JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: To what extent the weight changes impact the risk of hypertension among menopausal
women: Insights from Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study
Version: 0 Date: 21 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
I am very glad that I had the opportunity to review your study
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not necessary in the discussion. It is good for introduction
For discussion, the weakness of this section is that you did not state possible logical reasons
for the findings. You have tried to explain the findings with existing knowledge. Please try to
help spread science by using your knowledge and available reasons. Give more logical possible
reasons for your findings.
What is missing in the discussion is that the authors should not only compare their studies with
similar studies but also discuss the meaning of their findings within the context of the Iran
literature, Secondly, the authors need to discuss the policy, practice, and research implications
of their findings.
Please check the assumption of the Cox model and report it in Table 3
Please update the references of the discussion. They are ancient
Write the conclusion from the findings more clearly and avoid generalizations.
About the variables, categorize them and explain how you measured them. Attach your study
protocol for measuring variables. For example, how did you evaluate the blood pressure?
Explain the possible biases.
Please mention inclusion and exclusion criteria in the method section.
The article should be checked grammatically.
Title: To what extent the weight changes impact the risk of hypertension among menopausal
women: Insights from Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study
Version: 0 Date: 14 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Samira Khayat
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
In this study, the authors investigated the relationship between weight changes after menopausal
years and hypertension.
The results indicated the weight loss and gain have a protective impact on the development of
HTN in subjects. The results of the study can be useful in health planning and health promotion.
The results will be interesting for researchers. Nevertheless, there were also some issues that
require clarification.
Abstract:
1. Abbreviation of hypertension  should be written only the first time
2. Add study time.
3. Add statistical analysis software.
4. The factor most associated with hypertension should be reported.
Introduction:
The following content should be added to the introduction:
1. Definition of hypertension in menopause.
2. The importance of hypertension in postmenopausal women and its effect on their lives.
3. Prevalence of hypertension in postmenopausal women in the world and Iran.
4. The role of treatments and lifestyle changes in blood pressure in postmenopausal women
5. Causes and risk factors of hypertension in postmenopausal women.
6. Contradictions regarding Causes and risk factors of hypertension in postmenopausal women.
Materials and methods:
1. Details and work process should be written
2. Explain the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study.
3. Add statistical analysis software
Results
The results are excellently analyzed.
Discussion
1. According to the results, weight gain also has a protective effect on blood pressure. But in the
discussion section, how this connection is not discussed, while this result is very important.
2. Other variables such as age and smoking are also significant and should be discussed.
3. Changes in weight are also mentioned in the results, and some information should be added
about it in the discussion.
Title: Development and Validation of a Self-Management Self-Efficacy Scale for Premature
Birth Prevention (SMSE-PBP) for women of childbearing age
Version: 1 Date: 20 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The topic is very relevant. Contributions associated with preventing the occurrence of preterm
birth are welcome for mothers and their babies and of course the health indicators of any country.
However, I have some comments that I would like to point out in order to  do the analysis
transparent.
You conducted a survey through an open system by networks and therefore the incorporation of
the population was not random and you recognize this as a limitation.
You point out that your instrument has 3 large dimensions with factors within them and your
analysis is done separately, with an n of 698, even dividing the sample into 349 for AFE and 349
for AFC, doing it separately due to the number of items allows you the psychometric analysis
proposed for dimension 1 and 3 considering the number of items, but not for factor 2 where you
have more items (32) ideally requiring 640 people (20 responses per item). Are they only using
11 people per item? you clarify this analysis proposal with less number of respondents?
On the other hand,  if the entire proposed scale is considered, this may be desirable because
items from one dimension may be observed, which may be contributing to another dimension.
The number of people for the AFC should be all of the participating people.
The exhaustive work applied can be improved in its explanation by recognizing central elements
of analysis that, due to extensive detail, which may be considered supplementary material, could
be unattractive to an inexperienced reader. Furthermore, I think that the sample size and the
characteristics of the sample is what plays most against its results..An important limitation that
I see in this instrument is the time involved in self-application, an extensive instrument and
therefore with a high response time, which can do its applicability difficult. As a screening, I
see it as complex to use in public care systems.
Title: Development and Validation of a Self-Management Self-Efficacy Scale for Premature
Birth Prevention (SMSE-PBP) for women of childbearing age
Version: 3 Date: 18 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Francisco Javier Soriano-Vidal
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the opportunity to review this work and remain available for any further clarification
that may be required.
The authors have diligently addressed all indications and comments provided in the first round
of review, providing solid justifications and rectifying previously identified areas of concern,
thereby strengthening the validity and coherence of the study overall.
Therefore, I recommend that this work be considered for acceptance as it now meets the
standards of quality and academic rigour necessary for publication.
Title: Global prevalence of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic among
women: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the invitation to review  paper entitled on ‘‘Prevalence of intimate partner violence
during COVID-19 pandemic among women: Systematic review and meta-analysis’’  This paper
needs to be revised on …
General Comments
1. What is your recommendation based on  findings of the study.
2. Please clearly  show why you conduct the study
3.   Table and Figures quality  are low. So, please see it again
4. Finally, the paper needs extensive  editorial and grammar correction
Title: Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy
outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Version: 4 Date: 14 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The definition of recurrent failure is not standardized with no supporting strong reference.
The study design is retrospective, which makes it amenable for reverse causality and recall bias,
rendering its conclusion invalid.
The sample size is small and cannot be relied upon to draw robust conclusions.
Using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and dexamethasone as “add-on” are not proven for
routine use and may cause harm. And the analysis used does not account for their effect.
The study type needs regression models to account for confounders. It may also need advanced
modeling like propensity score matching to account for confounders and lead to causal
inferences.
Most of the information mentioned in the discussion section are relevant to be included in the
introduction not the discussion. Discussion section in its current format is irrelevant.
Overall this reviewer does not see the study as good addition to the literature.
Title: Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy
outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Version: 4 Date: 04 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
#What are the selection criteria for these three groups? Were they selected randomly? Or are
there any selection criteria?
#Are there any significant differences in patient backgrounds? (e.g., age, duration of infertility,
etc.)
#There is no information on the cause of infertility of the patients.
#Table 2  Group A  Number of cases
 Why is the denominator of Implantation rates 135? If all patients  had two implants, shouldn't
the denominator be 144?
#How many of the twins are monoamniotic twins?
Title: Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy
outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Version: 4 Date: 11 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Maxim A. Filatov
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript entitled "Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion
improved pregnancy outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure" covers an
important topic and  offers novel approach to increase the efficiency of ART.
The manuscript is written in accessible language, however I have some questions and
recommendations.
1. in vitro should be italic everywhere
2. Abbreviation RIF is used only one time at the text. It is not required
3. Many times after “,” words are written by big letter. Correct it.
4. Abbreviation WOI is used only two times at the text. It is not required.
5. Provide information about transferred blastocysts quality according to the Gardners
classification.
6. Provide information not only about pregnancy rates but also about babies born.
7. Why you show the data as “mean ± standard deviation”. It will be OK only if normal
distribution is observed? Did you observed normal distribution of your data? Which criteria
were used to analyze type of data distribution?
8. Discussion section. “However, blastocyst transfer requires a certain number of high-quality
embryos available for culture and is not suitable for patients with decreased ovarian reserve[2].”
Comment why blastocyst transfer is not suitable for patients with decreased ovarian reserve.
9. In the text is given the following “Sequential transfer may increase the chance of embryo
implantation due to mechanical stimulation of the endometrium by the insertion of the transfer
catheter during the initial transfer, resulting in aseptic endometrial damage that may induce
endometrial expression of relevant factors”. Why not to include the following group: on the day
3 perform blind transfer without embryo to stimulate endometrium and on the day 5 transfer
embryos?
I understand that it can be difficult to perform, however at least it should be discussed.
Title: Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy
outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Version: 7 Date: 18 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Maxim A. Filatov
Reviewer's report:
Although the authors answered most of the questions, but one of them remained unresolved.
From the previous review:"5. Provide information about transferred blastocysts quality
according to the Gardners classification." Authors added information in the text about Gardners'
classification of blastocysts but do not provide information about quality of blastocysts USED
in the experiments according to the Gardners classification. Probably, the higher efficiency of
sequential transfer may be  explained by that  better embryos were used in that cases rather in
others.
Title: Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy
outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Version: 7 Date: 21 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
1- Sample size it is small that we can get results from it.
2-  Retrospective study weak because it is exposed Reverse causality and recall bias.
3- The researchers do not describe how they controlled for other factors that could have affected
the results, such as the age of the patients, the quality of the embryos, and the severity of their
recurrent implantation failure.
4-         The study was conducted at a single reproductive center, so the results may not be
generalizable to all patients with recurrent implantation failure.
5- research also has some limitations. For example, the researchers do not report the miscarriage
rate or the multiple birth rate in the three groups. Additionally, the researchers do not describe
the specific intrauterine perfusion protocol that was used.
•  Overall, the reviewer does not see the study as a good addition to the literature.It still needs
a lot of work.
Title: Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy
outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Version: 7 Date: 22 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
In Disscussion, the effectiveness of mechanical stimulation of the endometrium is mentioned as
a possible reason for the high efficacy of sequential transfer.
However, to prove this, it is necessary to compare GroupB with a group in which only a catheter
was inserted (or only culture medium was injected further) at the time of early embryo transfer
and two blastocysts were subsequently transferred.
In this study, the allocation of patients was determined by free will, and the possibility of bias
cannot be denied.
Furthermore, given the small number of samples, we cannot rule out the possibility that the
results may have differed simply because of embryonic factors.
Title: Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy
outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Version: 10 Date: 05 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
• The study doesn't account for other factors that might affect pregnancy outcomes, such as
patient age, cause of recurrent implantation failure, or embryo quality.
• Evaluate additional outcomes: Include information on miscarriage rate, long-term health
outcomes, and potential risks associated with sequential transfer.
• Small sample size: The sample size in each group (particularly Group B) is relatively small,
which can increase the risk of chance findings and affect the reliability of statistical comparisons.
A larger sample size could provide more robust results.
• Overall, the reviewer see the study as a good addition to the literature.but,It still needs a lot
of work.
Title: Exploring the Understanding and Experience of Women with Rheumatic Diseases
Regarding Fertility Intention- A qualitative content analysis
Version: 2 Date: 09 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to dear  authors
-The article had several items that needed revision:
-The reason for using qualitative research and also the reason for using conventional content
analysis approach. why conventional content analysis (why you didn't use directed content
analysis?)Why you didn't use phenomenology  to obtain women's experiences?
-The gap of previous studies was not clearly stated in the introduction.
-The number of hospitals and clinics should be specified explicitly.
-The inclusion criteria are not complete (what kind of rheumatic diseases were considered?
Should the patient have a registered case in the hospital or office?)
-What gifts were considered for the participants?
-Data collection is not well explained. In what environment, when and under what conditions
were the samples interviewed?
-The interview questions should be sent to the attachment. The mentioned questions were not
accurate and sufficient.
-The categories in the text and Table 2 are different, please make them the same
-The discussion section is very long, please shorten it.
sincerely
Title: Exploring the Understanding and Experience of Women with Rheumatic Diseases
Regarding Fertility Intention- A qualitative content analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
*The first sentence in the aim of the study in the abstract is unrelated to the next sentence
*In the conclusion section (abstract section):
You have not researched the pregnancy outcome. Please correct it
*In the method, it is better to explain only the working method, and additional explanations
about the philosophy of the method are not needed (Design part)
* I think the fourth sub-category of the first category is not related to its category title
*The quote mentioned in subcategory 2 from the second category (2.2) has no connection with
the title of its subcategory.
*In the third category (Concerns about fetal harm), according to the obtained sub-categories, the
word "child" is suggested instead of "fetus".
All categories and subcategories need to be revised
Some are unrelated and some are repeated in categories
It is better to merge some subcategories and write abstract titles and use more relevant quotations.
Title: Exploring the Understanding and Experience of Women with Rheumatic Diseases
Regarding Fertility Intention- A qualitative content analysis
Version: 4 Date: 21 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
I think the subcategory: Prohibition of pregnancy by clinicians; In the category "Contradictory
beliefs and attitudes of significant family members about pregnancy", it has been placed in an
inappropriate position. It is better to modify the title or move this subcategory to a suitable
category.
Category and subcategories 5 and 6 are repetitive in some cases and can be combined and if you
don't want to combine, please revise these two categories and subcategories again.
Title: Cervical cancer screening program in Indonesia, is it time for HPV-DNA tests? results of
a qualitative study exploring the stakeholders’ perspectives
Version: 2 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
It’s my pleasure to have the opportunity to review the manuscript. I have gone through the
manuscript in detail and please see my comments below.
Introduction
1. There is a systematic review of the performance of the sensitivity and specificity of the Pap
smear and the HPV DNA test, which would be better than the current reference using information
from a single study.
Koliopoulos G, Nyaga VN, Santesso N, Bryant A, Martin#Hirsch PP, Mustafa RA, Schünemann
H, Paraskevaidis E, Arbyn M. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the
general population. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017(8).
2. The sensitivity and specificity should be listed with the corresponding disease (e.g., sens/spec
for detecting CIN2+ and detecting CIN3+ are different).
3. From the background information, it felt the more urgent issue in Indonesia is to increase
overall screening adherence. The current study was not focused on this issue and it’s not clear
to me if previous studies have addressed this issue (if so, the authors will need to reference
those studies), or what the current study helps in improving this challenge. To me, discussing
whether to switch to a different primary screening test probably does not help increase screening
adherence.
Materials and Methods
1. The authors didn’t recruit any target women into the study. Interviews or FGDs would be more
helpful in assessing the current barriers to attending screening and explaining the low adherence.
Results
1. Table 1 and Table 2 seem to present very similar information. The authors may consider
deleting Table 2 (and when mentioning the participants in the text, can list the characteristics
in parathesis).
2. Somehow, the direct quotations from the participants are hard to understand. The authors may
need to work on the transcription and translation to deliver a clearer message.
3. The authors would need to provide some estimates of screening adherence before the
COVID-19 pandemic, so the readers understand how much the adherence was impacted by the
pandemic in Indonesia.
4. When listing the reimbursement as the limitations, the authors would need to provide the
proportion of the claims that cannot be covered by the national insurance (eg: how many percent
of the screening were conducted in an eligible health facility and how many were not).
Discussion
1. Table 3 should be introduced in the Methods and summarized in the Results instead of the
Discussion.
2. “ultimately to SAVE more women from cervical cancer in Indonesia”?
3. One of the limitations of the study is the lack of information from targeted women, as they
would likely provide more insights on why the screening attendance is currently low. Their view
could be different and provide other areas of interest for the stakeholders to consider to improve
the current screening uptake.
Title: Cervical cancer screening program in Indonesia, is it time for HPV-DNA tests? results of
a qualitative study exploring the stakeholders’ perspectives
Version: 5 Date: 29 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Very much appreciate the summary of revisions and the effort to respond as accurately as
possible with relevant revisions.
The following are some minor suggestions related to language usage: (using continuous line
numbering):
49-50 - "Visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) methods" : suggest dropping the "s"
50 - "testing requires needs to " : suggest deleting "requires"
69 - suggest describing the 2018 report to say "since the 2018 report on the Indonesian breast
and cervical cancer implementation"
78-80 - "considering the progression of cervical cancer that may take up rapidly or until years,
with a better prognosis for those detected at early stages", suggest the following edits for clarity
" considering cervical cancer may take years to develop and thus detection at early stages will
result to better prognosis"
109 - "To correspond " , suggest" To respond"
369 - "several crutcial challenges" ,typo and correct to several crucial challenges" .  Suggest
further running a spell check to doubly make sure other mispellings are corrected.
460 - "how to financing of this " , suggest : suggest either “discussion on financing this program”
or alternatively “how to finance the program”
Title: Minimum Important Difference of the ICIQ-UI SF Score after Self-management of
Urinary Incontinence
Version: 3 Date: 28 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Minimum Important Difference of the ICIQ-UI SF Score after Self-management of Urinary
Incontinence
The aim of the study was to evaluate clinically relevant improvement after conservative
self-management of urinary incontinence via a mobile app Tät®. The app provided pelvic floor
muscle training (PFMT) and life-style advice.
The MID was set to the mean change of the group that selected the answer “a little better” to
the PGI-I question.
Congratulations to the authors. I have no major issues about the study.
Here are some remarks.
Abstract
“In the sub-group analyses, a MID for the group with slight incontinence could be determined.”
– I suppose there is a mistake with the affirmative version of the sentence.
Introduction
Line 59-61 – it is not correct. It is not upon the time when the leakage occurs, but it is a
completely different pathophysiology.
Apart from that, it well leads into the study.
Methods
Line 114 – please develop p – into points. It is not clear.
Results
The one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between all groups with p=0.001 or
smaller – please change into “#”
Figure 1  - it needs a better explanation, of what the moderate, severe, and slight – refer to.
Line 162 – please add “at baseline”
Discussion
Line 232 – the sentence needs to be rewritten – it is not clear.