JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Knowledge of Cervical Cancer Risk Factors among Palestinian Women: A National
Cross-sectional Study
Version: 4 Date: 16 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
Pg.2, Line 20, and Pg.3, Line 1: “The most frequently identified risk factor” is wrong use of
scientific language, which indicates serious lack of understanding of the topic and contents
written about. Logically, in the context of present study, it should be used “The risk factor most
likely to be recognized”.
Sampling methods
Pg.6, Line 5-6: It is not clear what the value for this study of the sentence: “The hospitals had bed
capacities of over 100, while the PHCs offered all services to the general Palestinian public.” is.
Statistical analysis
Pg.7, Line 19: “21-40 years (at risk group)”. What does it mean “at risk group”? Also older
persons are at risk for CC. If you report this age group to be at-risk, it should be explained and
evidence referred in the Introduction section. It is confusing to read it here for the first time, and
it is not clear where this information comes from and what it actually means.
Pg.7, Line 21: “A monthly income of 1450 NIS was the minimum wage in Palestine….” Is it
correctly stated that this was the minimum wage? Because, in this case, it is not clear what is
this data used for. Is it a proxy for employment status? But you report employment status in a
separate category. Or, is it used as a socio-economic indicator? In this case it is not logical to use
the minimum wage. Also, it is difficult to understand why women with higher income would
have worse knowledge of CC risk factors than those with lower income.
Results
Pg.9, Line 7: Explain why 30 participants were excluded from the analysis. It seems here that
you also excluded 135 with missing values, though in the Methods (Pg.9, Line1) you state you
handled missing data. Please explain or correct.
Pg.9, Line 9: Explain acronym IQR.
Recognition of CC risk factors in the Gaza strip vs. the WBJ
Pg.10, Lines 2,4,5: Again, term “reported” is not used correctly. It should be written: “Among
all participants, the most frequently recognized risk factor…”
Discussion
Pg.14, Lines 12-14: Sentence “The decrease in the likelihood of having good knowledge
associated with higher monthly income…” has no logical sense. If the cut-off amount is at the
minimum wage in Palestine (1450 NIS), this data speaks about being employed or not, and not
about higher or lower income.
Table 3
Pg.27, Educational level: The reference group is very small which makes statistical calculation
unreliable. AOR – in the text (Pg.9. Line 16) it is reported that preparatory or secondary
education have the lowest odds; however, in the table, the lowest odds are at secondary and
diploma degree. Nevertheless, the data in this category do not show any trend and one cannot
claim how the level of education could impact the knowledge on CC risk factors. This is not
adequately explained in the Discussion.
Pg.27, Occupation, last column, p-value: be consistent in number of decimals you use.
Title: Coping strategies mediate the association between stigma and fertility quality of life in
infertile women undergoing In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer
Version: 2 Date: 10 Aug 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This study may be accepted only after the results on the Table 2 and Figure 1 are clarified,
because it is hard to understand. My recommendation is minor revision, that includes followings:
1. Please do not use numerical data when indicating the results in the abstract.
2. Please clarify statistically significant and insignificant results on Table 2.
3. Please do not write repetitive results on Table 2.
4. Please provide mean (±SD), minimum and maximum scores of used scales on Table2.
5. Please group the results on Table 2 as p>0.05*, p<0.05**, p<0.01*** and p<0.001***.
6. Please explain more clearly the data on Figure 1.
7. How can it be understood from Figure 1 and Table 3 that the model explained 69.4% of the
variance in FertiQoL?
8. Please indicate the strengths of the study in the discussion.
Sincerely.
Title: Coping strategies mediate the association between stigma and fertility quality of life in
infertile women undergoing In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer
Version: 2 Date: 02 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I reviewed the manuscript an in my opinion it is so complicated to understand for readers. It
would be better to write the manuscript more descriptively.
The tables are incomprehensible. It would be nice to write a brief explanation under the tables
in order to make them easier to understand.
Title: Coping strategies mediate the association between stigma and fertility quality of life in
infertile women undergoing In Vitro Fertilization Embryo Transfer
Version: 3 Date: 05 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I wish to thank you for the revision made in accordance with the recommendations of the
reviewers. Now, I think that the article is suitable to be published in this journal.
Sincerely.
Title: Spousal violence against women and its consequences on pregnancy outcomes and
reproductive health of women in India
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
The issue this paper covers is very important. However, to allow this paper to have the impact
this subject deserves, I would suggest the following:
1) a thorough revision by a mother tongue versed in the subject;
2) all sections should be gone over to avoid repetitions;
3) although the objective of the study is defined in the Abstract it should be more clearly detailed
in the text itself.
4) Prolonged labour should be clearly defined and all acronyms should be written in full the
first time they are used;
5) figure 1 is not a result of this study and, therefore, it is strange to see it cited in the Results
Section;
6) the Discussion and Conclusion Sections should better underline the most relevant findings of
the study and what it adds to the data already available in literature.
Title: Spousal violence against women and its consequences on pregnancy outcomes and
reproductive health of women in India
Version: 1 Date: 27 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
The revision is appreciated.
The paper utilizes the data published in 2017. The recent data will be published in 2022 as per
the author's comment number -1.
As the authors pointed under the section What do the results of this study add?...... "In India,
4% and 5.7% of ever-married women had exposure to abortion and miscarriages, respectively,
in the last five year of pregnancies." This figure may change there is an improvement in the
Maternal health aspect in India.
This is my observation of the article. However, it is up to the editor to take the decision on
publication.
Title: Prevalence of endometriosis in women undergoing laparoscopic surgery for various
gynaecological indications at a Jordanian referral centre: Gaining insight into the epidemiology
of an important women's health problem
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to giving me the chance to review this study
I have some doubts regarding the diagnosis of endometriosis: did you perform sistematically
biopsy of all suspected endometriotic lesions? For example  I do not believe it was convenient
and ethical to perform biopsy of isolated rectovaginal lesion with a surgical scenario of frozen
pelvis in a patient scheduled for tubal sterilization and without preoperative counselling and
informed consent about eventual endometriosis surgery
Really in all cases histology confirmed visual suspicion of endometriosis?
Did you have dedicated operator/operators for pathological examination?
How many patients with final diagnosis of endometriosis were scheduled for endometriotic
lesions removal for pain and/or infertility?
I would change the title: this is not a population base study but the analysis was isolated to the
volume of a single center
Title: Prevalence of endometriosis in women undergoing laparoscopic surgery for various
gynaecological indications at a Jordanian referral centre: Gaining insight into the epidemiology
of an important women's health problem
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Philippe R. Koninckx
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript ‘ Prevalence of endometriosis in Jordanian women undergoing laparoscopic
surgery for various gynaecological indications: Gaining insight into the epidemiology of an
important women's health problem.’ was read with great interest. It seems well performed and is
important by providing detailed information on endometriosis prevalence in an Arab country. I
recommend publication, although after revision.  That prevalence is higher in women with fewer
children is to the best of my knowledge new and important. Therefore consider the comments
below as trying to help improve an important paper.
One major problem is the absence of detailing the type of endometriosis (subtle, typical, cystic,
deep). Even if not adequately available in all the reports, this reader needs some information.
It is suggested to update the references (and discuss accordingly)
- Similar studies were performed before even a long time ago (eg Kempers RD, Dockerty MB,
Hunt AB, Symmonds RE. Significant postmenopausal endometriosis. Surg Gynecol Obstet.
1960;111:348-56.). It is suggested to use these type of studies ‘prevalence as an indication for
surgery as references to interpret results.
- Prevalences are hampered by the problems of the epidemiology of endometriosis (check
PubMed for recent reviews on epidemiology of endometriosis).
The presentation and analysis of data could be improved especially when the type of
endometriosis is added.  Some multivariate statistics could be useful, or Scatchard plots
indicating also (type) of endometriosis. Please consider these comments as appreciation.
It is important to have information about endometriosis in different populations and regions,
to understand its pathophysiology by taking into account the many variables as food intake,
climate, age of first pregnancy, oral contraceptive use and sexual activity before marriage.
Title: Prevalence of endometriosis in women undergoing laparoscopic surgery for various
gynaecological indications at a Jordanian referral centre: Gaining insight into the epidemiology
of an important women's health problem
Version: 2 Date: 08 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Despite some improvements, I do not find the article suitable for pubblication in ita present form.
Please carefully revise statistical analyses and English language.
Title: Prevalence of endometriosis in women undergoing laparoscopic surgery for various
gynaecological indications at a Jordanian referral centre: Gaining insight into the epidemiology
of an important women's health problem
Version: 3 Date: 06 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Please lenghten discussion section, it is too scanty.
Can you improve discussion commenting relevant articles on:
- association between bmi and endometriosis (eg doi 10.1007/s00404-020-05629-9)
-relation between endometriosis and pain (in particular type and severity of pain related
symptoms) (eg doi
10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.022; https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev147)
Title: The role of access to electricity, female education, and public health expenditure on female
health outcomes: evidence from SAARC-ASEAN countries
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s comments#
I had a chance to review your manuscript. I have some major comments for the improvement
of the manuscript:
Title: Please revise the title: Not clear…which is the main outcome variable, and which is the
main predicted variable. If you arrange the title…. like those angels ..it would like nice.
Introduction: Manuscript has not cited many good papers on the effects of health expenditure
on health outcomes in South-East Asia or Asia. The study has not provided any innovation in
this study. There is already plenty of literature available, so why author wants to investigate….
Behera, D. K., & Dash, U. (2020). Is health expenditure effective for achieving healthcare goals?
Empirical evidence from South-East Asia Region. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science,
4(2), 593-618.
Further revised the introduction.
Methods
The study has used many econometric methods…. mostly are all used for the macro panels. The
author should consider any micro panel model such as GMM, System GMM, 2sls.
The literature review section is not thematic. Please prepare literature as per theme and content-
wise.
Conclusion: Improve it. You have repeated the things which already been discussed before.
Title: The role of access to electricity, female education, and public health expenditure on female
health outcomes: evidence from SAARC-ASEAN countries
Version: 1 Date: 01 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript title: Access to electricity, female education, public health expenditure and female
health outcomes nexus: Evidence from SAARC-ASEAN countries
Dear Editor:
This study uses a comprehensive dataset and it is difficult to concentrated on main study findings
and original contribution of this work. What is more important is the main study question-what
is the logic of including/analysing access to electricity in here? Moreover, it is necassary to
strength the behind logic of selection of this study variables by considering the main interests
of BMC Women’s Health readers. This version of the text looks like a kind of comprehensive
econometric analysis. I advice a revision and to make simplify the study findings section by
considering journal readers main interests.
Decision: Major revision
I wish author(s) the best.
Sincerely,
Title: The role of access to electricity, female education, and public health expenditure on female
health outcomes: evidence from SAARC-ASEAN countries
Version: 2 Date: 12 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
I have a few comments and suggestions for improvement.
Data and Methods
The total observation is only 170. Such a small sample, how the author has employed Granger
causality test. Which VAR lag order is used to estimate the causality.
What is the author of the female outcome used and where they have collected those data? Please
responds with the online data.
Critical discussion of the results required is missing.
Conclusion and policy implication is not proper format and should be rewritten. For exam: the
author has suggested many policy suggestions without any proper citation. Suggestions should
come from your empirical results. All suggestions are very generic.
As per my understanding and as well as past literature, usually, panel data studies only use
regression techniques. Not required other time-series model that required where your period is
so large around 30 years and so. The author has more concentrated on the econometric model
rather critical argument of the coefficient results of health outcomes.
Title: The association of parity/live birth number with incident type 2 diabetes among women:
over 15 years of follow-up in The Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study
Version: 2 Date: 11 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Yoshitaka Hashimoto
Reviewer's report:
Review of “The association of parity/live birth number with incident type 2 diabetes among
women: over 14 years of follow-up in The Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study.“
This study investigated the association between birth number and incident type 2 diabetes and
showed that over 3 parity/live births were associated with higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes.
Since, this study used the 2-hour post-challenge plasma glucose (2h-PCPG) test, the quality of
diabetes diagnosis is high. This study is potentially interesting. However, several problems are
remained.
1. The number of people among groups is skewed. This reviewer thinks that selection bias may
be present.
2. Obesity is one of the important risk factors of incident type 2 diabetes. How about the change
of body weight during follow-up duration?
Title: The association of parity/live birth number with incident type 2 diabetes among women:
over 15 years of follow-up in The Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Xueying Zheng
Reviewer's report:
This study analyzed the association between parity/live birth number and risk of type 2 diabetes
with over 14-year follow-up. Strength includes its prospective design. Here are some comments:
1. My major concern of the study design is using results from the baseline questionnaire to
explore the association more than ten years later. Perhaps a sensitivity analysis should account
for this by truncating follow-up after 5-7 years or so.
2. The history of GDM is not provided at the baseline phase, which is an important risk factor
for T2DM.
3. The outcome definition for T2DM includes “pharmacologically treated with glucose-lowering
medications,” which is inappropriate. Because glucose-lowering medicine metformin could be
used for people without T2DM, like PCOS and obesity.
4.Several similar analyses from the other cohorts have been conducted and published before.
The author needs a clearer description of the innovation.
Title: Prevalence of vaccine and non-vaccine human papillomavirus types among women in
Accra and Kumasi, Ghana: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 05 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
The study estimated the HPV prevalence in Ghana using a cross-sectional design and reveal
the associated risk factors. The authors carefully described their work and results, and the most
strength of the study is the description of HPV testing in method and restrict operation. However,
many major limitations should be addressed before publication.
Major comments:
1.  Although the author claimed the cross-sectional study, the study used a convenience
sample rather than a random sample. The major limitation was that they could not know the
representativeness of the sample and what the prevalence means.
2. The authors did not clearly show the sampling methods and the scope. They should focus on
the representativeness of the sample although they used a convenience sample. For example,
they should show the eligible women were hospital-based or community-based, the prevalence
based on these women represent the estimation from the general population or a specific group.
3. The authors did not show whether the sample size was enough to estimate the prevalence. The
sample size was so small that the estimation of HPV prevalence would fluctuate. In particular,
there were only 6 ASC-US/LSIL and 3 HSIL/SCC, and the estimation would not be stable. The
authors should carefully calculate the sample size for the HPV estimation.
4. The authors did not clearly show how they estimated the confidential interval (95%CI) for
the prevalence.
5. I did not agree with the authors that they separate Table 4 and Table 5, and I think they should
be put into one model. Why? Because the sample size is too small? In addition, in Table 4, I did
not know why the authors put the cytological results in the model to explain the HPV infection
because HPV infection mainly caused cervical cell abnormalities.
6. The paper did not give the limitations on the study and the results should be interpreted with
caution.
Title: Prevalence of vaccine and non-vaccine human papillomavirus types among women in
Accra and Kumasi, Ghana: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 13 May 2021
Reviewer:  Kathileen Boozer
Reviewer's report:
Good job. Great study. It will be helpful to avoid repetition of information and clearly link
previous studies and relevance. I have asked to submit the article with track changes to help
assist you.
Title: Prevalence of vaccine and non-vaccine human papillomavirus types among women in
Accra and Kumasi, Ghana: a cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 08 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of my questions, but some minor points should be considered
before publication.
For the results section, I have some suggestions: (1) author should provide a table to show the
characteristics of the samples, such as age, education, behavior, and so on. (2) Table S1 and S4
should be moved to the main results, because these results are mentioned in the abstract.
Some minor points:
1. title: "a cross-sectional study" could be kept in the title. The authors have described the
sampling method in the method section. Although the study adopted a convenience sampling,
it is still a cross-sectional study.
2.  The paragraph "limitation" should be moved to the front of the conclusion paragragh.
3.  Abstract: line 41, p=0.000, should be p<0.001. Revise this in the result section.
Title: USE OF NAPROXEN VERSUS INTRACERVICAL BLOCK FOR PAIN CONTROL
DURING THE 52-MG LEVONORGESTREL-RELEASING INTRAUTERINE SYSTEM
INSERTION IN YOUNG WOMEN: A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF A RANDOMIZED
CONTROLLED TRIAL
Version: 5 Date: 01 Sep 2021
Reviewer:  Hisham Haggag
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for fully addressing my concerns. I still believe gastritis and peptic ulcerations should
have been in your exclusion criteria.
Title: The Trends of Women's Autonomy in Health Care Decision Making and Associated
Factors in Ethiopia: Evidence from 2005, 2011 & 2016 DHS
Version: 1 Date: 26 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
1) The subject matter is quite interesting and authors are commended for taking the initiative to
address the issue using existing data.
2) Neither the research question nor the study objective are clearly stated. Either of the two needs
to be defined clearly to guide the manuscript content.
3) Introduction not addressing any specific issue; this might be related to my comment in #2.
4) The methods section need to be precise. Authors used secondary data from DHS, however
the methods section is written as if primary data collection was done. The statistical analysis
section needs extensive revision. For example, what statistics was used to examine the trend,
and the procedures for multivariable analysis need to be described in detail.   Table 3 in the
result section belongs to the statistical analysis section.
5) Results are not presented in an understandable manner.
6) The discussion section did not address any issue specifically; again this is related to the issue
I raised in #2.
7) The strengths and limitations of the study are not discussed.
8)  The conclusion and recommendations- lengthy and not related to the finings of the study.
9) References- many are not related to the subject matter of the manuscript.