JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Coping strategies utilized by patients with cervical cancer: An explorative qualitative
study at the Ocean Road Cancer Institute in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Version: 1 Date: 28 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read the Manuscript titled “Coping strategies used by patients with cervical cancer: An
explorative qualitative study at Ocean Road Cancer Institute in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania” which
falls within the aim of the Journal.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- Considering results of this study, I suggest that authors to add references about recent evidence
of the persistence of HPV infections and factors related. I would be glad if the authors discuss
this important point, referring to PMID: 37401466 and 37747763.
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Coping strategies utilized by patients with cervical cancer: An explorative qualitative
study at the Ocean Road Cancer Institute in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Version: 2 Date: 25 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
The manuscript is greatly improved. Well done.
Comment
Line 444 : The participant took alcohol intentionally to help the participant eliminate disturbing
thoughts that crowded her.   'Clouded' seems more appropriate than 'crowded'; kindly consider
replacing crowded with clouded.
Title: Women’s alcohol Consumption During The Restriction Phases of the COVID-19
Pandemic in Brazil: a Phone Based Survey
Version: 3 Date: 26 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for choosing me to review this article.
Authors try to emphasized the negative effect of Covid-19 pandemic especially mental health
by using alcohol.
In my opinion article totally not bad, its acceptable with revision.
Article seriously need to be edited grammatically and rewriting.
Authors must clearly explain primary and secondary outcomes of their study in method section.
Method for selecting participants is not explain. Also I want to know their study hadn't any
confounders, authors don't discuss about confounders and method of control them.
How did authors calculate sample size of study?? They don't discuss about this matter at all.
As well as why authors used nonparametric tests to analysis data? They did not tell about data
situation in their study.
Title: Women’s alcohol Consumption During The Restriction Phases of the COVID-19
Pandemic in Brazil: a Phone Based Survey
Version: 3 Date: 12 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Interesting and relevant theme: alcohol consumption during the pandemic.
2. The authors propose a gender analysis; however, it does not make clear the justification of
the theoretical framework used.
3. This study does not compare alcohol use in different populations, so arguments related to
greater alcohol abuse in women than among men should not be used, but rather that the pandemic
reached the population increasing mental suffering, and consequently the use and abuse of
alcohol, and that it would be interesting to observe how this occurred in different population
segments, and in the female population.
4. The part that deals with the context of Covid 19, in Sao Paulo, should be in the methodology.
5. The description of the population selection process is unclear, and should be included in the
methodology: calculation of sample size, type of sample selection procedures (randomized or
not).
6. In the flowchart (figure 1 ) it shows different numbers than those described in the text.
7. What were the eligibility criteria of study population?
8. The presentation of the data analysis is unclear, including signs in the text without specific
representation.
9. The presentation of the Tables is incorrect and is unclear.
10. The dependent variable is not clearly presented, as are not the covariates, and the possible
confounders.
11. I did not locate the variable age or age group:  an association observed with several variables
could be explained by age: protective effect of being retired by example, among other findings,
which should be controlled by age.
12. The discussion is generic, and the authors should discuss the actual results obtained by this
study.
13. In the limitations does not present the question of the selection bias of the sample as well the
percentual of losses. Another important bias to be discussed is the memory:  the application of
the interview was distant from the moment of pandemic restriction, so there could be a tendency
to remember the information of the closest moments better, than the distant ones.
14. This is a cross-sectional study; the authors should avoid incorporating time issues into the
analysis.
Title: Women’s alcohol Consumption During The Restriction Phases of the COVID-19
Pandemic in Brazil: a Phone Based Survey
Version: 5 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Despite accepting some suggestions from the previous review, the article needs rewriting:
Better present the introduction, removing ideological issues from the text, not consistently based
on the literature.
The authors did not demonstrate clarity in the text to present the process of sampling and
selection of study participants, it was not a contingency sample, but work with the universe of
cases of a certain period.
The method used is still not clear, two measures of association are used, the presentation of the
multiple model is confusing, I advise you to choose a path. If you are going to present the odds
ratio in the multiple model, you need to present the bivariate analysis.
Dependent variable is presented as continuous, and in strata, the analysis apparently was of a
dichotomous outcome, it is not clear.
The study's biases, which are many, should be discussed, not just cited.
Title: Women’s alcohol Consumption During The Restriction Phases of the COVID-19
Pandemic in Brazil: a Phone Based Survey
Version: 6 Date: 27 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The study asks and answers an important question regarding the
prevalence and risk factors associated with alcohol misuse - and at what point in time during
COVID-related restrictions. I have not yet seen an analysis that presents the results from different
pandemic phases. I believe the authors addressed previous reviewer comments and the analysis
and presentation of results is clear and improved. I do not have additional critical comments to
offer the authors. I think the discussion of study limitations could have provided greater detail
about how these limitations affected the study results and future studies that may be able to
address these shortcomings.
I think the novelty in this study was to explore the pandemic phases.
Title: Women’s alcohol Consumption During The Restriction Phases of the COVID-19
Pandemic in Brazil: a Phone Based Survey
Version: 7 Date: 03 Dec 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?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The original manuscript seems to have had 1 reviewer plus the
Editor. The comments from the Editor were related to clarifications required, possibly due to
English not being the first language of the authors. These comments were addressed well. The
other reviewer mainly had a comments regarding some technical issues in relation to the choice
of statistical tests. The authors did not agree with some of the comments by the reviewer, and
in their Point by Point response, the tended to respond by saying that they consulted a statistical
consultant. Whilst this may be the case and they may be 'correct', if the reviewer has picked up
potential errors in their use of statistical tests, I would have expected them to have added more
detail, with appropriate references, within the manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have dealt well with most of the comments, and added appropriate details within the
revised version of the manuscript. However, in their responses to comments about their choice
of statistical tests when they cite a 'statistical consultant', they need to add details to the paper,
with appropriate references, to justify why they used those particular tests. If the reviewer is
questioning their use of some of the tests, then in order to not adhere to the comments, they need
to add details to the manuscript justifying their choices of tests (if this reviewer is questioning
the tests, it may well be that other readers will do so, therefore justifying their statistical tests
will help in the long run)."
Title: Women’s alcohol Consumption During The Restriction Phases of the COVID-19
Pandemic in Brazil: a Phone Based Survey
Version: 8 Date: 23 Dec 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?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I am happy with the amendments made to the manuscript,
notwithstanding that the authors have had this version professionally edited and they will be
submitting a newer version.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The additions made by the authors are well justified. I do not feel that any additions are required
to the paper. However, the authors state that a newer version will be submitted - it is currently
being professionally edited - given that the newer version may have some changes to English
language and expression, it will be wise to receive this version and then accept it, rather than
accepting the current version. Nevertheless, my view is that the 'science' in the paper is fine and
the paper should be accepted, pending the newer edited version.
Title: Development and validation of scales measuring individual, nursing unit, hospital, and
community factors related to fertility intentions of female Japanese hospital nurses
Version: 2 Date: 13 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for this interesting paper. You addressed previous reviewer notes. I would just like to
suggest that I found the writings about the pilot test in the abstract of the study a bit confusing in
terms of the sample size. Instead, I think it would be simpler and more understandable to simply
write that the sample of the study consisted of 898 nurses from 50 hospitals. Other than that, I
think the article is suitable for publication.
Title: Development and validation of scales measuring individual, nursing unit, hospital, and
community factors related to fertility intentions of female Japanese hospital nurses
Version: 2 Date: 07 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Please add "development and validation of...." in your title.
Design needs to be corrected as methodological due to development and validations study of
a measure.
Why the targeted number of participants was 2,000.? It is so strange. How did you decide this
and how it could be acceptable when you targeted 2000 but you accessed 400. Please clarify.
What are the final sample number is not clear in the method section.
Discussion section has 15 pages. It is really difficult to complete review process. I am sorry.
Because, the writing style leads to some concerns and lack of knowledge about professional
writing.
Title: The Intersection of Intimate Partner Violence with Sexual Reproductive Health in the
Pacific: findings from a Kiribati population study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Jill Gay
Reviewer's report:
Accepted with minor revisions. This is an important and well done article, a real contribution to
our field. It has the details and nuance that is so important to  policies and programming. Future
work to advance our field is clear.
Minor revisions: Some of your citations are academic style and some are  endnotes. Please be
consistent in line with  BMC's reference citation policies.  Please do a quick lit search to see if any
of your references can be more recent than what you have listed currently (McMurray, 2006).
Thank you for such an excellent article.
Title: The influence of uterine leiomyomatosis on the onset of psoriasis: a nationwide
population-based study of 2.5 million Korean females
Version: 0 Date: 11 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I read your article assessing the association between uterine leiomyomatosis and new-onset
psoriasis. The investigation involving these two diseases is novel and deserves attention.
I list here some amendments to improve the quality of the manuscript:
1 - A native English speaker revision is needed
2- I would rather speak of uterine leiomyomatosis than uterine leiomyioma. We are speaking
of conditions and not just of a lesion.
3- Introduction: I suggest to add the uncommon event of a misdiagnosed uterine
malignancy when speaking of uterine leiomyomay (DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2023.09.013),
therefore highlighting the importance of a correct diagnosis approach.
4- Study design: clearly state with a brief descriptive sentence the design of the study in this
section.
5- Why did you choose selectively the 20-39 years of age range ?
6- "Monitoring began at the initial national health assessment within the time frame and
continued until either the diagnosis of emerging psoriasis or until December 2018. " did you
mena psoriasis monitoring or fibroids monitoring?
7- Study population: this section should be adequately revised. It is clear that patients have been
recruited from this national registry, but it is not clear which are the inclusion criteria. Did you
include patients with a diagnosis of leiomyomatosis at first?
8- why did you excluded patients underwent hysterectomy? It might have been interesting to
include patients with a histological diagnosis of leiomyomatosis.
9- How was leiomyomatosis diagnosed? It might be a limit of the study not to know the
diagnostic methods employed, and at least should be stated.
10- Results: please improve this section by using percentages in brackets or report data more
specifically, not  just referring to tables and figures.
11- There might be a huge bias in the methods, which I would like it to be warded off by
the authors: did you consider in your statistical analysis the potential delayed diagnosis of
leiomyomatosis? Meaning that leiomyomatosis may have been diagnoses later on, even later
than psoriasis diagnosis, if leiomyomatosis was not considered the main first inclusion criteria
of the study.
12- Discussion: I would adjust this section by also speaking of other immune system-related
diseases associated to leiomyomatosis. Moreover, I would give this section a more clinical
perspective, suggesting practitioner ways to approach patients having psoriasis by citing the risk
of leiomyomatosis and viceversa.
Title: The influence of uterine leiomyomatosis on the onset of psoriasis: a nationwide
population-based study of 2.5 million Korean females
Version: 0 Date: 26 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the study is that the hypothesis raised by
the authors presents an interesting avenue of research; however, it would benefit from more
rigorous testing to mitigate the inherent biases often encountered in claims-based research.
The authors have done a commendable job in organizing and analyzing key elements such
as demographics, risk factors, and other essential variables for comparison. To strengthen the
findings and address potential classification bias, allocation bias, and protopathic bias, additional
extension studies would be highly beneficial. I believe that with these further efforts, the study
can significantly enhance its impact and reliability.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In order to grasp the entire picture and test your hypotheses, you should apply the same study
flow to the other age group of Korean women aged 40 to 59 since both diseases can also
be prevalent in this age group. You may also analyze your dataset by segregating data by
menopausal status, i.e., premenopausal vs. postmenopausal. Such comprehensive analyses will
be much appreciated and eagerly awaited to test you hypothesis of disease association.
The working definitions for uterine leiomyomata and psoriasis should be clearly stated. How
these two conditions were diagnosed? How reliable is the diagnosis?
Medications and infections have also been identified as potential triggering or exacerbating
factors for psoriasis. Do you think you need to adjust for the use of propranolol or even
hyperthyroidism?
I calculated the odds ratio for the association and found that the OR for psoriasis in women with
uterine leiomyoma compared to women without was 16,615 (95% CI, 15,034.58 to 18,364.15).
So huge. Can this OR be right?
Title: The influence of uterine leiomyomatosis on the onset of psoriasis: a nationwide
population-based study of 2.5 million Korean females
Version: 1 Date: 27 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded adequately to each of the questions or
concerns I raised in the previous round of review. They have also made changes to reflect their
responses in the manuscript per se. My overall impression of the revised manuscript is it has
attained sufficient quality to be recommended for publication.