JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Gender-based violence and associated factors among women in Ethiopia: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 02 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your interesting paper concerning gender-based violence.
Some similar papers have been published in the author's country.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2024.100757
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-02076-3
DOI: 10.5897/JNBH2022.0162
I have some comments:
- Results in abstract are limited. Thus, it could not support for conclusion.
-Definition of important variables in method section should be more detailed.
-  Full-word should be added to abbreviation words in Table as foot-note.
-Discussion should be expanded with more data.
Title: Gender-based violence and associated factors among women in Ethiopia: a systematic
review and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 12 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Soemyat Htet
Reviewer's report:
Your (both authors') great work and dedication your time on such important study is impressive.
There is a minor requirement to address to be perfect. If you are unclear any comments, feel free
to reach me out via my email: soemyathtet5193@gmail.com. Thank you. Good luck! Cheers!
Title: Barriers to Physical Activity in Women from Ethnic Minority Groups: A Systematic
Review
Version: 1 Date: 22 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Kara Saiki
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for that very thorough systematic review.  I appreciated how you categorized the
barriers into the different SE framework domains.  I had a few questions comments after reading:
Was there anything in the literature that spoke on mental health issues that served as barriers
to PA?
What evidence of systemic discrimination could you provide since you mention it in the abstract?
I was confused by the wording of the sentence on line 281. Also, the quote included about sharing
in the responsibilities- this seems more related to lack of time or competing priorities.
For caregiving responsibilities, does this only include caregiving for children? Or for parents as
well? This could be a barrier in multigenerational households.
Because of your limitation on the broad age range, would you have enough to report if you
reported on ethnic minority women of only childbearing age? It's a broad enough age range to
report on a variety of barriers while excluding those related  to increased age (mobility issues).
I really liked the information in your Table 2. However, is there a way to show the count (in
addition to the study number). I think that would be helpful rather than the reader having to
count or eyeball how many studies are represented in each cell of the table.
Title: Barriers to Physical Activity in Women from Ethnic Minority Groups: A Systematic
Review
Version: 1 Date: 09 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
This interesting paper presents an important systematic review on physical activity among
women from ethnic minority groups. The paper would be useful to public health professionals
and practitioners. The findings will help inform the development of tailored, effective services.
Congratulations to the authors. I am offering some suggestions for consideration before
publication.
Abstract
1. Methods: please mention that your review followed PRISMA guidelines
2. Please specify the location- that is, does your review focus on specific countries?
Introduction
3.  The authors state “Additionally, cultural perceptions that certain forms of physical activity -
such as vigorous exercise or outdoor sports - are less suitable for women can further discourage
their participation”, which is correct. Please give an example for such perceptions among any
specific ethnic minority group. You can find this paper useful: doi: 10.1007/s10903-023-01518-
w
4. The introduction is insightful. However, it needs some examples from the literature about
distinct cultural challenges that women from different ethnic minority groups (e.g., Arab-
identified individuals, South Asian-identified individuals etc). The paper mentioned above can
be helpful for this: doi: 10.1007/s10903-023-01518-w
5. The concept of acculturation would be helpful to address in the introduction, as it is relevant
in this context. This is important considering that this is mentioned in your results.
Methods:
6. Please clarify if your paper included any limitation on countries.
7. It is good that the authors included articles located from hand-search. This research article
would be good to include as it involves useful information regarding barriers to PA among Arab
Canadian women. doi: 10.1007/s10903-024-01664-9
Results
8. The use of a social-ecological framework is excellent and figure 2 is very thoughtful!
9. It would be good to include a numerical summary table for main characteristics of the included
studies (e.g., % of studies conducted in specific countries, % of quantitative studies, etc). This
will help you reduce the written text under ‘Characteristics of Included Studies’ section and
keep it succinct.
Discussion
10. It would be helpful to include a separate heading for strengths and limitations.
Title: ‘I don’t know what normal has been’: a Grounded Theory exploration of the journey to
endometriosis diagnosis
Version: 1 Date: 15 May 2025
Reviewer:  Sophie Rees
Reviewer's report:
This is an insightful and thought-provoking study. The grounded theory developed is interesting,
well supported, and clearly structured and articulated. The methods are clearly described. The
discussion situates the research well in existing literature.
Some suggestions/clarifications:
- did the topic guide change once you decided to focus on sampling women who experienced
delayed diagnosis?
Some minor suggestions:
- line 83 delete 'found that endometriosis'
- line 133 - the theory doesn't 'emerge', perhaps 'developed' would be a better term
- line 736 delete 'This'
- please add in the dates that data collection began/ended
- in strengths and limitations, I'd suggest that the point about recall is slightly redrafted - the
strength is that they could think back and reflect on how their experiences changed over time
Title: Examining the effect of a sexual self-efficacy based educational intervention on
postmenopausal sexual satisfaction and sexual distress: A parallel quasi-experimental study
Version: 2 Date: 20 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Asl# Sis Celik
Reviewer's report:
Was it that the training was not effective? Or was the reason for it not being effective related to
the content of the training? There is a table about the training, but who prepared these trainings
and how, and with what parameters the suitability of the content of the training was ensured
should be given in the method section. This information will be useful for similar studies to be
conducted on the subject later.
Title: Can self-compassion and mindfulness predict psychological wellbeing in individuals with
endometriosis? Findings from an online survey
Version: 4 Date: 12 Sep 2024
Reviewer:  Marcelo De França de França Moreira
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revisions made to the manuscript. I appreciate the clarification regarding
the criteria for selecting variables in the hierarchical regression models. My original concern
was about the initial selection criteria, not the comparisons between models based on #R2.
However, your revised manuscript has adequately addressed this concern by providing a more
comprehensive theoretical background that clarifies the role and relevance of the variables
included in the model. This enhancement reduces the reliance on statistical significance alone
and strengthens the overall argument.
Regarding the decision to categorize the self-compassion variable, I appreciate the explanation
that this was based on previous research practices. However, simply following past studies does
not fully justify the loss of information that results from categorizing a continuous variable.
It would be beneficial to provide a clearer rationale, such as how this approach improves the
interpretation or understanding of the relationships between variables. This would help prevent
any concerns about p-value manipulation and ensure transparency in your analytical decisions.
I congratulate you on the efforts made to consider the points I raised and for the significant
improvements reflected in the manuscript. Given the advancements in addressing these concerns
and the study's potential to contribute meaningfully to the state of the art in this area, I believe
the manuscript should be accepted for publication.
Title: Epidemiology of the global burden of atrial fibrillation among women of child-bearing
age, 1990-2021: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest this review on the global epidemiology of atrial fibrillation (AF) in
women of child-bearing age. I have the following comments:
1- The rationale for conducting this study is unclear. Child-bearing age is typically between 15
and 49 years. It is well established that before the age of 50, AF is relatively uncommon, despite
some increasing trends.
When the authors state  that "Dawn C found that women with Hypertensive pregnancy disorders
(HPD) had a higher risk of atrial fibrillation", they should make it clear that hypertensive
disorders of pregnancy (NOT hypertensive pregnancy disorders) increase the risk of AF later in
life. This increased risk of AF attributable to HDP, especially for women who will then develop
chronic hypertension, is expected as in other people with chronic hypertension.
So, I feel the rationale for conducting this study is not strong.
2- The abstract is almost empty. There is no key number presented there. For such a paper, data
are very important to illustrate the magnitude of the disease studied.
3- This is similar for the main Results section which does not provide key numbers. The authors
should look at other GBD papers and see how they are reported.
Title: Epidemiology of the global burden of atrial fibrillation among women of child-bearing
age, 1990-2021: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Hossein Salehi Omran
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respected Authors Team of the Manuscript,
The manuscript entitled " Epidemiology of the global burden of atrial fibrillation among women
of childbearing age, 1990-2021: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021"
is a precious article providing valuable data regarding the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation
in women of childbearing age. However, It requires some kinds of revisions which will be
discussed below.
1. In line 2, AF should be defined as atrial fibrillation at first and then use AF as its abbreviation
in the following.
2. In the caption of Figure 1, Global temporal trend of migraine burden among WCBA
(migraine?) and where are the parts E and F in Fig 1.
3. Figure 2 is complicated and hard to find the appropriate parts easily. Please make it simpler
for further enhancement in clarification. Additionally, some of the texts in the figure are not
readable.
4. Figure 3 is much better but it would significantly benefit from revision to be more simple and
better organized. Figure 4 is ok.
5. Supplementary Tables would significantly benefit from revision. They seemed complicated
somehow and were not well-organized.
6. In the caption of each figure and table, the abbreviations should be defined.
7. As well as limitations of the study which were truly discussed, it would be recommended to
discuss the strength points of the study in comparison with other studies in the discussion to give
the whole idea of conducting this study and its priority compared to other studies.
8. The manuscript requires to be revised regarding linguistic aspects to enhance its clarity.
Overall, The manuscript provides valuable and precious findings regarding the epidemiology of
atrial fibrillation among  women of child-bearing age emphasizing more attention to this issue
specially in specific geographic and socioeconomic regions. However, it requires some kinds
of revisions including linguistic revision,  as well as table and figures editing. After addressing
these modifications it would be recommended for publication.
Title: Association between lipid accumulation product and visceral adiposity index with
endometriosis: evidence from NHANES 1999-2006
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jan 2025
Reviewer's report:
Overall, the study addresses an interesting topic in reproductive medicine. However, significant
revisions are necessary, particularly regarding the terminology and interpretation of the findings.
Below are the main points that require attention:
1. The reported odds are relatively low, suggesting only a modest association rather than
any evidence of causality. This limitation must be emphasized in the discussion to avoid
overinterpretation of the results.
2. As acknowledged by the authors, this is a cross-sectional study. Consequently, it does
not meet any of the key criteria for establishing causality (e.g., temporality, consistency,
biological gradient). This critical limitation should be more explicitly stated and reflected in the
conclusions.
3. The use of phrases such as "LAP and VAI may become simple, readily available, noninvasive
markers for predicting EMs" is entirely inappropriate and should be avoided. These terms
imply a level of clinical utility and predictive value that is unsupported by the current data.
Instead, the authors should focus on enriching the study by providing evidence to support the
association between metabolic dysfunction and endometriosis, without suggesting causality.
For instance, they could explore the links with glucose metabolism dysfunction (doi: 10.1186/
s12905-024-03541-x; doi: 10.1002/edm2.70008), which often manifests as gestational diabetes
during pregnancy (doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35236-y). Including these perspectives would
provide a stronger foundation for the observed associations.
In addition to these considerations, another limitation of the study is the lack of novelty, as there
are already multiple studies investigating the relationship between endometriosis and metabolic
dysfunction using the NHANES database. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and
clarify how their findings add to the existing body of knowledge.
The manuscript requires a careful revision of its terminology. The language should reflect the
observational nature of the study and avoid any implication of clinical applicability or causality.
By addressing these issues, the manuscript will better align with the evidence and contribute
meaningfully to the field.
Title: Association between lipid accumulation product and visceral adiposity index with
endometriosis: evidence from NHANES 1999-2006
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jan 2025
Reviewer:  Carlos Quispe-Vicuña
Reviewer's report:
The authors develop a very interesting cross-sectional study with the purpose of exploring the
association of emerging metabolic markers with the likelihood of endometriosis. I consider that
the methodology and the development of the study have been adequately carried out, however
there are some comments that I would like to mention.
1. Firstly, I suggest that when talking about epidemiology in the introduction,
instead of using reference 3, which is only a review, you should use
studies more focused on these topics, such as those that evaluate GBD, for
example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32909625/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2590161324000838, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37763053/, to obtain more
current data.
2. in line 101 “549women”, the space is missing.
3. in the discussion I suggest that when mentioning previous studies not only say “association
has been found” or so, but if possible mention how much (i.e. the OR, RR, PR or the measure
of effect used) to help also to make a more accurate comparison. I also suggest adding a
paragraph mentioning the practical applicability of using these markers in medical care (you
already mentioned something similar in the introduction by highlighting their lower cost and
ease of use).
Title: Association between lipid accumulation product and visceral adiposity index with
endometriosis: evidence from NHANES 1999-2006
Version: 4 Date: 28 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the opportunity to review “Association between lipid accumulation product and
visceral adiposity index with the odds of endometriosis: evidence from NHANES 1999-2006”.
Overall, the scholarly writing could be much stronger, especially given concerns in methodology
and data collection. There are a few outdated references.
The paper should be edited by native English speaker.
I suggest adding previous literature regarding the inverse association of weight with
endometriosis.
How you control the recall-bias of endometriosis questions. Or is there any previous document
to show the reliability of this type of data collection?
What is the definition of poverty to income ratio?
The sub-group analysis is based on this: which rationality?
How do you choose the confounders?
There is no detail of laboratory assessments.
What is the meaning of female hormones in tables?
Title: Association between lipid accumulation product and visceral adiposity index with
endometriosis: evidence from NHANES 1999-2006
Version: 4 Date: 02 May 2025
Reviewer:  Morvarid Noormohammadi
Reviewer's report:
The current manuscript is a well-designed and valuable study addressing an important research
question. However, more corrections are needed. Below are my comments:
1.  Emphasize more strongly in the Discussion how your findings might guide clinical practice.
2. The current study is cross-sectional; therefore, causal implications are unsuitable.  The
manuscript occasionally uses phrases like “promote the occurrence and development of EMs”
or “predictors of EMs.” Replace such language with terms like “associated with” or “correlated
with.”
3. Add more details about the rationale behind using covariates in the models.
4. Consider adding limitations about the validity of self-reported EMs.
5. A thorough language edit by a native English speaker or professional editing service is
recommended prior to submission.
Title: Association between lipid accumulation product and visceral adiposity index with
endometriosis: evidence from NHANES 1999-2006
Version: 5 Date: 21 May 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you addressing the concerns raised and improving the manuscript. I however have a few
more comments to further strengthen the manuscript
1. The authors mention in one of their responses that the outcome of the study is “odds of
Ems”. I believe the outcome of the study is endometriosis and not “the odds of endometriosis”
and descriptions about the association can just be stated like e.g.  abstract Line 16-18:  “
This study aimed to investigate the associations between the emerging metabolic markers-lipid
accumulation product (LAP) and visceral adiposity index (VAI)-with EMs.”
And line 21 : “regression models were used to explore the association between LAP and   VAI
with EMs… “
Just EMS should suffice. Kindly make this consistent throughout the text.
2. Results of the abstract: Consider including the mean age of the women to give readers a better
context “Total 5188 eligible women (mean age XX ± XX) … “if the abstract word count would
allow.
3. In the Introduction, the statement “The World Health Organization recognizes the important
impact of Ems…” may need to be referenced. Kindly cite the WHO source.
4. In the methods section, under potential covariates adjusted for, the authors list LAP and VAI
(which are the exposure variables) under physical examination variables adjusted for. Kindly
correct.
5. Results: you may remove the p values from the results section since the confidence intervals
communicate the same inference.
6. In the discussion, Line 286: consider writing the abbreviation TYG index in full since this is
the only time it is used in the text.
Table 1
7. Education:  make it chronological e.g. high school or vice versa. That will make it easier to
follow.
8. Footnote : the abbreviation GED stands for General education development not general
equivalent diploma. Kindly correct
9. You may consider removing the “statistics” column. The p-value is enough to make an
inference.
Title: Utilization of cervical cancer screening and its associated factors among women living
with HIV in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 02 Jun 2025
Reviewer:  Petmore Zibako
Reviewer's report:
1. Remove results from conclusion of the abstract.
2. Remove recommendations from  conclusion of the abstract.
3. Use proper reporting manuscript language, remove all the 'WE' which are  all over in the
manuscript.
5. Operational definitions can be removed
5. Unnecessary analysis of studies quality which does not  add value to the manuscript.
6. Summary of the studies can be done  using a table with 3 columns; title of the study, major
findings and conclusion of the study.
Summarise your results in the first paragraph of the discussion.
7.Put recommendations under discussion not with conclusion.
8. Rewrite conclusion, removing results, conclusions are  deductions from the  results.
Title: Utilization of cervical cancer screening and its associated factors among women living
with HIV in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jun 2025
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the Author:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The study is an important contribution
because it provides unique insight into cervical cancer screening in Eastern Africa region. The
authors go to great lengths with excellent searching, screening and analysis. I think ultimately
the paper merits publication. However, there seem to be a few glaring issues that need to be
addressed.
Major and minor concerns
Language and Formatting:
# Language Editing: Engage a professional editor or service to enhance readability and correct
grammatical errors.
Registration:
# Dr Gebrie Alemu and Dr Habtamu Abuhay were registered with a registration number:
CRD420251003243 as author to conduct this study. Do you have a reason or special
consideration to include the rest of authors on the final paper?
Background Context:
# The introduction is to long and some of the long paragraphs from single articles. Please make
it short and precise. Reduce to one or one and half page.
Methods
# (PECO) mnemonic framework require citation.
# Please elaborate the manual searches to collect grey literature.
# Please reason out for selecting only articles published between January 1, 2015, to April 3,
2025.
# In quality assessment section: “The quality of the included studies was rated according to the
following scale: Very good studies: 9-10 points; good studies: 7-8 points; satisfactory studies:
5-6 points; unsatisfactory studies: 0-4 points. We included studies with satisfactory to very good
quality”. This section require citation, especially the cutoff point to include the study for final
analysis.
Result
# Study characteristics: If you submit the table and figure separately, please remove this
statement from the main manuscript “Figure 1: Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analysis flow diagram showing search results and study selections for meta-analysis
on cervical cancer screening among WLHIV in East Africa from 2015 to 2025”, “Figure 2: A
forest plot of 46 studies on the prevalence of cervical cancer screening uptake among women
living with HIV in East Africa from 2015 to 2025” and other table or figure titles on the main text.
Overall Recommendation: Minor revision
This manuscript addresses a critical issue in cervical cancer screening but requires minor
improvements to meet publication standards.