JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The effect of listening to music and drawing on coping with dysmenorrhea complaints in
nursing students: Randomized controlled trial
Version: 5 Date: 04 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
2nd time of suggestions
Sep 4, 2024
Topic Suggestions
Abstract When you write instrument: Visual analogue scale, please change to “100mmVAS of
pain”. ONLY “VAS”  is not sufficient. Results: Need to write with narrative for values of each
variable, no need to put mean and SD in every data point, they are not necessary, please do with
short meaning in narrative option.
Introduction For content about music please use only essential characteristics of music that can
lower pain  (p.4) .
Instrument p.8 BMI (kg/m2) for the first time if no value number no needed to write the unit, if
have values need the unit. If for the first time of the word, please put the full word as well.
Overall To much content.
For the contents, they are sufficient but needed to make them shorter and more concise and only
essential. Please rewrite appropriately.
Figure 2
p.26 VAS needed to change to “100mm VAS pain” only VAS is not sufficient.
The figure is not clear, then need to make it clearly to be seen.
Figure 3 It is also not clear, is it necessary to add this figure?, if authors need please make it
be seen clearly.
Table 2 Too much information, need only important information and present with short form
content.
Table 3 Also only word “VAS” is not enough, then need to state clearly “VAS of Pain”
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been accepted and I found that:
1 This work is interesting and the research methodology was according to the academic
standards.
2-The purpose of the manuscript is clearly stated.
3-The components of the manuscript are consistent and relevant to the objective of the research.
4- Dropout cases were within the accepted range
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Sidra Maqsood
Reviewer's report:
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Atef M. Darwish
Reviewer's report:
A nice idea but the paper needs refinements.
I start with conclusions that should be concise. The text needs more clarification. Add photos to
demonstrate the mechanism of action of probiotics—many grammars and spelling mistakes.
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 2 Date: 07 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Samaneh Rokhgireh
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
Thanks for your practical study. There are some points which are better to consider:
1-Since first-line bacterial vaginosis treatment is topical, why did you select oral metronidazol?
2-please mention the upper cut-off participants' age in the method section
3-Did you evaluate the Hx of smoking in the participants as a risk factor of bacterial vaginosis?
4-Did you exclude diabetic patients from the study?If yes, please mention it in method part.
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 2 Date: 08 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the respected author. The following items are provided for correction or completion.
1-What reference is the approval of BV based on?
2-Explain the sampling method for BV
3- Explain the scoring method for Nugen.
Outcome:
4-What concepts are considered in the assessment of recurrence and how is the recurrence time
after treatment
5-What are the side effects of taking medicine in two groups?
6-Patient satisfaction has not been measured in two drug groups?
7-The name and company of the drug manufacturer should be written.
8- Write and compare the drug dosage in two groups.
9- The limitations and benefits of the project should be written completely. Also, what is the
efficiency of this study?
After completing and correcting the articles, the article can be printed.
Best Regards
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 3 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Atef M. Darwish
Reviewer's report:
EXCELLENT
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 3 Date: 14 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Samaneh Rokhgireh
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
Thanks for your precise response to the comments.
Title: Comparative Efficacy of Oral and Vaginal Probiotics in Reducing the Recurrence of
Bacterial Vaginosis: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial Running title: Oral and Vaginal Probiotics
in Reducing the Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis
Version: 3 Date: 16 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Sidra Maqsood
Reviewer's report:
Accepted as it is , no more changes needed.
Title: Knowledge and Use of Emergency Contraceptive Methods and Associated Factors among
Female Youth College Students in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023
Version: 3 Date: 11 May 2024
Reviewer:  Olayinka Goodman
Reviewer's report:
Thank you authors for the work done.
My main comments are in the body of the manuscript. However, for those I could not include
I will highlight here.
1. Please check your refernces well as there are incomplete references in this manuscript eg ref
4, 6, 12 and a few more that my eyes caught
2. You will need to state what this study has added to existing body of knowledge
3 please check the tables too to be sure that the variables stated captures exactly what you have
in mind.
Title: Knowledge and Use of Emergency Contraceptive Methods and Associated Factors among
Female Youth College Students in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023
Version: 4 Date: 11 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Bamgboye M Afolabi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the efforts in producing this manuscript. It is easy to read and straightforward.
However, there are many typographical errors and many instances where plural is used for
singular and vice versa.  Also, you did not include your study limitations.
I have tried my best to go over the entire manuscript and made relevant corrections where
necessary. The reviewed paper is attached to this response. Please go over it and make necessary
corrections. You have done well and more grease to your elbows.
Title: Knowledge and Use of Emergency Contraceptive Methods and Associated Factors among
Female Youth College Students in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023
Version: 4 Date: 14 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
To Journal of BMC pregnancy and childbirth
Title: Knowledge and Utilization of Emergency Contraceptive Methods and Associated Factors
among Female Youth College Students in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023
Reviewer 1: Comments and recommendations to Author
Overall, I have satisfied with the authors’ response
General comments
• Grammar and overall idea connection has to be improved
• I spot some copy and paste in the manuscript particularly in the methods section so please be
scientific and honest researcher.
• It is better to improve the discussion section by making it specific and avoid unrelated concepts
and details
1. Page 1, lines 20-23, Please try to write ideas connected one another
2. Why multi-stage sampling? Still I doubt about why you use and when to use multi-stage
sampling? Could you please say something about?
3. Page 3, lines 45-46, what is the parameter to say low?
4. Page 4, lines 56-58, Rewrite this sentence “To be effective, it should be used within five days
of the act of intercourse, but the sooner they are used, the more effective they are”
5. Pages 4-5, lines 71-84, Is it a discussion or introduction?  What are the points that should be
written in the introduction section??
6. Page 5, lines 89-91, have you studied the level of emergency contraceptive utilization as low,
moderate, high……??
7. Pages 5-6, lines 96-98. What is the importance of this sentence for your study??
8. Page 6, lines 105-107, have you got a student who join College by the age of 15 in the context
of Ethiopia??
9. Page 6, line 113, this could not be scientific way of excluding study participants. Please rewrite
this one
10. Page 7, lines 125-131, still I doubt about why you use and when to use multi-stage sampling?
Could you please say something about?
11. Conclusions: It has to be revised as per the result and objectives of the study.
Title: Changes of bone turnover markers and bone mineral density among postmenopausal Thai
women with osteoporosis receiving generic risedronate
Version: 2 Date: 08 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Ali B. Roomi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking my opinion #about #the #manuscript #entitled ##"Effects of generic
risedronate on bone turnover markers and bone mineral density in Thai postmenopausal
osteoporosis.". #
#I believe that this manuscript should #be #major revision:#
Q1. It is very important to change and modify the title. the #title #is not appropriate.#
Q2. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study #clearly #stated? #
#Q3.# In the abstract, the research gap was not clearly #stated. In #addition, the authors need to
rewrite the study #objectives #to be more academic writing
#Q4. In the introduction, include the  #study's significance #and #novelty. What makes the study
different #from #the rest #and #what #does it add to the current knowledge?#.#
Q5. In the introduction, the authors #should #have #explained #the #purpose of this study and
the #existing gaps #in #this field #and #explained why this study was #conducted.#
#Q6. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the #results presented to match the methods
described?#
Q7. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study #provide an advance in the field? Is the
data plausible?#
Q8. References are relevant, correct, and not #recent. #The #number #of #references should be
increased.# #please add some #references. since this is a scientific #review, all the sentences
need #to be supported with #references.#
This study is very beautiful. I liked the sequence and #enjoyed #reading. Please add more
references on similar #studies.#
#Q9. There are a lot of grammatical errors. This #must #be #taken #care #of and addressed.#
#Q10. What are the limitations of the study?# A description #of #limitations is missing at the
end of the discussion #section.#
Title: Changes of bone turnover markers and bone mineral density among postmenopausal Thai
women with osteoporosis receiving generic risedronate
Version: 2 Date: 12 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Review a Manuscript
Dear Editor,
Thank you for considering me as a reviewer to review the manuscript titled, "Effects of
generic risedronate on bone turnover markers and bone mineral density in Thai postmenopausal
osteoporosis" in your esteemed journal. I take peer review seriously and am very willing to serve
the scientific community in this way. By looking at the research paper, we can put in front of
the researcher the following observations, which we hope will be useful.
1- The author reviewed good work, especially obtaining results that I believe are in the
beginning. Still, they are very important and bode well for opening the door to such an important
problem that accompanies the world of women after menopause.
2- He provided information that covers the theoretical and practical parts well, is detailed clear,
and consistent with the title of the research.
However, the work presented lacks some important matters that should be highlighted, namely:
# The author did not mention whether the women who participated in the study were suffering
from chronic diseases such as diabetes because the research aims to study the effect of treatment
on osteoporosis indicators, and as is known, diabetes and its treatments have a great effect
on bone density and may interfere with the new treatment. If so, this can be indicated in the
exclusion criteria paragraph.
#The author briefly pointed out the superiority of the new treatment over the rest of the types
he mentioned in simple aspects, but more importantly, he did not stop at the advantage that the
risedronate treatment has, as he did not shed light on the mechanism by which it works to reduce
the levels of (BTMs), and this is very important, so it is preferable to add information about this
to the discussion section.
#On the other hand, the author touched on the simple side effects of this treatment and did not
compare it with the side effects of the treatments used, some of which he mentioned, perhaps
the reason is the size of the samples and the period available to conduct the study. It is important
to expand the sample size and extend the study to give a greater opportunity to test the side
effects of the treatment.
#The author presented in good detail the parts most susceptible to fragility after menopause and
accurately determined the percentage of changes after treatment and the response that we are
optimistic about, but it is also very important to stop at the age groups that are most responsive
and search for the reason.
#Many references are old and need updating.
Title: Changes of bone turnover markers and bone mineral density among postmenopausal Thai
women with osteoporosis receiving generic risedronate
Version: 2 Date: 21 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Mohammed dakhil Al Rekabi
Reviewer's report:
1. In future studies, consider incorporating a control group to improve the robustness of the
findings and allow for more definitive conclusions regarding the drug's efficacy.
2. Extending the follow-up period in future studies would allow for a more comprehensive
evaluation of the long-term efficacy and safety of generic risedronate, including its impact on
fracture rates.
3. In future publications, consider including additional statistical analyses to provide a deeper
understanding of the data and to address potential confounding factors.
Best Regard
Title: Changes of bone turnover markers and bone mineral density among postmenopausal Thai
women with osteoporosis receiving generic risedronate
Version: 4 Date: 20 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Ali B. Roomi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking my opinion #about #the #manuscript #entitled ##"Changes of bone
turnover markers and bone mineral density among postmenopausal Thai women with
osteoporosis receiving generic risedronate". #
#I believe that this manuscript should #be #major revision:#
I wanted to bring to your attention that there are several #articles relevant to your article topic
that may be of #interest to you. You might consider citing these references #to enrich your
work and provide additional context. I have #included the links to these articles below for your
#convenience #:#
#[https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qsWZh#0sAAAAJ]. #
#[https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=572##09705942]. #
#[https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5107-5550]#
Q1. It is very important to change and modify the title. the #title #is not appropriate.#
Q2. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study #clearly #stated? #
#Q3.# In the abstract, the research gap was not clearly #stated. In #addition, the authors need to
rewrite the study #objectives #to be more academic writing
#Q4. In the introduction, include the  #study's significance #and #novelty. What makes the study
different #from #the rest #and #what #does it add to the current knowledge?#.#
Q5. In the introduction, the authors #should #have #explained #the #purpose of this study and
the #existing gaps #in #this field #and #explained why this study was #conducted.#
#Q6. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the #results presented to match the methods
described?#
Q7. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study #provide an advance in the field? Is the
data plausible?#
Q8. References are relevant, correct, and not #recent. #The #number #of #references should be
increased.# #please add some #references. since this is a scientific #review, all the sentences
need #to be supported with #references.#
This study is very beautiful. I liked the sequence and #enjoyed #reading. Please add more
references on similar #studies.#
#Q9. There are a lot of grammatical errors. This #must #be #taken #care #of and addressed.#
#Q10. What are the limitations of the study?# A description #of #limitations is missing at the
end of the discussion #section.#
Title: A case of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung misdiagnosed as tuberculosis. Is HPV
infected by oral sex the causative agent?
Version: 1 Date: 15 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a review and meta-analysis of HPV related lung cancer cases published in 2021, the
authors may find it interesting and informative.
Karnosky J, Dietmaier W, Knuettel H, Freigang V, Koch M, Koll F, Zeman F, Schulz
C. HPV and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Rep (Hoboken).
2021 Aug;4(4):e1350. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1350. Epub 2021 Feb 23. PMID: 33624444; PMCID:
PMC8388180.
Title: A case of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung misdiagnosed as tuberculosis. Is HPV
infected by oral sex the causative agent?
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have
educational value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic
approaches?
No, the findings of this report are well known and/or similar reports have already been published
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the
patient's symptoms and course of treatment?
No - there are major issues
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the diagnosis,
interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?
No, based on information contained in the report, the authors’ interpretation of this case is
unsound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the importance of the
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?
Has an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been included?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this
work represent a technically sound contribution?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The present manuscript reports the case of a 38-year-old woman
diagnosed with a lung squamous cell carcinoma concomitantly with an HPV16 infection
detected in the tumor together with integration events.  Several elements should be considered
in order to improve the present case report.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Title should be rephrased. While there are existing elements suggesting that infection with
oncogenic HPV such as HPV16 may have a causal link with the occurrence of lung squamous
cell carcinoma, a single case report cannot rule this out. Therefore, the title should avoid claiming
that HPV16 caused lung cancer. In addition, case report title should contain de term “Case
report”.
There is a relatively large body of literature on HPV and Lung cancer that authors should use
to support their case report, including large meta-analysis. In fact, the present report do not cite
any reference which is a major issue and do not highlight what the report adds to the existing
knowledge in this field.
The case description lacks of information related to Tobacco use the most common risk factor
for Lung cancer.
More generally Authors should reformulate their case report presentation to follow good
practices in presenting their report (see https://www.care-statement.org/checklist ).
Title: A case of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung misdiagnosed as tuberculosis. Is HPV
infected by oral sex the causative agent?
Version: 3 Date: 12 Oct 2024
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?
N/A - there are no statistics in this 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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors have addressed my main concerns and appropriate
modifications were done in the text. However (to authors and Editor), sharing a consent form
listing patient name is highly unethical.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
see above
Title: Associations of the Healthy Beverage Index (HBI) and the risk of Breast Cancer (BrCa):
A Case–Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted an interesting study that has outstanding results, although some parts of
the method and results are unclear and need correction.
Method section
1. To calculate the sample size in a case-control study, it is necessary to estimate the exposure
prevalence in the case and control groups based on previous studies. Please explain about this
2. How is physical activity data quantified?
3. Is smoking data not collected?
4. On what basis have you entered the confounding variables into the adjusted models? Did you
use a statistical test or did you use another method? Please explain
Result
1. In Table 4, is there a specific reason why you mentioned age and BMI as an adjustment model?
These variables have been controlled in the design of the study, that is, they have been matched.
Are these two variables re-entered into the analysis?
2.It seems that the analyzes and should be revised. You need to explain more clearly about the
tables and the results are too brief
Discussion
1.  There are spelling, structural and specialized errors in this section and other sections of the
manuscript. For example, it is not common to use the word link instead of association  or the
word "chance" is completely wrong instead of the word "odds" in a scientific text and these two
words have completely different meanings.
2. Manuscript needs native and specialized editing in terms of epidemiological concepts,
specialized words should be used.