JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Cervical Cancer Knowledge and Barriers and Facilitators to Screening Among Women
in Two Rural Communities in Guatemala: A Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 06 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors performed a qualitative study to evaluate the knowledge and identify the facilitators
and barriers to cervical cancer screening. Despite the very limited sample size, the topic is
still of interest, revealing the real-world challenges restricting the rolling out of cervical cancer
screening in LMICs. I have some minor comments as follows:
1. Author mentioned “women randomly sampled”, what kind of randomization was used or what
is the rationality to select 21 participants from 956 participants?
2. Line 370: “they though” should be “they thought”
3. Line 443-457: from my view, this part belong to the “irregularities in service” and thus, should
be presented as “Barriers” instead of “Facilitators”.
4. Line 492: unwilling to “provide” instead of “provided”
5. Small sample size should be discussed as limitations.
Title: Cervical Cancer Knowledge and Barriers and Facilitators to Screening Among Women
in Two Rural Communities in Guatemala: A Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Nancy Innocentia Ebu
Reviewer's report:
This is an important study that will contribute to the broad literature on the strategies for
improving women’s health in the area of cervical cancer screening
Generally, this is a well written paper, but there are few comments if well addressed, the paper
could be strengthened.
Data collection
What was the duration of the interviews?
Data analysis
It will be of interest to readers if the coding tree is provided.
How was rigor maintained in this study? Were transcripts returned to participants for any
comments? Did they have the opportunity of providing comments on the findings?
Please, proof read the paper to correct minor errors. For instance, Line 132: Please, delete with
before collaboratively……
Title: Cervical Cancer Knowledge and Barriers and Facilitators to Screening Among Women
in Two Rural Communities in Guatemala: A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 04 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
All questions are well addressed, I only have two more suggestions:
1. Title: I would suggest to revise the title a little bit to make it more reader-friendly, for example:
Knowledge, Barriers and Facilitators to Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in Two
Rural Communities in Guatemala: A Qualitative Study
2. The last reference at Page 28 Line654 seems not in right order.
Title: Traditional menstruation practices among Nepalese women living in Japan
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this intreresting manuscript. Although I have studied
and published work on culture and women's health, I was not aware of traditional menstruation
practices among Nepalese women living in Japan. Thank you for addressing this important topic.
p. 4 line 64 these deaths of women and children is tragic! Are there any other citations verifying
this?
p. 5 line 102 you indicate menstruating women are prohibited from eating nutritious food. What
to they eat?
p. 6 line 139 provide more information on McNemar's test such as validity and reliability
p. 8 lines 185-189 it is interesting that study participants were educated and of ahigher caste.
Do you consider this a study limitation or please postulate why you think women with these
demographics engage in these traditional practices?
Do you know how many ofo othe study participanants have Japanese spouses?
p. 11 lines 251-252 this is an important finding. Please share why this is the case and what
implications for women's health does this finding have?
References: some you indicate the date they were accessed but do not include the date they were
published. Please clarify
It would be helpful to add a bulleted table with implications for clinical practice for nurses caring
for these women
Title: Patient perspectives on delays in cervical cancer screening and follow-up care in
Botswana: A mixed methods study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Patient perspectives on delays in
cervical cancer screening and follow-up care in Botswana: a mixed methods study”. This paper
highlights a topic of importance to women’s health in the area of cervical cancer prevention. I
would like to congratulate the authors for this great piece of work. However, there are issues
that need to be addressed to strengthen the paper.
1. The background to the study is well written and has provided sufficient information about
the problem of delay in cervical cancer screening. What is the current rate of cervical cancer
screening in Botswana? How accessible are the cervical cancer screening facilities? Do women
obtain cervical cancer screening in primary health care facilities? Is it free for all women?
Are diagnostic procedures available in all facilities?  This information can help readers to
contextualize the problem under investigation.
2. The type of mixed methods study employed needs to be indicated at the methods section and
justified.
3. Line 4 and 5 of the methods section should be rephrased to avoid repetition of “cervical
cancer”.
4. Page 5 of the methods section: The quantitative aspect of the design was not highlighted as its
focused on only interviews. Information on the quantitative aspect will enhance understanding.
5. Data collection: “The interview guide included both structured survey questions” The authors
should clarify this. It sounds confusing. Again, it was indicated that the “data collection consisted
of orally administered quantitative survey and an audio-recorded semi-structured qualitative
interview”
6. The intext citations should be revised to conform with the journal’s referencing style. For
example, page 4 has different intext citation format.
7. The data collection section is quite confusing. Did the authors administer one instrument,
containing both survey and interview questions or separate instruments were used? This need
to be clarified. Were both qualitative and quantitative data collected simultaneously or one
followed the other? Did the same participants respond to the survey questions?
8. Table 1 is not clear. The title is misleading as the table does not cover beliefs, but basically
focused on sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.
9. Table 2 has to be revised as some of the specific items are not measuring or focusing on the
subheadings. For instance, under the subheading “Cervical cancer screening awareness” there
is a statement that “Have you heard of human papillomavirus (HPV vaccine)”. I’m not sure how
this measures awareness of cervical cancer screening. It is important that the authors critically
review the items in Table 2.
10. The authors are encouraged to carefully proof read the paper.
Title: The relationship between the severity of perimenstrual symptoms and a regular exercise
habit in Japanese young women: A cross- sectional online survey
Version: 3 Date: 06 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Maurina Geru
Reviewer's report:
I read with interest the manuscript, which argues about  the association between exercise habit
and the severity of perimenstrual symptoms. The MDQ   (Menstrual Distress Questionnaire)
seems to be well structured and the exclusion criteria correctly  assigned.
In my opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention, statistical data
is reliable and it  may be a starting point for other studies, potentially a prospective study.  If
exercise can indeed reduce perimenstrual symptoms, it will definitely benefit both women and
society.
Nevertheless, few points  I think authors should clarify:
- Include the quastionaire bias that may have occurred. I suggest for exemple this catalog: Choi
BC, Pak AW. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005 Jan;2(1):A13. Epub
2004 Dec 15. PMID: 15670466; PMCID: PMC1323316.
-Refine conclusions pointing out  not only the association between the "negative affect " and the
" behavior change" with the exercise habit, but highlighting especially its  negative association.
Thank you!
Title: The relationship between the severity of perimenstrual symptoms and a regular exercise
habit in Japanese young women: A cross- sectional online survey
Version: 3 Date: 07 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with interest the manuscript, which argues about the relationship between the severity
of perimenstrual symptoms and a regular exercise habit . In my opinion, the topic is
interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Women with current or previous history of
gynecological/psychiatric disorders and the  use of daily hormone medication are reported as
non-inclusion criteria, nevertheless, could be useful to clarify if there are difference in both
groups about the use of painkillers or other medical therapy for symptomatic relief.
Title: A prospective cohort study of the relationship of female genital mutilation with birth
outcomes in Somalia
Version: 2 Date: 27 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Ismael Jiménez-ruiz
Reviewer's report:
The authors have responded effectively to the revisions made.
As two small notes: There is bibliography that could be updated to the last 5 years. This would
make the discussion and introductory sections more rigorous.
Title: Title: Validation of a Spanish-language scale for evaluating perceived quality of care of
medical abortions before 9 weeks gestation
Version: 1 Date: 03 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an important study that is validating a Spanish-language survey instrument.  As written,
the paper is unclear and lacks methodological detail.  Some specific comments aimed at
strengthening the paper include:
This is an important study aimed at validating a survey instrument in Spanish.
1)  Abstract, lines 12 & 14 unclear how you define quality and process.  Please clarify. Do you
mean the quality of the abortion?  Satisfaction with medication abortion, counseling or what
exactly?
2) Abstract. Remove “Did not exceed” and instead state the response rate.
3)  Introduction, line 52. What do you mean by “effective” counseling?
4) The term "quality" needs to be more clearly defined in the introduction so as to set up the
rationale for this study. It is entirely unclear what exactly this scale is measuring, whether it is
satisfaction with counseling, the abortion, provider interactions, clinic environment, etc.  Given
that the purpose of the study is to validate an instrument it is very important that the nature of
the instrument be cliearly explained in the introduction and methods.
5) You need to clarify the original language of the SERVPERF survey instrument you are
validating in the introduction and then explain the translation process in the methods. Who
translated it? was the translation reviewed, etc?
6)  Please describe the recruitment methods. How were people approached, consented, and how
did they complete the survey (was it paper and pencil or online survey).?  Where were people
recruited, in how many clinics? Need to describe the clinic setting.
7) define your inclusion and exclusion criteria.
8) Table 2 is very nice. Nice to be able to see the differences between those who particpated
and those who did not.
9) I would include an appendix of the items in Spanish .
10) Do you recommed others using the full scale or is it appropriate to use the susbscales
separately?
Title: Title: Validation of a Spanish-language scale for evaluating perceived quality of care of
medical abortions before 9 weeks gestation
Version: 1 Date: 11 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
you have presented an important and interesting topic, but I have some comments and
suggestions about it.
Please check the text - space between words and brackets.
line 63 - you mention that many studies but in references you present only one study, add more
studies in bracket
line 72 - when you present authors please add also year od published study for example
McLemore et al. (2014)
line 88 - what does it mean “toat”?
in study design please add clear inclusion and exclusion criteria
in content validity you inform that eight external experts were consulted, but who built the first
version on your research tool
Figure 1 - what does it mean in exclusion criteria that 5 miscarriages or 8 miscarriages
One more time the test was done only by 53 of 289 participants - what was the reason
Information about Tables should be before dots
line 219 - at the end of this line should be reference
Please check all your references due to journal instruction - online references should have also
information about accessed date
Title: Title: Validation of a Spanish-language scale for evaluating perceived quality of care of
medical abortions before 9 weeks gestation
Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Bárbara Oliván-blázquez
Reviewer's report:
From my point of view this is a consistent and well-written manuscript, which deals with a
interesting issue. There is little knowledge about this topic.  Furhtermore, there is not  any
methodological bias.
I have only two questions or comments. First question is about the normal distribution of the
continuos variables. Could you add a sentence about this and justify the the use of means and
stardard deviations and parametric statisticals?
The second comment is a a minor issue, it is about the number of tables. In the document I have
reviewed, there is not a clear numeration.
Title: Perceived social support and coping style as mediators between resilience and health-
related quality of life in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer: A cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 28 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The manuscript reports on a study that
examines mediating role of perceived social support and coping style on resilience and health-
related quality of life in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.  Overall the manuscript
merits attention but I feel the following points should be considered in order to improve the
manuscript:
1. Background lacks important citations and updated information on the quality of life in breast
cancer patients. For instance, the authors could see the following citations:
a. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: A bibliographic review of the literature
from 1974 to 2007. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 27, 32 (2008).
b. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: review of reviews from 2008 to 2018.
Health Qual Life Outcomes 18, 338 (2020).
2. Please avoid claiming 'To our knowledge, only one study has used the NSM as the theoretical
basis for breast cancer patient research on nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy [21].
It has not been reported as the theoretical basis in research examining HRQoL in breast cancer
patients.' Please rephrase.
3. The results should be expanded and more explanation of findings is needed.
4. Convenience sampling is a problem. The implication of such sampling methods on results
should be discussed.
5. The authors state that: 'The patients in our study had relatively poor HRQoL, lower resilience
and PSS, and higher avoidance and resignation CSs'. Higher and lower than who? Please clarify.
Title: Perceived social support and coping style as mediators between resilience and health-
related quality of life in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer: A cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 11 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Azita Fathnezhad-kazemi
Reviewer's report:
Dear author
It is a valuable manuscript. But I have some comments.
Please mention which software did you use for statistical calculations?
The sample size was calculated to be 180-360 but 431 patients were enrolled in the study
Title: Perceived social support and coping style as mediators between resilience and health-
related quality of life in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 07 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. After the first revision, the paper is
better presented, but I have the following additional suggestions for the Discussion.
Discussion:
Paragraph 4 and 5 discuss “the findings that resilience, PSS, and confrontation and resignation
CSs had significant influences on HRQoL” and “the mediating roles of PSS and CS in the
relationship between resilience and HRQoL”. The discussions only show the results and clinical
recommendations based on the results. However, there is a lack of further explanation as to why
the results of this study appeared and how exactly the factors interacted with each other.
Please provide more explanation, e.g., you can start with the Neuman Systems Model mentioned
in the Background, the mechanisms involved, the behavioral manifestations of women newly
diagnosed with breast cancer, other literature support, etc.
Title: Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone as a Predictor of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome among
Women of Reproductive Age
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- Accumulating evidence suggests that one of the most important mechanisms of PCOS
pathogenesis is the insulin-resistance. For this reason, the use of insulin-sensitizers, such as
inositol isoforms, gained increasing attention due to their safety profile and effectiveness.
Authors may better discuss this point, taking to account these recent articles: PMID: 26927948;
PMID: 27579037.
- To date many efforts are spent to identify a correct algorithm which considers woman's age
and ovarian reserve markers as a tool to optimize the recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone
(rFSH) starting dose in IVF procedure. Nevertheless, current available evidence regarding PCOS
women, particularly the ones with high AMH, does not seem adequate. I would be glad if the
authors discuss this important point, referring to: PMID: 30242498; PMID: 30607593
Title: Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone as a Predictor of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome among
Women of Reproductive Age
Version: 1 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I read the article entitled ‘Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone as a Predictor of Polycystic Ovarian
Syndrome among Women of Reproductive Age’
1. The number of study participants is very low. Power analysis and sample size calculation
must be done.
2. The aim of the study is not clear.
There is no relationship between the aim of the study and the results of te study. What are
the PCOS features? All investigated features are diagnostic criteria for PCOS according to
Rotterdam criteria.
3. There was no control groups in this study
4. Please delete ‘reproductive health’ in Key words.
5. Serum AMH level can be used as a strong predictor for disturbance in reproductive
characteristics such as menstrual cycle disturbance. What is the clinical significance of this
result? What contribution is expected to make in the diagnosis of PCOS?
6. The conclusion of the study is that ‘An elevated serum AMH level could reflect the certainty
of PCOS diagnosis among women of reproductive age with a greater number of PCOS features.’
This statement is unclear? Which value would be considered high AMH levels for PCOS
patients?
Yours sincerely,
Title: Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone as a Predictor of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome among
Women of Reproductive Age
Version: 1 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Mahmoud A. Abdel-aleem
Reviewer's report:
thanks for giving me the chance to review this article; but
1) you should mention the name of the MD thesis from which the manuscript was extracted.
2)abstract needs revision to make it more clear.
3) how was sample size calculated?
4) numbers in tables need edting, especially < and > .. 3.9 ??
5) waist/hip ratio and BMI  are considered more impornat than weight? why didnt you calcualte
them?
Title: Hysteroscopic management versus ultrasound-guided evacuation for women with first-
trimester pregnancy loss, a randomised controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 06 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Hysteroscopic management versus ultrasound-
guided evacuation for women with missed first-trimester abortion, a randomized controlled
trial” , which falls within the aim of BMC Women's Health.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis . Nevertheless,
authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English
- Please change "abortion" to "pregnancy loss" all along the manuscript
- Abstract : RESULTS should report the numeric number for each data, not only p-value for
the main outcomes.
- INTRODUCTION: No concerns
-METHODS: Please provide the ID for local ethical committee approval.
- DISCUSSION: - What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report
the results obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight
what contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future
study perspectives
- Hysteroscopic management of retained product of conception has been validated in safety
and reproductive outcomes. An up-to-date meta-analysis has summarized and validated
these findings. Please discuss and cite doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.028 and doi: 10.1016/
j.jogoh.2018.12.005.)
- Authors should briefly discuss one of the advantages of avoiding blind curettage and choosing
hysteroscopic resection, which is the low rate of postoperative intrauterine adhesions. However,
there is still a low risk of occurrence. Please discuss such issue citing updated literature (see doi:
10.1016/j.ajog.2021.09.015. and doi: 10.3390/ijms22105175.)
Title: Hysteroscopic management versus ultrasound-guided evacuation for women with first-
trimester pregnancy loss, a randomised controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 20 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Jose Carugno
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled Hysteroscopic management versus ultrasound-guided
evacuation for women with missed first-trimester abortion, a randomized controlled trial. I found
the manuscript interesting, well-conducted and informative. I have the following considerations:
Why were women with BMI above 30 excluded? Please explain the rationale.
Is there a reason why all the cervix were dilated to 9 regardless of the gestational age? Dilate up
to 9 would be excessive for pregnancies at 6 weeks of gestational and insufficient for pregnancies
at 14 weeks of gestational age. Please expand.
Please describe the characteristics of the resectoscope used for the procedure.
Was ultrasound after the procedure performed to evaluate for the presence of retained products
of conception performed as part of a study protocol? If so, how long after the initial procedure
was the US performed?
I congratulate the authors for conducting such a great study.