JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Effects of Letrozole Combined with Clomiphene in the Treatment of Polycystic Ovary
Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 19 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for diverting this very nice metanalysis to me for peer reviewing.
As a matter of fact, I have read all the variable included in the study and how they are analyzed.
You have correctly analyzed the continuous data from the data with SMD standardized mean
difference and you have chosen correctly the mode whether fixed or random effect model
correctly. The I Squared statistics interpretation is accurate and all your results were double
checked by me in Medcalc software as well as NCSS which is highly reputable software and
found all your results accurate.
In addition, I have checked every RISK RATIO or Relative Risk RR for every categorial
variables with above software and found your results as far choice of the model interpretation
of heterogeneity are all correct. Honestly, I didn't find any weakness in the study and the author
has confirmed the primary assumption reported in the abstract as aim of the study in the results
section. To me I am very well satisfied  with the methodology and results as well as conclusions
obtained by the author. Accordingly, I accept it for publishing.
Sincerely yours
Wisam Akram
Title: Effects of Letrozole Combined with Clomiphene in the Treatment of Polycystic Ovary
Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 23 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Masoud Hassanzadeh Makoui
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the reviewers' concerns thoroughly, and the revisions have
significantly improved the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript. I believe
it is now suitable for publication.
Title: Examination of body image perception and quality of life of women with segmental or
total mastectomy: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Marzieh Beigom Bigdeli Shamloo
Reviewer's report:
Hello, thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this valuable research.
Overall, it is appropriate to consider the end of the article as Harvard. Please clarify a few points:
1. Did you have a patient who underwent bilateral mastectomy?
2. Was case 1 an exclusion criterion?
3. Edit the references. In the text, it is as Vancouver and at the end of the article as Harvard.
Title: Examination of body image perception and quality of life of women with segmental or
total mastectomy: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 15 May 2025
Reviewer:  Kimia Karami
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors
Thank you for addressing the issue of women in this research. I have suggested some comments
in the text of the article that you can review. In my opinion, it needs a fundamental review.
Title: Examination of body image perception and quality of life of women with segmental or
total mastectomy: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 27 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your valuable and detailed manuscript on the relationship between
body image perception and quality of life among women who have undergone segmental or
total mastectomy. Your study addresses an important clinical and psychosocial topic with clear
relevance for both patient care and nursing practice.
Upon careful review of all sections of the manuscript, I provide the following overall feedback
and recommendations for your consideration. Please note that my detailed suggestions for each
section are provided in the attached document for your reference. I encourage you to review
these carefully as they aim to help strengthen the clarity, depth, and impact of your manuscript.
Title: Association between daily sitting time and breast cancer among obese women: a
nationwide population-based study
Version: 0 Date: 28 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting question, but unfortunately the material has several limitations.
First: Self-reported breast cancer diagnosis should be validated. Most countries today use
register information.
Second: Less than 10 000 women are used in the analysis. This subsample ought to be compared
to the total population.
Third: There is a sharp division between the reference group and the three increased sitting
group, with no trends, just the cutoff at 2. How to explain this?
Fourth:  BMI by itself increases breast cancer risk due to increasing sex hormones  levels at
increasing BMI. Is there an effect modification? Stratification could be better.
Fifth: BMI has different opposite effects before and after menopause. The analysis should take
care of that by stratification.
Sixth: There is not a word about parity, the major protective factor, why?
Title: Association between daily sitting time and breast cancer among obese women: a
nationwide population-based study
Version: 0 Date: 20 May 2025
Reviewer:  Anke Bergmann
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting population-based study  that analize the association between daily sitting
time and breast cancer among obese women. The writing of the manuscript, as well as the
methodology and statistical analysis are adequate to respond to the proposed objectives. A few
suggestions are needed:
1. While the authors state that results are adjusted for "all covariates," it's unclear which
specific confounders were included. Important factors such as family history of breast cancer,
reproductive history, or hormone replacement therapy use are not mentioned.
2. What method was used to construct the multiple models? In other words, how were the
adjustment variables selected in each model presented? I suggest including this information in
methods.
3. Although the authors have identified the cross-sectional design as a limitation, it is necessary
to further explore the limitation related to the temporality between exposure (sitting time)
and the outcome (breast cancer). The study’s design limits its ability to infer causality. While
associations can be identified, it is impossible to determine whether prolonged sitting causes
breast cancer or whether other unmeasured factors may influence both.
4. The outcome variable—self-reported breast cancer—could lead to misclassification. No
information is provided about cancer stage, type (e.g., hormone receptor status), or diagnostic
verification.
5. Sitting time may impact some molecular subtypes (luminal A and B?), but not those that are
triple negative (?). I suggest discussing these issues further.
Title: Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in endometrial lesions
Version: 0 Date: 05 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This paper aims to quantitatively analyze contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) parameters of
endometrial lesions and explore differences between benign and malignant lesions. While the
study addresses a relevant topic, there are several major issues with the manuscript in its current
form that limit its potential for publication.
=============
Specific Comments:
Major Comments:
1. The study does not include endometrial thickness, a key 2D ultrasound parameter, in the
analysis. Many studies have shown a positive correlation between endometrial thickness and
malignancy. Omitting this important variable weakens the study.
2. The sample size and composition are problematic. The benign group (n=204) consists
of hyperplasia and polyps, while the malignant group has only 32 cases. The specific
histopathological types and proportions within the malignant group are not provided. The FIGO
staging for the malignant cases is also missing. It's unclear if the malignant group includes any
atypical hyperplasia cases and their percentage. These details are crucial for proper interpretation
of the results.
3. Comparing benign endometrial cases with FIGO stage I malignancies may better demonstrate
the early diagnostic value of CEUS. The current case selection does not adequately highlight
this potential benefit.
4. The choice of case numbers for the included pathologies is not well-justified, undermining
the persuasiveness of CEUS's diagnostic value as presented in this paper.
5. The manuscript does a poor job of contextualizing the research within the broader field. What
prior studies have been done on this topic? How do the present findings compare or contrast?
What specific gaps in knowledge does this work aim to fill? The reader is left without a clear
sense of the study's motivation and novelty. Insufficient background is provided to introduce
the field of study. A simple PubMed search reveals nearly 50 papers on CEUS application in
endometrial lesions, yet the authors do not offer any comparisons or discussions to support the
necessity of publishing their article.
Title: Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in endometrial lesions
Version: 0 Date: 25 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
Comment for the author
Some findings in this manuscript are encouraging, however, some weaknesses reduce the quality
of the study:
1.The exclusion criteria are not detailed enough. Are patients who have received medication
excluded? How many people are excluded by each exclusion criterion?
2.The sample size included is sufficient, but the malignant group is very small;
3.Is the analysis of qualitative and quantitative ultrasound parameters done by one or multiple
doctors? What is their experience? Standardization and blinding of image acquisition?
4.Lack of clinical characteristics of enrolled patients, such as the number of menopausal patients
in each group
5.Is "endometrial polyploidy" means "endometrial polyp"?
6.If the author can provide a table to specify the AUC value, sensitivity, and specificity of each
parameter while showing the ROC curve through images, this may provide more information
for readers; Especially in the "Analysis of the ROC curve" part, the sensitivity of Imax, Rs50,
and Rs1090 is good, but the specific values are not stated;
7.All samples used for constructing the model and samples used for verifying the model seem
to be the same sample set, and the diagnostic performance of the model may be very good, but
the results cannot be fully convincing
8.The number of references is very small, and there is a lack of comparison with previous similar
studies
Title: Entero-Vascular Fistula Following Radiotherapy in a Patient with Recurrent Cervical
Cancer Post-Pelvic Exenteration: a case report
Version: 2 Date: 26 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Sanjeev Kumar
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports entero-vascular fistula following radiotherapy in a patient with recurrent
cervical cancer who underwent PE. While entero-vascular fistulae are  rare following PE, this is
not the first report hence novelty component is missing. However, since it is a rare occurrence of
entero-vascular fistula post PE, this report will further add to statistic already available around
this topic.
Manuscript is well written with clear conclusions however, seems too long - could be shortened
around description of efficacy as the topic is more relevant to safety.
Title: Molecular Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection among Women Attending
Gynaecological Clinic for Infertility Evaluation
Version: 3 Date: 18 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
The response and actions taken are satisfactory. However, the following suggestions are essential
for improving the manuscript:
Please ensure that the size marker is clearly labeled (e.g., 100, 200, 300, 400 bp, etc.).
Sample number 7 appears to be missing; kindly include it for completeness.
The figure legend should be revised to read: "Representative figure."
Title: Molecular Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection among Women Attending
Gynaecological Clinic for Infertility Evaluation
Version: 3 Date: 19 May 2025
Reviewer:  Christian A. Enwuru
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer’s comment
Essentially, the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers, and the
manuscript has significantly improved.
However, the authors have either inadvertently or deliberately avoided addressing the concerns
regarding the sample size earlier raised. It should be emphasized that sample size is not a trivial
aspect of scientific research design; rather, it is one of the most crucial factors in determining
the value and impact of a peer-reviewed publication. If the authors lack a scientific method for
determining the sample size, it would be appropriate to classify it as "purposive," acknowledging
certain limitations related to logistics, funding, or time constraints in reaching the minimum
population size required for such studies. In this case, the authors should clearly state the reasons
in the limitations section of the manuscript. This is particularly critical because failure to address
this issue may lead to biases in subsequent studies aiming to replicate the study.
Once this issue is resolved, the manuscript will achieve a commendable standard for peer
education.
Title: Molecular Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection among Women Attending
Gynaecological Clinic for Infertility Evaluation
Version: 6 Date: 16 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
This is a very good research output. The current figure in the text indicates positive samples
around 100 bp; however, the size marker in the supplementary figure which shows positivity
around 438 Bp is poorly resolved. I recommend that both figures be removed, and no references
to them should be included in the text.
Title: The Effect of Motivational Interviewing on Healthy Lifestyle Behaviors and Quality of
Life in on Menopausal Women: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Version: 4 Date: 12 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for your manuscript.
I will share my comments and suggestions for improving the quality and clarity of your work.
1. The introduction should be structured in a way that the ideas flow logically and consistently.
Some sentences seem disjointed and do not easily lead the reader to the main topic. It is suggested
that you organize the paragraphs in such a way that each one focuses on a specific aspect.
2. The mention of the Iranian study and the differences between women in developed and
developing countries is interesting, but there needs to be more discussion about the influence of
cultural and social factors on women’s healthy behaviors.
3. The study did not mention controlling for confounding variables (such as socioeconomic
status, education level, and underlying diseases). These variables can have a large impact on the
results and should be included in the analysis.
4. Provide more details about how randomization was performed and how to ensure that there
was no bias in assigning participants to the experimental and control groups.
5. The article should provide more details about how the motivational interviewing was
conducted and the training provided to participants. This information can include the timing,
content of meetings, and how impacts will be evaluated.
Title: Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Violence Among Ever-Partnered Women in
Two Southern African Countries: A Multilevel Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
"I am pleased to review your paper. Here are my suggestions:
1. Terminology Clarification:
You’ve used multivariable analysis in your paper, but I believe you meant to use multivariate
analysis. Please review and make the necessary corrections.
2. Consideration for Multilevel Analysis:
Since DHD has a hierarchical structure, it would be more appropriate to apply multilevel
analysis. This approach would help account for the nested data and give you more accurate
results. I suggest revising the analysis to reflect this.
3. Handling of Missing Data:
It would be helpful to clarify how you handled missing variables in your analysis. Please
specify the method used to address missing data (e.g., imputation, listwise deletion, or any other
approach) and how it may have influenced the results. Transparency in this regard will strengthen
your paper.
4. Model Comparison and Random Effects:
Consider including a model comparison to evaluate the performance of different models.
Specifically, it would be beneficial to compare models with and without random effects to
assess if incorporating random effects improves the model fit. This could provide insight into
the variability within and between groups in your data. I suggest presenting model comparison
results (e.g., through likelihood ratio tests or AIC/BIC comparison) to justify the inclusion of
random effects in your model."
5. I noticed that you handled the two countries separately in your analysis. One suggestion would
be to combine the countries into a single dataset and include Country as one of the covariates
in the model. This would allow you to assess the effect of country while maintaining a unified
dataset for your analysis. By including Country as a covariate, you can control for any potential
differences between the countries and make your findings more generalizable. This approach
would also improve statistical power, as you would be analyzing a larger, combined sample.
Title: Decision to delivery interval for emergency cesarean section and associated factors in
Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 27 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This  systematic review  and metanalysis  has focused on the very important subject of  decision
to delivery interval(DDI) for emergency  caesarean delivery  in Africa. It .is well conducted and
written. The pooled estimate of decision-to-delivery interval for emergency caesarean sections
in Africa within 30 minutes    being only 10.23%  shows that our emergency preparedness in
African hospital is still below expectation. The authors' conclusion that , time to collect materials,
time to transfer patients, status of surgeon, type of anaesthesia  were the main factors associated
with not achieving the DDI of 30 minutes is apt and based on the results
The abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusion of this article  is well
done. The quality of each study used in this systematic review was critically appraised. There
were , however, a few typo graphical errors which has to  be corrected;
For instance, on page 8, in the  last paragraph this typo  " this is coincides with........."  has  to
be corrected.
References 7  and 60  has to be written well.
On the whole  , this is an interesting  and well written systematic review and meta analysis and
a useful contribution  to the literature  in the maternal health space.
Title: Decision to delivery interval for emergency cesarean section and associated factors in
Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 28 May 2025
Reviewer:  Hossein Salehi Omran
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respected Authors of the Manuscript,
The manuscript " Decision to delivery interval for emergency cesarean section and associated
factors in Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis" is a well-designed manuscript providing
valuable and precious findings in terms of the decision to delivery interval for emergency
cesarean section and associated factors in Africa. However, some points need to be discussed
and addressed before publication.
1. I would recommend double-checking all of the keywords from Mesh Terms of NCBI.
Additionally, it would significantly benefit from adding some important keywords such as risk
factors, and systematic review to provide further information about the topic of discussion in
this manuscript by searching different databases.
2. Defining cesarean sections with its abbreviation (CS) has been repeated several times and
should be avoided.
3. The first paragraph of the introduction is too short and redundant. I would recommend
expanding more about it here or omit it.
4. some grammatical errors in the manuscript should be corrected before publication. For
instance, " There were inconsistent results ..." in Introduction line 53, should be corrected to "
There were inconsistent results...".
5. After defining a full term with its abbreviation, the full term does not need to be repeated. For
instance, the Decision to deliver interval and cesarean section has been repeated several times
after defining their abbreviations.
6.  The manuscript would significantly benefit from linguistic revision.
Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and provides precious data about the decision to
deliver intervals for emergency cesarean sections and associated factors in Africa. However,
some points need to be addressed before publication which have been briefly mentioned in this
report.
Title: Decision to delivery interval for emergency cesarean section and associated factors in
Africa: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 03 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Hossein Salehi Omran
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors of the Manuscript,
Thank you for providing valuable modifications to the manuscript based on my previously-
mentioned comments.
In the case of agreement of other reviewers, the manuscript is recommended for publication.
Title: Effectiveness and acceptability of two insertable device models for non-surgical
management of obstetric fistula: protocol for a hybrid type II randomized crossover trial in
Ghana
Version: 0 Date: 30 May 2024
Reviewer:  Rahel Nardos
Reviewer's report:
I like to commend the team for this  innovative and potentially transformational  work on
providing a conservative option for managing urinary incontinence in fistula patients who
struggle to access timely surgical care and those who are not good surgical candidates.  The
intervention leverages already existing devises making it highly likely to be safe. They have
also done small pilot study using these devises to show feasibility.  The randomized cross over
mixed methods design in collaboration with community partners is perfect for this type of study
in settings where use of such insertable devises may not be known or common. Additionally the
research team seems to have taken careful steps to make sure this vulnerable women have the
autonomy to refuse participation and to withdraw from the study if and when surgical option
is available. The methodology and data analysis plan appear to be sound .  The team is getting
both subjective and objective data and will take into consideration both quality of life and cost
related impact which is fantastic.
The only additional recommendation/suggestion I have is making sure to track predictors of
adherence and success  carefully including factors like  presence/absence of pain, discharge,
infection, vaginal erosion/stones from urine collection in the devise, size and location of fistula ,
presence/absence of vaginal scarring  etc.
One  thing I would worry about with this intervention is the potential for delaying surgical
care by patients or their family members who make decisions on their behalf  simply because
their symptoms are now alleviated ( and that is good enough).  It will be good to ask what
the the tendency to delay care is among participants and their family members because of this
intervention.
Title: Gender-based violence and associated factors among women in Ethiopia: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 21 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Natalia Camejo
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript titled "Gender-based violence and associated factors among women in Ethiopia:
a systematic review and meta-analysis" is well-structured and presents a relevant analysis of
the prevalence of gender-based violence among women in Ethiopia. The study appropriately
follows the PRISMA guidelines and provides a rigorous evaluation of the included studies.
The revisions made by the authors regarding the overlap with previous publications are
appropriate. However, it would be advisable to recheck some sections to ensure that all overlap
has been minimized and that all sources are properly cited.
Additionally, while the limitations of the study are addressed, a more detailed analysis of the
potential effects of heterogeneity and publication bias on the results would provide further clarity
in interpreting the findings.
With these minor revisions, the manuscript is ready for acceptance for publication.
Congratulations on the work done.