JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: “Out of Sight out of Mind”: Attentional Characteristics in Mothers Who Have Children
with Autism
Version: 2 Date: 23 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
No - there are minor issues
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 technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: There seems to be a need to understand the psychological
mechanisms used by mothers of children with autism when compared to typically developing
children.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The construct of attentional bias and the need to study it in the target population is unclear in
this paper
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The purpose of the study needs to be included in the abstract. Unsure what the tool mentioned
in abstract (Methods section) was designed to measure.
Please refer to mothers of children with autism (person-first language) or authors who need to
justify the use of identity first language.
PDD Is no longer used in DSM 5. I think authors need to use a more recent definition of autism
and update their citations.
The term attentional bias and the test used to measure needs better explanation and introduction
to the reader. The construct is inadequately described.
On page 4: revise the phrase "and some of them chose to give up halfway." Instead describe
it as study attrition or dropout rate. the language used seems to make the moms in this study
appear "bad" for quitting.
Please describe the rationale of choosing the dot probe as a tool to measure attentional bias.
Also discuss validity of reliability of the tool for the target population (or related populations)
from past research.
Need more clarity on the testing process and what is meant by positive or negative words.
Perhaps providing examples  of stimuli words can help readers follow along.
Finally it is unclear how the title (out of mind out of sight) connects with the study topic
Title: “Out of Sight out of Mind”: Attentional Characteristics in Mothers Who Have Children
with Autism
Version: 3 Date: 25 Nov 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, they have addressed all concerns
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
1. Please be sure to replace all mentions of "autistic children" with "children with autism"
throughout the manuscript. This is in line with person-first-language. If authors prefer autistic
they need to justify the choice of "identity-first language" and if study participants (family
members) consented to the use of this language in the dissemination of study findings.
2. Many of the references in list at the end of the article need to be carefully edited to confirm to
APA 7th edition. For example, many names of articles that should be in sentence case are now
capitalized (every word in name of article is capitalized).
3. Careful editing of english use of phrases, for example on Line 17-18: "Previous studies have
revealed that the mental health of mothers has a direct impact on children". Please consider
deleting the phrase "unavoidably impacts children".
Title: Adolescent girls’ explanations of high rates of low mood and anxiety in their population:
A co-produced qualitative study
Version: 2 Date: 17 Dec 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?
N/A - there are no statistics in this 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: Thank you for allowing me to reviewing this manuscript which
focuses on a very important area of adolescent girls' mental health. The authors did well to use
a co-produced qualitative study approach which fosters a collaborative, inclusive, and context-
sensitive approach thereby enriching the research process. Additionally, the authors have done
well to satisfactorily address both reviewers' comments and the effected changes are evident in
the manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
No further revisions are required from my end.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
None"
Title: Informational support for women with endometriosis: A scoping review
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Informational support
for women with endometriosis".
However, I have some comments and recommendations:
Comments:
Title: - Is appropriate for the content of the article.
Abstract:- Represents a suitable summary of the work.
Article content:- The methods and results have been well explained.
Conclusions:- Are justified on the basis of the study.
Recommendations:
Discussion:- Suggest clinical implications.
References:- Stick to the format of the journal.
General:- Revise language, grammar and syntax.
Title: Informational support for women with endometriosis: A scoping review
Version: 0 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Yigit Cakiroglu
Reviewer's report:
This review is about a very important topic- informational support for women with
endometriosis. The authors have investigated a total of 25 studies and have analysed the
information resources- webpages and social media sites. They have addressed the absence
of systematic analyses on the information seeking behaviour and needs of women with
endometriosis Tehnically, PRISMA guidelines have been followed and the results have been
demonstrated in regards of the findings and the included trials.
Title: Informational support for women with endometriosis: A scoping review
Version: 0 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Kamil Fram
Reviewer's report:
After a careful and thorough review of the scientific research regarding this common medical
disorder, “endometriosis,” which affects women worldwide during the reproduction stage, many
criticism points must be clarified and/or corrected before permission for publication is given.
1. This work needs proper language editing, including grammar and punctuation.
2. Online 53: The authors reported, “Endometriosis has been linked to mental illnesses such
as depression and anxiety (4-7).” I do not think this short, well-known statement needs four
references in a review. One is enough. In addition, the explanation of these side effects of the
disease in the following sentences is not clear or sufficient. They must be short and to the point
without unnecessary elongation.
3. Online 53: The authors reported, “Articles written in languages other than English or German
were excluded”. Why are related articles in other languages excluded? There is no point in doing
that. Explanation is needed.
4. Online 53: The authors reported regarding the geographic distribution of the revised articles”
Geographically, studies were conducted in Europe (n = 7), Northern America (n = 7), Australia
(n = 7), South-America (n = 1), North-Africa (n = 1), East-Asia (n = 1), and South-East Asia (n
= 1).” My concern about the distribution is that concluding a comparative study and reaching
an acceptable explanation is problematic.
5. Online 53: The authors reported that “the most crucial elements were included. “. What do
they mean by these elements?
6. After this extended analysis, I was expecting the authors to suggest a regional or universal
conference to discuss these valuable results
Title: Informational support for women with endometriosis: A scoping review
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much indeed for diverting this very nice review to me for peer reviewing.
As a matter of fact, I agree to the maximum extent with the conclusion reached by the author.
Endometriosis in my opinion based on my long experience in the field of gynecological surgery
is one of the most shadowed disorder in the filed of medical practice despite its wide implications
in wide varieties of women's health problems like infertility and dyspareunia. Honestly speaking,
even medical personnel themselves have shadowed approach to the diagnosis and treatment of
this difficult gynecological problem.
I have been convinced since 2005 after watching laser ablation of endmetriosis in Leicester
Royal infirmary in UK, that endometriosis should be better st as distinct sub specialty rather than
a general gynecological problem as really I have noticed how much it is difficult to learn  not only
the diagnostic approach to this disorder, rather the treatment options in medical practice.That is
for doctors, so what about patients?
Briefly, I agree totally with the conclusions reached by the author
Sincerely Yours
Wisam Akram
Title: Informational support for women with endometriosis: A scoping review
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting a manuscript on an often-overlooked subject. This paper highlighted
interesting insights. As the authors followed the JBI scoping review format, the guidelines of
this format were well-followed. I found the fact that only one author conducted data extraction
as a biased approach and recommend the authors highlight in the discussion of their paper as a
limitation of their study. I recommend adding 'et. al.' when citations are added as author names.
I also recommend that the authors check for punctuation, coherence and spelling mistakes in
the text.
Title: The development and validation testing of a comprehensive frailty assessment in women
with breast cancer
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The topic is interesting and relevant to the management of women with breast cancer. A strength
of the study is the development and validation the tool of breast cancer comprehensive frailty
scale. However, there are some methodological issues that can be improved by revision or
clarification:
Introduction:
In the introduction, the authors proposed that frailty includes four dimensions, namely physical,
psychological, cognitive and social. It would be better if a conceptual framework or literature
could be provided to support the classification of the four dimensions.
Please elaborate on the reasons for developing a new questionnaire instead of verifying the
reliability and validity of an existing multidimensional frailty assessment tool in breast cancer
patients or improving the existing questionnaire by cultural adaptation.
Methods:
Please explain why the study only included women with breast cancer over 40 years old.
Please provide additional information on the sample recruitment and data collection process,
such as who was responsible for sample recruitment, the form of recruitment, and the method
of assessing patients who met the criteria.
Please describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria for screening professionals majoring in aging
care, physicians specializing in breast cancer, and oncology nurse practitioners, and provide
background information of the above personnel in the supplementary materials, such as work
experience, research experience, academic degrees, etc.
Face validity is used to examine the clarity of instructions and language whether there were
ambiguities or multiple ways to interpret the items. It is unclear whether the researchers
evaluated face validity during the questionnaire development process. If so, it would be better
to add a description of this part of the process and results.
Please add the information on sample size calculation method and supporting literature.
Results
Please provide information about the participants' clinical characteristics, such as cancer stage,
time since diagnosis, types of cancer treatment, etc.
Title: The development and validation testing of a comprehensive frailty assessment in women
with breast cancer
Version: 3 Date: 01 Dec 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 comprehensively addressed the points raised in the
initial review for both Reviewer 1 and myself as Reviewer 2. The changes reflect the responses
in the manuscript. The paper is robust and research appropriate to answer this research paper.
The work is clearly and appropriately communicated in this revised paper. I have nothing further
to recommend.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Nothing additional.
Title: Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Women Post mastectomy For Breast Cancer in
Baheya Foundation (Egypt): ‘A Retrospective Cohort Study’
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Although the article topic is important, it needs serious revision:
Introduction: It should be emphasized why this study topic is important and how it will contribute
to the literature should be explained.
Methods:Provide information about where the data is collected and how long it takes
The scales used in the study should be explained in more detail.
Briefly explain what net elastic' regression is
Results:It is not appropriate to have 13 tables in the findings section. Some of the tables should
be combined and definitely simplified. It's so complicated and tiring.
References, especially those related to statistics, can be reviewed for up-to-dateness.
Title: Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Women Post mastectomy For Breast Cancer in
Baheya Foundation (Egypt): ‘A Retrospective Cohort Study’
Version: 0 Date: 17 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
This was a comprehensive study evaluating quality of life after breast cancer surgery.
There is a problem in defining the conceptual framework. What is the connection between
postoperative quality of life and self-examination? Why was it included in the conceptual
framework? The article is too long and this information does not need to be included here.
There is a problem with the table frequency totals. It is recommended to review the tables.
The conclusion part of the study is short compared to the whole article. The results should be
considered in terms of contribution to clinical practice in line with the findings.
Title: Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Women Post mastectomy For Breast Cancer in
Baheya Foundation (Egypt): ‘A Retrospective Cohort Study’
Version: 3 Date: 19 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Introduction:
• Reposition the research question: Move the sentence "The purpose of this study was to assess
the QoL of Egyptian women post mastectomy at Baheya foundation postmastectomy" to the
concluding paragraph of the introduction, clearly defining the research objective.
Statistical Analysis:
• Organize methods: Ensure that the statistical methods are presented in a logical order that
aligns with the presentation of results. This will make it easier for readers to follow the analysis
process.
• Rephrase methods: Consider rephrasing certain statistical methods to improve clarity and avoid
technical jargon that may be unfamiliar to some readers.
Results:
• Round p-values: Round all p-values to three decimal places for consistency and readability.
This will make the results easier to interpret and compare.
Discussion:
• Expand on implications: Beyond comparing results with previous studies, discuss the broader
implications of the findings for public health and women's health in general. Consider how these
results may inform policy decisions, healthcare practices, and support services for women with
breast cancer.
• Add implications for public health: Explicitly state the implications of the findings for public
health, such as the need for improved access to care, prevention programs, or support services.
Title: Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Women Post mastectomy For Breast Cancer in
Baheya Foundation (Egypt): ‘A Retrospective Cohort Study’
Version: 4 Date: 10 Dec 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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is an interesting and well written study of quality of life among
women post mastectomy in Egypt. I have only a few minor concerns
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
This is a revised manuscript that has been highly responsive to the previous reviews . I only have
3 points to raise 1. The authors looked exclusively at women who had mastectomy - what was
the rationale for this as opposed to potentially comparing those who had lumpectomy or other
forms of treatment such as radiation alone? Did all of the women have unilateral or bilateral
mastectomy? 2. Was the FACT B already in Arabic or translated for this study and if translated,
how did that occur? 3. Throughout the manuscript the authors use the phrase - ""data was"" -
data are plural and so it should be ""data were"""
Title: Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Women Post mastectomy For Breast Cancer in
Baheya Foundation (Egypt): ‘A Retrospective Cohort Study’
Version: 5 Date: 27 Dec 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?
No - there are issues with the statistics 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed all previous concerns from the prior
reviewers. One minor issue remains with regard to how missing data were handled.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The only issue that remains is that the authors have not addressed how missing data were handled
in the analysis. It is possible this is not relevant and if that is the case it should be stated.