JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Incidence and Predictors of Pregnancy among Reproductive-age Women in an ART Clinic
at a Public Health Facility in Arsi Zone, Southeastern Ethiopia: A Five-Year Retrospective
Cohort Study
Version: 2 Date: 09 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript would benefit from professional editing.
Comments are attached on the manuscript.
All the references need to be reviewed, and a standard referencing system used.
Title: Incidence and Predictors of Pregnancy among Reproductive-age Women in an ART Clinic
at a Public Health Facility in Arsi Zone, Southeastern Ethiopia: A Five-Year Retrospective
Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 29 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. Please use a better terminology - instead of sayinh HIV positive: throughout the manuscript
use for example "women living with HIV".
2. In the Resutls you have this statement: The overall incidence of pregnancy was found to be
4.57 per 100 Pearson-year /45.47 per 1000 person-years (68 pregnancies in a total of 1495.60
years of observation).  Change to Person-years. Remove the /45.47 per ......
3. In the discussion and abstract you state that the pregnancy rate of 45/1000 is "notable". The
meaning of is not clear. It seems low compared to previous reports you indicate in the manuscript
and also other settings in Africa.
Title: Incidence and Predictors of Pregnancy among Reproductive-age Women in an ART Clinic
at a Public Health Facility in Arsi Zone, Southeastern Ethiopia: A Five-Year Retrospective
Cohort Study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting a revised copy of the manuscript. Whilst,  the manuscript presents
important work on  incidence of pregnancy in women living with HIV in Ethiopia.
Title: Incidence and Predictors of Pregnancy among Reproductive-age Women in an ART Clinic
at a Public Health Facility in Arsi Zone, Southeastern Ethiopia: A Five-Year Retrospective
Cohort Study
Version: 4 Date: 29 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to the authors for doing the major revisions as suggested by the reviewers.
There are minor grammatical errors that can be improved with professional proof-reading.
Examples are:
Line 24: 'In' should be the start of a new sentence
Line 83: is it 0 - 9 years?
Line 141: comma needed after treatment
Line 149: past five years refers to what time period?
Line 184: 'cleaned' instead of 'clean'
Line 202: dilation should be deviation
Line 204: 'in marriage' should be 'married'
Title: Incidence and Predictors of Pregnancy among Reproductive-age Women in an ART Clinic
at a Public Health Facility in Arsi Zone, Southeastern Ethiopia: A Five-Year Retrospective
Cohort Study
Version: 5 Date: 29 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Over all This manuscript offers an insightful exploration of Incidence and Predictors of
Pregnancy among Reproductive-age Women in an ART Clinic at a Public Health Facility.  the
analysis is systematic and provides valuable information. However, there are areas where clarity
and additional detail could further strengthen the study  in the throughout document, particularly
discussion section.
Title: Incidence and Predictors of Pregnancy among Reproductive-age Women in an ART Clinic
at a Public Health Facility in Arsi Zone, Southeastern Ethiopia: A Five-Year Retrospective
Cohort Study
Version: 7 Date: 14 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Reuben Christopher Moyo
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
The authors have addressed my comments and the paper has improved.
Title: Screening for endometriosis: A scoping review of screening measures that could support
early diagnosis
Version: 0 Date: 02 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I'd like to congratulate you for writing about a very important topic which has the potential to
help diagnose endometriosis at an early stage.
- In the Inter-Rater Reliability Methods subsection of the Methods section, the entire range of
interpretation of the Cohen's kappa statistic and its reference should be incorporated.
- The first sentence of the following subsection could be revised, for instance, to read, "The
concordance of the title and abstract screening phase ranged from 0.28 to 0.66, as indicated by
the kappa coefficient."
Concordance
The concordance of the title and abstract screening phase ranged (# = 0.28-0.66). There was
near perfect agreement between reviewers for the full-text screening phase, with a kappa value
of 0.92.
- Please provide more details (areas of expertise, years of experience, etc.) about the two experts
(TDR and ML) who were called in to review the results.
Title: Screening for endometriosis: A scoping review of screening measures that could support
early diagnosis
Version: 0 Date: 13 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations for this important contribution to the diagnostic field of endometriosis.
However, I do have some recommendations:
1.While this is a good "Introduction", I’d suggest adding more emphasis with regards to the
potential benefit of having a good screening tool to avoid further complications associated with
a delayed diagnostic (fertility etc.)
2.For the "Study Selection" subheading, fix the mismatch "...were reviewed independently by
two members of the research team (RB, BR, AN)... ".
3.In "Results" and subheading "Study Selection", alluding to "Figure 1", there is one mismatch
that must be fixed: From the Figure 1, In the identification for "Records identified from” the
total “Databases” number of 6055 is not equal to the addition of the numbers from MEDLINE,
EMBASE and CINAHL.
4.In general, the reference to the transgender population should be avoid under the bases of the
very low frequency of endometriosis in this specific population.
Title: Analysis of global ovarian cancer disease burden and its changing trend from 1990 to 2021
Version: 0 Date: 12 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Kindly  GBD methodology more clearly.
Line No 98 (Pearson correlation analysis) &Line No 100 (Spearman correlation analyses )
mentioned, more clarity required
Line no 90-91, To assess the trend of this burden over time, we used linear regression analysis to
calculate the EAPC as EAPC=100 * (exp[#] - 1). Since data were 30 years of time,  Did author
did any joint point regression on a single regression to be mentioned clearly.
Future prediction  model also need to be included.
EAPC alone cannot describe whole scenario as data were over about 30 years of duration, to be
supported by Annual percentage of change for clarity.
Figure 4 & 5, resolution should be improved not visible (Blurry image)
some of the countries showing  EAPC DALYs in decreasing (Table), to be discuss elaborately.
All tables to be supported by Joint points (when in a particular period changes in ASR happened)
Decomposition analysis need to be mentioned
Title: Analysis of global ovarian cancer disease burden and its changing trend from 1990 to 2021
Version: 0 Date: 12 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
While the manuscript is based on a robust dataset and provides valuable insights into global
OC trends, its objectives lack sufficient novelty. By addressing the aforementioned concerns,
especially those related to methodological rigor and comparative analyses with GBD 2019, the
manuscript can achieve better impact.
Abstract:
Revise the phrasing to better delineate the study's uniqueness compared to previous GBD studies.
Avoid using ASIR in the abstract before defining them.
Introduction:
Clearly articulate the gap this study addresses that previous GBD research has not, specifically
in comparison to GBD 2019 (DOI:10.1186/s12889-022-13861-y).
Methodology:
Justify the need for an updated trend analysis. Specifically, explain how the findings from this
study differ from those reported in the GBD 2019 publication.
If there is new trends compare to GBD 2019, I recommend to provide a comparison table
between GBD 2021 findings and GBD 2019 results to highlight distinctions. If there is no new
trends to focus on, the study is not suitable for publication as it will not add any data in literature.
Results:
While trends by SDI are mentioned, include a deeper exploration of disparities at the country
level. For example, why is Ecuador experiencing such a rapid increase in OC burden compared
to other regions?
Discussion
Strengthen the discussion by explicitly comparing this study's findings with GBD 2019and
explaining the added value of these results.
Expand on the implications of the shifting OC burden to lower SDI regions. Provide actionable
Title: Analysis of global ovarian cancer disease burden and its changing trend from 1990 to 2021
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
The study aimed to analyze the trends in the global burden of ovarian cancer from 1990 to 2021.
Data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 study served as the foundation for the
analysis.
However, there are several previously published studies using GBD 2019 and even GBD 2021
data on similar topics. These include:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-025-01660-y
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13861-y
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102713
Given these prior publications, the novelty of the study is limited and not clearly mentioned. To
improve the manuscript, the following suggestions are provided:
1- Review the manuscript thoroughly for grammatical errors and typos.
2- Discuss the impact of COVID-19 on the burden of this disease by comparing data from 2019
and 2021, and highlighting the percentage changes observed during this period.
3- Include the codes used for analysis and the creation of tables and figures as an appendix to
improve transparency and reproducibility.
Title: Hemorrhagic necrosis of omental cysts misdiagnosed as torsion of ovarian cysts: A case
report and literature review
Version: 3 Date: 02 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Ralf-Bodo Tröbs
Reviewer's report:
It is an easy-to-read and very informative article. The topic is clinically relevant.
Specific calendar dates are given in the Case presentation. This potentially implies data
protection problems. It is advisable to replace these dates with neutral information.
After separation of the adhesions, the cyst was observed to be approximately 25 * 15 * 15 mm
in size, multilocular, with a maximum cyst cavity of approximately 10 cm, and filled with blood
and brownish-yellow fluid. Should it be 25 x 15 x 15 cm?
The section with the immunohistochemical markers should be shortened. Not all of them need
to be listed.
Was the cyst removed by laparotomy? Was a marcellation performed?
Is omentitis part of the differential diagnosis or is it the same entity?
The CT images should be cropped to the body section.
The number of intraoperative images should be reduced to two. Similarly, only one image is
required for the immunohistochemical mesothelial lining of the cyst.
Title: Hemorrhagic necrosis of omental cysts misdiagnosed as torsion of ovarian cysts: A case
report and literature review
Version: 3 Date: 29 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Zeena Raad Helmi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Hemorrhagic necrosis of
omental cysts misdiagnosed as torsion of ovarian cysts: A case report and literature review"
Comments:
Line 82 ; cervix: medium cervical:what is the meaning of medium ?is it location or pain or
consistency
Its only a case report no reviewing many repetitive parts
The case presentation is not organized
Add is it really rare?
Title: Hemorrhagic necrosis of omental cysts misdiagnosed as torsion of ovarian cysts: A case
report and literature review
Version: 3 Date: 12 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. The authors have done a commendable
job; however, despite their efforts, there are changes to make.
In case presentation:
-Please delete the name of the patient
-The case presentation should be summarized using short, well-written sentences, structured
according to the usual approach for any case presentation.
-The physical examination of November 29, 2023, is not mentioned.
-The radiological examinations are not well argumented
- I think all dates should be removed and indicators should be used based on the number of days,
not the exact date.
"The gynecologist asked about medical history..." line 84. I think these sentences should be
reworded and avoid unnecessary details that only distract from the topic.
The usefulness and relevance of the laboratory tests to be included in the manuscript should be
reviewed and avoid overloading the observation with tests that are useless for diagnosis.
The discussion
The discussion section is the weakest in the manuscript. I highly recommend the authors
restructure the discussion section. Start with a summary of the main findings, then move to a
critical analysis of the literature, and finally, discuss the implications of the findings for clinical
practice. Please ensure that every point discussed directly links to the case reports and the
existing literature. There are many vague statements; I highly recommend the authors provide
specific examples or direct references, to support their claims. Please include more details on
how imaging influenced the management decisions in these cases, particularly in the context of
their limitations or challenges.
Line 167 "and the clinical symptoms resemble those of appendicitis and peritonitis;" I think this
is not right and should be reworded. The symptoms of appendicitis do not resemble those of
peritonitis...
The Conclusions
The Conclusions section needs to be more focused and aligned with the content of the manuscript
and should be changed in totality.
Title: Hemorrhagic necrosis of omental cysts misdiagnosed as torsion of ovarian cysts: A case
report and literature review
Version: 4 Date: 08 May 2025
Reviewer:  Ralf-Bodo Tröbs
Reviewer's report:
The case report has been revised, supplemented and streamlined, making it much more
informative. The content is of practical relevance and interest to the journal's readers. Publication
is recommended.
Title: Hemorrhagic necrosis of omental cysts misdiagnosed as torsion of ovarian cysts: A case
report and literature review
Version: 4 Date: 02 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Zeena Raad Helmi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Hemorrhagic necrosis of
omental cysts misdiagnosed as torsion of ovarian cysts: A case report and literature review"
Comments
We would like to inform you that your research is of high quality and is suitable for publication.
The required revisions have been addressed appropriately, and the changes made are satisfactory.
Title: Analyzing Factors Affecting Age at First Birth among Married Women in Somalia: A
Bayesian Shared Frailty Modeling Approach using SDHS 2020
Version: 3 Date: 21 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Osafu Augustine Egbon
Reviewer's report:
The authors carefully responded to my previous comments and the manuscript is improved.
However, I have a few additional fundamental concerns about how they fit the AFT model.
[1] Looking at Table 2, which contains the socio-demographic covariates used in the AFT model,
you would see region variable as categorical: Awda, Wowooyi, Togdheer,.... and so on. Now,
looking at Table 3 which shows the estimated mean effects, we have the mean of Region to be
0.000. My question is how did the authors code the categorical Region variable into the model?
Also, the place of residence, media, and level of education among others.  What are the reference
categories? The author should explain how the categorical variable was coded and what the
meaning of the estimated "Mean"  for the region variable is. In other words, how do you interpret
the regression coefficients?
[2] The authors said region heterogeneity was accounted for. It is not clear how the authors did
this.  Do you mean this was accounted for by the Frialty latent variable? This should be clearly
explained.
[3] What motivates the inclusion of region variable as a covariate since regional heterogenity is
already accounted for by the unobserved z  variable?
Minor comments
[4] The equation numbers are not well labeled.
[5] Equation 12 is confusing to follow.
[6] The author should make the code used in the analysis accessible to readers. They can be
included in a supplementary material.
Title: Analyzing Factors Affecting Age at First Birth among Married Women in Somalia: A
Bayesian Shared Frailty Modeling Approach using SDHS 2020
Version: 6 Date: 03 Jul 2025
Reviewer:  Osafu Augustine Egbon
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for carefully addressing my questions.  The authors can move the Density
& Trace plots to the appendix or supplementary.
Title: Correlations of phosphorylated Nrf2 with responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in
patients with triple-negative breast cancer
Version: 0 Date: 20 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript titled "Correlations of phosphorylated Nrf2 with responses to neoadjuvant
chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer" by Jiaxuan Yu, Tianze Yao, Min
Zhang, Bingxin Li, Jiping Xie, Yi Wan, Zhantian Zhang, Shiyu Yang, Yuchuan Ge, Guangze
Sun and Yongqiang Yao addresses a very important and difficult topic. Due to the rapid course
of the disease and the difficulties in tailoring treatment in triple-negative breast cancer, scientific
works on this issue are extremely valuable. However, the above manuscript requires some
correction and more detailed description of certain chapters.
1. The authors of the manuscript emphasize the innovative nature of the study due to
the determination of phosphorylated Nrf2. However, the manuscript does not describe why
phosphorylation is an important process. Is this the only pathway that activates the studied
protein?
2. Due to the importance of phosphorylation in Nrf2 activity, the authors of the manuscript
should show this throughout the work. As in the available literature, it is worth using the
designation pNrf2 instead of Nrf2. Moreover, in the description of the immunohistochemical
method, it is worth providing the specific antibody used for laboratory determinations (e.g.
catalog number).
3. In the manuscript, patients were divided according to the TNM classification, histological
grade and intravascular tumor emboli. Some of these parameters refer to the pre-tretment period
- based on core biopsy, and some post-treatment. It seems that these data should be organized
so as to focus exclusively on the period before treatment. Especially since Nrf2 expression was
also determined based on biological material obtained as a result of core biopsy. It should be
remembered that systemic treatment affects the parameters of cancer cells.
4. In the above manuscript, the authors of the study assessed Nrf2 expression, however, the term
"level" was frequently used in the text. This should be corrected.
5. The specific p-value, when statistically significant, should be included in the description of
the results.
6. In the introduction, the authors of the manuscript stated that triple-negative breast cancer
affects 15% of the population, but it was not specified whether this refers to the general
population, the population of women with breast cancer, or the population of a given country.
7. Abbreviation of Nrf2 was incorrectly described - line 68
8. The word "promote" was used very frequently in the Introduction.
9. line 64 - should be the word "presented"
10. line 171 - should be Spearman correlation
Title: Correlations of phosphorylated Nrf2 with responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in
patients with triple-negative breast cancer
Version: 0 Date: 05 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Firstly, we would like to thank the authors for this original study investigating the ability of
NRF2 to predict chemotherapy response in the triple negative subgroup of breast cancer.
*Triple negative breast cancers are tumors that respond well to chemotherapy. Therefore, the
first sentence of the abstract should be changed.
*Reference 1 should be replaced with a current reference.
*The sentence "Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the recommended treatment for stage II and III
TNBC [3]; however, only about 50% of TNBC patients can achieve a pathological complete
response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy" should be revised. Triple negatives are considered to
have a good response rate compared to other subgroups.
*The purpose statement was written as "Our purpose was to identify potential biomarkers to
optimize the treatment selection and prognosis prediction in these TNBC patients." However, no
prognostic analysis was seen. It should be revised because predictive analysis was performed.
*There is no report on Ki67 in reference 10. The authors need to clarify this issue. Also, Ki67
cut-offs may vary depending on the center. It is recommended to talk to pathology or to perform
a Roca analysis.
*In the statistical method section, it should be stated that the normality test was performed and
how it was analyzed.
*Remove column x2 from table 1. It is convenient to simplify for the readers
*I think chi square was used to compare pathological and clinical results. It is not specified in
the methodology. The statistical methodology should be revised from the beginning.
*Patients with poor response were at increased risk of progression, metastatic inoperability, and
increased risk of complications of surgery.This should be included in the discussion section.
*The conclusion section should be a guide for future studies. It is recommended that this section
be revised.
Title: Effects of Letrozole Combined with Clomiphene in the Treatment of Polycystic Ovary
Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 17 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Masoud Hassanzadeh Makoui
Reviewer's report:
While the study addresses an important research question, some revisions are needed before
it can be considered for publication. Below are my specific comments to help strengthen your
work:
- Please include the completed PRISMA abstract checklist in the supplementary files.
- The search should be expanded to Scopus and Web of Science to ensure no relevant studies
are missed. Update the results and discussion if new articles are identified.
- Provide the exact search strategy in the supplementary materials to enhance reproducibility.
- Explicitly state that studies were excluded if they: Lacked full-text availability or had
insufficient data for extraction or were abstracts/conference papers without peer-reviewed full
texts.
- Report the results of Egger’s test, Begg’s test, and asymmetry analysis in the Results section.
Include a combined funnel plot figure (labeled as a, b, c, etc.) to visualize bias.
- Remove the red underline beneath the word in Figure 1 (likely a formatting artifact).
- Merge multiple forest plots into 1–2 composite figures (with subpanels, e.g., a, b, c) to improve
readability.
- The recent meta-analysis "Is combined letrozole and clomiphene superior to either as
monotherapy..." (2024) is relevant but missing from your references. Compare your findings to
this study in the Discussion, highlighting similarities/differences.
- For outcomes with high heterogeneity (I² # 50%), perform: Subgroup analysis (e.g., by patient
age, treatment duration) and meta-regression (if feasible) to identify confounding variables. If
insufficient data, explicitly state this as a limitation.
- Add a column for treatment dosages and treatment duration in Table 1 (Characteristics of
Included Studies).
- Discuss how dosage and treatment duration differences may have influenced outcomes.