JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The Effect of Exercise On Menstrual Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 3 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have made their points in the revised manuscript. However, the original design of
the study limited the data shown. The following points specifically needed to be clarified.
1. The following sentence in the section of method, “No application was made to the control
group, nor was any additional warning given. Throughout the study, participants were in regular
communication with the research team. “; please explain the meaning of “warning” and the
contents of “regular communication”.
2. The title “The effect of excise …” suggests that any kind of excises (?) could be effective.
Please define the exercise program more specifically. Specifically, do the exercises mentioned
in the current study involve the pelvic region?
Overall, the authors revised their manuscript in a way to make it clearer regarding to the core
values of the study. However, the fundamental limitations in the design make the results shown
still not provide adequate evidence-based data to meet the purpose of the current study.
Title: The Effect of Exercise On Menstrual Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 4 Date: 13 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for diverting this article to me for my humble peer reviewing.
Honestly, I was left amazed by reading this article?
The reason for my curiosity is that every results obtained in this article is simply given to my
own fifth grades medical students in the lecture entitled as;
PHYSIOLOGY OF MENSTRUATION?
So we are left with one question here? What does this article add to the scientific community?
I think using the scoring methods for menstrual abnormalities used by the author like MSQ,
MDQ, FSS and other new terms with regard to the new scoring systems is the real new add on!
As a matter of fact I enjoyed learning those new scoring system!
Accordingly I think it will add something new to the scientific community and practicing
gynecologist. Thus, I advice its publication to a large extent.
Yet, I will leave the final decision to the board of journal about its authenticity
Thank you very much
Wisam Akram
Title: The Effect of Exercise On Menstrual Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 4 Date: 24 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
First of all I want to thank the authors and the editor for the opportunity of heaving read this
manuscript.
Secondly, the manuscrips should be revised by a native english speaker.
What does this article bring as novelty?
Have you considered underlying pathologies?
Shouldn't those pathologies be treated first?
Were they treated for endometriosis for example?
It is well known that excercise can help but this does not treat.
Kind regards,
Title: The Effect of Exercise On Menstrual Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 4 Date: 24 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study conducted by Merve Koçak and
Ömer #evgin regarding the effect of physical activity on menstrual symptoms
Some minor suggestions
1. Please try to add references to all the sentences in your article containing information from
the international literature.
2. Maybe you could add some tables with the questionnaires in order to make them more
understandable to the readers
3. The number of women participating in the study is rather a small sample. Maybe add a
limitations paragraph at the end of the manuscript describing this fact and any other limitations
that your study may have
Title: The Effect of Exercise On Menstrual Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 5 Date: 17 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors aimed to explore the impact of exercise on menstrual symptoms, focusing on sleep
quality, fatigue, and physical activity levels. They did a randomized controlled trial and provided
some interesting data. However, there are several unclear points in the revised manuscript.
My main concern is the management of control group in this trial. The authors mentioned that
a follow-up form was created to monitor the progress of the exercise group. But, no application
was undertaken with the control group. Still, throughout the study, the participants (including
the control group?) were contacted regularly by the research team to ascertain whether they were
engaging in physical exercise (?).
The words of “intervention” and “treatment” were used interchangeable in the manuscript.
It seemed to make confusion regarding the role of exercise program in the management of
‘menstrual symptoms’. Please make clear the role of exercise program in the current study.
The authors stated that this research is the first to evaluate the efficacy of whole-body
strengthening, flexibility, balance, and aerobic exercises in women with menstrual syndromes.
So, I would suggest putting the focus on the difference of excise programs in the literatures in
comparison with the current study.
Overall, the authors did make an improvement in the revised manuscript. However, the above
questions need to be answered before accepted for publication.
Title: The Effect of Exercise On Menstrual Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 5 Date: 22 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor
I was pleased to review the manuscript entitled "The effect of exercise on menstrual symptoms:
a randomized controlled trial". My comments are as following:
1- In the abstract, it is better to differentiate between primary and secondary outcomes.
2- The results should be reported with effect size and exact p-values.
3- On which reference is the sample size determination based? Please cite the related reference.
4- This sentence needs to be revised. “As the data for MDQ (pre-menstrual) post-treatment,
MDQ (menstrual) pre-treatment, MDQ (intermenstrual) before and after treatment, and PSQI
before and after treatment exhibited a normal distribution, the Mann-Whitney U test was
employed.” The Mann-Whitney U test is used to compare variables with a non-normal
distribution.
5- It is suggested to use ANCOVA test with baseline score adjustment for comparing between
groups regarding variables with normal distribution.
6- In Table 1, did all quantitative variables have a non-normal distribution, which is why the
Mann-Whitney U Test has been used?
Thanks
Title: The Effect of Exercise On Menstrual Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 6 Date: 14 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor
I was pleased to re-review the manuscript entitled "The effect of exercise on menstrual
symptoms: a randomized controlled trial". The following comments have not been addressed:
1- In the abstract, the results should be reported with effect size and exact p-values.
2- It is suggested to use ANCOVA test with baseline score adjustment for comparing between
groups regarding variables with normal distribution.
6- In Table 1, did all quantitative variables have a non-normal distribution, which is why the
Mann-Whitney U Test has been used? It seems that the variables of age, height and BMI have
the normal distribution. Please check again.
Thanks
Title: Relationship Between Smoking and Marital Adjustment & Social Support Among
Women with Spouses Experiencing Alcohol/Substance Use Disorders
Version: 1 Date: 23 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Hossein Nemati
Reviewer's report:
I want to begin by congratulating the authors. The theme is highly relevant and clearly within
the journal's scope, the study is interesting, and the results are compelling. Nevertheless, I do
have several notable concerns.
The comments about the manuscript are presented as follows:
1. The introduction can focus more on the clear statement of the research objectives and the
importance of the study. The current introduction lacks a clear and concise statement of the
research problem and the gap in the existing literature that the study intends to address.
2. Access links to references 4 and 5 are not provided. Please correct and complete the URL,
as well as the date the site was accessed.
3. It is mentioned in the introduction that this study examines the relationship between smoking
and socio-economic and demographic characteristics, current health status, habits, marital
adjustment and social support characteristics of women with dependent spouses. Please clearly
explain the rationale and reason for focusing and targeting women with dependent spouses. It
would be useful to provide a rationale for why it is important to study this particular population
and how it contributes to existing knowledge about women's smoking.
4. The sample size calculation method should be more clearly explained. The rationale for
determining a sample size of 306 people based on a prevalence of 20% and a margin of error of
4% should be justified with references or statistical methods.
5. Exclusion criteria for participants should be more clearly defined. To ensure transparency in
the study's methodology, further explanation was provided regarding the reasons for excluding
individuals who refused to participate, were discharged early, or did not respond to key variables.
6. Please explain the data collection process in more detail.
7. The measurement tools used in the study such as the Fagerström Nicotine Dependence Test,
the Marital Adjustment Scale and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support are
mentioned, but no information about the validity and reliability of these tools is provided in the
present study.
8. An important aspect of the study missing is the cultural implication. Placing the findings in a
cultural context would increase the impact. The context for the findings needs to be discussed.
9. Due to conducting the study in the corona pandemic, the overlap with COVID, about which
nothing can be done, should be noted/discussed.
Title: Relationship Between Smoking and Marital Adjustment & Social Support Among
Women with Spouses Experiencing Alcohol/Substance Use Disorders
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Hossein Nemati
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author
This version of the manuscript has been substantially improved than the earlier version and many
of the weaknesses are covered. For their efforts, the authors are to be commended. I recommend
this paper is suitable for publication.
Best regards
Title: Relationship Between Smoking and Marital Adjustment & Social Support Among
Women with Spouses Experiencing Alcohol/Substance Use Disorders
Version: 3 Date: 16 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “Relationship Between Smoking and Marital
Adjustment & Social Support Among Women with Spouses Experiencing Alcohol/Substance
Use Disorders.” Your work addresses a highly relevant yet understudied population and makes
an important contribution to the literature by exploring psychosocial factors associated with
smoking behavior among women affected by their partners’ substance use disorders.
The manuscript is well-structured, and the methodology is generally sound. The writing is
clear, and the topic is of strong public health and clinical relevance. Below are several minor
suggestions to improve clarity, depth, and stylistic flow:
The manuscript emphasizes that the sample consists of women whose spouses have AUD/SUD,
which is a valuable and distinctive focus. To strengthen this point, I encourage the authors to
expand on how this sample contributes uniquely to the existing literature.
For example:
Is this group underrepresented in previous studies?
Do these women face distinct psychosocial stressors compared to other populations?
How does this selection enhance the relevance or novelty of the findings?
A brief paragraph that positions this sample within the broader research landscape would
increase the impact of the study.
Overall, this is a well-executed and relevant study. With the above clarifications and minor
editorial refinements, the manuscript will be further strengthened in terms of clarity, structure,
and impact. I commend the authors for addressing an important public health issue with
sensitivity and methodological care.
Sincerely,
Title: Relationship Between Smoking and Marital Adjustment & Social Support Among
Women with Spouses Experiencing Alcohol/Substance Use Disorders
Version: 4 Date: 20 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author (s),
This study offers a valuable and timely contribution by focusing on the spouses of individuals
with Alcohol or Substance Use Disorders (AUD/SUD)-a population that is consistently
underrepresented in both clinical practice and research. While the primary focus in addiction
studies often lies with the individuals experiencing AUD/SUD, their spouses are frequently left
to manage the emotional, psychological, and social consequences with little systemic support.
The authors are to be commended for drawing attention to this neglected yet highly impacted
group.
I reviewed the manuscript using the STROBE checklist for observational studies, and overall,
the reporting is methodologically sound and comprehensive. However, I would like to suggest
the following minor revisions to improve clarity, completeness, and transparency:
1. Please consider including a participant flow diagram in a supplementary file. This would
provide a clear overview of the recruitment process, exclusions, response rates, and final
analytical sample.
2. Please clarify how the variables included in the logistic regression model were selected.
3. The manuscript would benefit from more explicit reporting on how continuous variables were
categorized, where applicable. For instance, if continuous measures of age, age of marriage were
transformed into categorical variables for analysis, please specify the cut-off points.
4. As the study was conducted in a single center, I encourage the authors to comment on the
external validity of the findings.
5. The limitations section could be strengthened by discussing the potential impact of data
collection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
6. The conclusion and recommendations section is well-structured and offers practical
suggestions (such as enhancing psychological resilience, developing social support systems,
and implementing targeted smoking cessation programs). However, these recommendations
could be made more concrete by specifying which institutions  would be responsible for their
implementation.
Title: Relationship Between Smoking and Marital Adjustment & Social Support Among
Women with Spouses Experiencing Alcohol/Substance Use Disorders
Version: 4 Date: 24 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript and the trust placed in me to assess
its suitability. The authors have addressed the requested revisions thoroughly, resulting in a
manuscript that meets the standards for publication. I, therefore, recommend that this manuscript
is accepted for publication in the BMC Women's Healt.
Title: Comparison of Quality of Life in Patients with Endometriosis Undergoing Treatment with
Progestins, Oral Contraceptives Pills (OCP), and GnRH Agonists
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I read your manuscript with much interest.
The choice of medical therapy is very important for the treatment of endometriosis. The goal is
to choose a therapy that is effective on the symptoms, without too many side effects.
Progestins and COCs (preferably continuously) are the first-line treatments, while GnRH
analogues are second-line drugs due to cost and side effects.
To improve the article I suggest:
-describe the duration of therapy for each group (e.g. 6 months, 12 months, 24 months)?
-describe for each pain symptom (dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, dyschezia,
dysuria) the symptom prevalence and quantity (VAS scale) and the change over time for each
group
-describe the prevalent side effects for each type of therapy and the time of their onset
-discuss according to the age of the patient (adolescents/young women vs adult women) what the
initial and then maintenance therapy might be (this recent article might be useful doi: 10.3390/
diagnostics14212344)
-discuss the costs of different therapies
Best Regards
Title: Comparison of Quality of Life in Patients with Endometriosis Undergoing Treatment with
Progestins, Oral Contraceptives Pills (OCP), and GnRH Agonists
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
1.TVS, TRS, or MRI are not the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis.
2.At what time point after treatment should the THP-30 questionnaire be assessed?
3.Given that GnRH may be more inclined toward heavier patients, please provide a detailed
discussion of the potential selection bias that may exist in this study.
Title: Comparison of Quality of Life in Patients with Endometriosis Undergoing Treatment with
Progestins, Oral Contraceptives Pills (OCP), and GnRH Agonists
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
First of all I wish to thank the authors and the editor for the opportunity of heaving reviewed
this manuscript.
What do the authors think this manuscript brings as novelty?
Please describe what you believe this manuscript brings in terms of originality.
I believe this article could benefit from a thorough language revision from a english native
speaker.
In your study the three treatment lots are not equal.
Each treatment has its own indication which was not described in your study. How were the
patients recruited for each kind of treatment?
have you considered the severity of the disease before starting each treatment?
Kind regards,
Title: Comparison of Quality of Life in Patients with Endometriosis Undergoing Treatment with
Progestins, Oral Contraceptives Pills (OCP), and GnRH Agonists
Version: 3 Date: 21 Jul 2025
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be commended for the thoughtful and thorough revisions made in response
to the reviewers’ comments. The manuscript demonstrates significant improvements in clarity,
methodological detail, and scientific rigor. The incorporation of additional literature, the
refinement of tables, and the clarification of the study’s design and outcome measures
have notably enhanced the overall quality and coherence of the work. These efforts
reflect a commendable commitment to academic integrity and strengthen the manuscript’s
contribution to the field. However, I have some suggestions to enhance the manuscript's clarity,
methodological transparency, and linguistic precision.
1. Abstract
The sentence: “The Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) questionnaire was used to utilized
patients’ quality of life” contains a grammatical error. Suggested correction: “…was used to
assess patients’ quality of life.”
2. Introduction
The introduction is well-founded and supported by current literature.
3. Methods
The manuscript lacks a detailed explanation of how EHP-30 scores were calculated and analyzed
(e.g., total score vs. domain-specific analysis).
4. Results
The tables are comprehensive but require formatting improvements: Table titles should include
descriptive captions. Variable labels should be consistently capitalized.  Missing data cells
marked as “-” should be standardized as “0” or “Not reported”.  P-values should be uniformly
rounded (preferably to two or three decimal places).
5. Discussion
The discussion is thoughtful and integrates clinical and psychosocial perspectives effectively.
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: 15 May 2025
Reviewer:  Augustine Tawiah
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is concise and well-written. I have a few concerns, which I will entreat the
authors to respond to:
Abstract
Line 15: "We recommend that the government consider making cervical cancer screening
services free for women". Is it possible that access to cervical cancer screening services through
an effective program in Ghana can improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening?
Methods
Data source and design
Line 34: “It is part of a broader initiative covering 85 LMICs (Ghana Statistical Service, 2022)”.
I recommend that the authors rephrase the statement to make it clearer.
Results
Lines 46 and 47: “Only 7.28% of respondents self-reported having ever been examined for
cervical cancer”. I suggest the authors rephrase or re-examine this statement. This is because we
don’t examine for cervical cancer, but screen for cervical cancer. Examining for cervical cancer
differs from screening for cervical cancer.
Table 1: “Ever been examined for cervical cancer?”. The authors should rephrase this statement.
The outcome variable in this study was cervical cancer screening uptake. This was captured in
the dataset as “ever tested for cervical cancer by a health care provider”. The emphasis is on
screening for cervical cancer.
Discussion
Lines 008 and 009: “This may be attributed to the fact that awareness programs regarding
cervical cancer screening and its benefits are predominantly aimed at older women”. Is it
possible that older women are more likely to have come in contact with reproductive healthcare
services like family planning, abortion care, antenatal, etc?
Policy and practice implications
Line 038: “Our study underscores the importance of making cervical cancer screening free for all
women in rural and urban settings”. I recommend that the statement be rephrased because studies
in Ghana have shown that the uptake of cervical cancer screening services is still underutilized,
even in situations where the services are offered free.
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: 29 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Stephen Opoku
Reviewer's report:
This study is thoughtful and well written. I have a few comments to be addressed by the authors.
1. Why focus on 30-49 years only. I know you mention a few studies that prioritize this group.
Kindly provide a justification in the abstract, introduction and methods sections to explain why
you chose this group and explain why you ignored other groups.
2. It would have been appropriate to analyze all age groups. What if in your data it happens to
be that women >50 are important? So, kindly provide a clear and detailed rationale for limiting
to 30-49 years.
3. Since cervical cancer screening is an important outcome variable, kindly present that in a bar
graph not in table 1. This will make it easy for readers to follow.
4. The conclusion in the abstract do not match the aim and findings. Why do you think screening
must be free? There are critical factors in your results. Limit your conclusion to your findings
and do not overstretch it.