JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: A cross-sectional investigation on the function of the female pelvic floor in the Sichuan
province, China
Version: 3 Date: 05 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I carefully evaluated the revised version of this manuscript.
The authors have performed the required changes, improving significantly the quality of the
paper.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I do not have further concerns.
Title: Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among Female High School Students
in Nekemte Town, East Wallaga Zone, Western Oromia, Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study.
Version: 2 Date: 27 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Reynardi Larope Sutanto
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
I would like to commend you for your conducted research.  However, I have several reservations
before this submission could be published.
1. There are several grammar and spelling errors in the paper. Please revise the manuscript for
proper English grammar and clarity.
2. The conclusion is overstated. Instead of stating that the intervention "shows effectiveness in
reducing pain," it would be more appropriate to say it "is associated with reduced pain."
3. Why was regression analysis not performed for the pharmacological interventions? There
could be potential confounding factors that need to be accounted for.
4. What was the dosage of the medication, and until which day was it administered? It is
important to state this as different usage may lead to vastly different effects.
5. The Methods section does not specify when data on menstrual pain was collected before and
after medication intake. This makes it unclear how long after taking the medication the pain
scores were measured.
6. Please further explore in the Discussion the differences in the mechanisms of action of each
drug, as this could explain the variations in their associations with pain reduction (instead of just
attributing them to sociocultural factors).
7. How did you determine that the dysmenorrhea in the student sample was primary
dysmenorrhea? Some participants were over 20 years old, where secondary dysmenorrhea is
more common. This could potentially explain differences in drug effectiveness observed in the
study as organic origin might lead to better pain control with OCPs, for example.
Title: Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among Female High School Students
in Nekemte Town, East Wallaga Zone, Western Oromia, Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study.
Version: 2 Date: 12 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Prakash Ramdass
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. Here are my comments:
Introduction:
1. Kindly provide some statistics on the prevalence/ incidence on primary dysmenorrhea in high
school students, preferable in Oromia, or Ethiopia, or a nearby  African region. If not, then a
relevant global prevalence in high school students.
Methods:
2. How was the sample of the students with dysmenorrhea obtained, in order to avoid selection
bias?
3.  How did you account for students who could not attend/  did not enroll in school because
of severe dysmenorrhea?
4. Study variables: This should be reversed. the independent variable is VAS before taking
treatment. whereas the dependent variable is VAS after taking treatment.
Results:
5. No data was obtained for the reason why students had dysmenorrhea. Kindly comment on
this, and what is the usual cause in high school students.
Overall, a great work, with detailed analysis.
Title: Management Practices of Primary Dysmenorrhea among Female High School Students
in Nekemte Town, East Wallaga Zone, Western Oromia, Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study.
Version: 3 Date: 01 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Prakash Ramdass
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for responding to my comments and for revising your manuscript.
Here are my further comments:
Methods
Study variables
Even though you disagree, there is a flaw in your usage of the terms "independent and dependent
variables."
You stated" The dependent variable was the VAS score of the female high school students
before taking any measures, whereas the independent variables were the VAS score of the female
high school students after taking pharmacological measures such as diclofenac, paracetamol,
OCPs, and ibuprofen; the independent variables were the VAS score of the female high school
students after taking pharmacological measures such as massage, sleeping, sports, drinking
water, drinking tea, drinking gigacities with tea, chewing gigacities only, resting, and using
social media."
However, following conventional nomenclature, the independent variable (cause) influences
the dependent (effect) variable. Thus, your independent variable is pharmacological and non-
pharmacological treatment, and your dependent variable is the change in VAS score. Thus, using
the paired t-test, you can assess the mean difference (before and after) in VAS score .
I hope this helps to clarify any doubt.
Title: Crossroads of Choice: A qualitative study of the factors influencing decisions to transition
from sex work among women engaged in sex work in Southern Uganda
Version: 3 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Anna Mia Ekström
Reviewer's report:
Interesting paper. My first question is however, why no co-authors have Ugandan affiliations?
Seems crucial to have Ugandan co-authors.
One major limitation of this study (as mentioned in the Discussion) is that the analysis and
data collection were not originally targeted explicitly on the issue of women’s transition from
sex work. I wonder why not more of the questions  asked such as the women's financial
decision-making and its impact on different aspects of life such as parenting, becoming pregnant,
engaging in protected and unprotected sex, were included? Seems like the results are being cut
too thinly (perhaps to be able to publish more papers? If so it would be good if the other papers
are also mentioned and referenced) . This also means that the results and several quotes are
perceived as a bit repetitive , and some themes overlap.   Also the word Neko (sex worker) is
explained multiple times which is not necessary.
Minor comments:
The table heading is mislabelled as (n) % but it is  the percentages that are within parentheses
and these also have two decimals points but very few observations. Although sample size is
more or less irrelevant in qualitative studies, it is unreasonable to have so few participants  in
each category and still report proportions with TWO decimals e.f. N=3 (5.66%) and 1 (1.89%).
The decimals should be removed.
Despite these shortcomings I think the paper adds valuable information.
If  text can be more concentred (less repetitive/richer, possibly by adding more data from the
other qualitative questions mentioned above or at least referred to), I think it  could be published
with the revisions proposed above .
Title: Crossroads of Choice: A qualitative study of the factors influencing decisions to transition
from sex work among women engaged in sex work in Southern Uganda
Version: 5 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Overall a very well-written paper. Just a few minor comments to note. Well done!
Abstract
In the results, for individual factors you mention the facilitators. For structural factors, it is not
clear which of those mentioned are facilitators, and which are barriers. It would read better if
clarified.
Theoretical framework
In your last paragraph, you mention multilevel factors. Give examples of which levels are usually
used in the Role Exit Theory, and which of these levels you use in the analysis. As you are not
using all the levels, just briefly explain why, or whether you have combined some levels.
Methods
Ethical considerations:
- You have repeated the sentence regarding written consent twice.
- As it is the first time ART has been used in the manuscript, write it out in long form.
Other
- Throughout the manuscript, there are words that have multiple spaces between them. I suggest
going through and removing these.
- Theoretical framework: pg 6 last paragraph, Women is capitalized, when it should be women.
Title: The Association of Women’s Empowerment Dimensions and Antenatal Care Utilization
in Ethiopia; Facility Based Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 27 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Ebenezer Senu
Reviewer's report:
Indicate section "Materials and Methods"
Table 1: In heading percentage or "Present". Authors should check and correct all headings
appropriately
First present a figure showing the distribution of antenatal care contact before proceeding to
association
Table 1: Authors showed total for some variables  and ignored others. Total frequency and
percentages should be indicated in headings and removed from within totals. Further indicated
variables with missing data
Table 2, under variables, efficacy, esteem etc, these are incomplete terms. Authors should clearly
describe all variables for readers who goes straight to tables
Table 2: Descriptive statistics should be redone. Authors should present column percentages for
adequate and inadequate instead of row percentages
Indicate units for all variables across all tables
All descriptions of results should be before the respective tables of figures. Format all footnote
properly
In table 2, most variables are missing. Authors should check or provide reasons why some
variables were not included in the logistics model.
Use hyphen (-) to separate confidence interval instead of comma (,)
Discussion needed further rewrite.  Authors should state their findings, compare to relevant
literate and give clinical implications. More details needs to be added to the discussion.
Conclusion needs completely rewrite.  Conclusion is just projection of key study findings based
on study aim or objectives. Not starting from why the study etc
Overall the manuscript should be improved
Title: The Association of Women’s Empowerment Dimensions and Antenatal Care Utilization
in Ethiopia; Facility Based Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
First of all I would like to appreciate the authors for selecting best title.  Saying this I do have
some comments.
INTRODUCTION
1. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WOMEN EMPOWERMENT?, YOU HAVE TO CLARIFY THIS
TERMS FIRSLY INCLUDING ITS TYPES.
2. CAN YOU TELL US THE MAGNITUDE OF WOEMENS EMPOWERMENT
FROM GLOBAL TO LOCAL?, DEATHS THAT CAN BE OCURRED DUE TO
LACK OF WOWENS EMPOWERMENT?, WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT AND ANC?, GENERALLY YOUR INTRODUCTION IS TOO
SHALLOW.
3. Why you selected this topic?, try to answer the significance of the study in details.
METHODS
4. ADD THE TITLE OF METHODS BEFORE STUY AREA AND PERIOD
5. Under study area , you said that, The total estimated two-month average of women attending
delivery and postpartum services at both hospitals was approximately 988 women. Are you sure
of this number?, it looks like fake.
6. your source population are mothers who attended delivery and postpartum service. So why you
used correction formula?, do you think that they are less than 10,000?. I am totally disagreeing
this.
7. please clarify about sample size in details, your topic talks about ANC but you interviewed
laboring and postnatal care. Did you used secondary data, or how you ask laboring mother about
frequency of ANC?,  I am not clear with topic
8. why you use 10% for pretest?, why not 5%?, can you clarify it?
9. Please add your ID and  reference number of IRB ethical clearance, if you truly took it before
10. What is women empowerment?, please elaborate in operational definition section of the
methodology. Your title and your operational definition is different.
RESULT
11. Your result way of writing is poor. write separably, like socio-demographic factors,
KNOWLEDGE, obstetric factors….etc forexample: (Table 1). Regarding their knowledge of
dangerous signs during pregnancy, only one-third of women (34.6%) knew, and approximately
64% did not know about pregnancy complications. (Table-1)??.
12. Association between women’s empowerment and antenatal acre utilization?, what does it
mean?, please check your grammar
13. I have a question on your regression table. Please check your odds ratio in the form of AD/
BC. Some numbers are not correct
14. Your discussion is poor. Please try to compare and contrast your finding with other studies
by elaborating the possible reasons from global to local.
15. You didn’t used qualitative data. So add it as your limitation
16. Your conclusion is too poor. Please rewrite again..
17. Generally your manuscript has some grammar errors, punctuations and place of writing or
orders.
Title: The Association of Women’s Empowerment Dimensions and Antenatal Care Utilization
in Ethiopia; Facility Based Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Ebenezer Senu
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed previous comments. The manuscript still additional edits before it
publication. Eg; For tables the total frequency should be indicated in the headings (Frequency
(n=301)), figures needs to be improved, some labels are running out of appropriate locations.
In table 3, Residence place  missed the asterisk sign although significant. Also, bold all
significant values of < 0.05 in aOR and indicate in footnote for all tables.
etc
Title: The Association of Women’s Empowerment Dimensions and Antenatal Care Utilization
in Ethiopia; Facility Based Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 4 Date: 03 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors are to be commended for their attention to this second
round of suggested revisions. The manuscript is much improved and close to ready for
publication. The manuscript will add to the body of literature that can be used to develop
programs that not only will lead to empowerment of women, but ultimately improve ANC
attendance and maternal and infant outcomes.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
There are very minor grammatical changes that can be addressed during the galley proofing
phase of publication
Title: Determinants of healthcare decision-making autonomy among Bangladeshi women:
Mixed-effect logistic regression analysis
Version: 1 Date: 05 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Jean Claude Nibaruta
Reviewer's report:
Report 1
The research topic addressed by the authors is of interest in the field of maternal and child health
promotion. The authors provided very good elements to explain the topic, but they should take
into account the following points to improve the quality of their manuscript.
1. Firstly, it would be better if authors include line numbering in later versions of the manuscript
to facilitate revision and more feedback.
Abstract :
Background:
2. In the study backgroup, the authors should first present the context of the study, and then
outline its objective.
Methods
The authors stated that they used a multilevel (mixed-effect) logistic regression model given
the hierarchical nature of the DHS data, and this is a very good thing. However, the authors
reportedly failed to assess whether the odds of women's health care decision-making autonomy
really varied significantly across clusters, and how much this variation was large enough to
justify the type of regression model they used. In addition to the fixed effects, it is therefore
essential to provide indicators of the random effects ( Inter Cluster Variance, ICC, MOR ) and
comparison fitness (PCV, deviance, AIC, BIC )  of the models performed.
Results
Factors associated with the healthcare autonomy
3. It would be better if the authors presented the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) followed by their
confidence intervals, all in brackets.
4.  The study finding on Household wealth status needs to be presented also.
Discussion
5. IL would be better if the authors begun the discussion section by presenting the objective
of study.
6. Why did the authors neither report nor discuss their study's finding on Household wealth
status?
7. Readers would be curious to understand how women residing in poorest households have
more healthcare decision making autonomy than women residing in richest households.
Title: Psychometric Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Questionnaire for
Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis in Women with Urinary Incontinence
Version: 1 Date: 05 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Hamid Sharif-Nia
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
I have read this article. It is very well written and I have only one minor suggestion for the
authors. Throughout the article, please write a p-value of 0.000 instead of 0.001>
Also, please specify what test was used for the test-retest?
Title: Global prevalence of female sexual dysfunction based on physical activity: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 23 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The title should cover the objective of the study. Please revise it.
The rationale of the study should be emphasized.
The literature search dates back to two years ago!
Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed, and, if available, provide
registration information including registration number.
Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g.,
years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Present a full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such
that it could be repeated.
Please specify the eligibility criteria.
Regarding the limited number of included studies, it seems conducting a systematic review of
this topic is immature.
Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication
bias, selective reporting within studies).
PRISMA flow diagram needs critical revision and the reason for excluding studies in the full-
text assessment stage.
Forest plots need revision. Please remove the labels.
Other Recommendations:
1. Enhance Background: Include more context on the importance of female sexual health.
2. Clarify Methods: Specify inclusion/exclusion criteria and statistical tools used.
3. Detail Results: Consider discussing heterogeneity and its implications.
4. Strengthen Conclusion: Offer recommendations for future research or interventions.
5. Keywords: Add more relevant keywords for better indexing.
Title: Global prevalence of female sexual dysfunction based on physical activity: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Pablo Luiz Santos Couto
Reviewer's report:
Relevant manuscript, from the point of view of scientific advancement of health promotion for
women, focused on subjective aspects that interfere in quality of life, well-being and self-esteem,
such as sexual dysfunctions.
The manuscript is well written, clear and cohesive, respecting the requirements for adequate
scientific writing. The objective meets the object of study and the results respond to the objective.
In addition, the methodology used is adequate, based on the guidelines proposed for systematic
reviews and meta-analysis.
Title: A multifaceted menstrual health intervention to improve psychosocial outcomes and
menstrual practices among secondary schoolgirls in Northwest Tanzania: a pilot intervention
study
Version: 3 Date: 27 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The previous reviewer did a comprehensive job of reviewing the article, and the authors were
responsive.
The authors did a nice job of explaining in greater detail the components of the MSRH
intervention. They also maintained the focus of the paper on helping adolescents manage
menstruation (not ovulation, as suggested by the previous reviewer).
Include the age range for participants.
The authors added to the limitations, which addressed concerns about the lack of validated
instruments used. To address this, I recommend to include – as an Appendix – the instruments
used, particularly as the authors adopted items from existing broader questionnaires. Include the
survey questionnaire items for school climate.
Consider including the theoretical range and observed range for the school climate items.
Relatedly, include on Page 11 who conducted the observations using the checklist. In Table 4
include in a foot note or in the title that this was assessed by observation.
Finally, there is one discrepancy – Page 12, line 12 indicates the regression models adjust for
participant age and school location (urban/rural) but Table 2 footnote indicates the models also
adjust for school (which I think is a typo, as that would result in multicollinearity with school
location).
Title: A multifaceted menstrual health intervention to improve psychosocial outcomes and
menstrual practices among secondary schoolgirls in Northwest Tanzania: a pilot intervention
study
Version: 3 Date: 05 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
I still strongly believe that this study would be enhanced by demonstrating how the WHO's HPS
framework applies. It is nonetheless the authors' choice to incorporate this suggestion. Overall,
this is a comprehensive paper. No need to return it for review.