JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Rural-Urban disparities in cervical cancer screening uptake and its predictors among
women aged 30-49 years in Ghana: A multivariate decomposition analysis
Version: 0 Date: 12 Jul 2025
Reviewer:  Antwi Joseph Barimah
Reviewer's report:
The study assessed the Rural-Urban disparities in cervical cancer screening uptake and its
predictors among women aged in Ghana.
However, the following observations are made
1. Authors need to come again with the conclusion section of the Abstract, what authors have put
there are recommendations not conclusions. Authors must stick to their objectives and conclude
accordingly.
2. Authors must enrich the introduction with additional literature on cervical cancer uptake from
other developing countries. This will serve as a comparative tool against the uptake in LMICs
and particularly SSA of which Ghana is not an exception.
3. In the methods, under the Data Source and Design, authors comprehensively described the
source of data, however, the similar comprehensive overview of the accompanying study design
is conspicuously missing. Authors must come clear with the specific study design that was
employed and the vivid rationale behind that choice of a design.
4. Authors provided narratives/interpretations to tables as if they were writing thesis, authors
must only summarize key highlights in the tables and shouldn’t talk about everything the tables
as this makes reading quite boring.
5. Table 4 has no interpretations, this affects the presentation of results since Table 4 contains
findings that are central to the overall study. Authors must attach the requisite interpretation/
narrative to the table.
6. The discussion segment only corroborated articles that had similar findings, I recommend
authors find other articles that are inconsistent with their findings in order to make a sound
comparison. This enhances the flow of scientific ideas.
7. Authors indicated that to ensure the reliability of their they we assessed multicollinearity using
the variance inflation factor (VIF). Authors must attach the outcome of this VIF as an additional
file when submitting their revised manuscript. The table should contain all the necessary details
of the VIF assessment.
Title: Rural-Urban disparities in cervical cancer screening uptake and its predictors among
women aged 30-49 years in Ghana: A multivariate decomposition analysis
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jul 2025
Reviewer:  Augustine Tawiah
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has been well-written, concise, and very appropriate for its title. This
study is critical as it will help provide further information that will invariably help improve the
uptake of cervical cancer screening in Ghana. This can help decrease the incidence of cervical
cancer in Ghana, thereby preventing many needless deaths.
The recommendations/suggestions expressed by the various reviewers have been taken into
consideration, and the appropriate remedy has been carried out by the authors as recommended.
I think the revised manuscript is of high quality.
Title: Exploring the connection between maternal mental health and partnership, parental role,
and satisfaction with various aspects of life using pairfam data: a cross-sectional analysis
Version: 4 Date: 10 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for a chance to re-review this manuscript.
First, I would like to thank the authors for carefully addressing my comments. I also appreciate
the clear explanations and indication of the alterations in the text of the manuscript.
Below I present several suggestions and concerns I still have:
Abstract.
Lines 44-45: Please, remove this sentence from the abstract. It should only present the
conclusions based on your results. As you have not directly measured any intervention outcomes,
and neither your study strives to design an intervention, this looks like merely authors’ thoughts
and suggestions. While they enrich the text of discussion, giving ideas to the readers and
researchers for further avenues to explore, they are not the direct results of this study.
Background.
Lines 52-55: The sentence is too long, making it hard to read the paper from the very beginning.
Please, divide in 2 sentences.
Lines 66-70: This sentence is unnecessarily long and not informative in the current format.
Please, indicate that “Furthermore, maternal mental health problems, namely higher risks of
prenatal depression and anxiety, have been associated with XXX”.
The majority of your references in the Background section are quite outdated (older than 2020),
whereas there have been dozens of novel studies, including reviews and meta-analyses that
address the topic of maternal mental health, its impact on child development and the risk factors
for maternal distress. Please, update those.
Methods
Line 221: it is multiple linear regression
Results:
Please, use the same number of characters after . throughout the results (e.g. in line 229 for mean
age you use one character 37.7, for SD - three 6.089).
Please, do not describe Table 1 in all the details, we can see the values there. Rather, reflect the
most important trends and relevant points for the further analyses and discussions.
Throughout the text: I found multiple typos (e.g. focussing), please, clean the text.
Overall, I find the results of this study fascinating: that the burden of parental role is the
biggest contributor to maternal stress in comparison to relationship with the partner or woman’s
satisfaction with other parts of her life. I believe it is the reflection of the “intensive parenting”
and “gentle parenting” trends, where women’s worth and success is reflected in her role as a
mother rather than anywhere else. As you suggest, although many ideas are common knowledge,
it is of paramount to demonstrate empirical evidence like in your study.
Good luck with the publication!
Title: Exploring the connection between maternal mental health and partnership, parental role,
and satisfaction with various aspects of life using pairfam data: a cross-sectional analysis
Version: 6 Date: 01 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?
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 done a great job to addressed my comments. A
couple of issues remain unresolved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comment 3: Please change the word “affect” to “is associated with” in line 324.
Comment 11: The authors added more details on the sampling method of the pairfam study.
However, the sample was not selected using a simple random sampling method. How was the
sampling method accounted for in the analyses? In other words, did the authors use sampling
weights or any method to adjust for clustering in the data?
Comment 23: The authors should acknowledge the omission of major determinants of mental
health as a limitation of this study.
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 3 Date: 25 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors' team aimed to build a mobile application that provides nutritional recommendations
for patients with polycystic ovaries, for which very solid work was carried out and a solid
foundation for the successful development of the application was laid.  But there are some
problems .
As far as this paper is concerned, firstly, the introduction part is too long and the content is not
organized, so it is suggested that the author team should closely follow the research purpose of
this paper and develop the introduction layer by layer.
Secondly, the review of the existing mobile applications as the basis of the preliminary work can
be described briefly in one or two sentences in this paper, while the article presents the process
of questionnaire development and data processing etc. too simply, especially in the material
and methodology section, and even the content that should appear in the results is placed in the
methodology, for example, “The draft of the questionnaire consisted of 75 items organized into
four sections: demographic information ......”.
Thirdly, the app to be developed as a proprietary app to provide advice on polycystic ovaries
did not research patients and healthcare professionals during the questionnaire creation and data
collection process, which could be a significant omission. But questionnaires were collected
from several men, and for what purpose was this done.
Finally, some of the representations are unclear or do not make sense, e.g., the process
representation for Stage 1 in Figure 1 is inappropriate, and 8408 is number of excluded literature,
but not an exclusion criteria. As well as “During the preparation of the study, the authors used
‘Grammarly’ to fix grammar and writing problems. After using this tool, the authors reviewed
and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the content of the publication”.
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 3 Date: 26 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the efforts of the authors of this article. The study, which explores the design
requirements for a mobile application to manage PCOS, addresses a significant and practical
topic. However, after a thorough review, I have several questions and suggestions for further
clarification:
Why were only specialists and doctoral students included in the study? Was there a specific
reason for not including actual patients with PCOS? Could this decision potentially affect the
validity of the results? Please provide more detailed information about the criteria used for
selecting the sample.
Why was the threshold of 49% chosen as a benchmark for essential requirements? Was this
based on scientific literature or was it an arbitrary decision? Please clarify the rationale behind
this choice.
While the article mentions time limitations, there is no clear explanation of how these limitations
might impact the validity of the results. It is recommended to discuss the possible effects of time
constraints and suggest strategies to minimize these limitations in future research.
Although SPSS was used for data analysis, there is insufficient information about the specific
statistical methods applied (e.g., the tests used). Please provide more detailed information about
the statistical techniques used for data analysis.
Was there an attempt to examine the relationships between variables (such as the connection
between requirements and educational needs)? If not, what was the reason? Employing statistical
methods like correlation analysis or regression could provide a deeper understanding of these
relationships.
The technical aspects of the app's design and the recommendation algorithms (such as
convolutional neural networks) are not sufficiently discussed. Could you provide more detailed
information in this regard?
The discussion section lacks a detailed comparison of the study's findings with those of similar
previous studies. A more comprehensive comparison would strengthen the article's validity.
While the article mentions the limitations of previous studies, it does not adequately explain
how the current research attempts to address or mitigate these limitations.
Overall, this manuscript addresses an important topic, but improvements are needed in the
methodology, data analysis, comparison with previous studies, and writing transparency. I
believe that addressing these concerns will enhance the quality and impact of the study.
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 3 Date: 29 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Please note other limitations, including the cross-sectional nature of the study and reliance on
expert opinion,etc.
In the discussion section, it would be better to discuss more deeply the differences between the
studies and their results.
In the limitations section, remove any duplicate text.
Explain the advantages of using this application compared to others.
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 3 Date: 01 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor/author,
After careful evaluation, I recommend rejection of this manuscript due to significant
methodological and conceptual limitations that fundamentally compromise the study's validity.
The research presents four critical concerns: (1) Poorly articulated research objectives that
fail to establish clear study aims; (2) Questionable validation protocols, including inadequate
reporting of Content Validity Index (CVI) assessment and potential bias in panel selection;
(3) Methodology section requiring extensive revision to meet basic research standards; and (4)
A disengaged discussion that fails to logically connect findings to conclusions; (5) Lack of a
comparative perspective.
While the topic has merit, these flaws would require extensive restructuring beyond typical
revision scope to meet the journal's standards.
I have attached the PDF file with some details comments.
Regards,
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 3 Date: 03 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Karlijn A. M. Geurts
Reviewer's report:
I find this article has an important Topic in the field of Mhealth were sometimes the steps that
are described here are overlooked and an MHealth application is build but not used because it
does not suit the needs of the patient group where it is built for.
However, I have some questions/concerns (major revisions) that need to be clarified by the
authors:
1. I had difficulty following your manuscript because you mention stage 1, 2 and 3 in the
introduction and methods. But what I can read in your results is that the main part of stage 1
was already reported in another scientific paper. I think it would be better to use the conclusion
from that paper in your introduction to make this article a logical continuation.
2. Also, I miss the explanation of the content validity ratio en why you set the cut off value
at 49%. I think it is important to describe this because this is where you are going to base the
content of the app on.
3.  In the methods you sometimes describe things that are more suited in the result section, like
the items you collected and in which categories. You should describe it here more in general.
This will also make the results a more logic story.
4. In the results you have a very clear table on the already existing apps for your patient group.
Which is followed by the expert opinions on what should be in an app. What I miss in your
discussion/conclusion is how these exiting apps relate to what you have identified as important
items in an app for patients with PCOS. So maybe incorporate this in the table or discussion
section of your article.
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 5 Date: 13 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
The manuscript titled "Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition
Recommender Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements" presents a cross-sectional
study that aims to identify essential features for the development of a nutritional
recommendation mobile application for individuals with PCOS. The authors conducted a three-
stage study comprising a systematic review, questionnaire design, and expert validation. My
suggestions regarding the study are below.
• Although conducting a systematic review and an implementation review is mentioned, the
inclusion/exclusion criteria and screening process are briefly stated. More details should be
provided in the manuscript to ensure reproducibility. For example, were PRISMA guidelines
followed? How were the articles eliminated from the literature review and how were those used
in the study selected?
• Although CVR values are provided, a clearer summary (e.g., how many items per category
were retained/dropped) in text or tables would aid reader comprehension. Cronbach’s alpha of
0.74 is reported—please state for which section of the questionnaire this applies.
• In the Conclusion, it is briefly stated that the app was implemented using Kotlin and Visual
Studio Code. Bu uygulamalara yöntem bölümünde neden yer verilmemi#tir?
• One of the main limitations of the study is the exclusion of real PCOS patients from the
needs assessment phase. Despite previous peer reviews regarding this, no clear explanation or
limitation was written in the manuscript.
• It is seen that further analysis is needed to evaluate the relationships between variables. It is
suggested to present methods such as correlation or regression.
• The findings and discussion sections include statements related to the method. This situation
negatively affects the fluency and comprehensibility of the study.
Best regards,
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 5 Date: 18 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
I have analysed your article meticulously and found your work quite successful as an original
contribution at the intersection of digital health applications and nutrition. My notes are given
below.
1. Title and Summary
- The title clearly reflects the content of the study and includes key terms (PCOS, nutrition,
mobile application). The abstract presents the purpose, methodology and main results of the
study in a sufficiently clear manner.
2. Introduction
- The clinical effects and prevalence of PCOS are supported by sufficient literature. Current
information on the use of mobile applications and CDSSs in health is given.
3. Method
- The three-stage methodology is logical and clearly presented. Systematic review, questionnaire
development and validation by expert opinion follow an appropriate process.
4. Findings
- The findings are supported by both tables and explanatory text. It is valuable to elaborate the
results on the basis of categories according to CVR analysis.
5. Discussion
- Comparison with previous literature is successful, relevant studies are compared with correct
references. New proposed application features are justified.
6. Conclusion
- Clear and summarising. Recommendations for application developers and health professionals
are appropriate.
Overall Assessment:
This study makes a valuable contribution to the literature in terms of the use of digital health
applications in PCOS management. A methodologically rigorous process was followed and the
questionnaire development process was reported in detail. The article is suitable for publication
Title: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) Management using a Nutrition Recommender
Mobile Application: Identifying Key Requirements
Version: 5 Date: 20 May 2025
Reviewer:  Pablo Igor Ribeiro Franco
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript has undergone substantial revisions in response to prior reviewer feedback and
shows significant improvement in clarity, structure, and depth of discussion. The study addresses
a timely and relevant topic in women’s health: the identification of critical requirements for a
nutrition recommender system targeting Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), implemented in
a mobile application format.
Key Issues Adequately Addressed
1. Introduction structure improved:
The introduction has been restructured into a concise, five-paragraph format with a clearly stated
aim at the end, as requested.
2. Improved separation of methods and results:
Descriptive content about the questionnaire has been appropriately relocated from the methods
section to the results section.
3. Justification for CVR methodology:
The rationale for using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR), based on Lawshe’s method, has been
clearly articulated and justified for the sample size of 15 experts.
4. Expanded comparative discussion:
The discussion now includes relevant comparisons to prior work by Sheikh Taheri,
Shanmugavadivel, and Kaur et al., responding adequately to reviewers’ calls for
contextualization within existing literature.
5. Limitations section added:
A clear and well-developed limitations section has been added, acknowledging the cross-
sectional design, absence of patient participants, and time constraints, along with planned future
directions.
6. Clarification regarding absence of patient participation:
The authors have provided a reasonable justification (limited timeline, thesis-based research)
and proposed to include patient validation in subsequent stages.
Remaining Points for Improvement
1. Limited methodological depth in statistical analysis:
While descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha are reported, the analysis would benefit from
further exploration—such as associations among requirement categories or exploratory factor
analysis—to strengthen the interpretive value.
2. No user validation of proposed system:
The validation was limited to experts. Even for an initial study, this limits the system’s practical
applicability. This limitation should be explicitly reinforced in the discussion.
3. Unclear originality of empirical contribution:
The first phase of this work has been previously published. Although this is acknowledged,
the additional value of this new phase could be better emphasized, particularly in the final
discussion.
4. Lack of technical detail on the system:
The response regarding the system’s technical architecture was vague. Including a basic
schematic diagram or functional flowchart, even in an appendix, would greatly enhance
understanding.
5. Language and style issues remain:
Despite the use of automated tools like Grammarly, some sentences remain repetitive or
stylistically awkward. A final professional language review by a native speaker is strongly
recommended.
Title: The Use of Standardised Tools to Measure Post-Mastectomy Quality of Life Among
Women in Africa: A Scoping Review
Version: 1 Date: 20 May 2025
Reviewer:  Anne Katrine Hartmann Søby
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for conducting this highly relevant and interesting study. I find the study thoroughly
conducted. However, I suggest addressing the following:
• A better flow and argumentation for points could be established in the background section.
• It is mentioned that the study is conducted on studies including girls or women with breast
cancer. It is uncommon to include children in breast cancer studies. Which ages are referred to
by ‘girls’?
• Quality assessment of the included studies would have heightened the quality of the review
and findings.
• Transparency regarding the analysis is lacking.
Further minor comments are included in the attached document.