JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Association study of Bif-1 gene expression with histopathological characteristics and
hormone receptors in breast cancer
Version: 2 Date: 23 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Jessica G. Cockburn
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Association study of BIF-1
gene expression with histopathological characteristics and hormone receptors in breast cancer”.
This study investigates the expression of BIF-1, a gene associated with apoptosis, with different
hormonal subgroups of breast cancer.
Strengths of this study include the use of prospective tissue specimens to investigate a BIF-1
expression with other clinical features. This work could contribute to a better understanding of
this gene in breast cancer.
Several considerations for the authors include the need to focus the introduction and provide
a more clear rationale for selection of BIF-1 as a potential biomarker. There is also a need to
review the statistical methodology and to report on this analysis in more detail. For example, the
Kruskall Wallis test is reserved for non-parametric tests and is not generally employed in this
context. Further, while the focus of the manuscript is on BIF-1, the results section only provides
two sentences and a cramped graph to exhibit the findings. It is unclear how the comparisons
between each clinical subtype were made.
Ultimately, while this study provides some preliminary findings, more work is needed to explore
the relationship between breast cancer and BIF-1 expression.
Title: Association study of Bif-1 gene expression with histopathological characteristics and
hormone receptors in breast cancer
Version: 4 Date: 13 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Jessica G. Cockburn
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editors and Authors,
I appreciate the work that has been done to the original manuscript and it is noticeably improved.
Several concerns remain as below:
• Figure to indicate the gene expression differences between normal/tumour expression.
Presumably, the BIF-1 expression is highest in normal tissue, followed by ER/PR positive
tumours, and least in Triple negative tumours, though only the later part of this is shown in
Figure 1.
• It is unclear whether the tumour tissues used for mRNA extraction were from FFPE or frozen
specimens, or whether any normal tissue contained in the specimen was dissected and removed
before mRNA isolation.
• Line 232 indicates that protein levels were evaluated in the study, but this is not described in
either the methodology or the results.
• The authours should consider supplementing their findings using publicly available in silico
data, as in the Human Protein Atlas or cBioPortal for external validation.
• Based on the rationale provided in line 187: “RNA expression with two times or more was
considered as overexpression, between 0.5 and 2 times as normal, and 0.5 times and less as
down expression”, only PR-, TN, Stage III, and LN- conditions are considered to be associated
with down regulated BIF1 and the remaining samples are within normal expression levels. Is
this correct?
• Error bars in Figure 1. seem to be the same between each condition, which seems unlikely.
Please indicate what the error bars represent and reiterate how the averages were calculated in
the caption.
Thanks for your continued effort. I believe this manuscript has merit, but should be substantiated
before publication.
Title: A Study on Initiation of Postpartum Family Planning in India Based on NFHS-4: Does
Urban Poor differ significantly from Rural?
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Let me begin by congratulating the authors on an analytical piece done in service  of a very very
important aspect of reproductive health - which has direct bearing on not just the health of the
woman - but on the overall economic opportunities and risks faced by the woman , the savings
and financial health of the family and the overall loss of productivity and gender mainstreaming
at the societal level .
I do recommend this paper for publication but have the following suggestions
1. The authors mention "miscarriage" at rates that seem significantly higher . Also miscarriage as
a term is used to denote spontaneous abortion - though in this case it seems that this number also
includes Induced abortions .  The Abortion estimates from literature (Guttmacher 2015) which
are underestimates in themselves - point to what is i think being called miscarriages' - please
define the terms well and use abortions reported if that is more relevant .  Post pregnancy's FP
also of course means post abortion FP but it was not teased out from the NFHS analysis.
2. Authors take a very clinical look at what is happening perhaps as the event of interest
is the onset of use of FP - but the social and economic, individual as well as familial and
societal impacts of unintended pregnancies' is not explored well enough ., may need more data
references.
3. The closed birth interval analysis for the same sample of clients and their data studied could
also help us get some more insights into "Why" access to post partum FP is less in rural sample ?
Is it because of paucity of short term methods - is it because the clients were more accessing
the public system where Mini-pills were not found or was it due to lack of awareness around
effectiveness of lactational amenorrhea and return of fertility ?
4. Use of traditional methods ( LAM and withdrawal ) are the most popular in the post pregnancy
cohort - yet no remarks have been made form data or analysis on this .
5. Could we validate the model and findings now by using NFHS5 data since it is available ?
Title: A Study on Initiation of Postpartum Family Planning in India Based on NFHS-4: Does
Urban Poor differ significantly from Rural?
Version: 3 Date: 13 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
After going through the manuscript I have some observations that needs to be addressed:
1. What were the criteria for selecting the different cases? e.g., how the authors decided to take
cut off like 50% and 30%?
2. The two level models were fitted. In this case, how the geographical regions can be taken
under community level variables? Is it justified/conceptually right?
3. It is better to show Kaplan-Meier plots for key explanatory variables.
4. Do figures 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) for case (1)  only?
5. English of the manuscript needs to be improved.
Title: A Study on Initiation of Postpartum Family Planning in India Based on NFHS-4: Does
Urban Poor differ significantly from Rural?
Version: 5 Date: 07 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for replying to all of my earlier review-observations and feedback .  I have no more
comments except that the authors should clearly highlight the need to validate this data with
NFHS5 data sets which are now available; and clarify two data factors that may influence the
conclusion - which is a) the exclusion of women using traditional methods - & b) the inability
to distinguish induced abortions from spontaneous abortions.  With these two clarifications , the
manuscript should be OK to be published.
Title: Knowledge of obstetric fistula and its associated factors among women of reproductive
age in Northwestern Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 08 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
To author
The study is intended to address one of the major health problems in Ethiopia that is Fistula.
Having said this, I do have a number of comments and suggestions to be addressed if possible.
General comment: The document needs chief language revision, and does it mean this single
correspondence ‘Meskerem Tsega1,2’from two different institutions?
Abstract
1. Background is too broad.
Introduction/background
1. The paragraphs are outside of objective of the study, and the information included in this
section is not articulate (from global to Local). Therefore, this section should be rewritten in a
focused, informative, and articulate manner that can indicate the magnitude, and determinants
of the research topic.
2. Does your background was answered (via literature searching) your research questions? If
yes, give justification. No, rearrange it please.
3. Please provide the difference b/n fistula and obstetric fistula? With single line
4. In the last paragraph. Do authors think that this conclusion, objective, and topic are in line
with each other? Please provide/add literatures related to knowledge?
Methods and materials
1. Authors, how they were managed these two numbers, 23,777 and 7759?
2. What if more than 2 eligible individuals from a single folder?
3. The intention was obstetric fistula (15-49), how about those who had concluded will not give
birth?
4. What significant did Authors have gate? Where, how and in how many of them pre-test was
done?
5. How and why One urban and six rural sub-districts from the given 27 kebeles?
6. Does double data entry was your data validity management? Scientifically we are not arguing
that, so as please show the reliability and validity test for your questionnaires?
7. Authors have not included the exact value mean above or below? See your analysis again and
give exact operational definition of an out-come variable.
8. What data collectors were done, if fistula was obtained during data collection period? Or
please see your ethical clearance?
9. Authors think that, if they were seriously ill, how data collectors considered whether due to
fistula or not?
10. Authors are required to provide assent for as supplementary files.
11. How wealth index was categorized? How it could be both for urban and rural? Place in
method part of the document. Plus, PCA analysis is mandatory have you done it?
12. All components of methods and materials were not incorporated? One by one.
13. What does it mean conference? Please give some definition of long listed variables?
Title: Knowledge of obstetric fistula and its associated factors among women of reproductive
age in Northwestern Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 20 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
First I would like to appreciate your over all effort in the field of science.
The topic addressed in this study is very crucial and the manuscript is well written and I will
have only some minor comments and suggestions.
Topic: You study on knowledge of obstetric fistula and its associated factors among women of
reproductive age but what is the clinical significance of addressing women's knowledge with
regard to decreasing disease morbidity and mortality?
Abstract: Limit it to no more than one page
Background: Here you state the severity and impacts of obstetric fistula but lacks explanations
regarding women's knowledge on it and it's associated impact and also, It is better to include
strong justification for studying in this area. Is your study area really problematic regarding with
obstetric fistula???
Methods: well done
Result: it is well stated and described but how do you run logistic regression for those variables
that some of the participants may not be concerned, like mode of delivery, number of ANC visit
etc,...The prevalence of obstetric fistula in this study is exactly the same as the prevalence that
you use to calculate the sample size, how it could be???
Discussion: well done
Conclusion: good but it is better to forward separate recommendations for health care providers,
policy makers, women's,.etc,...
Ethics approval and consent to participate: Add what thing  you did when you get a women with
sign and symptom of obstetric fistula or reported by women during data collection period?
Tables and Figures: well done
Thanks;
Title: Community-based intervention improves abortion knowledge and reduces abortion
stigma among women in Oromia, Ethiopia: a quasi-experimental mixed methods evaluation
Version: 1 Date: 06 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This article analyses the effects of a community intervention aiming to decrease stigma and
increase knowledge regarding abortion in a rural community of Ethiopia. One of the major
strengths of the study is its methodological design: it combines a quasi-experimental design,
with qualitative participatory methodologies that center the voices of community members and
intervention participants. The article is also clear and well written, and the results are presented
in a clear manner.
As any article, this one also has some limitations and I am suggesting some minor changes to
improve it.
One of the limitations of the article is that, because it reports on the use of multiple data collection
and analysis methodologies, the methods section is sometimes difficult to follow. I suggest to
re-structure this section and revise the order in which information is presented to facilitate its
understanding. For example, data on ethical aspects (lines 120-124) could go on a subsection
at the end of the methodology; the description of the sampling strategy for the communities
(lines 195-212) could go on the Study aim, design, and sample section; you could also build a
variables section where you put all the information on the definition of the variables, as some
of it is now on the data analysis section; and the description of the interventions could go on
the introduction. A table that summarizes the data collection methods used and the number of
participants for each methods could also help make this section clearer and highlight some of
the strengths of the article.
While the conclusions are sound and based on the data analysis presented in the article, the
conclusion section also includes information that would fit better in other sections of the paper.
For example, lessons learned and recommendations could go on the discussion section, as well
as the strengths of the study that are now included in the first paragraph of the conclusion (lines
521-525).
Title: Community-based intervention improves abortion knowledge and reduces abortion
stigma among women in Oromia, Ethiopia: a quasi-experimental mixed methods evaluation
Version: 3 Date: 03 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for their consideration and implementation of reviewers' feedback into
their manuscript.  I have three minor points regarding language for consideration.
For the paragraph beginning "The second outcome collected ...",  the terminology "mother"
is used to describe people seeking abortion. Assumingly people who are not mothers (i.e.,
not parenting) seek abortions in Ethiopia. Could the wording be changed to include anyone
who seeks an abortion? For example, "risk to the woman/pregnant person, the woman/pregnant
person is under age 18, and the woman/pregnant person is disabled.".
For the sentence, "Boset had a more respondents..." should it read "Boset had more
respondents..."?
To improve brevity, could "Lessons learned from this study ..." be phrased as "Lessons from
this study...".
Beyond these considerations, I recommend the article for publication.
Title: Community-based intervention improves abortion knowledge and reduces abortion
stigma among women in Oromia, Ethiopia: a quasi-experimental mixed methods evaluation
Version: 3 Date: 13 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to revise this second version of the article. I am pleased to see
that all the suggestions of the first round were incorporated and that the readability and structure
of the article have improved substantially.
In this second revision, I found some minor issues that could still be improved:
Line 431:  Please substitute "Boset had a more respondents under 25 years old... " for "Boset
had more respondents under 25 years old"
Table 2: The word "Baseline" seems to be missing from the header of the second column
(Forguera).
Lines 581-584: Please review this sentence
Lines 614-615:  Please review this sentence for redundancy
Lines 618-619: Please review this sentence
In the discussion, I would suggest to add a first paragraph highlighting the most important results
of your study and move the methodological highlights  (lines 581-589) down in this same section.
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls and
young women in Sub-Saharan Africa, a multilevel analysis
Version: 1 Date: 13 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors for coming this far. It was nice reviewing your manuscript. Kindly
address the following comments to improve the quality of the paper.
Your recommendations must be country-specific and toward institutions and stakeholders that
are primary targets for your paper.
Your reference to this statement “about 14 million unintended pregnancies are recorded
annually” is too old. How can you use data from 2008? You may need to look at current data
latest 2018-2021. There might be an increase and that is good for your argument. It could have
been reduced and that will not be favourable for you but whichever way, you need to give us
current data and not over 13 years of information, please!
Independent variables
“Whereas residence (urban and rural) and SSA region (South Africa, Central Africa, East Africa,
and West Africa) were community (country) level variables” change South Africa to Southern
Africa.
What are the countries included in these regions and why did you include these countries in
your study?
Discussion
The first paragraph: Are you comparing the findings of your study to individual countries?...
That is not acceptable.
I realise that this runs through your entire discussion.
References
Some of your references are too old. Some more than 20 years.
For instance “Eggleston E. Determinants of unintended pregnancy among women in Ecuador.
International family planning perspectives. 1999:27-33.” Is this the only study conducted on
unintended pregnancy in Ecuador?
I recommend that your references should not be more than 10 years.
Grammar
Authors should do thorough proofreading to improve clarity and expression of thoughts. There
are a lot of grammatical errors.
Kindly change South Africa to Southern Africa throughout the manuscript and that includes
your Figure 1
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with unintended pregnancy among adolescent girls and
young women in Sub-Saharan Africa, a multilevel analysis
Version: 4 Date: 19 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Though not novel, this study is useful in advancing knowledge on factors associated with
unintended pregnancy in sub Sahara Africa. The findings are already known but it is also relevant
to bring to fore issues on the subject matter in SSA.
Going through your study, I made the following observations and I would like the authors to
address them.
Major Observation.
Line 1: The term "Youths" used in the title of the study is very misleading and confusing. The
term "youths" comprises of both sexes, ie. males and females. Males don't get pregnant so why
are males included in your study as suggested by your title.
This was used interchangeably with the term "youthswomen" in the study. There is no such term
as youthswomen in public health or population health.
May I suggest that authors read more broadly on this topic to come up with a more appropriate
term for females aged 15 -24.
To guide you in your reading, please look for the term "Adolescent Girls and Young Women"
and examine it to see if it is a more appropriate term for your study population group.
Kindly correct this term throughout your manuscript.
Line 49: Unintended pregnancy should be one of your keywords. Please remove "factors"
Line 60: What rate? Please be specific
Line 68: remove "the" before the word "previous"
Line 79: There is no such term as "youth girls". Kindly read widely on the topic and use the
appropriate term for females within that age bracket.
Line 108 - 109: did you really sample youths or pregnant adolescent girls and young women?
Please use the right terminology. If you sampled youths then why males and females even though
you needed only pregnant girls and young women?
Line 197: include " among adolescent girls and young women" in Sub Sahara Africa........
Minor Observation
The background, methods, and presentation of results are ok. However, in the presentation of
results, it would have been good to also include the prevalence of the other regions in Africa.
Could you please include that?
In the discussion, From line 234 to 236. Are there specific programs that have been implemented
in West African countries that might have contributed to the lower odds compared to other
regions in SSA? Any specific example here will enrich your discussion.
Title: Risk factors of primary and recurrent fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic Chinese
patients: A retrospective analysis study
Version: 0 Date: 23 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Aknowledgments:
Dear colleagues editor in chief and reviewer advicer of BMC journal accept deep respect and
appreciation for your kind invitation one time again as a reviewer to the manuscript entitled:
Analysis of related factors of primary and recurrent fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic
patients: A Retrospective Study
I would like to congratulate the team of authors for thier kind participations that yeild this gold
article but, I have some comments to increase the study strength and reveal thier efforts simply
and attractivly for all readers:
1.The title of manuscript is presentative and informative but my opinion to rewrite it as follow
Risk factors of primary and recurrent fractures in  postmenopausal osteoporotic elderly chinese
patients: A retrospective analysis study.
It will be more comprehensive for their aims and coincided with the aims that written at the
introduction section,and so on the abstract objectives.
2. The introduction cover all sides of this study  to present thier problem clrealy but I couldn't
find the definition of osteoporosis for simple readers and I prefer to select sold modern reference.
2.The study design also written perfectly but it should include age range for the study samples?
3.The results section was clear and relevant but, it didn't described by simple clear figures
diagram that summarize their data with thier measured relationships.
4.Discussion section it was fantastic and include all points that support the measured data in
relation to other study.(limitation,strong points and suggestions).
5. References that were selected carefully but with less review of literatures or systematic
review?
Best wishes
Title: Risk factors of primary and recurrent fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic Chinese
patients: A retrospective analysis study
Version: 1 Date: 20 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Raid M. Al-ani
Reviewer's report:
Thanks so much for your kind response to my reviewing comments, the all raised points were
followed and well revised accordingly. However, there are still certain comments that need to
be revised:
1. The objective in the abstract should be replaced by background as per journal style. Besides,
the aim/s of the study should be incorporated with the background.
2. Please revise my comment " Please write a section about how you calculate the sample size
for your study." to remind you, that the calculation of sample size depends on previous similar
studies. Please take care of this point in the next revision stage.
3. Still figure 1 in the "Materials and Methods" section. I prefer to put it in the results section.
4. "Thank you for pointing this out. We feel sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted
manuscript, we have corrected the “P<0.1”into “P<0.15 “(lines 214)". I didn’t see this change
in line 214.
5. You said in your response to the reviewer "We have added references [33-34] after "Bone
remodeling is regulated not only by bone metabolism but also by other metabolic pathways and
factors within the body" (lines 312-313)." I found your change in line number (497). Please take
care in the future.
6. "We have divided the limitations and strengths of the study into two paragraphs (lines
362-380), and the conclusion is also a separate paragraph." Yes, you did but without the title
"Conclusion" as per journal style.