JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Teratoma combined with struma ovarii and sarcomatoid carcinoma#A case report and
review of the literature
Version: 1 Date: 11 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript.
This manuscript presents a rare and intriguing case of a 67-year-old woman with a pelvic mass
identified as a combination of teratoma, struma ovarii, and sarcomatoid carcinoma. The case
report provides a comprehensive clinical account, detailed histopathological analysis, and a
review of the relevant literature. The rarity of the case and the authors' efforts to correlate clinical
findings with histopathological and immunohistochemical results make this report a potentially
valuable contribution to the medical literature. However, there are several areas that should be
addressed by the authors.
1. I would suggest revising the abstract for clarity and conciseness. Certain sentences are overly
complex, making it difficult to follow the central points. For instance, the statement, "Whether
it's struma ovarii or ovarian sarcomatoid carcinoma the incidence of both is extremely low
and rarely reported so there are no clear guidelines for either disease..."could be simplified to
improve readability.
2. While the manuscript does include a review of the literature, there could be a more critical
analysis of how this case fits into the existing body of knowledge. For example, the discussion
could benefit from a deeper exploration of how this case compares topreviously reported cases
of sarcomatoid carcinoma in other organs.
3. The manuscript should provide a more detailed interpretation of the immunohistochemical
findings. For instance, the implications of CK and Vimentin positivity in the context of
sarcomatoid carcinoma should be more explicitly discussed,especially in relation to the
differential diagnosis.
4. Please try to provide a more detailed legend for each figure.
5. Try to provide a more in-depth discussion on the limitations of current imaging techniques in
diagnosing such complex cases along with the strengths of the manuscript.
6. The manuscript would benefit from the revision of native English speaker.
7. I would suggest to rewriting the conclusion part with supporting data and providing more
specific take-home messages.
I would be happy to rereview the revised manuscript.
Title: Teratoma combined with struma ovarii and sarcomatoid carcinoma#A case report and
review of the literature
Version: 1 Date: 11 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Dubravko Habek
Reviewer's report:
Clinically very interesting presentation of an extremely rare case of two tumors in one organ. the
paper has all the components of a case presentation and is conceptually fine, without objections.
It would be good to include and quote another recent reference:
Medi# F, Mileti# IA, Jakov#evi# A, Habek D. Papillary thyroid carcinoma within a
mature cystic ovarian teratoma. Wien Med Wochenschr 2023;173:245-247. doi.org/10.1007 /
s10354-023-01016-6
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 0 Date: 19 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a very important subject of study of cervical cancer.
The manuscript is fairly written in clear english
The authors are attempting to describe the reason for the disparity in line 81....I think the reason
is not that HPV is more prevalent in LMICS but the lack of organized screening which should
come out clearly .....
It would sound better if the authors used the word loss to follow-up instead of drop out of follow-
up...The language is more inclined to HIV long life care ...the language for cervical cancer
screening is slightly different.......words like retention in care fit better with HIV.
The introduction should be enriched with why the screen and treat was working for LMICS, why
we have HPV screening now, what the challenges may be...what are the trade-offs....what is the
problem situation in Mbarara hospital etc with turnaround time for results....these are women
in life long care for their HIV....when have they declared lost to follow-up after cervical cancer
screening with HPV.....these issues are not coming out....
There is screening, receiving results, returning for treatment for the positives, and then the
follow-up after treatment.  So what is the point the authors are considering...it does not seem
clear.  The categorization for participant eligibility is not clear.  Loss to follow-up at the different
cascade points has different implications like if someone does not return after a positive test is
different from not returning for review after treatment.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 0 Date: 19 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the manuscript “Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening:
patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives” Owokuhaisa J et al., aimed to explore the
barriers and facilitators to retention into care after screening for cervical cancer. Their results
showed multiple Health system, Interpersonal and Individual level barriers to retention in care
after cervical cancer screening. The facilitators were social support, positive self-perception, and
patient counselling. They concluded that Male partners were influential in women’s response to
follow up appointments post cervical cancer screening and treatment.
Overall, the manuscript investigates a very important aspect of cervical cancer, related to
screening and early diagnosis, which is a fundamental pillar in the race to elimination of cervical
cancer.
In my review, the authors accurately reported the data, the discussion was focused on the results
and the conclusions and recommendations are adequately supported by the data. However, I
have some minor concerns.
Minor issues that need to be addressed.
1. Line 56: Women vs Patients, please revise.
2. Line 92: Include the age group for testing as per the recommendations / guidelines.
3. Line 123: State the aim of the study categorically in this last paragraph of the introduction.
4. Line 145: stage the dates within the month.
5. Line 173: It seems facilitators were not reported according to these categories.
6. Line 175: Insert citation for the Social Ecological Model.
7. Line 194: Is the definition of marriage acceptable within laws of country (Uganda)?
8. Line 301: Use past tense for consistence.
9. Lines 548, and 573: Check the tense.
10. Line 583: Revise statement.
Thank you.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript contains a lot of grammatical and punctuation mistakes that need to be corrected.
Introduction
Excellent and clear identification of the objectives of the study
Methods
The method was appropriate to the objectives of the study
Results
Tables 1 and 2 need to capitalize the heading
Table 1 needs more information about the non-healthcare professionals, the patients screened
and treated, the period between getting the treatment and the follow-up, marital status, and how
long they have been with the facility care. This can be a new table for only patient participants.
Analyzing the findings needs improvement; I would like numbers to state which factor was more
substantial than the other and what dominated. Statistics and numbers will strengthen the study.
align with the question
Discussion
It needs to be rewritten as it is a repetition of the results; most of the paragraphs echo what has
been explained in the results section
conclusion
Aligned with the objectives and outcomes.
Overall, it is an important study, and it will be a good addition to the literature to have the
dominating barriers and facilitators to help others overcome the same issues.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 0 Date: 22 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after
cervical cancer screening: patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives" which falls within
the aim of the Journal.
The methodology is adequate 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:
- The whole text should be corrected by a native English speaker in order to make the work
clearer and more readable.
-The abstract should be revised (in particular the results) in order to better summarize the
contents of the manuscript.
-I could not find any information regarding the approval of the Institutional Review Board. Did
the author have this approval before the study started?
- I think that the discussion could be studied in depth. In fact, some aspects should be highlighted.
In particular, the importance of cervical cancer screening and vaccination should be improved
by analyzing the obstetrical outcomes and the positive margins persistence in patients treated for
preinvasive lesions. This could emphasize the importance of screening. I suggest these articles
to get deeper in the topic : PMID: 36992282 and PMID: 33140628.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 0 Date: 23 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for the great work done in documenting the facilitators and barriers to
retention of women screened positive for cervical cancer lesions. Please find below comments
to support improvement of the manuscript:
(a) Line 56: the study population (women) is not specific enough (age? HIV status?VIA/HPV
screen positive?)
(b) Line 69: the conclusion that men were identified as influential .... is not supported by
study findings/results. The same applies to the conclusion on training health workers to monitor
treatment outcomes (line 72)
(c) Lines 87-8: The statement, "About seven thousand  Ugandan women (6959) are diagnosed
with cervical cancer annually of whom 4607 die" is a misrepresentation of the facts in the
literature. In its current form, it may be interpreted to mean that 4607/6959 of women diagnosed
with CC annually die. Yet, this is not true. 4607 deaths occur out of the total number of women
living with cervical cancer, not only among the new cases. Please rephrase.
(d) Line 92 - the frequency of cervical cancer screening/re-screening is dependent on the risk
profile of the woman (including HIV status and outcome of initial screening test - no suspicious
lesion or pre-cancerous lesion treated)
(e) Please revise narrative on re-screening intervals lines 98-101 to reflect risk stratification.
(f) Line 101, sentence 2 - Treatment for ..... (this should be clarified - is this for pre-cancerous
or cancerous lesions?)
(g) Line 112-113 - is patient relocation a non-modifiable risk factor for attrition from care?
(h) Line 117-118 - how big is the problem of non-continuity in cervical cancer screening care?
Please provide statistics on patient continuity or attrition from cervical cancer programs
(i) Line 131 - what was the age and HIV status distribution of the women?
Methods
(j) What do the authors mean by "the interviews were transcribed verbatim"? There is no mention
of audio recording of the interviews - how were participant responses captured?
(k) Is data transcription a technique of data analysis? What was the approach to data analysis?
Content or thematic analysis? Did you use any data analysis software such as NVIVO? How
was data coding done?
Results
(l) Results should be presented by theme, based on the socioecological model
Table 1 - presents limited characteristics of study participants, especially the patients. It would be
helpful to know whether these were mainly women free from other co-morbidities or vice versa.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 0 Date: 24 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after
cervical cancer screening: patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives" which falls within
the aim of the Journal.
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention.
Methodology is accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless, the
authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion by citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
- The manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker to improve clarity and
readability.
- To improve comparison with existing literature, authors should amplify references (see PMID:
37747763 and PMID: 37401466.
- Authors should analyze where exactly is the “originality” of their findings.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 2 Date: 07 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Amos Deogratius Mwaka
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I appreciate your diligence in addressing all comments from the earlier rounds of review.
I am largely satisfied with your responses in the point-by-point responses to reviewers
comments. I perused the revised manuscript.  However, I do not see you capture some of the
matters you say you have addressed  in the point-by-point response to reviewers comments.
An example is  the hospital description and weblink. Kindly ensure that you include in the
revised manuscript all that you say you have done in your response letter. Otherwise, you might
be perceived as fraudulent  whereas you may not be but for forgetfulness and or lapse in due
diligence.
Second, you may want to now address your minds on the format of the manuscript and flow of
ideas. Otherwise, the manuscript has really taken shape.
I wish you all the best.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 2 Date: 14 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
I thank the authors for a well-written revised version of the manuscript.  I however, have two
additional recommendations for the authors to consider:
(a) the failure to obtain data on HIV status of the study respondents is a major limitation of this
study. The relationship between HIV status and continuity in cervical cancer is bi-directional:
PEPFAR has provided resources for integration of cervical cancer screening and treatment
follow up in HIV programs - this could increase retention. However, HIV positive individuals
may experience intersecting stigma and find it more challenging to return for cervical cancer
services. As such, the authors need to acknowledge this among the study limitations.
(b) while the authors did a good job exploring themes from the cervical cancer patients and the
facility health workers, the study could have been enhanced by findings from the spouses/carers
of the patients and other community members. This could be acknowledged as a limitation and/
or direction for further inquiry.
Title: Barriers and facilitators of retention in care after cervical cancer screening: patients’ and
healthcare providers’ perspectives
Version: 3 Date: 26 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Amos Deogratius Mwaka
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I congratulate you upon the good work. I have no more useful comments to add. However, you
may wish to review the whole manuscript yourselves, preferably by someone else rather than
the corresponding author who may not now see the tiny issues - typos, repeated words etc.
I wish you all the best.
Kind regards
Amos
Title: Experiences of women with symptoms of vaginal laxity – a qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
The expanded organisation of themes and sub-themes with more citations has further improved
your manuscript, which, in my opinion, was already of high quality and deserved publication.
Reading your manuscript about a widely hidden and unacknowledged issue with a severe
impact, even in advanced countries, on women's self-esteem, legitimate women's right to sexual
satisfaction, and couple relationships, was entertaining and informative. I recommend definitive
acceptance of your manuscript. VL deserves to be known more widely as a crucial quality-of-
life issue by practitioners and be discussed more extensively with women trying to overcome
all (legitimate) shame.
Title: Experiences of women with symptoms of vaginal laxity – a qualitative study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Francine Toye
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my original review. You have addressed all
suggestions and I have nothing to add. It is a powerful and candid account of the experience of
living with vaginal laxity.  There is a clear storyline through the piece now.
A very tiny point is that I might choose "participant" rather than "interviewee" as the participants
have really given something of themselves.
Title: The effects of different exercises on weight loss and hormonal changes in women with
polycystic ovarian syndrome: a network meta-analysis study
Version: 2 Date: 26 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
This study performed a network meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the effects of different types
of exercise on BMI, hormone concentrations, and regular menstruation in women with PCOS,
which is important as it can provide evidence to inform better lifestyle management for patients
with PCOS. However, there are some concerns need to be addressed.
1. Some descriptions in this manuscript lack clarity and require further elaboration for better
understanding. For example, in the abstract, the statement “Other types of exercises led to
no weight loss compared to other exercises or interventions” is too vague, and more detailed
descriptions are needed.
2. The search terms used in the literature search seem to be not comprehensive enough. The
authors may consider incorporating search techniques to improve their search strategy, such as
truncation and wildcards. Additionally, some alternative terms for PCOS, such as polycystic
ovarian syndrome and polycystic ovarian disease, may need to be included. By expanding the
search strategy in this manner, a broader range of relevant studies related to PCOS can be
captured, ensuring a more comprehensive analysis of the available studies.
3. The authors may need to provide more detailed information on the risk of bias assessment,
instead of simply mentioning they followed the Cochrane guidance.
4. Regarding the eligibility criteria, did the authors consider the impact of medication treatment
(e.g., oral contraceptives, metformin) on the results? Perhaps some studies excluded individuals
on medications, while others included those who were taking medications. Due to the limited
number of RCTs included in this study, it is likely to have an impact on the results.
5. The number of included studies is notably limited and the sample size is small, particularly
for outcomes of hormone concentrations and menstruation. As a result, subgroup analysis and
sensitivity analysis could not be performed. Thus, there are concerns about the validity of the
results on the effect of different exercises on improving the BMI, hormone concentrations
and menstruation in PCOS patients. The insignificant results found in high-intensity aerobic
exercises, resistance exercise, and yoga, could be attributed to the insufficient statistical power.
Title: The effects of different exercises on weight loss and hormonal changes in women with
polycystic ovarian syndrome: a network meta-analysis study
Version: 2 Date: 31 May 2024
Reviewer:  Amna Khan
Reviewer's report:
A well written Meta Analysis with a few minor observations and recommendations:
Is it a Systematic Review or Meta Analysis or Both Kindly mention correctly in abstract ?
Discuss in two sentences the relationship between obesity,  insulin resistance and
hyperinsulinemia) and the contribution of physical activity and diet to manage PCOs
highlight the need of conducting the Network Meta Analysis
How do the findings regarding exercise interventions align or conflict with current guidelines
on PCOS management?
Title: The effects of different exercises on weight loss and hormonal changes in women with
polycystic ovarian syndrome: a network meta-analysis study
Version: 4 Date: 08 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The  authors stated that their updated search strategy  did not retrieve any additional articles.
Thus the limitations regarding small sample size, lack of subgroup analysis and sensitivity
analysis still remain. I think  it is important to address this limitation  in the conclusion section
of the abstract, as the statement "other exercises were ineffective" may be due to the insufficient
statistical power.
Title: HPV Self-Collection for Cervical Cancer Screening among Survivors of Sexual Trauma:
A Qualitative Study
Version: 0 Date: 27 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " HPV Self-Collection for Survivors of Sexual
Trauma: A Qualitative Study" 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 round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability;
- Considering the topic and results of this study, I suggest reading and adding current evidence
about the state of the art on HPV infections. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important
point with PMID: “State of the art on HPV-related cervical lesions, Tullio Golia D’Augè, Ilaria
Cuccu, Andrea Etrusco, Antonio D’Amato, Antonio Simone Laganà, Ottavia D’Oria, Giorgio
Bogani, Violante Di Donato, Ludovico Muzii, Andrea Giannini, doi: 10.36129/jog.2024.16. “
- HPV infection is a significant problem worldwide, and the persistence of HPV infection is a
challenge due its crucial role in precancerous lesions progression. Considering results of this
study, I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point with PMID: 37747763 and
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.