JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: A mixed-methods preliminary evaluation of an innovative treatment for cervical precancer
in El Salvador’s screen-and-treat program
Version: 4 Date: 06 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
General comments: This is a well-written manuscript reporting a small, qualitative study
regarding the use of thermal ablation in a screen-and-treat program in El Salvador. The authors
have acknowledged the limitations of the study.
Specific comments:
The authors write:
"El Salvador has been an early adopter of cervical cancer control innovations. In 2011,
the Ministry of Health (MoH) partnered with Basic Health International (BHI), a non-profit
organization, to conduct a demonstration project of a screen-and-treat algorithm using a low-
cost HPV test (careHPV, Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD) paired with cryotherapy.  Eventually the
country became one of the first LMICs in the world to implement such a program at the national
level."
and
"In 2017, after the initial success of a primary HPV-based screen-and-treat demonstration
project, El Salvador was able to obtain grant funding for further HPV tests in addition to HPV
vaccines. The MoH included the procurement of HPV tests in its 2022 annual budget, cementing
the screen-and-treat program as part of the national cervical cancer control effort. Today, HPV
screening is available in a network of 750 primary care units distributed in all five regions of
the country (Figure 1)."
Reviewer question #1: Is external funding currently being used to purchase the careHPV tests
used for public-sector cervical screening in El Salvador?
The authors write:
"Since TA was introduced to treatment centers via a large-scale donation, some upfront expenses
were avoided. Other costs associated with expansion, such as probe replacements or device
repairs, are currently unknown."
and
"Maintenance needs of TA are not yet known, but a plan for such contingencies will be essential
to ensure sustainability of this innovation."
Reviewer question #2: These are important points that require further elaboration: What are the
estimate equipment and maintenance costs of thermal ablation, relative to cryotherapy?
The authors write:
"Upon arrival at the center, women receive their HPV results and counseling from a nurse. They
are then offered a speculum exam by a general practitioner. "
Reviewer question #3: The screening guidelines described above will require all HPV positive
women to undergo a speculum exam by a physician. Is this scalable and sustainable?
Title: A mixed-methods preliminary evaluation of an innovative treatment for cervical precancer
in El Salvador’s screen-and-treat program
Version: 4 Date: 30 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors, congratulations on your work in El Salvador and on your article, and please see
comments in the attached file. Your manuscript  provides an important contribution to cervical
cancer prevention strategies in LMICs using an implementation science lens. I recommend a few
edits for clarity and to further underscore key findings. Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Title: Strangulated Intestinal Obstruction Caused by Ectopic Intrauterine Device: A Case Report
Version: 0 Date: 27 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Amr Wahba
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the case report.
It is an interesting rare case , well presented  but I have made some comments that you can find
within the file for ease of follow up.  It needs some revision of the language and response to
some scientific comments to enrich the work.
Title: Strangulated Intestinal Obstruction Caused by Ectopic Intrauterine Device: A Case Report
Version: 0 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting case report.
Some minor issues
- the discussion section is too short. More referrences need to be added in order to support your
data
- a small review of the literature regarding other reported cases such as this one should be added
to the paper
- intraoperative images if available need to be added.
Title: Strangulated Intestinal Obstruction Caused by Ectopic Intrauterine Device: A Case Report
Version: 0 Date: 16 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Zeena Raad Helmi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “ Strangulated Intestinal
Obstruction Caused by Ectopic Intrauterine Device: A Case Report”
Comments:
1-If possible, add the histopathology of intestine excised to exclude any pathology in the intestine
2-Intestinal obstruction can be due to other causes how the authors do exclusion of other cusses
3-Add to the discussion similar case reports
4-Add to discussion the difficulty of the ring IUCD insertion can be the cause in comparison
to t shape IUCD
5- the only possible explanation is perforation at time of insertion
6-47 years is not enough time for intestinal obstruction.Why this time please add the answer
in discussion
Title: Strangulated Intestinal Obstruction Caused by Ectopic Intrauterine Device: A Case Report
Version: 2 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Zeena Raad Helmi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “ Strangulated Intestinal
Obstruction Caused by Ectopic Intrauterine Device: A Case Report”
Comments:
The research paper is well-structured and meets the required standards. I have thoroughly
reviewed it, and I can confirm that it fulfills all the necessary requirements that were outlined.
Title: Strangulated Intestinal Obstruction Caused by Ectopic Intrauterine Device: A Case Report
Version: 2 Date: 19 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for your kind email.
I remember very well I have already approved this article for publishing.
It simply shows while IUCD is extremely safe in the trained hands, it can be extremely dangerous
in the wrong hand while it is being inserted inside the uterus.
Decision; Accept
Sincerely yours
Wisam Akram
Title: Comparison of the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine versus docetaxel
plus epirubicin for human epidermal growth factor 2 -negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 08 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Marcelo Antonini
Reviewer's report:
Review of Manuscript: "Comparison of the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine
versus docetaxel plus epirubicin for HER2-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-
analysis"
General Comments: The manuscript addresses an important topic, comparing two chemotherapy
regimens for HER2-negative breast cancer. It provides valuable insights into the relative efficacy
and safety of the treatments. However, there are several areas where clarity, depth, and adherence
to reporting standards could be improved to strengthen the manuscript.
Ensure all references are formatted consistently according to journal requirements.
Recommendation: I recommend acept the manuscript cfor publication
Title: Comparison of the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine versus docetaxel
plus epirubicin for human epidermal growth factor 2 -negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Some changes are required. Some references should be updated and the authors should include
recent papers regarding predictors and prognostic factors in breast cancer treatment (  PMID:
35378995; PMID: 39518127; PMID: 37819422; PMID: 35029519; PMID: 38595817 ).
A linguistic revision is also needed
Title: Comparison of the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine versus docetaxel
plus epirubicin for human epidermal growth factor 2 -negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Wu J et al. conducted a systematic review followed by a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy
and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine versus docetaxel plus epirubicin for HER2-negative
breast cancer.
The studies included women treated with these therapeutic regimens but at different stages
(adjuvant and neoadjuvant) and with different study designs.
In terms of methodology, it is recommended that the systematic review be registered in an
appropriate registry, such as PROSPERO.
The review needs to be updated; the last search was conducted on May 29, 2023. It is necessary
to conduct new searches, select articles, and so on.
Although I understand why the reviews were excluded, reviewing the references to relevant
reviews is still appropriate.
In the statistical analysis, the authors set a premise: ". If P < 0.1 or I2 > 50%, significant
heterogeneity was detected among studies, and a random-effect model was employed for meta-
analysis. Otherwise, the fixed-effect model was adopted". Despite this incorrect premise, the
authors conducted all analyses using a randomized model. But except for neutropenia, this
premise wasn't met, correct? So, please remove it.
The authors did not program or describe the GRADE assessment for each outcome shown, which
is critical for understanding the degree of certainty of the evidence.
The authors assert that  "...the small sample size may result in insufficient statistical power
to detect significant differences in the outcomes and explain the statistical differences in
intervention protocols", which is actually the case! As a result, none of the conclusions should
be definite. It should be something like this, "The findings suggest that TX and TE may provide
similar survival benefits and efficacy in HER2-negative breast cancer patients. TX is likely to
have a lower risk of neutropenia than TE but a higher risk of hand-foot syndrome. In clinical
practice, the optimal drug regimen can be tailored to the specific needs of individual patients."
Title: Comparison of the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine versus docetaxel
plus epirubicin for human epidermal growth factor 2 -negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This article provides a helpful comparison of the efficacy and safety of two treatment regimens
for HER2-negative breast cancer: docetaxel + capecitabine and docetaxel + epirubicin. The
manuscript is well-written, and the conclusion appropriately addresses the study’s main
objective.
Key points to consider:
Randomization and blinding procedures: The included studies lack detailed information on
randomization and blinding procedures. This omission raises concerns about potential selection
or performance bias. Additionally, the relatively small sample sizes in each study limit the
statistical power to detect significant differences, which may impact the robustness of the
findings.
Moderate heterogeneity in PFS analysis: The moderate heterogeneity observed in the
progression-free survival (PFS) analysis (I² = 53%, P = 0.08) is concerning. While not
statistically significant, this suggests that variability between the studies could affect the
consistency of the results. Ideally, the inclusion of additional studies could help reduce this
heterogeneity and strengthen the analysis.
Absence of subgroup analyses: The lack of subgroup analyses (e.g., by cancer stage, patient
age, or other clinical factors) is a limitation. Subgroup evaluations would help determine
whether treatment efficacy varies across different patient profiles, which could be valuable for
personalizing treatment strategies.
In conclusion, while the article is suitable for publication, it could be enhanced by incorporating
more high-quality studies and additional analyses, such as subgroup assessments based on
specific patient characteristics.
Title: Logistic and time burdens reported by gynecologic and breast cancer survivors
Version: 5 Date: 25 Mar 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
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: While the revised manuscript has adequately addressed most of the
reviewer's comments, there are still some issues with the discussion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The stated purpose of the study was to generate hypotheses for future research about logistic
toxicity and time toxicity related to cancer care. However, the revised manuscript still does
not sufficiently elaborate on how the current findings contribute to this goal.  The authors
should provide more detailed explanations and examples of potential hypotheses that can be
derived from their findings and discuss how their results can inform future research directions.
Addressing this reviewer comment more thoroughly would align the manuscript more closely
with its stated purpose and provide a clearer roadmap for future research.
Although I did not review the previous version of the manuscript, I have identified an issue in
the current version related to the analyses. Specifically, the absence of multivariable analyses in
this study represents a significant limitation. Multivariate analyses can be used for hypothesis-
generating purposes. Multivariable analyses allows for multiple confounders to be controlled for
simultaneously, thereby providing a clearer and more accurate understanding of the association
between each variable that and the outcomes (a stated aim of the study) that might not be apparent
in univariate analyses. Controlling for confounders is important for ensuring the observed
associations are not spurious."
Title: Logistic and time burdens reported by gynecologic and breast cancer survivors
Version: 6 Date: 10 May 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revisions have addressed the concerns raised, and the
manuscript is improved as a result.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I appreciate the authors effort addressing the comments and suggestions provided, and in
particular, the multivariable analysis that was undertaken.
Including an explicit point in the discussion on the need for an appropriately powered study to
allow a clearer and more accurate understanding of the association between each variable and
the outcomes of interest would be valuable for highlighting future research in this area.
Title: A Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Impact of Breast Density Notification on Anxiety,
Breast Cancer Worry, and Perceived Risk among Latinas at a Federally Qualified Health Center
Version: 3 Date: 22 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written paper of a timely and well-conducted study. The manuscript would be
strengthened if the authors can address the following:
- Was the baseline survey completed prior to the mammogram (when some people might be
more anxious vs. post mammo)?
- The window for survey responses for both T1 and T2 seem very wide; can the authors provide
more information regarding the rationale for allowing such a wide interval? Did the authors
consider any sensitivity analyses to inform whether there were any differences based on when the
survey was completed (e.g., less anxiety further as more time has past since the mammogram?)
- It seems that there was some loss to follow-up – can the authors provide additional detail
regarding whether baseline characteristics differed between respondents and non-respondents
at both T1 and T2? A supplemental table with this data would be recommended.
- Did the authors consider any other subset analyses beyond the group with dense breasts to
determine if there was perhaps a subgroup where type of notification improved worry or anxiety
(i.e., women with a FH since they had higher anxiety levels and more worry; women with lower
educational attainment; younger women)?
Minor comments:
Materials and Methods – would spell out UC, ENH, INT at first mention (vs. when described
in detail in Study Design section)
“Strengths of this study include the unique Latina study population Latinas and the randomized
clinical trial study design.” – Latinas is written twice
Title: A Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Impact of Breast Density Notification on Anxiety,
Breast Cancer Worry, and Perceived Risk among Latinas at a Federally Qualified Health Center
Version: 5 Date: 09 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing my earlier comments/suggestions. Overall, the authors have been very
responsive. I have a few remaining questions and concerns, which are detailed below:
(1) Re: Reviewer #2, Comment #1: Thank you for clarifying that the hypothesis for this
study was that the education will lower anxiety/worry/perceived risk. As a reader, I think
some of the confusion stemmed from the description of the statistical methods. The focus
on “change to or persistence in” high levels of anxiety/worry/perceived risk made me think
that the primary outcome of interest was whether there was an increase in these constructs
following MBD notification. Would it be appropriate to reframe the analyses as examining
whether the proportion of participants with decreases in anxiety/worry/perceived risk differed
between groups at T1 and T2? If this is an accurate description of the analyses, I would suggest
the authors consider rephrasing this language to improve clarity.
(2) Re: Reviewer #2, Comment #5: I apologize for the confusion regarding my previous
comment. Yes, I see that the Discussion section does indicate the number of participants who
estimated their lifetime risk of breast cancer as 0-10%. However, in my previous comment I
was referring to the statement in the Results section that “Among the 85 women for whom
the Gail model risk estimate was >10%, 42 (49.4%) reported a self-perceived risk of 0-10%.”
If I am understanding correctly, this means that nearly half of the high-risk women in this
sample underestimated their lifetime risk for breast cancer. This is a big deal, and indicates an
opportunity for education about breast cancer risk. Again, I feel that this information should be
included in the Discussion section.
(3) Re: Reviewer #2, Comment #8: Thank you for adding an example of promotora-led
intervention focused on breast cancer. However, I think the citation provided (#22) may be
incorrect – I would suggest checking again to ensure that the correct studies are cited in this
section.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 10 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this study, Tianzhao Du et al. analyzed the correlation between Ki-67 and CDK4 expression
and the NACT effect in breast cancer patients and explored the factors affecting the NACT
effect.      They also sought to examine the potential for TILs and ctDNA as additional predictive
biomarkers.      They aim to gain a complete picture of NACT response predictors in breast
cancer by integrating these multiple factors.      This is an interesting article, but the following
question needs to be revised.
1.      Global Cancer Statistics 2022 data has been updated, the text is as follows, PMID:
38572751.
2.      The overall layout of the manuscript is slightly confusing, and it is recommended to check
and optimize it again.
3.      Figure 1 is not clear enough, is not of high quality, and lacks conspicuous marking.
4.     Figure 2 lacks statistical analysis data and should be represented in the figure and should
include a risk matrix.
5.     Isn't there more data to show for ctDNA testing?
6.     The small sample size of the included studies affected the reliability of the conclusions.
7.     Some similar studies on breast cancer and its progression should be cited and discussed.
For example, PMID: 37035750, 36939445, 38589634, 37741091.
8.     The authors are recommended to consider engaging a professional language editing service
to ensure the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.
It is a pleasure to read your paper "Integrating Traditional Biomarkers and Emerging Predictors
to Assess Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Efficacy in Breast Cancer: A Multifactorial Analysis of
Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs, and ctDNA", your work is appreciated.      I encourage you to address
the issues mentioned, as they can enhance the contribution of manuscripts to the field.   I look
forward to seeing an improved version of your work that has the potential to advance our efforts
and provide new insights into the monitoring of the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for
breast cancer.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the expression of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR,  TILs and ctDNA in the
manuscript.  High TILs were associated with pCR. The paper as a whole is not well written. The
word effective rate was not usually in the study. In addition, the details of ctDNA were poor.
Not all patients should not have positive ctDNA.
It should not be acceptable for the publication.
Title: Integrating traditional biomarkers and emerging predictors to assess neoadjuvant
chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer: a multifactorial analysis of Ki-67, CDK4, EGFR, TILs
and ctDNA
Version: 0 Date: 18 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Víctor Manuel Vargas-Hernández
Reviewer's report:
Pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early
breast cancer correlates with improved survival; increasing use of post-neoadjuvant treatment
strategies has been shown to be beneficial in the absence of pCR, leading to increased use of
neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients with early breast cancer and the search for predictive
biomarkers of response
Clinical-pathological prognostic factors are currently used to estimate the potential benefit
of neoadjuvant systemic treatment, but are not sufficiently accurate to allow personalized
prediction of response; better selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy would avoid
directly ruling out promising new agents, but would also prevent the emergence of resistant
clones due to prolonged drug exposure