JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: “Sit Like a Lady”: Gender-related sociocultural constructs and implications for anterior
cruciate ligament injury risk in active women.
Version: 3 Date: 12 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for their revisions and comments. Please find additional thoughts
below:
Comment 5 – I’m sorry, but this response is not satisfying. It is extremely premature to describe
your work as seminal. Just because your work is the first of its kind does not excuse good
statistical practices. I’m also not sure what you mean by “…grounding our results in a commonly
accepted mechanism of ACL injury for readers.” Calling for more research is stated almost
universally in all papers; this is a given. I would prefer to see a more conservative approach to
the analysis and a discussion of these limitations and how they may affect your findings. ‘
Comment 7 – thank you for providing the reference. The Young paper is an influential feminist
essay, but it is 45 years old. I agree broadly with the sentiment, however please provide more
contemporary and observational evidence for such a strong statement, especially as you refer
to it several times in the paper.
Comment 8 – as mentioned previously there is a lack of contemporary and observational
evidence in the introduction. At a quick search I found a few papers linked to this area, and I’m
sure there are more, please consider adding these – it strengthens the rationale and background
for your study.
10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.05.010
10.3758/s13423-020-01755-2
Comment 12 – thank you for your response, given this I suggest removing the sample size section
completely (page 5, line 100).
Comment 13 – thank you, please state that no published reliability or validity exists for the
TSOS.
Figures/plots
Figure 1 does not add much for me, so consider removing. It would be much more important
for me (and more transparent) to present some scatter plots of your correlation analyses, or at
least a subset in text and the rest in a supplementary file.
Discussion
It is inappropriate to discuss “statistically non-significant that were thought to be clinically
meaningful” – especially in an exploratory study with a small sample size and a large number
of statistical comparisons. Many of these findings may be spurious and should not be focused
on. I would also suggest removing, as you don’t seem to come back to this much later in your
discussion.
Conclusion – this was a nicely written section with a good call to action, well done.
Title: The management of vaginal prolapse and stress incontinence mesh complications in a
quaternary mesh complications service in the United Kingdom (U.K): A 5-year observational
study
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written, clearly structured, and presents a comprehensive overview of the
patient population accessing a quaternary pelvic mesh complications service in the UK over a
five-year period.
The study's design, combining both retrospective and prospective observational data, is
appropriate for the research question. The statistical analysis is sound and appropriately applied,
offering meaningful insights into patient demographics, presenting complaints, and management
pathways. The large cohort adds strength to the conclusions drawn.
Importantly, the identification of ‘pain alone’ as the most prevalent presenting symptom
highlights a key clinical challenge and underscores the need for a better understanding of the
mechanisms of mesh-related pain. The paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature and
should inform both clinical practice and future research priorities in this complex field.
While the Methods section is generally clear and well presented, it would be beneficial if
the authors specified the proportion of cases in which medical records were unavailable, and
where the identification of the type of mesh device relied instead on the patient’s account and/
or imaging findings such as MRI and Translabial Ultrasound (TLUSS). Clarifying this would
enhance transparency regarding data reliability and the methodology used to classify mesh types,
particularly given the retrospective nature of part of the study.
I recommend this manuscript for publication with no major revisions.
Title: The management of vaginal prolapse and stress incontinence mesh complications in a
quaternary mesh complications service in the United Kingdom (U.K): A 5-year observational
study
Version: 3 Date: 30 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
Overall this is an important contribution to literature regarding management of patients with
mesh-related complications. However there are some changes that will improve this paper as
below:
In the Design section in the abstract, the authors state that this is a prospective and retrospective
study which needs to be clarified in the Methods section - it is contradictory to have both a
retrospective and prospective study.
UK should not be abbreviated the first time it is used.
Some editing of grammar and punctuation required.
If data was collected prospectively about patients and used in a study, I would imagine that most
ethics committees would need to provide approval even in a low/negligible risk study.
The authors will need to clarify that this was checked and not required.
Figure 1 states that only SUI mesh had cystourethroscopy – this would also be an important
assessment in patients with POP mesh e.g. transvaginal POP mesh given the risk of bladder/
urethral mesh erosion would still be present – authors need to explain reasoning behind this and
this might be useful in the Discussion section to aid further mesh complication management
units.
With regards to surgical management of mesh complications, it would be useful in Discussion
section to discuss how the authors determined which patients should have concomitant SUI
procedures at time of mesh removal and which should not.
Title: The management of vaginal prolapse and stress incontinence mesh complications in a
quaternary mesh complications service in the United Kingdom (U.K): A 5-year observational
study
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
This descriptive observational study is an appropriate and important study for publication. This
article meets many of the STROBE recommendations to include the introduction, methods,
results and discussion. The objective for the study is clear. The text is well organized which
contribute for easier reading.
Specific comments:
- please see uploaded file
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome with Stroke, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 08 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHORS
General comment:
It is a pleasure to review this manuscript titled “Polycystic Ovary Syndrome with Stroke,
Hypertension, and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” The
topic is clinically relevant, and the authors have made a valuable effort to synthesize current
evidence. However, the manuscript still requires some revisions.
Specific MAJOR comments:
1. The introduction section needs revision. The first three paragraphs can be moderately
condensed. In the final paragraph, the discussion of the relationship among HTN, stroke, CVD,
and PCOS appears inconsistent. For example:
“Several studies have investigated the link between HTN, stroke, CVD, and PCOS, but the
findings have been equivocal. While some studies indicate a positive correlation, others fail to
find significant associations. These discrepancies may be due to differences in the diagnostic
criteria, sample size, or geographic distribution.”
This statement lacks clarity and supporting references.
2. In the abstract (Results), it is stated: “A total of 34 studies on hypertension, 11 on stroke, and
28 on CVD were included.” However, in the Results—Study Screening and Selection section,
it shows: “Ultimately, 33 studies on HTN, 10 on stroke, and 26 on CVD were included (Fig 1
& Table 1).”
3. In the subgroup analysis, what were the grouping criteria for “Years” and "age"? How did the
authors determine the subgroup settings?
4. The discussion is detailed; however, organizing it into smaller sections with subheadings
could improve clarity and readability.
Specific MINOR comments:
1. There are multiple instances of repeated abbreviations, such as polycystic ovarian syndrome
(PCOS) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Please review the manuscript for consistent language
usage and perform a thorough grammar check.
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome with Stroke, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 0 Date: 27 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
This systematic review showing the association between Polycystic Ovary Syndrome with
Stroke, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases is a very extensive and well-conducted work.
Some suggestions for improving the accuracy of the authors' work are given below:
Abstract
1. In addition to the reported effect size, it is better to report the heterogeneity index so that the
reader is not misled in understanding the relationship.
2. Given that high heterogeneity has been reported in relation to hypertension and Polycystic
Ovary Syndrome, conclusions should not be drawn with certainty.
Introductions
1. The introduction should be brief. The numbers reported for disease prevalence in different
countries seem to be high. It is suggested that only a few comparisons across different countries
be presented to illustrate the importance of the work.
2. The last paragraph states that the aim of the study is to collect cross-sectional and cohort
studies. While the method section states that all observational studies will be collected. Please
correct this.
3. Why didn't the authors include clinical trial studies in this study? Were there not enough of
them?
Methods
1. It is reported in the method that funnel plot will be used to examine heterogeneity, while the
graph was not included in the result.
2. Were the screening of studies and data extraction performed independently by two
individuals?
3. It is best to briefly state the reason for excluding studies in the title and abstract screening
section of the flowchart.
Results
1. In the Subgroup Analysis for age and body mass index, please explain further how the effect
size was reported separately from a case and control group? Please clarify more about it in  the
manuscript.
Discussion
1. In the discussion section, it is better to avoid mentioning numbers and only make a comparison
for similarities and differences.
Clinical and Research Implications
Due to the high heterogeneity reported in this regard, please do not draw any definitive
conclusions.
Title: Experience of controlling behaviour and intimate partner violence among women of
reproductive age in sub-Saharan Africa
Version: 0 Date: 14 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The author  should be precise in the Abstract  to  avoid confusion  and circumscribe the scope
of the study:  The term "Heterosexual partners" must appear in the abstract.
For example,  " ...... The primary objective of this study is to explore whether women
experiencing controlling behaviors from their  [male ] partners ....." ( 4th of the abstract).
Title: Experience of controlling behaviour and intimate partner violence among women of
reproductive age in sub-Saharan Africa
Version: 6 Date: 03 Jul 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 have comprehensively responded to the reviewers'
comments and revisions have been made in the manuscript as required.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The limitations of the study should include: Data for each country were collected at different
time points (2015 - 2021). Therefore, the country-level variation in the timing of data collection
may affect the estimated prevalence of each domain of violence. The prevalence for each IPV
domain would have been different from the estimated value if data had been collected across
the countries simultaneously."
Title: Ketamine's impact on mood after day-case surgery and its relation to obesity: a
randomised controlled trial in women undergoing fractional curettage
Version: 2 Date: 09 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The study has an interesting scope  to evaluate the effect of ketamine in acute mood of patients
undergoing outpatient surgery. The study is well-designed and described, with appropriate
measures taken for a RCT.
Results are described in detail and elaborated well in discussion
Line 171 - subscala, probably a typo instead of subscale
Title: Ketamine's impact on mood after day-case surgery and its relation to obesity: a
randomised controlled trial in women undergoing fractional curettage
Version: 3 Date: 22 Jul 2024
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 have responded adequately to my queries in my review
and have instituted appropriate alterations where indicated. I have no further suggestions
regarding the current version of the manuscript.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further suggestions to make with respect to the current version of the manuscript.
Title: The Impact of Dysmenorrhea on Academic Performance and Coping Strategies: Lived
Experiences of Female Students in Ethiopian Public Universities
Version: 3 Date: 06 May 2025
Reviewer:  Melitah Molatelo Rasweswe
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. Your work addresses an important
and timely topic, and it is evident that you have put considerable effort into your research. The
manuscript demonstrates potential to make a valuable contribution to the field. In the spirit of
constructive feedback, I offer the following comments and suggestions to help further strengthen
your work and enhance its clarity, rigor, and impact.
1. Study title: The title is too long and seems like dysmenorrhea is the one providing lived
experiences. It can be adjusted to read better. I suggest: The Impact of Dysmenorrhea on
Academic Engagement and Coping Strategies: Lived Experiences of Female Students in
Ethiopian Public Universities.
2. Abstract - Objective: Please consider adjustment based on the suggested title
3. Study aim: it is missing, please add aim of the study prior to methods.
4. Data collection tools and procedures (Line 109): Since it is a qualitative study, a more suitable
term for pretest is pilot study. Also replace the following verbs “test” and “assess” with verbs
that are suitable for the qualitative approach. Please affect this throughout the document.
5. Data analysis - steps: I suggest that the authors apply these steps by summarising what was
done in each step.
6. Data analysis line 236: According to the abstract you used a thematic analysis using Colaizzi’s
steps, here it is content analysis. This is confusing.
7. Data quality assurance: The criteria is Guba’s; they’re not 2 different quality assurance control.
8. Results, line 264: Please consider adjusting based on the suggested title.
9. Line 266: examine is a quantitative verb, please replace it with a verb that is suitable for the
qualitative approach.
Title: The Impact of Dysmenorrhea on Academic Performance and Coping Strategies: Lived
Experiences of Female Students in Ethiopian Public Universities
Version: 3 Date: 24 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Exploring the Lived Experiences
of Dysmenorrhea, Its Impact on Academic Activities, and Coping Mechanisms among Female
Students at Public Universities in Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study in Low Resource Settings. It
addresses an important topic that has significant implications for gender sensitive academic and
health policy.
Below are my detailed comments regarding the manuscript
1. There is redundancy in all sections, and especially in the introduction. Please remove repetitive
phrases to enhance precision. Standardize terms such as academic performance instead of
switching between academic activities and academic success, to ensure consistency.
2. The methodology is inadequate. Streamline this section to ensure that it clearly explains
participants selection, data collection period, interview method, and the analytical framework. It
is not clear whether the authors used purposive sampling or convenience and snowball sampling,
as they are all mentioned in different sections of the manuscript.  You need to clarify whether
you included students aged 15 to 49 years or 18 to 49 years, as they are mentioned in different
sections of the manuscript. The method of data analysis is not clear. Two methods have been
mentioned (content analysis and Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological framework analysis);
you need to clearly describe the one you used.
3. The manuscript can benefit from editing to ensure language polishing.
4. Find more comments attached in the file.
Thank you.
Title: The Impact of Dysmenorrhea on Academic Performance and Coping Strategies: Lived
Experiences of Female Students in Ethiopian Public Universities
Version: 5 Date: 24 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Melitah Molatelo Rasweswe
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
The manuscript has improved a lot; however, the objective is still not clear.
I suggest: To explore the lived experiences of female students in Ethiopian public universities
regarding the impact of dysmenorrhea on their academic performance and to identify the coping
strategies they employ to manage menstrual pain and its academic implications.
Title: Depression, anxiety, and stress in polycystic ovary syndrome: understanding the impact
of adult separation anxiety and uncertainty intolerance
Version: 5 Date: 16 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
I would like to thank  start off my peer review by thanking the authors for revising their
manuscript after previous peer reviews, the paper reads much better now, with clearer
argumentation, discussion, and use of clinical literature. I take it that the other peer reviewer
covered the endocrinology and statistics in greater detail. As it stands, the paper is ready for
publication, save for some language changes (please use the phrase "psychological disorders"
consistently throughout the manuscript, there are other phrases which were eliminated in earlier
rounds of peer review), which can occur in production.
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:  Hossein Salehi Omran
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respected Authors Team of the Manuscript,
The manuscript " entitled "Age-period-cohort analysis of global, regional, and national cervical
cancer prevalence trends in women of childbearing age (15–49 years), 1990–2021" is a well-
drafted manuscript and provides valuable findings about the worldwide epidemiology of cervical
cancer in child bearing age women. However, there are some points need to be discussed before
publication which would be ,mentioned briefly below.
1. GBD 2023 data are currently available, and the data will be published shortly. Accordingly,
they will replace the GBD 2021 estimates shortly. It would be acknowledged as one of the
limitations of the study at the end of the discussion.
2.  I would recommend including future trend prediction in the results of the manuscript. It is
mostly performed in GBD studies and provides valuable insight to the readers of the manuscript.
3. The list of the keywords is short and significantly will benefit form adding some important
keywords such as Childbearing age women.
4. The manuscript would significantly benefit from the enhancement of the visual quality of the
figures. Some of the texts are too small and do not have enough readability and clarity.
5. Limitations of the study, as well as its strengths, should be discussed and highlighted at the
end of the discussion of the manuscript.
Overall, the manuscript is well-designed and would be recommended for publication after
addressing the above-mentioned revisions.