JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Association of endometrial thickness with lesions in postmenopausal asymptomatic
women:Risk Factors and Diagnostic Thresholds
Version: 1 Date: 27 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for diverting this article to me for peer reviewing.
Honestly, the idea of the thesis, aim of the study, methodology, statistical analyses as well as
results are all well planned and presented in careful and concise way. I have no objection to
his results except for 2 points one is a small issue, but the other needs the opinion of expert
statistician to verify it.
1- The simple issue is that the author considered AUC or Area under the curve as the as the
cut off value. Actually AUC is something which has its own P value, while the cut off value
is another different coefficient with its own sensitivity and specificty. I hope the author rvise
this point. I understand of course that not all the software do excellent jib as far as ROC curve
presentation for example SPSS versus Medcalc. Hinestly, Medaclc which is a simple software
with 15 day full trial free period is better expressing those parameters than SPSS. Hope that the
author calculate the exact cut off value with the associated AUC.
2- This is more serious; the Control group size is 80 patients; The Benign study group is more
than 100? precisely 143 women? the Malignant group is only 3 women?
As a matter of fact in statistics one of the most basic rules given to any one willing to study
statistics is that the control group is either equal or twice or even thrice the study group. So, the
situation here is somehow reversed? How much this flip in this rule affects the validity of his
results? I think only experienced statistician can give the true and definite decision with regard
to this biased situation. Yet, I hope it will be OK!
Thank you very much
Sincerely Yours
Wisam Akram
Decision; Revise with a statistician
Title: Association of endometrial thickness with lesions in postmenopausal asymptomatic
women:Risk Factors and Diagnostic Thresholds
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Correlation between
endometrial thickness and endometrial lesions in postmenopausal asymptomatic women".
However, I have some comments and recommendations:
Comments:
Title: - Is appropriate for the content of the article.
Abstract:- Represents a suitable summary of the work.
Article content:- The methods and results have been well explained.
Conclusions:- Are justified on the basis of the study.
Recommendations:
Discussion:- Mention the strength of the study.
References:- Stick to the format of the journal.
General:- Revise language, grammar and syntax.
Title: Association of endometrial thickness with lesions in postmenopausal asymptomatic
women:Risk Factors and Diagnostic Thresholds
Version: 3 Date: 14 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear author
Thank you very much for your nice reply.
Apparently, you did understand what exactly was wanted from you and found the correct way
to achieve it, The cut off value 0.56 proves my point of view!
Thank you very much. I think my job is done here and I will give my decision.
Decision; Accept
Wisam Akram
Title: Association of endometrial thickness with lesions in postmenopausal asymptomatic
women:Risk Factors and Diagnostic Thresholds
Version: 3 Date: 16 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting study "Association
of endometrial thickness with lesions in postmenopausal asymptomatic women:Risk Factors
and Diagnostic Thresholds".
Recommendations: Accept
Title: Association of endometrial thickness with lesions in postmenopausal asymptomatic
women:Risk Factors and Diagnostic Thresholds
Version: 3 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Yan Wisnu Prajoko
Reviewer's report:
The aims, objectives, and research steps to the results obtained from the research are very clear
and easy to understand.
I have 2 concerns:
1. Regarding originality, are there no other similar publications? Perhaps the author could
emphasize more on the originality of his findings.
2. I'm sorry to say that overall this manuscript is written in English, which is not good enough.
My suggestion is to rewrite it better. I apologize if my statement is not pleasing to you.
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 31 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Your article, Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitor Monotherapy and Combination
with PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer:
A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis, is well-written, highly insightful, and
addresses a critical area of research. The methodological rigor and comprehensive approach are
commendable.
However, there are some issues that could benefit from further refinement to strengthen the
manuscript:
Line 31 – 36 Please specific wich authors wrote the original draft maniscrupt. It is mandatory
that all the authors read and approved the the final manuscript.
Line 85-86. Please update with latest globocan statistics
Line 151: please be more specific on the cutoff for “small number of patient”
Line 286 please correct “DISCUSSION”
Please add a paragraph on safety of immunotherapy and potential safety concerns and adverse
effects in discussions
Please add a paragraph on the role of immunotherapy in fertility-sparing treatment, considering
to cite, if suitable
“Dellino M, Cerbone M, Laganà AS, et al. Upgrading Treatment and Molecular Diagnosis
in Endometrial Cancer-Driving New Tools for Endometrial Preservation?. Int J Mol Sci.
2023;24(11):9780. Published 2023 Jun 5. doi:10.3390/ijms24119780”
Please add a short paragraph on different pharmacologic immunotherapy treatments and
guidelines
In limitations please add explanations on the absence of data of ruby part 2, colombo et al.
madariaga, liao et al, how highlited in table 1
287 -288:  “highlighting a critical need for more effective therapies.” Please explain the sentenc
with data.
Please add a more clear subdivisions of secondary analysis
Fig 1: please be more detailed on included and excluded articles
Fig2: please add a caption with explications
Table 2: please ad a caption with explications
TableS3. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. Please define the utilized cutoff to
define the risk of bias, expecially for “some concerns” in the text.
TableS4. Please insert a caption with The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale grading.
Table 1: please specificate “chemotherapy” for each study, it would be of high scientific value
if you report in the table OS and PFS
I strongly believe these revisions will further enhance the impact and clarity of your work. With
these adjustments, it is well-poised for publication.
Kind regards.
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, all reviewers' suggestions have been implemented, the article can be published.
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for diverting this heart captivating maetanalysis to me for peer reviewing.
This is one of the most interesting metanalysis I have ever come across in my professional
life. The author has compared the Cox proportional hazard ratio among very carefully selected
studies with regard to treatment of advanced endometrial cancer comparing the survival rate
with regard to mono therapy by PD 1  or other chemotherapy agents like platinum compound
with combined therapy by addition with PARP agents or poly ADP ribose inhibitor.
The outcome of his study that metanalysis of those studies that combination therapy with PARP
inhibitor has significantly improved the survival rate and reduced Hazard Ratio.
The implementation of Monte Carlo simulation statistical test is another iconic feature of this
study. The first time I have learned about this nice simulation was 22 years ago from Centurion
Statographic software! Yet, I couldn't find one single study since that time implementing this
nice statistical procedure. That is the first time I see a a paper implementing this test.
The choice of random effect I squared statistic in metanalysis significantly added to the validity
of the results obtained by the author simply the addition of PARP inhibitor to the standard
monotherapy with chemotherapeutic agents has a highly significant role in improving the
survival of patients with advanced endometrial cancer. I agree with his results  obtained by the
author.
Conclusion; Accept
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Ebenezer Senu
Reviewer's report:
Abstract is well written
Background is well written
Methods is well written
In results section, figure captions should be below figures
Table 2 and 4: Progression-free Survival of Entire Population should have a heading
Authors should explain results from network plots
Overall, this manuscript is well written and adds knowledge to the scientific literature.
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 03 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
This meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/ programmed
cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor monotherapy or combination therapy for patients with
advanced or recurrent EC.  Monotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and combination therapies
with PARPis or antiangiogenic agents showed significant potential.
It seems worth publishing with minimum revision.
Figure2 is difficult to understand.
You should also explain the meanings such as the width of the lines in the figre legend.
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear colleagues
Thank you very much for diverting this article to me for peer reviewing.
This metanalysis comprehensive study is one of the most nicely integrated and well organized
reviews I have ever come across which involves 12 studies with well designed strategy for data
selection, extraction policy and later on data comparisons for overall survival with patients from
advanced endometrial cancer being treated by single PARP inhibitor versus those with additional
inclusion of the anti angiogenic drugs.
I have personally compared the odd ratio for meta analysis obtained by the author from his raw
data with my own software capable of meta analysis and indeed in mean survival is significantly
improved in accordance with author conclusion.
In addition the author included further analysis by neural network to explore more about the
results in his study in very clever and smart way.
Nothing better can be added to this highly integrated well designed work.
Decision; Accept
Sincerely Yours
Wisam Akram
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors for the corrections and improvements with the reviewers'
suggestions.
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 15 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
After the revision, the paper is improved and seems worth publishing.
Thank you for your great work.
Title: Efficacy Comparison of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy and Combination with
PARPis or Antiangiogenic Agents in Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic
Review and Network Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 16 Feb 2025
Reviewer:  Ebenezer Senu
Reviewer's report:
The authors have improved the manuscript based on previous comments.
Title: The Sleep Quality in Women with Surgical Menopause Compared to Natural Menopause
Based on Ardakan Cohort Study on Aging (ACSA)
Version: 2 Date: 30 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Andrés Calle
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors for presenting a research work that was well done
methodologically and conclusive according to the objectives that were set. Keep going.
Title: The Sleep Quality in Women with Surgical Menopause Compared to Natural Menopause
Based on Ardakan Cohort Study on Aging (ACSA)
Version: 4 Date: 08 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate the authors for the corrections made in the text.
I have minor suggestions before acceptance for publication.
Introduction:
These 2 sentences are similar. The word Lack is repetitive. I suggest the authors to mix these
sentences in only one sentence.
“Due to a reliance on subjective assessment and population study, the evidence remains
inconclusive, and there is still a lack of knowledge to clear the role of surgical hysterectomy in
the sleep quality of the women who are required to face it. Moreover, there is a lack of significant
studies that have utilized multiple sleep quality assessment methods concurrently to provide a
more comprehensive and precise evaluation.”
This sentence can be removed as the last paragraph of the introduction ends with your objective
and not about clinical relevance: “The findings provide valuable insights into the impact of
surgical menopause on sleep quality, offering evidence that can assist healthcare professionals
and policymakers in improving care strategies and healthcare environments.”
Discussion:
A period should be inserted before the sentence below. And, I suggest to change “would not
associate” to “was not associated”.
“The regression models showed that type of menopause would not associate with sleep-
disordered breathing or poor sleep quality significantly.”
Title: Breast Cancer Beliefs and Screening Behaviors among South Asian Immigrant Women
Living in the United States
Version: 1 Date: 23 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Luis Rustveld
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript explores breast cancer screening behaviors among South Asian women living
in the United States through focus groups. This well-written manuscript provides valuable
information about Breast Cancer screening beliefs among South Asian women living in the US.
Study Design and Methods:
The use of four online focus groups between June 2021 and July 2022 is appropriate, given
the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors clearly described the participant
demographics, including their mean age (52 years), country of birth (India or Pakistan), and
average duration of residence in the US (26 years). The stratification by age, particularly the
inclusion of younger participants in the first focus group, adds an interesting dimension to the
data but could be further discussed regarding its implications on the results.
Participant Sample:
The sample size of 22 participants across four focus groups is reasonable for a qualitative study,
as it allows for rich, in-depth data collection while maintaining manageability. The distribution
of participants (5 in the first three groups, 7 in the fourth) is uneven but does not appear to detract
from the study’s findings. However, the authors could elaborate on the rationale for these group
sizes and whether the larger fourth group affected the dynamics or depth of discussion.
Results and Analysis:
The authors effectively presented emergent themes from the focus groups, providing detailed
descriptions and participant quotes. This approach enhances the credibility and authenticity of
the findings. The themes and sub-themes were well-articulated, and the inclusion of participant
quotes adds a valuable narrative component. Nonetheless, it would be helpful to see a discussion
of whether the online format impacted the nature of the themes or the interactions among
participants.
Areas for Improvement:
Discussion of Methods: A deeper reflection on the impact of the online focus group
format, including potential challenges and how they were mitigated, would add depth to the
methodology section.
Generalizability: The authors should explicitly discuss the potential limitations of the sample
size and composition (e.g., focusing on women born only in India and Pakistan) and how these
may impact the generalizability of the findings to other South Asian subgroups.
Overall, the manuscript provides valuable insights into the breast cancer screening behaviors
of South Asian women living in the US. It contributes to the literature on culturally informed
health interventions for this population. With minor revisions to address methodological details
and participant demographics, this study could be an impactful resource for researchers and
healthcare providers aiming to reduce disparities in breast cancer screening.
Title: Association between depression and perceived health status in Korean adult women: A
nationwide cross-sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 25 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Erliang Zhang
Reviewer's report:
Dear editors,
Thank you for offering me such a valuable opportunity to provide a peer review of this
manuscript: Association between depression and perceived health status in Korean adult women:
A nationwide cross-sectional study. Below are my comments:
1. ABSTRACT, line 21, “explore the degree of depression’s effect on poor PHS.”
Any words containing causality, such as effect, should be avoided, considering that this is a
cross-sectional study.
2. Background, line 49, What are OECD countries? Please spell it out.
3. Background, line 62, “Depression is a major public health concern in Korea, which has
the highest prevalence among OECD countries. Specifically, South Korea’s prevalence of
depression was 36.8% in 2020 [9]. Considering the prevalence of depression increased by
seven times in a meta-analysis study for cross-sectional community-based studies after the
COVID-19 pandemic [10], there is an urgent need for enhanced mental health support and
research, especially in countries like South Korea where baseline levels of depression were
already high [11]. Women are more susceptible to depression than men, particularly in Korea
where the number of women receiving treatment for depression is approximately twice that of
men [12].”
The severity of depression in Korea, especially among women, is emphasized here, yet the
prevalence of depression was found to be only 6.9% in the results of this study? The accuracy
of this number is my biggest concern.
4. Methods, line 118, “Current smoking was defined as smoking more than five packs of
cigarettes (100 cigarettes) over a lifetime and current regular smoking.”
The definition of current smoking status is a bit confusing, smoking more than five packs of
cigarettes (100 cigarettes) over a lifetime may not be current, but former.
5. Methods, line 120, “Hazardous alcohol intake was defined as consuming an average number
of #7 drinks for men and #5 drinks for women two or more times a week.”
Is there any reference to this criterion, and apparently there is no need to list the criterion for
males, considering that the participants in this study were all female.
6. Methods, line 124, “Physical activity was classified as engaging in any form of physical
activity (walking or resistance) for at least 10 minutes per week.”
This 10 minutes per week (equivalent to 86 seconds per day) physical activity criterion makes
no sense, and I would suggest that it should be changed to 150 minutes per week to more closely
match the WHO guidelines.
7. Results, Table 1, What is the definition of Adequate alcohol intake? >0 to =<4 drinks per
week?
8. Results, Table 2 can be combined with Table 1.
9. Results, line 209, “Association of depression with poor PHS”,
Where is the data for this section, it is recommended to add a table to present the results more
clearly.
10. References, About half of the literature is five years or even one or two decades old, and
authors are advised to consult the more recent literature.
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Lebanese Women toward the Use of Oral
Contraceptive Pills
Version: 0 Date: 16 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Abstarct :
the first sentece in the background need to be rewrite , as it is not agood start to your article .
key words : please use more spcific terms to you work
introduction :
- please eaborate the using of OCP in lebanon , add more information about the types that is
used in lebanon and highlight this in one pragrapgh
- you need to remve the outcomes of the study in the last three sentences and add themin the
conclusion
methdology :
how you fill a questionnaire in the pharmacy ?
please add more details about the popoluation numbers ? how many they included and how how
many yoy excluded ?
how you were sure about the confedienlty of your patients ?
add irb number in the ethical consiration
Data collection :
i think you need to strength this part ? write about the realiblity of your questionnaire , calculate
cromach alpha ? add the details of the questinnauire in proper paraghrapgh
results
change the income to dollar
i think your results is very simple and you need to work more on it
table 4 is agood intiavtive but why you use only those variables ?
i think you have to do more analysis to your work in multivariaet forms
conclusion
week conclusion , please support your argue with more refrences and add your input whre it
is needed
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Lebanese Women toward the Use of Oral
Contraceptive Pills
Version: 5 Date: 19 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is excessively long, with multiple repetitions and needs to be tightly edited.
However, if the authors  are not able to significantly shorten it and refrain from talking about
things that only affected a small minority of the subjects then I will accept its volume. The
only remaining problem I have with this paper is that the power analysis yielded an estimated
sample size of around 231 participants, but for some reason 384 women contributed data. Please
reconcile those estimates and I will approve the paper.
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Lebanese Women toward the Use of Oral
Contraceptive Pills
Version: 5 Date: 26 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
I believe that the authors have satisfactorily answered my concerns.  I think that the paper has
evolved considerably and can be published in its present form.Here are a couple of items that
should be corrected pre-publication:
1. Table 2 is missing p-values for profession and income.
2. In Table 3, the p-values for  "Do you know what OCP are?" and abdominal cramping are not
valid. Either replace them by a Fisher's exact test or do not test them for lack of variability. I
would also not test for significant differences in the don't know category (again not valid.
Otherwise, I would suggest some minor adjustments including :
1. Mentioning that there was no problem with multicollinearity in the data
2. Adding the paragraph about oversampling in the explanation in the limitations section
3. Rephrasing the sentence "Perceptions of OCP safety and effectiveness are neutral to somewhat
positive, both with a mean score of 3.1. However, concerns about OCP causing infertility persist,
as reflected by a mean score of 3.1" for clarity as per the explanation provided in the response
4. Transforming figure 4 into a side-by-side bar graph rather than a stacked one for clarity