Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Global, regional, and national burden of cervical cancer for 195 countries
and territories, 2007-2017: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study
2017
Version: 
1 
Date: 
11 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
- Considering the authors used GBD 2017, which report estimates from 1990 to
2017, the authors should mention why they limit the time span to 2007 to 2017?
What does motivate it?
- Abstract, Line 18: The statement of "195 countries and territories from 2007 to
2017" was stated in Line 7.
- Abstract, Line 33: Oceania, Central and Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa are 21
GBD regions, which were not introduced in the method section.
- Abstract, Line 35: 
But the percent change in East Asia was not significant.
- Abstract, Line 39: Based on the GBD 2017 compare tool, Georgia is the only
country which has the highest increase in all of incidence, deaths, and DALYs
measures which was not mentioned in the text. In addition, ranking of these five
mentioned countries varied for each measure from 2 to 5 and 11 for incidence,
and 2 to 5 and 7 for deaths.
- Abstract, Line 47: The authors had mentioned "age-standardized rates for
incidence, DALYs, and death of cervical cancer have decreased in most parts of
the world," but the all ages number had increased significantly for incidence,
deaths, and DALYs at the global level which needs to be considered.
- Background, Line 46 and 54: State their full forms for the first time, regardless
of their introduction in the abstract.
- Background, Line 57: Change "The Global Burden of Diseases" to "The Global
Burden of Disease".
- Results: please use the unique form for mentioning rate unit, it's mentioned as
"per 100 000 person-years" and "per 100,000 person-years".
- Results, Page 6, Line 49: Change the lower limit of 95% UI of high-income
North America from "3.8%" to "-3.8%".
- Results, Page 7, Line 11: The authors mentioned China had the largest
increases in age-standardized incidence rates, while based on the GBD 2017
compare tool the highest increases in the age-standardized incidence rates was
estimated for Georgia country (27.9%). (https://gbd2017.healthdata.org/gbd-
compare/)
- Results, Page 7, Line 13: The increases in age-standardized incidence rates for
Costa Rica of 15.1%, not 17.6%. (https://gbd2017.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/)
- Results, Page 7, Line 39: Legend of colors for each proportion in figure 3 was
missed. It's not easy to distinguish the age categories by colors.
- Results, Page 9, Line 32: The authors mentioned Tajikistan had the largest
increases in age-standardized DALYs, while based on the GBD 2017 compare
tool the highest increases in the age-standardized DALYs rates was estimated for
Georgia country (25.5%). (https://gbd2017.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/)
- Results, Page 11, Line 3: The authors mentioned the name of 21 GBD regions
which have the lowest death rates as Australasia, Western Europe, and North
Africa and Middle East. Based on the GBD 2017 compare tool, High-income
Asia Pacific had the age-standardized death rates as the same as Western Europe
(2.6 per 100,000).
- Results, Page 11, Line 13: Central Europe (-21.1% [-24.8% to -17.2%]) has the
higher absolute percent changes and should be mentioned instead of Central Asia
(-20.6%). 
- Results, Page 11, Line 34: Instead of Egypt (1.6 rate per 100,000), mention
Saudi Arabia (1.4 [1.2-1.8]).
- Results, Page 11, Line 36: Georgia (27.1%) and Guam (11.7%) countries have
the first and second ranks based on the highest percent change in age-
standardized death rates.
- Discussion, Page 13, Line 50: Change "Of the 21 regions" to "Of the 21 GBD
regions".
- Discussion, Page 15, Line 5: Add Georgia country as well.
- Discussion, Page 16, Line 22: GBD study does not always update annually.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes