JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Tumor polo-like kinase 4 protein expression reflects lymph vascular invasion, higher
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and shortened survival in endometrial cancer
patients who undergo surgical resection
Version: 1 Date: 15 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. The tables and
figures are clear and interesting.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, in order to correct a few typos and improve
readability.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the new molecular classification of endometrial
cancer and its importance for tailoring the approach to this important disease ( see PMID:
36979434 and PMID: 36983243).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
- What is already known on this subject? What do the results of this study add? Numerous studies
on the subject are available in the literature.
-What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research?
-What are the strengths and limitations of this manuscript?
Title: Tumor polo-like kinase 4 protein expression reflects lymph vascular invasion, higher
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and shortened survival in endometrial cancer
patients who undergo surgical resection
Version: 1 Date: 16 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study is aimed at exploring the prognostic impact of Polo-like kinase 4 (PLK4) on patients
with endometrial cancer. Although the manuscript posses some merits, the current study was
hinted by unneglectable bias in term of selecting of retrospective cohort that make it not suitable
for the reader of BMC Women's Health.
In table 1, the cohort contains 13.4% serous endometrial carcinoma (19 out of 142) cases in
a relatively small cohort in a relatively longer time of enrolling (more than 5 years), which is
alarmingly uncommon at clinical practice. The same pattern could be seen elsewhere in the
current cohort concerning the spectrum of cases with cervical stromal invasion (25.4% in the
current study and usually no more than 10% at clinical practice), as well as patients with lymph
vascular invasion (also 25.4% in the current study and usually no more than 8% at clinical
practice). Furthermore, 62.0% patients in the current study were at stage I, and most patients
(more than 85%) received primary surgery with endometrial cancer were at stage I at real
world, even in huge cancer centers. A common bias for retrospective cohort studies lies on
selection bias, and that may partially explain the ubiquitously bizarre distribution of patients
with some previously mentioned clinicopathological indicators in the current study. In a word,
the manuscript suffered from unacceptable bias that leads the authors’ conclusion shaky.
Title: Tumor polo-like kinase 4 protein expression reflects lymph vascular invasion, higher
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and shortened survival in endometrial cancer
patients who undergo surgical resection
Version: 3 Date: 13 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for going through the manuscript and the reviewers' points
In my honest opinion, the authors have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers’ criticisms.
The manuscript is well written and falls within the aim of this Journal.
Title: ‘I don't want to be a guinea pig’ - Swedish women’s experiences of breast abscess
treatment
Version: 2 Date: 27 Dec 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)?
No - there are minor issues
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?
N/A - there are no statistics in this 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This study is a thematic analysis of mothers' experiences of
managing puerperal breast abscesses. This study describes the difficulties experienced by
mothers with puerperal breast abscesses during their treatment, the lack of explanatory
information from physicians and the problems they experience in the health system. It reveals
that physician-patient communication should be improved and the health system should be
improved in some aspects.
Mothers were interviewed and their experiences before, during and after breast abscess treatment
were assessed. The authors categorised and interpreted their responses. The data were well
presented and generally well discussed. A statistical analysis is not performed, but the most
common answers are examined.  Unusual answers are also included in the results.
In general, the article is well written. Since it reveals that the doctor's communication with
puerperant women should be improved, it may lead to new research on puerperant-doctor
communication.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the discussion, page 24. How did the authors interpret the participants' complaints about long
waiting times for ultrasound in the management of breast abscesses? The discussion of this topic
was incomplete.
Title: ‘I don't want to be a guinea pig’ - Swedish women’s experiences of breast abscess
treatment
Version: 4 Date: 26 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Dana Marie Scott
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your revisions for the article "‘I don't want to be a guinea pig’ - Swedish women’s
experiences of breast abscess treatment".
The authors have adequately addressed all of my feedback points. I recommend the paper for
publication.
Title: ‘I don't want to be a guinea pig’ - Swedish women’s experiences of breast abscess
treatment
Version: 4 Date: 27 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revisions and additions suggested by the reviewers were made
by the authors. In this form is acceptable for publishing.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In this form is acceptable for publishing.
Title: “Counteract the gaslighting” – A thematic analysis of open-ended responses about what
women survivors of intimate partner sexual violence need from service providers.
Version: 1 Date: 05 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
This paper addresses the important issue of what IPSV survivors want and need from service
providers. As an understudied issue, the exploratory, qualitative nature of the study is  quite
appropriate.  The paper adequately addresses prior limited literature and sets up the problem and
purpose of the paper.  The methods are explained and appropriate (minor points will be addressed
below). The findings with the themes are well developed and presented (minor point below).  The
discussion, recommendations, limitations, further research (minor point below), and conclusion
are all well-developed and thoughtful. Overall, this is a strong paper that will greatly add to the
specific literature around IPSV and needs from service providers. Minor points:
1) In the methods, who was involved with the coding and analysis? All authors? Did all do each
part? Clarify this is the methods section. Doing so will only further illustrate the validity of the
process/method.
2) Provide more information on the answers to the two questions used. For example, how long
were answers? How much did respondents write? Given that this is addressed as a weakness, it
sticks out that it is not mentioned anywhere.
3) In the findings, after each quote there is a number after the letter p. Assuming this is the
identifier used instead of names. Clarify this.
4) I know the study is qualitative and exploratory, but since demographics were presented I was
curious if any differences were noticed between respondents? This does not necessarily need to
be addressed in the paper (nor should it be because of the qualitative nature), but maybe could
be a point to raise for future research?
Title: Incidence and risk factors of stress urinary incontinence after laparoscopic hysterectomy  
Version: 2 Date: 01 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Please add "laparoscopic" before "hysterectomy " in the title.
Candidates in control group should be referred to as "women without stress incontinence "
instead of "with non-stress incontinence". This applies to the abstract, methodology and results
section.
Page 6, line 14:" statistic" not static.
Title: Incidence and risk factors of stress urinary incontinence after laparoscopic hysterectomy  
Version: 2 Date: 05 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This was a retrospective study that aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors of stress
urinary incontinence (SUI) after hysterectomy. It concluded that parity, menopausal status,
obesity, preoperative nutritional status, and occult infection of the urinary system were factors
contributing to SUI after hysterectomy.
The manuscript will be strengthened after correcting some shortcomings as followings.
1. The study was retrospectively performed and divided the subjects into two groups by the
results of questionnaire. Was it “case-control” in study design?
2. The SUI related questionnaires survey was conducted with interval at least 55 months after
surgery by telephone interview. However, most of pre-operative information such as BMI,
hemoglobin, albumin, urine bacteria etc. was collected before surgery which might be changed
during the period from post-operation to survey point. Was it adequate to investigate the causal
relationship between SUI and these factors?
3. Age itself was well proven an important factor contributing to SUI. The age distribution
ranged widely from 30 to 65 years in this study. Was “the age factor” adequately controlled
during regression analysis?
4. The related risk factors such as chronic cough, constipation history etc. had to be defined in
the materials and methods.
5. The reason why the cut-off value was set of the related factors had to be mentioned and
explained in the materials and methods.
6. The one-hour pad test was used to investigate the severity of urinary incontinence rather than
to confirm the diagnosis. The results of pad test had better to be added to the results.
7. The tables in the manuscript had to be collected together with table legend rather than
separated them in the results.
Title: Incidence and risk factors of stress urinary incontinence after laparoscopic hysterectomy  
Version: 2 Date: 14 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
After defining stress urinary incontinence, use the acronym SUI. Enter the acronym the first
time the word appears and then use it.
It has an acronym, it has the entire word mixed in the text.
Different font sizes at the end of methods and statistical analysis.
Methods: what finger pressure? Describe and mention the pressure categories.
Wasn't this shown in the results? Could It be a risk factor?
And the pad test? Where are the results?
Results: use control group
Do not use capital letters in the midlle  “showed that: The age of”.
There are several sentences with capital letters in the middle.
Tables with several different fonts and sizes.
Disconfigured table: the answers are far below the questions.
Think about putting the percentages next to the absolute numbers of the results.
Discussion:
Support structure I during the operation; the Angle between. Don´t use capital latters in the
midlle
I believe the discussion can be more specific to the main risk factors.
It is important to remember that some information is to indicate hysterechtima and is probably
not related to SUI. For example, I didn't find anything in the literature about UI and hemoglobin
#100g/L.
This is probably to indicate hysterectomy and is not causing UI.
References:
They are unformatted. Please adjust and standardize.
Title: Incidence and risk factors of stress urinary incontinence after laparoscopic hysterectomy  
Version: 4 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has been corrected the related problems mentioned in previous review. However,
there are still some problems remained requiring further revision.
1. There were some errors of punctuation marks used in the abstract.
2. Was “analysis of risk factors” a formal Mesh term or adequately used in the manuscript?
3. (M&M) Since this was a retrospective case-control study, the subjects were enrolled by
inclusive criteria. Was it adequate to use “participate”?
4. (Table 1) Was the parameter “secret history of convenience” significant enough to be listed?
Too many parameters made the table redundant.
Title: Effect of public health expenditure on maternal mortality ratio in the West African
Economic and Monetary Union
Version: 2 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
A) PROOFREADING
The manuscript needs proofreading. For example, the statement “women make up a significant
portion of the working population in developing countries” should read “… proportion…”
B) THEORY
I did not find any theory, mentioned in the text, to explain or suggest the relationship between
(public) health spending and maternal mortality. The manuscript should have a theory(ies)
underpinning the study.
C) METHOD
The authors outlined a number of econometrics techniques – LSDVC, GMM, GLS, PSCE, and
2SLS – that can be used for the analysis. The authors highlighted the advantages and limitations
of these models. They opted for the 2SLS and mentioned the limitations of the 2SLS but did not
indicate how the limitations are dealt with. They even argue that “Panel-adjusted least squares
has three main advantages over 2SLS and GMM”. Yet, they used 2SLS for the estimation. Why?
Again, they argue that GMM and LSDVC are able to deal with reverse causality (endogeneity)
but not bidirectional causality while 2SLS is able to deal with bidirectional causality. What is
the difference between reverse causality and bidirectional causality?
D) MEASUREMENT
Regarding maternal mortality, we are looking at female adults (largely 15+ years) who give birth.
The authors use primary/elementary school enrolment to proxy for (adult) female education.
This proxy is inappropriate because primary school enrolment is the proportion of children, of
school going age, currently enroled in school NOT the proportion of (adult) females having
primary education. The children enroled in school do not constitute the child-bearing population.
E) RESULTS
The authors should present first descriptive statics of the data/variables before the econometrics
results.
The econometrics results (Table 1) were not interpreted. They should first interpret the results
before discussing the results.
F) MOTIVATION
Maternal mortality is an important issue that needs attention to address the menace. However,
there are myriad of studies on the relationship between (public) health spending and maternal
mortality on Africa, SSA, and a country (e.g. Nigeria, Ghana, Burkina Faso). The authors even
cited some of these studies in the manuscript. I did not find a convincing argument/motivation
for the current study. The authors’ arguments for the study’s focus on WAEMU and estimation
technique being 2SLS are not convincing. The arguments are weak.
– END –
Title: Effect of public health expenditure on maternal mortality ratio in the West African
Economic and Monetary Union
Version: 2 Date: 28 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comment on the Effect of public health expenditure on maternal mortality ratio in the West
African Economic and Monetary Union.
1. Important tests are missing from the article and those tests are essential before estimation. This
includes variance inflation factor, summary statistics, etc. I strongly suggest you include them.
2. Why does the research consider the gross domestic product per capita in constant PPP instead
of real GDP?
3. What is the rationale for including population density?
Title: Effect of public health expenditure on maternal mortality ratio in the West African
Economic and Monetary Union
Version: 3 Date: 24 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed my comments. There is a significant improvement on the write-up.
Nonetheless, the authors should note the following:
1. Table 3 is missing from the Results section. It is placed in the Discussion section. Wrong! It
should be at the Results section, where both Tables 1 and 2 are.
2. The authors have used secondary school enrolment in the revised manuscript, instead of the
primary school enrolment used in the previous manuscript, to proxy for the proportion of female
adult population with secondary school education. But the problem still remains. That females in
senior high school are either do not belong to the child-bearing female population or constitute an
insignificant proportion of the child-bearing female population. Since data for educational level
of the child-bearing female population are unavailable, as the authors point out in the “Response
to Reviewers’ Comments” file, I will advise the authors to acknowledge the use of the proxy
data as a limitation of the paper, at the Limitation section.
3. On the justification for the 2SLS method for the analysis, I find the authors’ summarised
responses to my earlier comments relevant that should be in the paper. I mean the authors should
have another paragraph, the last paragraph under the Model section, i.e. before the Results
section, to summarise the advantages of the 2SLS method as in the "Response to Reviewers'
Comments" file.
– END –
Title: Mediating effect of suicidal ideation in the association between child abuse and
premenstrual syndrome among female adults
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for this great article that sheds light on a very important topic, especially in the
Middle East.
Abstract
1. Please add the p value and correlation coefficient.
2. The conclusion in the abstract can be expanded, and additional information should be added.
Introduction
1. You will get overwhelmed while reading that long introduction due to its rambling style.
Additionally, not every detail has to be included.
2. “Luteal phase” should not be capitalized.
3. Please add a reference to this “Particularly, sexual abuse and neglect were significantly
associated with premenstrual symptoms, with maltreatment additionally predicting greater
emotion dysregulation.”
4. The introduction should not be this long; it is even longer than the discussion! Please change
the introduction to be more concise and focused.
5. Please add a hypothesis for the study.
Methods
1. Was a pilot study done?
2. Please provide the questioner as a supplementary material.
3. What were the types of groups that were targeted?
4. What was the message that appeared to the participants on the online survey? This
communication might have impacted a specific subset of participants while excluding others
from your study.
5. Please explain how the physical activity index was calculated. It is not very clear.
Results
1. Please confirm how the following variables were calculated (psychological abuse, neglect,
physical abuse, sexual abuse, and suicidal ideation); if calculated using the mentioned survey,
please add it to the note in Table 1 and clarify it in the method.
2. What does “X2 / t” mean?
3. Why was the household crowding index not reported in the results?
4. How did you calculate this? “A significantly higher percentage of participants who are single
and have a university level of education was found in participants with PMS.”? The  P-values
by themselves do not indicate the strength or direction of an effect.
5. Table 1, please delete “X2 / t” and degree of freedom. Please add a column with the total n
(%) or total mean +- SD. In addition, add at the bottom of the table the test used to calculate
each p-value.
6. Please add a zero before the decimal point .
7. I am not experienced in mediation analysis. Was the analysis done by an experienced person?
Discussion
1. Please add a recommendation section other than the clinical implications.
2. In the author contributions, even though I am not an expert, it is apparent that some authors
do not meet the criteria to be included as authors.
3. Please provide the reference number and data for ethics approval.
4. Please expand the conclusion, and additional information should be added.
5. Please add “snowball sampling technique” and the use of social media as limitations to the
study design, including that it is not entirely representative of the broader population, affecting
the external validity of the study.
Title: Mediating effect of suicidal ideation in the association between child abuse and
premenstrual syndrome among female adults
Version: 1 Date: 22 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Beesan Maraqa
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to examine this work that focuses on the role of suicidal ideation
as a mediator between child abuse and premenstrual syndrome. Even though the study is
conceptually interesting and the article is well-written, certain issues should be addressed.
- The statistical analysis employed in the Methods should be mentioned in the abstract, and it is
preferable to include the numerical values of the associations established in the results section.
- I appreciate how nicely you wrote the introduction. Please take out the phrase "the present
study" from the text.
- Include the definitions of each variable in the sample size formula. Provide a quantitative
and qualitative definition of your target demographic, along with an explanation of the sample
inflation.
- I recommend that you provide the tool as supplementary material.
- You should describe in the PSST how you applied this tool's results to your analysis. Exists a
particular cutoff point? Is it built into the tool, or did you hypothesize it? You should elaborate.
- Include the tests you used for descriptive statistics in the statistical analysis section.
- Ethical consequences are unclear. Is the study approved by an IRB? How did you get informed
consent? Did you follow up with the participants who were at high risk of suicide? What about
confidentiality?
- Provide further details in the text regarding Table 1's results.
- Well-written discussion, limitations, and conclusion