JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Prevalence, Pattern and Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence Amongst Female
Undergraduates in Abia State, Nigeria; Public Health Implications
Version: 3 Date: 08 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. sampling method used in multistage
-in using simple ransom sampling for each of the stages, what method of simple random
sampling did authors use?
-the work has been carried out therefore, we need to see the names of the faculties and
departments selected
- the departments selected , what were their populations? this is important for the calculation of
sampling interval and how the eventual students would be selected.
what are the populations of the levels of studies selected
-what sampling method would you use for the selection of the students from each level of study?
-MOUAU has a population of 27,750 while ABSU has 20,900 therefore it is wrong to allocate
153 questionnaire to each of the universities, rather proportional to size
shoukd be adopted
2. some of the results are not valid as the sum total of some of the line items are less than
the minimum calculated sample size of 277. in the sample size determination, 277 was the
minimum sample size and after addition of 10% non response rate, it got to 307 therefore under
no circumstances should the sum total of any of the variables be less than 277, as is seen in
some of the results
-Tables 3, 4 and figure 2 should be renamed as suggested in the body of the paper
Title: Association between HIV serostatus and premalignant cervical lesions among women
attending a cervical cancer screening clinic at a tertiary care facility in southwestern Uganda:
a comparative cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 20 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to review this interesting Manuscript titled “Association between HIV serostatus
and premalignant cervical lesions among women attending a cervical cancer screening clinic at
a tertiary care facility in southwestern Uganda: a comparative cross-sectional study”
The aim of this study is to demonstrate the association between premalignant cervical lesions and
women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and to highlight the need to strengthen
the integration of cervical cancer prevention strategies into HIV care programs.
I think the materials and methods section is clear. Materials and methods are effectively
presented in a wise and organized manner.
The limitations of the study are mostly linked with its monocentric nature. This could led to a
selection bias and the results should be interpreted with caution. According to the title of this
manuscript, the population of the study is all from the same country e the screening procedures
for cervical cancer prevention are made all from the same clinic (Mbarara Regional Referral
Hospital). This could led to bring an eventual systematic error among all the population of the
study. My advice in future is to enlarge this study to other clinics, in order to acquire more
significant data related to the association between premalignant cervical lesions and women
living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
This could bring in future to publish a corresponding multicentric study.
Moreover the results should be interpreted with caution due to the type of population. The two
groups of the study differ for their sexual habits, “Most HIV-positive women had their first
sexual intercourse at the age <18 years compared to the HIV-negative women who mostly started
their first sexual intercourse at the age #18 years” and “HIV-positive women had a history of two
or more sexual partners in the last 20 years than HIV-negative women”. Therefore it’s crucial
to know and highlight that maybe it’s not the human immunodeficiency virus itself a risk factor
for premalignant cervical lesions. In fact the HIV positive population has different sexual habits
and background that can facilitate Human Papilloma Virus infection.
Furthermore, as declared on the manuscripst, the study dataset had missing viral load data, and
it did not examine the effects of Highly active antiretroviral therapy on premalignant cervical
lesions.
Minor revisions have to be considered for publication.
Title: Association between HIV serostatus and premalignant cervical lesions among women
attending a cervical cancer screening clinic at a tertiary care facility in southwestern Uganda:
a comparative cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 04 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Sylvia Kusemererwa
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review response to comments for the article entitled:
Association between HIV serostatus and premalignant cervical lesions among women attending
a cervical cancer screening clinic at a tertiary care facility in southwestern Uganda: a
comparative cross-sectional study.
Below are somewhat minor comments.
Methods:
Line 168: It seems like all women who came to the clinic were enrolled. Is that the case? Please
clarify on the inclusion criteria
Lime 195- Please include the algorithm/ guidelines used for HIV testing.
Line 237: review to REDCap
Line 244- Chi square short form is #2
Results:
Table 1: Total sample size is 413, yet in the methods section 420 is referred to. What happened
to the 7 participants? Were they excluded from the analysis or is there a reason why the sample
was not met?
Line 283-285: also review to sexual debut as well.
Discussion:
Line 340 - is still a repetition of line 334
Line 393 could read requiring interventions that are more stringent including monitoring
No study strengths have been mentioned.
Study limitations: were those missing viral loads excluded? Is that part of the reason for the
missing 7 participants? Please clarify in methods section.
Ethics:
Line 452 to 453 can be deleted. …additionally, caretaker/legal guardian…..
Please correct spelling for Counsellor
Overall, the authors could review spellings and grammar in the whole article to ensure
correctness.
Title: Association between HIV serostatus and premalignant cervical lesions among women
attending a cervical cancer screening clinic at a tertiary care facility in southwestern Uganda:
a comparative cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 09 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Sylvia Kusemererwa
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review response to comments for the article entitled:
Association between HIV serostatus and premalignant cervical lesions among women attending
a cervical cancer screening clinic at a tertiary care facility in southwestern Uganda: a
comparative cross-sectional study.
Below are some comments. Suggestions have been provided in the tracked changes copy.
Abstract
Line 32- suggestion to use obtained
Introduction
Paragraph 3 from line 73 is too long, could be split.
Line 116- suggestion to use ..to understand
Methods:
Line 144: how was quality assured?
Line 163- Criteria is still not clear. Suggestion made in manuscript.
Line 180: Viral load and CD4 count were not included, but are referred to in the discussion in
reference to other studies.
Line 187- could be re-written.
Line 191 only requires a reference and not the figure
Line 235 procedures could be referred to as per guideline or SOPs
Line 249- How was quality assured?
Results:
Could be easier or made understandable if broken down into sections as suggested.
Line 275 could be left under the suggested section on prevalence.
Discussion:
Line 389-391, add reference
Line 409 also appears in the introduction. Could be removed.
Line 415 probably the comparativeness of the design could be a strength.
Ethics:
Could be re-written as suggested.
Include reference for MoH guidelines.
Title: Association between HIV serostatus and premalignant cervical lesions among women
attending a cervical cancer screening clinic at a tertiary care facility in southwestern Uganda:
a comparative cross-sectional study
Version: 6 Date: 21 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Sylvia Kusemererwa
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the point-to-point responses.
For the flow diagram on HIV testing. Please spell out the tests done in the text and remove the
flow chart. A suggestion has been provided in the tracked copy.
For the strength of the study design, please qualify why its comparativeness is important for
your study.
Title: Prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection among women with diabetes
mellitus in Accra, Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 27 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study estimated the hr-HPV prevalence among women with diabetes mellitus in Ghana
using a retrospective cross-sectional design and reveal the associated risk factors. The authors
carefully described their work and results, and the most strength of the study is the description
of HPV testing in method and restrict operation, statistical analysis.
Authors addressed all recommendations provided from the previous revision process.
Therefore, I suggest that the authors should make some minor corrections. At the line 126,
authors stated: “This study analyzed the data of 200 women…” whereas at the line 240, statement
stated that “In all, 200 women with DM consented to be screened; of these, two were excluded
from the analysis on account of invalid HPV DNA results. Thus, our final analysis comprised
the data of 198 women”, as well at the discussion section is a statement: “We primarily aimed to
estimate the prevalence rates of hr-HPV infection and cervical lesions in a cohort of 198 women
with DM in Ghana” (lines 319-320). This brings a little confusion; I suggest being constant on
the statement of the number of participants (n=198) whose data was analyzed.
I recommend that a minor revision is warranted.
Title: Prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection among women with diabetes
mellitus in Accra, Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 04 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Richmond Opoku
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, your work is timely and relevant to public health practice and responds to a clear
gap in the literature on the nexus between DM and HPV. It is an outstanding piece of research.
However, I have noted the following issues for your consideration and if you address them would
greatly improve your manuscript. Thank you!
1. In the conclusion section of your abstract, kindly comment on the prevalence of hr-HPV as
this was a major focus of your study. You found a high rate in DM patients and this should be
highlighted in your abstract.
2. Concerning Table 1, appropriate statistical disclosure measures should be taken to limit the
risk of breaching the confidentiality of participants. As a best practice, it is advised not to report
frequencies below three (3). You can explore the following measures:
--combining categories (e.g.,  Under "Source of fund...", Current/former employer and Other
can be combined)
--suppressing cells
--leaving out the variable from your report (e.g., HIV status can be avoided as it appears not
to be informative).
3. I think comparing the barrier method (condom) and non-barrier methods of contraception as a
binary variable in your regression models will be more informative than comparing the several
lists of the various types. For more context refer to the following in your discussion "There is
some evidence that oral hormonal contraceptive users are more likely to be exposed to HPV
than women who use barrier methods [41]".
4. Kindly, discuss reporting bias, especially, recall & social desirability bias as part of the
limitations of the study as the study relied on self-reported patient data such as previous
contraceptive use.
Title: Prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection among women with diabetes
mellitus in Accra, Ghana
Version: 4 Date: 26 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Richmond Opoku
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, I'm happy with all the changes you made to your report. Particularly, categorising
with condom, estrogen-containing, and non-estrogen-containing contraceptives in response to
my suggestion was very thoughtful and commendable. I'm happy to recommend your work for
publication without any reservations. Thank you.
Title: CGRP Neuropeptide Levels in Patients with Endometriosis-Related Pain Treated with
Dienogest: A Comparative Study
Version: 0 Date: 30 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. The final sample size of the two groups is only 15 cases, and there are many dropout samples.
How to ensure the value of the research results#
2. Why are VAS scores and blood tests not performed after 3 months of administration?
Title: CGRP Neuropeptide Levels in Patients with Endometriosis-Related Pain Treated with
Dienogest: A Comparative Study
Version: 0 Date: 26 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Umida Ganieva
Reviewer's report:
The study itself is pretty straightforward,  might be interesting for practicing physicians.
I have several questions:
1. What are other molecules that can be targeted for pain in endometriosis? Do they share similar
pathway as CGRP? Will they respond similarly to DG in endometriotic pain?
2. Did authors try to check the effect of a different medication on CGRP?
3. Since one of the limitations of this study is that the number of patients is small, it would be
good to be mentioned in discussion section.
4. How many patients in each classification group of endometriosis (the authors mentioned 3
kinds among given 15 patients) responded with significant reduction in pain after DG? I would
like to see subgroup analysis to what extent (VAS, etc.) the pain is reduced after DG in each
subgroup
Title: Perceptions on violence against women and its impacts and response mechanisms among
community-based stakeholders: A qualitative study from Nepal
Version: 3 Date: 22 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
I think having qualitative research driven by in-country researchers is vital for such a sensitive
topic, and I commend the authors for taking on this task and discussing both the individual and
structural factors.
However, the sampling is poorly explained and leaves the potential for bias through which
women were included in this survey. Very little information is shared about the woman in the
community, and the fact there was only one FGD with her contacts makes such generalized
findings (as in this paper) difficult to make. The authors don't provide enough context on which
community this woman and her close network are meant to represent. The rest of the IDIs
coming from women who visited a health center means the interviews were with a very particular
type of woman and may exclude women who are too fearful, poor, or unable to reach health
centers for other reasons. The findings are much too broad for such a small sample. There are
statements about 'why most women do/don't do x, ' for example, yet it is unclear if the sample
included represents 'most women.'  The recommendations begin by saying this provides insight
into Nepalese society, yet it is not clear to me that they are representative of the wider country.
The paper needs a deeper and clearer focus before it is ready for publishing, as now it feels much
too broad to publish.
Qualitative research is significant and important for understanding VAW. I think if the authors
were able to focus and narrow a paper they would be able to valuably put their interviews in
context to derive clear insights.
Title: Perceptions on violence against women and its impacts and response mechanisms among
community-based stakeholders: A qualitative study from Nepal
Version: 3 Date: 19 Mar 2023
Reviewer:  Shalik Ram Dhital
Reviewer's report:
Dear  Author
This  study is  interesting and you have done a great job.  you have well written the manuscript.
However minor comments are in the track change of manuscript. please address my comments.
Topic:  There is little change and you need to rewrite.
Abstract: Please never start first sentence with abbreviation.
Keywords: Please arrange whether ascending or descending order.
Background:  Your introduction is too long and please rearrange and make short <800 words.
Your background must be ending with the gap addressing and what aims is ? please go through
the documents and revisit.  Please be careful with correct name of province throughout the
manuscript. There is no province name by number now all provinces have their own name.
Methods: Please see my track changes version of the manuscript.
Results: Ok. well written
Discussion: Please add study aims in the first part of discussion. Follow the comments.
Language:  Language review  is required and make a consistency word throughout the document.
References:  Please add suggested reference in the appropriate places.
You will get track change version of the manuscript from the journal.
Title: Perceptions on violence against women and its impacts and response mechanisms among
community-based stakeholders: A qualitative study from Nepal
Version: 5 Date: 05 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Shalik Ram Dhital
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me a chance to review this paper. This is interesting and important issue
the authors raises on Perception on women's violence ... in Nepal.
I have provided few comments in track change in the manuscript. Please see track change and
prepare a final paper. I have submitted track change manuscript via email to the journal. Thank
you
Title: Breast cancer screening motivation and behaviours of women aged over 75 years: A
scoping review
Version: 2 Date: 23 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review this manuscript. The manuscript is
interesting, organized and fairly written. It may however be improved. The referencing style is
good. The English language is good despite the presence of minor errors and spelling mistakes.
The authors have drawn on the PRISMA-ScR checklist. However, while there is a Medline
search strategy, a more generalised search strategy format for all databases  should have been
presented. Please review the numbers of papers obtained within the PRISMA Statement. The
three themes have been discussed adequately.
Title: Breast cancer screening motivation and behaviours of women aged over 75 years: A
scoping review
Version: 4 Date: 09 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors well addressed my comments except for the following ones:
- Results b: “Sentence has been reframed.” I did not see the reframed, and it was still the original
sentence “Data collection methods varied with quantitative methods being used most frequently
(n=8), and qualitative (n=5) and mixed methods (n=1) also used.” in the revised manuscript. It
is challenging to review the revised manuscript without tracking or highlighting the changes.
- Results d: “Underlying attitudes to screening included reference to past attendance and future
intentions to screen. This is indicative of the variation in this age group.” Authors’ response
makes a clear point/statement that authors believe underlying attitudes included both “past
attendance” and “future intentions”. However as not all studies examined or interpreted in this
way, this point needs to be included and clearly and precisely stated in this section.
- Results e. “The comparison here is with women of higher educational attainment. Wording to
this effect has been included.” Again, I did not see the revised wording in the revised manuscript,
e.g. “compared to women of higher educational attainment” or equivalent needs to be included
in the sentence with comparative adjectives to prevent confusion.
Title: Breast cancer screening motivation and behaviours of women aged over 75 years: A
scoping review
Version: 4 Date: 13 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the revised and improved manuscript. There is one point that is to be reviewed. 14
papers were selected, however, on review, the numbers do not tally. For example, the UK papers
were presented as 1 but, two papers are indicated in the brackets  (23, 56) [page 9]. It has also
been noticed that there is no reference to paper 56 in the findings and Table 2. Additionally, the
US papers are 11 and not 12. Please review and revise accordingly. Thank you.
Title: Anxiety, depression, somatization and psychological distress before and 2 - 6 years after
a late termination of pregnancy due to fetal anomalies
Version: 0 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The article is interesting since it reflects psychological symptoms of women who experience
pregnancy loss, even if the decision is voluntary.
I have some questions mainly regarding methodology:
• With respect to Brief Symptom Inventory-18, it is not indicated which is the cut-off point that
was established for both the overall score and the score for each of the dimensions.
• It would be interesting to contrast scores according to parity and partner. Likewise, if there is
a correlation with the age of women.
• Perhaps one of the inclusion criteria would be not presenting psychiatric pathology during
pregnancy.
• In Table 1 it would be better to specify that they are t-scores.
• In this paragraph “many participants reported above-average scores of anxiety, depression,
somatization and overall psychological distress at T1” it could be specified if women present
higher scores compared to other clinical situations (patients undergoing a clinical process).
Similarly, it could be reflected whether in T4 the scores are similar to other populations.
• Regarding the bibliography, it would be better to include some recent articles.
Title: Anxiety, depression, somatization and psychological distress before and 2 - 6 years after
a late termination of pregnancy due to fetal anomalies
Version: 0 Date: 06 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study investigates short and long-term consequences of late termination of pregnancy with
a focus on psychological distress more specifically, anxiety, depression, and somatization using
a well-known self-report questionnaire. A strength of the study is the relatively large sample
size even at T4 and the long follow-up period, at least for some of the women.
A major weakness of this article is the theoretical framework. The authors claim that the findings
to date are sparse and heterogeneous, particularly with regard to the long-term psychological
consequences for women. However, this heterogeneity is not made clear in the introduction,
which is confirmed in the discussion in which authors support their findings with studies
mentioned in the introduction. Furthermore, the paper lacks a hypothesis. The stated research
question of how long after the late TOP the psychological stress remains elevated was not
addressed in the analysis in the narrower sense. Another consequence of this is the lack of a
discussion of the results.
Introduction:
p.4, line 75: This sentence is unclear as the cited study seems to refer to the same time period
(22 vs. 24 months) as the present study.
p. 4, line 79: All findings mentioned in the introduction show, that psychological distress
declines with time. Therefore, the heterogeneity of results mentioned is not evitable.
Furthermore, research questions and hypotheses are not clearly formulated respectively not
detailed enough and not consistent with subsequent analyses.
Method:
p. 5, line 86: Authors mentioned the mean and range of T4, however in this case it might be
more interesting to report frequencies. Two to six years is a large period. (“…four times before
(T1)…” is misleading).
p.5, line 93: This sentence is not clear. “…pathological fetal finding according to.” There seems
to be information missing.
p.6, line 110: more information on the “comprehensive set of questions” would have been
interesting, especially since data are not presented as well.
p.6, line 27: it is not clear why authors calculated a correlation analysis.
p.7, line 132: The authors reported calculation of sample size, however sample size calculation
are not relevant at this point in time, when the study is completed.
Results:
p.7, line 140: p-values, t-statistics are missing.
Discussion
p. 9, line 169 and line 174: these are in fact nearly the same statements.
p.9, line 179: It is unclear why the authors specify the sample size as a possible limitation if the
sample size calculation confirms that the sample size is sufficient.
p.9, line 183: Authors state that other factors (e.g. children, relationship) may have influenced
the results. Since authors seem to have this information as mentioned on p. 5, line 103, why are
they not included it in the analysis.