JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Translation and Validation of Persian Version of Sexual Function -Vaginal Changes
Questionnaire (SVQ) for Women with Gynecologic Cancers
Version: 3 Date: 23 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor and authors,
Firstly, I thank you for my consideration as a reviewer of this manuscript. It is my pleasure to
contribute to BMC Women's Health.
This study was to translate and validate the Persian version of the Sexual-Vaginal Function
Changes Questionnaire (SVQ) in women with gynecologic cancers.
The background is well justified. I would like to recommend indicating the acronyms of along
with the full name of the questionnaires for the first time they are named in the manuscript.
For example, The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Moreover, I suggest rewriting the
objective: “due to the lack of questionnaire and these problems associated GC survivors, the aim
of this study was to translate and validate the Persian version of the Sexual-Vaginal Function
Changes Questionnaire (SVQ) in Persian women with gynecologic cancers”.
With regard methodology section, I recommend indicating more information about the
collection of inclusion and exclusion criteria such as if this self-report was ad hoc, the kind of
questions, and the moment of the collection of the data. The authors only mentioned: “Exclusion
criteria were provided using self-report”. Also, the authors indicated the voluntary participation
of the study, but was there any compensation?
In the results section, mathematical symbols should be in italics.
In the discussion section, the authors should indicate more comparisons with other versions
of the questionnaire because the factors were only compared with the Denmark version.  In
addition, the authors should discuss the external validity of the questionnaire with FSFI. I suggest
the implication of the questionnaire in the Persian women population and more limitations
should be included such as the evaluation with a questionnaire (maybe it is necessary more
information through other measures).
Title: Obstetric fistula repair failure and its associated factors among women underwent
repair in Yirgalem Hamlin fistula center, Sidama Regional State, Southern Ethiopia, 2021: A
retrospective cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 18 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Tefera Taddele
Reviewer's report:
Comparing this manuscript with unrelated manuscript may lead to wrong conclusion. For
example, in the discussion section it says "the finding of this study was consistence with
study done in Pakistan( Reference 3). The reference number 3 manuscript  objective is show
the efficacy and safety of an alternative modified transvaginal repair technique for apical
vesciovaginal fistula. Whereas , your study about the factors for obstetric fistula repair failure.
Consistence with what? prevalence or the factors? Not clear.
Title: Obstetric fistula repair failure and its associated factors among women underwent
repair in Yirgalem Hamlin fistula center, Sidama Regional State, Southern Ethiopia, 2021: A
retrospective cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Dagne Addisu
Reviewer's report:
Obstetric fistula repair failure and its associated factors among women underwent repair in
Yirgalem Hamlin fistula center, Sidama Regional State, Southern Ethiopia, 2021: A cross
sectional study
I would like to thank the editor for giving the opportunity to review this manuscript. To improve
the quality of the manuscript,  I raised some comments and suggestions below.
1. There are grammatical and typing errors. So, revise the whole document extensively.
2. Is it retrospective cross sectional study or not? Please clarify it
3. Abstract: under conclusion part, you reported that Obstetric fistula repair failure had a positive
association with the delays of the active stage of labor. However, I did not find this variable in
the result part (multivariable table). So, revise this issue.
4. Introduction: needs revision
I. Include  other classification of obstetric fistula
II. Include the impact of failed obstetric fistula repair
III. Include strategies or solutions, which were applied to decrease Obstetric fistula repair failures
5. Revise the study design (---I think it was a retrospective cross sectional study)
6. Sampling technique is not clear. How did you get their medical charts?
7. How did you assure the validity of the data collection tool (checklist)?
8. Some variables such as  Goh type of classification, number of fistula  and  circumferential
defect need operational definition
9. Result: I have a doubt on the reality of the data. Because some variable which cannot be
addressed by chart review were reported under the result. E.g age at first pregnancy, educational
status, height and weight didn't document in the medical chart. Since you used secondary data,
it is difficult to address this issue. Besides to this, you reported as 78.3% of the cases have a
stillbirth. This evidence seems like exaggerated or unacceptable.
10. Tables and figures were not cited appropriately. So revise the citation.
E.g
i. Table 2 shows obstetric fistula characteristics, including comorbidities, in detail.
ii. Table 2 shows obstetric fistula characteristics, including comorbidities, in detail.
iii. Table 5 shows the magnitude of obstetric fistula repair failure in detail.
iv. Table 6 shows bivariate and multivariable logistic regression in detail.
# The above descriptions are not smart/good.  So, cite tables and figures rather than describing
in words.
11. Discussion: needs revision and re-writing
12. The conclusion should be specific and based on your findings
13. The recommendations are not specific to your findings. so, revised it
14. Generally, the majority of reported variables could not be obtained from medical charts or
collected retrospectively with chart review. So, please think over it and revise your manuscript
accordingly.
Title: Obstetric fistula repair failure and its associated factors among women underwent
repair in Yirgalem Hamlin fistula center, Sidama Regional State, Southern Ethiopia, 2021: A
retrospective cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 21 May 2022
Reviewer:  Dagne Addisu
Reviewer's report:
The authors tried to address some of my concerns. However, still, there are some issues that
require revision.
1. Still, there are grammatical and typing errors.
2. Abstract: under the conclusion part, you have written your recommendation as it is “Therefore,
better strategies and programs are necessary to reduce or prevent the failure of obstetric fistula
repair by providing quality patient care”. However, your recommendation seems like none
specific and without your finding.
3. Introduction: needs revision
I. The authors did not define obstetric fistula based on the standard definition. You so, you should
include the standard definition of obstetric fistula
II. Obstetric fistula can be classified based on different parameters. E.g based on anatomical
communication, it can be (ureterovaginal, vesicovaginal, ureterovaginal, ureterocervical,
vesicocervical, urethrocervical, ureterouterine, vesicouterine ). So, the definition and
classification should be based on the standard.
4. Fistula of non-obstetric cause (such as; hysterectomy or rape) was excluded from the study.
However, an obstetric indication of hysterectomy is a cause of obstetric fistula. Hysterectomy
may be done for obstetric and gynecological indications.
5. Operational definition: still there are unclear variables.
6. Result: Still I have a doubt on the reality of the data.
a.  Under the result part it says “The mean age at the time of repair was 30.7 (SD ± 10.0), with
a range from 14 to 61 years”. How the woman will not have an obstetric fistula at the age of 61
years? As we know obstetric fistula is occurring as a result of pregnancy-related complications
mainly due to obstructed labor. So, obstetric fistula at the age of 61 years is unlikely.
7. The recommendations should be specific to your findings.
8. Generally, some reported variables could not be obtained from medical charts or collected
retrospectively with chart review. So, please think over it and revise your manuscript.
Title: Anatomical and Symptomatic Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or
without Hysterectomy
Version: 0 Date: 20 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Rodrigo Bartilotti
Reviewer's report:
Good article that increases what is already found in the literature.
The study design needs to be revised, specially focused on voiding symptons and it assessment.
I think it's not possible to evaluate it since the adequate approach wasn't made before surgery.
The english should be revised by a native speaker.
Title: Anatomical and Symptomatic Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or
without Hysterectomy
Version: 0 Date: 23 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Serdar Ayd#n
Reviewer's report:
I very much appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have read the manuscript
carefully. Manuscript needs English editing by native speaker. This manuscript have major
problems that cannot be fixed.
Title of manuscript is not represents the study appropriately. The study population were not the
women had Le Forte only, there were concomitant hystercetomy and previous hysterectomies
before. Please clarify symptomatic outcome?
Abstract: Is there any need to make obliterative surgery to stage 2 POPQ prolapse. Anatomical
success should be redefined. I think there were no hymen after surgery. Please clarify what are
new POPQ points after obliterative surgery.
Conclusion is too pretentious and sharp. This study had not measure the simplicity of technique
and follow- up period was short the determine success
Background:
Please check the incidence that was given in the Ref number 1. It should be surgically managed
POP. The incidence of POP in population is higher than 2/10000.
I want to ask the authors about the existence or non existence of RVF.
Modification of Goodall and Power is not related with study and could be removed (page 3,
lines 67-69)
Methods
Anterior cervical lip is not a anatomical term, please revise anatomical terms.
Please clarify what authors want to point “vaginal mucosa denuded of the PCF”?
Please explain how you measured TVL, C point in women who undergone obliterative surgery.
Which parameter that authors measure distribution of variances? Statistical analysis section
should be revised.
Results:
Had you incleded the women with previous vaginal hysterectomy? (page 6 line:129): please
define incluison cireterias. Had you performed same surgical technique to these 3 women.
Also concomitant vaginal hysterectomy with colpoclesis was applied in 22 patiens ( Page6, lines
131-132) Did you performed same technique that you described above? It results with selection
bias.
Please revise Acknowledgements. Is there any need to thank to reviewers in manuscript.
Title: Anatomical and Symptomatic Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or
without Hysterectomy
Version: 2 Date: 07 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Ref: Submission ID 23ced04f-65a6-4114-94a8-8247d6cda9f9
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled: "Anatomical and Symptomatic
Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or without Hysterectomy".
The authors describe their cohort of 59 patients who underwent Le Fort colpocleisis and report
on their outcomes up to 12 months following surgery. While this is an important topic, previous
studies have had larger study groups and have performed comparative studies showing this
procedure’s effectiveness in treating POP. It seems that the conclusion of this manuscript adds
little to current literature.
All my comments refer to the revised version of the manuscript since it seems that the manuscript
has undergone a revision.
I have several comment:
Abstract
- Line 30: I would suggest using the term “clinical” as opposed to symptomatic.
- Line 33: Did the study include only women 65 years and older? I assume that there might not
have been any younger women interested in colpocleisis but if this was not strictly an exclusion
criteria I would remove from the methods.
- Line 44: I would not use the term higher with regards to point C since this can be confusing.
- Line 46: I suggest changing to “no cases of recurrence”.
- Line 52: I suggest using “clinical” instead of “symptomatic”.
Background
- Line 74: I don’t agree with the author’s statement that data regarding Le fort colpocleisis in
lacking. There are numerous studies which have evaluated this procedure including some with
several years of follow-up.
- Otherwise the background section describes the research question well.
Methods
- Were any urodynamic tests performed? Please elaborate on this point.
- Were there any incontinence procedures performed at time of surgery? If so please explain
how you decided for whom to add this procedure.
- Did the authors think of adding a composite outcome? This is often done in studies assessing
outcomes following POP repair.
- Line 133: Should be “were” instead of “was”.
- Were drain tunnels performed for all patient or only those for whom the uterus was preserved?
Please clarify.
Results
- Line 142: Does the fact that patients had cataract or orthopedic surgery relevant to this study?
I would recommend reporting only on comorbidities which may have clinical relevance.
- When referring to hemoglobin in is often more informative to calculate delta hemoglobin and
comparing that as opposed to just reporting pre and post op Hb.
Discussion
- Line 158: Short operative time compared to which procedure?
- Line 199: There appears to be a mistake regarding TVL which was 8.93 mm before surgery
and 35 mm after. Please check and correct if necessary.
- Please add a limitations paragraph to the discussion.
Tables
- The tables seem to add little information. I would suggest dividing them up to pre-operative
data, intra- and post-operative data.
Title: Anatomical and Symptomatic Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or
without Hysterectomy
Version: 2 Date: 05 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I very much appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have read the manuscript
carefully. I offer some minor changes to the authors.
1. Please explain how you measured the TVL and C point?
2. You didn’t mention cervical elongation in your article. I recommend you to discuss this with
a couple of sentences. It is better to discuss a recent study: “A blind spot: Manchester Fothergill
operation for cervical elongation without uterine descensus”.
3. In the post-operative follow up you mentioned that “The urinary catheter was retracted”.
When was the urinary catheter was retracted? I guess it was retracted after mobilization. Please
explain this.
4. You mentioned that “All patients were examined at postoperative months 1 and 12.” Did you
examine all patients postoperative first week or on the 10th day? It is important for short-term
complications.
5. Please add explanations below the tables (abbreviation etc.). For example, what does the
asterisk in the first table represent?
Decision: Minor revision
Thank you.
Title: Anatomical and Symptomatic Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or
without Hysterectomy
Version: 2 Date: 11 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The case number is small, and the cohort is heterogenous.
I think that “anatomical outcome” by POP-Q is seldom reported because it is inapplicable after
colpocleisis.
According to the authors, Global Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire (GPFBQ) was used to assess
LUTS. However, the items in Table 3 were quite different from GPFBQ. The acquisition and
validity of LUTS data does not seem reliable. For example, it is unlikely that only 5% of patients
(at age 70) had nocturia after surgery, as the overall prevalence of nocturia for 70-year-old
woman is more than 40%.
Overall, the authors aimed to present some less reported outcomes of colpocleisis, but the study
design and the measurements were inadequate.
Title: Anatomical and Symptomatic Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or
without Hysterectomy
Version: 3 Date: 20 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript.
The authors answered most of the comments and the manuscript is very much improved.
However I still have a few comments.
1) I suggest removing table 2. In its current form it reports on comorbidities alone without any
other data. This can be mentioned in the text of the manuscript.
2) The manuscript requires a revision by a native English speaker or someone with experience
in writing scientific research manuscripts.
3) Limitations paragraph is still missing. There is a sentence that mentions two obvious
limitations but there are other important limitations which are not mentioned. some of these
limitations are the short term follow up, the lack of comparison to other procedures and absence
of quality of life questionnaires.
Title: Anatomical and Symptomatic Outcomes in Patients with Le Fort Colpocleisis with or
without Hysterectomy
Version: 4 Date: 23 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Mine Kiseli
Reviewer's report:
This study, investigating the anatomic and functional outcomes of Le Fort colpocleisis surgery,
has  suggested improvements in many aspects for elderly POP patients. The results are clear and
the discussion gives further data from the literature.
Title: Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a
prospective population-based cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer:  Remila Rezhake
Reviewer's report:
The authors deeply analysed the potential factors that affecting the colposcopy attendance, which
is an important aspect during organized cervical cancer screening. The paper was well written
and data were deeply analysed. I have several suggestions for authors references:
1. Title: In my opinion, this study could not be called as “prospective cohort study”, though the
authors used two rounds of screening results, but the current analysis was only cross-sectional,
there is no longitudinal analysis. Thus, I suggest to revise the title and respective text in main
body of paper.
2. Following first comments, I am wondering since authors had data from two screening rounds,
could you do additional analysis on the outcomes of R1 non-attendance at R2 screening (in the
cases of they presented at R2). This should be longitudinal analysis and it might be interesting
to see the proportion of abnormal screening results at R2 among those baseline non-attendance.
3. Line 139, “Compared to younger women (30-39 years), 40-49 year old women were more
likely to attend colposcopy (25% vs 31%; aOR=1.55, 95% CI 1.02, 4.96)”, I would suggest to
use attendance rates “75% vs 69%” instead of “25% vs 31%”, since you are talking “more likely
to attend”. In following text, please also use attendance rate, because from my understanding,
you are taking the “attendance” as the event (=1) when running logistic regression, thus the rates
should be matched to ORs.
4. At Line 165, author mentioned “Among hrHPV positive non-attendees”, while in the title of
respective table2, author used “among screen-positive women”, please be consistent and precise.
5. Table 2: it might be better to calculate the proportion by row not by column, then the
proportion would be matched to ORs reported in the table. The respective text should be revised
as well.
6. Minor issue: In table 1, last variable (screening result) “hrHPV only” should be revised in
“hrHPV+ only”.
7. Discussion: Same point was discussed in Line 210-214 and Line 231-238, please merge or
delete to avoid repeat discussion.
8. Discussion: Line 246, the sentence “We defined non-attendees as screen-positive to either
cytology or HPV testing”, also need to be revised.
Title: Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a
prospective population-based cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 09 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Timely follow-up of an abnormal screening result is crutial to cervical cancer screening program.
This paper analysied  the reasons for  colposcopy non-attendance in Germany. The result may
help to addresses follow-up barriers and improve screening effectiveness.
Title: Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a
prospective population-based cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 15 May 2022
Reviewer:  Komsun Suwannarurk
Reviewer's report:
This was an interesting paper that taking a long time for requirement. Cervical cancer screening
was one of the method for eradicating cervical cancer. When the screening showing positive
result, colposcopy should be performed. The factors that influenced the colposcopy non-
attendance was investigated.
Title: Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a
prospective population-based cohort study
Version: 3 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Komsun Suwannarurk
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript should be accepted. This was the study that investigating the factor of non-
attended colposcopy cases. The case who had positive for cervical cancer screening should
undergo colposcopy for definite diagnosis and early treatment. The finding of this study might
be useful for other people who had cervical cancer being the main problem of heath care.
Title: How do I deal with Breast Cancer: A qualitative inquiry into the coping strategies of
Iranian women survivors
Version: 2 Date: 10 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Nadia Rajaram
Reviewer's report:
I think that the authors have done well to address all the comments that I have highlighted
previously. There are still few grammatical or language problems, especially with the new text,
so I would advice the authors to review those again. However, this is a small issue. I have no
further comments on the content. I think this is an important paper to be published to push us
towards better care for the women of Iran who need help coping with breast cancer.
Title: How do I deal with Breast Cancer: A qualitative inquiry into the coping strategies of
Iranian women survivors
Version: 2 Date: 26 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded well to the reviewer's comments and in all instances were thorough and
informative.
This reviewer has some additional comments.
1. The categories under the rubric of "Trustworthiness" were not familiar and probably not
accessible to most researchers, even those who conduct qualitative research. It appears that
Credibility is tantamount to content validity, dependability may be like reliability, confirmability
may be something like external reliability (that is, confirmed by others outside of the the authors'
team) and transferability would be like generalizability.  It would be helpful to know more about
how the authors view the trustworthiness criteria in terms that are more universally held by
researchers in psychology.   Also, beyond just description of these categories of quality, is there
any way to quantify them?
2. The findings are related by the authors to some more general findings, but are still quite
restricted. There was no mention of quantitative research on coping to which the findings can
be compared.  Also, in some mix model work, survey methods are used to converge with the
qualitative findings.
3. Were those who completed treatment apt to respond differently from those in treatment? Is
there any value in looking at stages of the cancer trajectory? May require more participants.
4. What exactly is theoretical saturation?  Seems like more participants even in qualitative work
is desired. The rationale for theoretical saturation was not entirely clear.
5. The data analysis section was not presented in a way that non-qualitative researchers could
appreciate.  Were there themes?   Were they researcher generated?  Is there bias in the method?
That is, would "naive" coders come up with the same themes?
6. Not at all clear how the MAXQDA software works, how it was used, what it added to the
analyses.  Is it a natural language program.  The explanation of the program and its use need
to be made more explicit.
7. Have the authors thought about an exploratory and confirmatory approach?  That is 14
participants is quite small.  Would it be more beneficial to have another sample that is a
"confirmatory" sample on which the initial findings are tested for replication?