JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Psychological Status of Pregnant Women During the Omicron Pandemic Outbreak in
China
Version: 4 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
First, I would like to congratulate you on your excellent study. However, I have some
recommendations for not leaving. The article will be better if a revision is made in line with the
recommendations and the contribution of the article to the literature is written clearly.
Recommendations
- Introduction: What is the gap in the literature? How will this article fill the gap in the literature?
Why is it important to publish? It should be emphasized. The study question or hypothesis should
be added.
-Methods: How was the sample calculation done? G Power analysis can be done.
-Discussion: It is not appropriate to discuss the current pandemic situation with the article
published 10 years ago. The current literature should be reviewed. The discussion should be
reviewed by adding systematic reviews and meta-analyses made in the last year. Especially
articles written during the pandemic period or comparing before and after the pandemic should
be included.
-Conclusion: More specific recommendations can be made based on the study results.
-The strengths and limitations of the study should be added.
Title: Psychological Status of Pregnant Women During the Omicron Pandemic Outbreak in
China
Version: 4 Date: 11 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
This paper is not suitable for publication. Since the COVID-19 context was different, this study
may represent  multiple confounders and biases.  For all patients and caretakers, COVID-19
exerted psychological pressure.  The study fails to explain how researchers have controlled
cofounders and biases. Further, this study has not provided the timeframe of the study and is not
clear how the diagnosis of severe COVID-19 infection arrived.
Title: Psychological Status of Pregnant Women During the Omicron Pandemic Outbreak in
China
Version: 4 Date: 15 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper is not ready to be published. It is an important topic but the paper lacks focus. Some
of the key point to review for authors are:
Manuscript needs edited for English grammar in all sections. Overall poor description of the
methodology. Need proper citations in all the sections of the paper. Missing references of key
papers related to the topic
Tables need to use guidelines of the journal: subscripts, etc
• Define the period of the outbreak at the beginning and be consistent with terms: omicron,
COVID-19. Omicron is a variant. This needs to be clarified in the paper. How do they determine
that it was the variant omicron?
• COVID-19 (novel CoronaVirus Disease-2019) is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus.
• Author s wrote: especially in pregnant women who are already in a special psychological state,
and are more prone to adverse psychological changes such as anxiety and depression. Please
clarify this paragraph and
• Provide more detail information about the hospital ethic committee and the process this study
went to be approved. There are 2 hospitals mentioned so what hospital?
• Needs more explanation the recruitment process
• Methodology of the study is not well developed. Needs information on the instrument's
validity and reliability and if they are validated with Chinese populations. Why choosing those
instruments? How the cut offs were determined with this population?
• Does not make any sense the information about the self-made questionnaire
• The background and significance of the paper is under-developed. Paper states that is assessing
psychological health and then discusses cesarean and termination of pregnancy.
Because of the poor development and explanation of the methodology, results should be review
accordingly.
Title: Psychological Status of Pregnant Women During the Omicron Pandemic Outbreak in
China
Version: 6 Date: 13 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your quick revisions and additions. We appreciate it. Here are a few things we
would like you to consider:
If you do not remove CS from the title, please add a statement about CS.#P.5 L.146-151#
An effect size of 0.01 means that the logistic regression is of little significance. You may wish
to consider other analyses.
I believe that the conclusion should include what can be said from the results of this study.
Due to communication and other issues were not investigated in this study, there is a leap in
argumentation.
Title: Decisional needs and interventions for young women considering contraceptive options:
an umbrella review
Version: 1 Date: 04 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Decisional needs and interventions for
young women considering contraceptive options: an umbrella review" .
Your manuscript is well-organized and written with a clear focus on the decisional needs
and effective interventions for young women. The systematic approach and adherence to JBI
guidelines for umbrella reviews add robustness to your methodology. However, there are several
areas where improvements could enhance clarity, depth, and applicability of your findings.
- While generally well-written, some sections would benefit from thorough review by a native
English speaker.
- While you outline the implications for the field, a more detailed discussion on practical
applications of your findings could greatly enhance the manuscript's impact. Consider outlining
specific strategies healthcare providers and policymakers can implement to address the
decisional needs identified. Additionally, discuss any potential barriers to implementing these
strategies and suggest ways to overcome them.
- To enhance the understanding of intrauterine devices (IUDs) as a contraceptive option, it
would be beneficial to incorporate a broader discussion of recent developments in the procedural
aspects of IUD management (PMID: 26947701) This discussion should include advancements
in non-anesthetic hysteroscopic removal techniques, which have significant implications for
patient comfort and decision-making (PMID: 35122582). Specifically, addressing the issue of
IUD retention could enlighten potential users about this common concern that might discourage
some from opting for this type of contraception. Exploring these procedural advancements can
provide a more comprehensive view of the factors influencing young women's choices about
IUDs, potentially affecting their decisional needs and preferences.
- The strengths are well articulated, however, the limitations section could be expanded. Discuss
the potential biases or gaps in the umbrella reviews you analyzed. Address the generalizability
of the findings to different geographic or socioeconomic contexts, as contraceptive needs and
access can vary widely.
Title: HEALTH-SEEKING BEHAVIOUR DURING TIMES OF ILLNESS AMONG URBAN
POOR WOMEN: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Version: 0 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Kee Chee Chee Cheong
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s report:
Major issues:
1. Introduction
- There is a lack of background information on how various factors, such as differences in
illnesses, social support (family support), cultural beliefs, health literacy, self-rated health,
perceived stigma, autonomy in decision-making, and the health care system (type of health
care facilities, availability, accessibility, and affordability of formal health care services), may
influence health-seeking behavior among urban poor women.
2. Methods
- Page 3, lines 113-116: Please provide further details on how the sample size was calculated
based on a previous study. Specifically, include information on the two population proportions
related to self-rated health, as well as the power, alpha-value, or precision used in the calculation.
- Page 4, lines 121-131: Out of the total 1580 residential units surveyed, 420 women residents
agreed to participate in the study. Clarify the total number of women eligible for the study.
- Page 5, lines 193-196: Specify whether the findings on the reliability of these questionnaires/
variables were from the present or previous study. Provide references if necessary.
3. Results section
- Page 8, lines 237-241: Suggest presenting the results for Pearson’s chi-square in a separate
cross-tabulation of predictors and sought care table, including frequency (n) and percentage
information.
4. Discussion
- Page 9, lines 274-276: Explore the potential difference in the density of health care facilities
between urban and rural areas in Malaysia. Discuss how this difference might affect healthcare
utilization and, consequently, the health-seeking behaviors of the urban women population.
- Page 9, lines 289-291: Address other factors influencing people's choice of traditional healers or
untrained allopathic doctors over formally trained practitioners or government health facilities,
such as type of illness, health literacy, and cultural beliefs.
5. Conclusion
- Page 12, lines 382-383: Consider refraining from drawing a conclusion since all the factors
mentioned were not assessed in this study.
Minor issues:
- Page 5, line 167: Correct the sentence to "was categorized into high perceived stigma (score
#11) and low perceived stigma (score <11)."
- Merge Table 1 and Table 2 for improved presentation.
- Limit the number of references to the latest and most relevant studies.
Title: HEALTH-SEEKING BEHAVIOUR DURING TIMES OF ILLNESS AMONG URBAN
POOR WOMEN: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Version: 0 Date: 02 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting and important contribution. I believe the paper can be improved and
strengthened. Here are some suggestions to consider for improving the paper.
1. Abstract:
• The dependent variable in this study was health-seeking behavior during times of illness, while
the independent variables were:
“sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic characteristics, medical conditions, women's
autonomy in decision-making, social support, perceived stigma, and attitude towards health.”
It is 7 variables for independent variables? It is socioeconomic characteristics included in
sociodemographic characteristics?
• “Conclusion: The present study showed that HSB during times of illness among the participants
was appropriate.” HSB? The acronym HSB cannot be used in this sentence unless it is specified
in a previous sentence. If HSB is used as an acronym, please include HSB in the title.
2. Introduction:
• General: Scientifically sound, generally good.
3. Methods:
• “Sampling techniques: Section I consisted of two screening questions (SQA and SQB)……
What SQA & SQB? Please spell it out before using.
• “Sampling techniques: Three hundred fifty respondents who answered…. Write 355, only
numbers 1 to 9 must be written in full.
4. Results
• “A total of 1580 residential units were surveyed and 420 women residents agreed to participate
in the study”.
“A total of 340 women residents participated in this study”
Where are the remaining 80 women residents who agreed to participate?
5. Discussion:
• “In this study, it was found that being non-Malay was a significant predictor of HSB during
times of illness.” Please provide additional evidence based on this result.
• You pointed out certain limitations; please include your study's strengths.
• Clearly discussed and done properly.
Title: Determinants of teenage pregnancy in Malawi: a community-based case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Natnael Kebede
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review "Individual, familial, community, and health service factors
associated with teenage pregnancy in Malawi: a community-based case-control study."
1. Dear Author, while your study on teenage pregnancy in Malawi offers valuable insights,
there seems to be a discrepancy between the title and the methodology employed. The title
suggests an exploration of individual, familial, community, and health service factors, hinting at
a multilevel analysis. However, the model utilized appears to be a simple community-based case-
control study. This misalignment raises concerns regarding the comprehensiveness of the study
design in capturing the complexity of the factors at play. Considering the aim of the research, a
multilevel mixed-effects analysis may have been more suitable to truly delve into the individual
and community dynamics affecting teenage pregnancy in Malawi. Clarification or adjustment
in methodology could strengthen the study's rigor and relevance.
2.In the abstract and methodology sections, it would be more precise to refer to "univariable
and multivariable analyses" instead of "univariate and multivariate analyses." This change
ensures consistency with statistical terminology and accurately reflects the analytical techniques
employed in the study.
3. In the results section of the abstract, it may be more informative to present odds ratios
instead of p-values. Odds ratios provide a clearer understanding of the strength and direction of
associations between variables, enhancing the interpretability of the findings. This adjustment
would offer readers a more direct insight into the relationships examined in the study
4.Results lack clarity; discussion is superficial. Require in-depth explanation with comparative
analysis of various studies for better elucidation and understanding of findings.
Title: Determinants of teenage pregnancy in Malawi: a community-based case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 01 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Temesgen Geta
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor, thank you for giving me a chance to review this paper.
Comments to authors
General comments
I. This is an interesting study. Despite this, I have some comments.
II. Please add affiliations for authors in your tittle page.
III. The study’s tittle should be revised. Otherwise, your finding and tittle mismatched
Specific comments
Abstract
1. In your background, the gap of the study was not adequately stated. It needs an adequate
reason why you conducted this study.
2. In your method, your study participants were age group 20-24. This contradicted the teenage
group (13-19). Please revise or justify this.
3. In your keywords. Please add study area(Malawi)
3. In conclusion, please add recommendation for your study. It also stated that “there is a high
prevalence of obstructed labor”. What is the cut point for this?
Background:
1. Please revise the gap of this study.
Thank you author for coming up with these findings.
Title: Review of Admission Indications, Initial Diagnoses, Care Approaches, and Patient
Outcomes within the Sole Obstetric High-dependency Unit in Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Admission Pattern and Outcomes of Obstetric Patients in the Sole Obstetric High-dependency
Unit in Ethiopia
It is valuable and important research which can be uses for policy implementation for expansion
of Sole Obstetric High-dependency Unit in Ethiopia. Here is some of my comments
Tittle
# Add study design
Abstract
Back ground
A hospital-based retrospective observational study that included all pregnant and postpartum
patients up to 42 days after Vs the majority of patients (44.6%) stayed at the HDU for a maximum
of 24 hours. Clearly state minimum and maximum day stayed in Hdu either mean or median
form???
Result
The rate of admissions to obstetric high-dependency units was 3.5%. Write 3.5% confidence
interval
Background
Write  one paragraph  Admission Pattern and Outcomes of Obstetric Patients in the Sole
Obstetric High-dependency  developed and developing nation ,IF any evidence.
Methods
How data data Quality Assurance was done? e.g validity of your data collection checklist
Results
Put graph form either trend graph or line graph   tabel 1 resultsThe previous six years, Adult
ICU admission (n), Overall obstetric admissions (n), Rate of adult ICU admission (%)
Admission Indications and Diagnoses at Admission
Please write some important finding interval estimate rather than point estimate.
Title: Review of Admission Indications, Initial Diagnoses, Care Approaches, and Patient
Outcomes within the Sole Obstetric High-dependency Unit in Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 06 May 2024
Reviewer:  Yonas Abebe
Reviewer's report:
The Findings of Descriptive Studies May Not Be Worth Publication due to the ff reason;
Descriptive studies aim to describe the characteristics of a population, phenomenon, or event at
a specific point in time. While they can provide valuable insights into the current state of affairs,
their findings may not always warrant publication due to several reasons:
- Limited generalizability: Descriptive studies typically involve a small sample size or are
conducted in a specific setting, limiting the generalizability of the findings to a wider population.
The results may not be applicable to other populations or contexts.
- Lack of causal inferences: Descriptive studies do not establish causal relationships between
variables. They can only identify associations or patterns, but they cannot determine whether
one variable causes or influences another. This limitation reduces the significance and impact
of the findings.
- Redundancy or duplication: Descriptive studies may replicate findings that have already been
established through previous research. Publishing redundant information adds little value to the
scientific literature and may not contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge.
- Lack of novelty or originality: Descriptive studies often report on well-known or expected
findings. They may not provide new insights or contribute novel information to the field of
research.
- Resource constraints: Publication in academic journals is a competitive process, and resources
for publishing are limited. Editors and reviewers prioritize studies that present original,
methodologically sound, and impactful research findings.
Title: Review of Admission Indications, Initial Diagnoses, Care Approaches, and Patient
Outcomes within the Sole Obstetric High-dependency Unit in Ethiopia
Version: 2 Date: 21 May 2024
Reviewer:  Yonas Abebe
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
As a reviewer for BMC, I have thoroughly reviewed your manuscript titled "Obstetrics High
Dependency Unit..." and find it to be a valuable contribution to the field.
Key Strengths:
• Important Topic: The study focuses on the crucial topic of obstetric high dependency units,
which play a vital role in improving maternal and fetal outcomes.
• Rigorous Methodology: The research design and data analysis are sound, ensuring the
reliability and validity of the findings.
• Novel Insights: The study provides novel insights into patient characteristics, resource
utilization, and outcomes in an obstetric high dependency unit.
Encouraging Results:
The study demonstrates that:
• The unit effectively manages high-risk obstetric patients, reducing maternal and fetal morbidity
and mortality.
• The unit promotes continuity of care and supports collaborative decision-making among
healthcare professionals.
• The unit optimizes resource utilization, leading to cost-effective healthcare delivery.
Impact and Implications:
Your research has significant implications for:
• Improving patient care in obstetric high dependency units.
• Guiding healthcare policy and resource allocation.
• Educating healthcare professionals on the management of high-risk pregnancies.
Overall, I am confident that this manuscript is a high-quality piece of research that deserves to be
published in BMC. Your contribution will undoubtedly advance our understanding of obstetric
high dependency units and their impact on maternal and fetal health.
Congratulations on your excellent work!
Sincerely,
BMC Reviewer
Title: Development of a Machine Learning-Based Model for Predicting Positive Margins in
high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion(HSIL) Treatment by Cold Knife Conization(CKC):
A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
This article addresses a significant topic, likely providing new insights to many readers like
myself. However, the writing presents several major issues:
1. The article contains abbreviations without their full definitions, such as TCT, TZ1, TZ2, and
TZ3. It lacks detailed information on the platform for membrane-thin layer liquid-based cytology
and does not reference the definitions of transformation zones (TZ1, TZ2, TZ3).
2. LEEP (Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure) is more commonly used in clinical settings,
so why did all patients undergo cold knife cone procedures?
3. Nomogram prediction models are widely utilized in oncology and hold significant importance
for clinicians' decision-making. However, it's unclear whether this model has any clinical impact
or influences follow-up in real-world practice.
4. Parameters were different in article and table: for example: Cumulative glands and glandular
involvement, lesion range and quadrant.
Title: Development of a Machine Learning-Based Model for Predicting Positive Margins in
high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion(HSIL) Treatment by Cold Knife Conization(CKC):
A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
This article addresses a significant topic, likely providing new insights to many readers like
myself. All questions in the previous review responded. But still one suspected mistake should
be corrected.
In introduction, “Another study found that compared with patients with negative resection
margin, the relative risk of persistent/recurrent HSIL in patients with positive resection margin
after one year of treatment was 11.36%[4].” The percentage is wrong and should be revised as
" 11.36 times greater (95% confidence interval, CI: 5.529-23.379, P < 0.0001)”.
Title: Development of a Machine Learning-Based Model for Predicting Positive Margins in
high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion(HSIL) Treatment by Cold Knife Conization(CKC):
A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Version: 5 Date: 12 May 2024
Reviewer:  Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye
Reviewer's report:
All comments have been addressed satisfactorily, and the manuscript has improved as a result.
However, I noticed some minor issues with English language usage, missing spaces, and unusual
characters, which may benefit from further review. For instance:
Line 1-4, Missing spaces: The title 'Development of a Machine Learning-Based Model for
Predicting Positive Margins in high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion(HSIL) Treatment by
Cold Knife Conization(CKC): A Single-Center Retrospective Study' contains some missing
spaces around 'HSIL' and 'CKC.'
Line 53-54, English language usage: In the sentence 'Of course, the current risk of progressing to
invasive cancer is low the reported in previous...,' consider clarifying that 'the risk of progression
from CIN3 to invasive cervical cancer is lower when the CIN3 lesion is detected early.'
Line 84-87, Unusual characters: Consider adjusting the formatting of the following criteria list
for clarity, particularly the use of unusual characters like '#.'
I believe the production team will address these issues, but wanted to highlight them so you can
take a final look.
Title: Association between Premenstrual Syndrome and Eating Disturbance in College
Students; A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear author(s)
First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your fluent and clear study.
I made small notes for your file. It might be appropriate if you can look at it this way:
1. You can also  add college students, your main participant group, in your keywords.
2. However, through literature review, it appears that you have listed PMS symptoms. I wonder
if these symptoms were shaped by providing expert opinions after they were created? You have
already used literature, but if there is an expert opinion, you can also mention it.
3. The results and discussion seem clear and understandable. I don't have any notes here Thank
you
Best regards.