.
8. The rationale behind the associated factors of  PMS such as Stress, Menstrual delaying
medicine, dysmenorrhea, and age at menarche of respondents which were reported in the results
have not been discussed enough.
9. The conclusion of the manuscript is too long. It will summarize and briefly mention the whole
results of the study.
Overall, the manuscript provides valuable and interesting findings in terms of the prevalence of
PMS and its associated factors. However, it requires some kinds of revisions before publication.
Title: Factors Associated with Premenstrual Symptoms: A Study among Graduate-Level
Students of the Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University
Version: 3 Date: 04 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
I believe the logical structure of both the introduction and conclusion requires improvement. The
inclusion of participants from a single institution raises concerns regarding the generalizability
of the findings. In light of this, the authors should clearly articulate the academic rationale
for focusing on this specific population. The introduction would benefit from a more detailed
background to justify the selection of this group and a clearer statement of the research objective
within this context.
I find that the discussion section covers several important points related to premenstrual
syndrome (PMS), including dysmenorrhea, hormonal medications, cultural practices, and stress.
However, the section would benefit from improved structure and clarity. Currently, multiple
topics are discussed within a single, lengthy paragraph, which makes it difficult for readers to
follow the logical flow of the argument.