JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Epidemiological survey of adult female stress urinary incontinence.
Version: 2 Date: 18 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, I would like to congratulate you on the theme and the study. You have achieved a
very expressive response rate. We know the difficulties of returning responses in surveys and I
imagine how hard you have worked to achieve this. I have some suggestions about your study.
They are described below:
Abstract
- Line 23: Please add the abbreviation SUI after 'stress urinary incontinence', since you used the
abbreviation in line 25.
- Line 34: It seems to me that you have not described the abbreviation BMI previously. Please
write 'body mass index' instead of BMI.
Background
- I would suggest that you explore a little bit more the rationale for carrying out the study.
- Line 51: Please provide references for the reported surveys.
Materials and Methods
- Line 68: This definition has already been used in the first paragraph of the Background.
- Line 98: As you are describing the instrument used in the study, it would be interesting to
describe it in more detail in the study text, even though you provided the questionnaire as
supplementary material.
- Line 111: This paragraph is not clear. Please consider reviewing it.
- Line 120: This sentence is not clear. Please consider reviewing it.
Results
- It would be interesting for readers if you could better detail the results.
Discussion
- Lines 155-157, 183-185, 204-207, 226-238, 240-243: It seems to me that some references need
to be added to the Discussion section. Please check them.
- Line 282-285: Please consider clarifying this sentence.
- The limitations are not clear. Please consider reviewing them.
Title: Epidemiological survey of adult female stress urinary incontinence.
Version: 2 Date: 25 Nov 2020
Reviewer:  Aura Paternina
Reviewer's report:
PAGE 3 LINE 59 - I suggest deleting this sentence: These female had lived in this area for more
than 2 years. IT IS ALREADY MENTIONING THAT BELOW
PAGE 4 LINE 64 - How was exclusion criterion number 1 established? Was it done with a
specific test? was it just the participant's report? Describe in the methods, it may be a possible
limitation of the study
Statistical analysis and table 4:  In the multivariate logistic regression analysis did they consider
any confounding variables? Did they test for homogeneity of variances and normality of data
in the quantitative variables such as age, number of deliveries? used dummy variables? This
information is important and would suggest a possible bias in the estimated risk calculated. I
suggest explaining better how this analysis was done.
PAGE 6 LINE 119 - When the first decimal is 0 not necessary to put it (92%)
PAGE 7 LINE 128 you claim to have a correlation, you did a correlation test? otherwise, change
the word for a relationship or association.
Page 7 line 130 – You claim other factors were highly related to the prevalence of SUI, but
the test used does not establish the degree of relationship/association, only if the variables are
related or not.
Table 4 is not very clear. All the variables analyzed recoded in binaries? recoded into dummy
variables? or are they continuous variables?. This will largely determine the discussion of the
results
Title: Epidemiological survey of adult female stress urinary incontinence.
Version: 7 Date: 08 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
In my point of view, your study has improved considerably as you have added and organized
the information, and I would like to thank you for considering most of my suggestions.
Lines 95, 110, 136, 248 need punctuation and spelling revisions. Please consider correcting
them.
The contraceptive measures described (after review) on lines 308-312 are still confusing.
Perhaps if you could provide a better rationale for your findings of oral contraceptives as a risk
factor for SUI (lines 260-264) and its implications for continence mechanisms, the text would
be more understandable.
I have nothing more to add. I wish you success in your future research.
Title: Epidemiological survey of adult female stress urinary incontinence.
Version: 7 Date: 28 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Aura Paternina
Reviewer's report:
Improved the article a lot, but I cordially suggest reviewing some aspects:
Materials and methods:
-Line 95: “This survey is a anonymous survey” I would suggest improving the grammar for this
sentence.
“This survey is an anonymous survey”
-Line 121-122: The reason for using multivariate logistic regression analysis is confusing. Please
consider rewriting it.
Results: Table 4 remains confusing. The statistical analysis seems not totally correct. The authors
use logistic multivariate regression analysis with categorical variables, but which is the risk of
each category? For example, which is the risk for the age of 20 to 29 years old, and 40 to 49 years
old? or for the number of pregnancies (0, 1-2, and #3)? (this information was taken from the
questionnaire-supplementary material). Please consider reviewing it. I suggest providing more
details on this point in the methods.
Title: Epidemiological survey of adult female stress urinary incontinence.
Version: 8 Date: 04 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Aura Paternina
Reviewer's report:
OK. As a last suggestion or feedback for future articles is to use significant digits. The general
rule is that no more non-zero digits should be given than are justified by the uncertainty of
the value. If the uncertainty is greater than about 7%, only two non-zero digits are justified.
P values should be given to two decimal places unless the first two are 00 or the number lies
between 0.045 and 0.05. See "Too many digits: the presentation of numerical data" https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483789/
Grateful for the opportunity to add my knowledge to the article.
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Title: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Cervical Cancer Prevention
and Pap Smears in Two Low-Income Communities in Lima, Peru
Version: 
1 
Date: 
13 Dec 2018
Reviewer's report:
Xmas greetings
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
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
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name
will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted
for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be
posted on the website along with the authors' responses. 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/
). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Title: Neonatal mortality and associated factors in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional population-based
study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Addisu Getie
Reviewer's report:
I review this manuscript with interest. However, the author should make an extensive effort to
revise the given comments as follow
Title: Rewrite the title as “Effect of Women’s autonomy on neonatal mortality and associated
factors in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional population-based study: EDHS 2016
Abstract:
# Change the word “introduction” to “background”.
# Is the absence of evidence on the association of women’s decision-making autonomy with a
neonatal mortality rate at a national level in Ethiopia is enough to conduct the study?
# Please rewrite the background section of the abstract
Introduction:
# Please focus on your outcome variable; you are discussing more autonomy but little about
neonatal mortality. so include more information regarding neonatal mortality.
# The introductory sentence is not the focus of the study.
Methods:
# Line 81; who are permanent residents, which needs operationalization.
# The sampling method is not clear please clarify it.
# Clearly show how you measure women’s autonomy?
# Is women’s autonomy a dependent variable or not? Elaborate it.
# Since you are using logistic regression, what is the importance of the chi-square test?
# Show how you assessed multi-colonially and how you decide it?
# The sentence “In general all models were performed with those variables showing P < 0.25 in
the unadjusted analysis” is not clear. What is the purpose of using P < 0.25?
# Line 118 change the word “unadjusted” to “crude”.
Result:
# Avoid any redundancy in the text form and table.
# If you describe in the table, no more discretion in the text.
# In your result, you reported many independent variables, however, the title is focusing only
on the women’s autonomy elaborate it.
# Is your intention showing the effect of women’s autonomy on NM or factors affecting NM? If
it is about factors affecting NM, it was well studied before because women’s autonomy is one
independent variable that might be affect NMR
Discussion:
# Avoid any redundancy in the first paragraph and make it precise.
# According to a sentence “As do many other studies, this study also shows that neonatal
mortality is significantly lower among those mothers who were involved in decisions regarding
their health care compared to those who were not” line 192 and 193 if it was well studied why
you intended to conduct it?
# Avoid repetition which was described in the result. Generally, the discussion needs extensive
revision.
# Under table 1, women’s autonomy is measured using 3 items. However, your result is based
on only “Decision on own health care” why? Please elaborate on it.
# Under table 2, you put unnecessary description (Note *** Significant at p < 0.001; ** = p <
0.01 and * = p < 0.05). You are also putting “*” after each variables in the table. Ex (Sex of
child***)  it is not clear please elaborate it
# Table 3: why not include the confidence interval for Model I?
# Generally, the tables need modification
Title: Neonatal mortality and associated factors in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional population-based
study
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title:
It is better to modify the title as “Neonatal mortality and associated factors in Ethiopia: A cross-
sectional population-based study” because women’s autonomy is one of the factors associated
with neonatal mortality. The title also has not indicated the population of the study (among
whom was the study conducted).
Introduction:
The gap indicated on the line 72-73 is not adequate for the study. It still talks about the single
factors of neonatal death.
Method:
It is better to introduce the study area for the international readers (about Ethiopia). Without a
description of the study area, it is difficult to appreciate the finding.
The eligibility criteria did not discuss in the method section.
Result and discussion:
Throughout the document, better to use actual number (result) rather than saying, majority of,
almost all, most of, more than half, …etc. because these words said to dead words.
Make a consistent writing system, once if you started with frequency (percentage), you need to
put all results in the same way.
The sub-title “Factors associated with Neonate death and effect of women’s decision-making
autonomy”, should be corrected as of the title, ‘Factors associated with Neonate death’.
The 3rd and 4th sentence (line 183-187) is not necessary for the discussion, remove it.
Better to put strengths and limitations in the last paragraph of the discussion section.
The outcome variable of the study (neonatal mortality) was not addressed under the conclusion
section.
The recommendation of the finding focused only on increasing women’s autonomy, even though
there were many variables associated with neonatal death.
The title of table 1 is not self-explanatory.
Title: Neonatal mortality and associated factors in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional population-based
study
Version: 3 Date: 24 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Addisu Getie
Reviewer's report:
Even if the author revised the manuscript interestingly, it was done before in Ethiopia. thus,
the manuscript did not add novel finding since "Neonatal mortality and associated factors in
Ethiopia" was done by Haileab Fekadu Wolde1*, Kedir Abdela Gonete2, Temesgen Yihunie
Akalu1, Adhanom Gebreegziabher Baraki1
and Ayenew Molla Lakew. you can search the following title "Factors affecting neonatal
mortality in the general population: evidence from the 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health
Survey (EDHS)—multilevel analysis"
Title: Impact of Preconceptional Serum Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Values Ranging
Between 2.5 and 4.5 mIU/L on Live Birth Rates Following Ovulation Induction and Intrauterine
Insemination Treatment for Unexplained Infertility
Version: 1 Date: 22 Feb 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for your effort for the report. This retrospective study is substantial owing to large
sample size and supporting existing literature. However, there are a few issues need to be
improved:
1. Please explain why women with BMI>35 were excluded from the study.
2. Please indicate the lower and upper TSH values on the tables, not only TSH # 2.5 mIU/L
and > 2.5 mIU/L.
3. Please explain the abbreviations used on the tables.
4. Please write “ovulationinduction” on Table 2 separately.
5. Please specify the values on the Tables as mean ± standard deviation or median (range).
6. Please provide a table including relationship between TSH level and obstetric outcomes of
IUI.
7. Please check the following information on 8th page 196th line. “The overall clinical pregnancy
and live birth rates of the study population were 115 (8.4%) and 124 (7.8%) per cycle,
respectively.” Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates should be switched to each other.
Sincerely.
Title: Impact of Preconceptional Serum Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Values Ranging
Between 2.5 and 4.5 mIU/L on Live Birth Rates Following Ovulation Induction and Intrauterine
Insemination Treatment for Unexplained Infertility
Version: 2 Date: 14 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Your study can be accepted for publication in its current form.
Yours sincerely
Title: Impact of Preconceptional Serum Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Values Ranging
Between 2.5 and 4.5 mIU/L on Live Birth Rates Following Ovulation Induction and Intrauterine
Insemination Treatment for Unexplained Infertility
Version: 2 Date: 15 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I could not find the file which includes response to reviewers. Please provide this file.
Sincerely.
Title: Impact of Preconceptional Serum Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Values Ranging
Between 2.5 and 4.5 mIU/L on Live Birth Rates Following Ovulation Induction and Intrauterine
Insemination Treatment for Unexplained Infertility
Version: 2 Date: 16 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I read the manuscript and I have some recommendations mentioned below:
-It would be better to use the term "class II obesity" instead of "BMI> 35".
-The absence of obstetric outcomes of the patients should be added to the limitations of the study.
Title: Impact of Preconceptional Serum Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Values Ranging
Between 2.5 and 4.5 mIU/L on Live Birth Rates Following Ovulation Induction and Intrauterine
Insemination Treatment for Unexplained Infertility
Version: 4 Date: 30 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author;
I reviewed the manuscript and thanks the authors for corrections according to my
recommendations. In my opinion this manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal.
Title: Heterogeneity among Women with Stroke: Health, Demographic and Healthcare
Utilization Differentials
Version: 1 Date: 01 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript adds to the current literature regarding stroke risk factors and outcomes in
women. The manuscript is overall well written with logical flow of ideas. The results are clear.
The manuscript would benefit from the following edits/ revisions.
Because of the limitations inherent to the dataset utilized, it is acceptable to evaluate associations
and prevalence but not risk/incidence. In many instances, it will be difficult to assess which
variable came first and the associations may indicate that a factor led to stroke or that the factor
followed the stroke. While the authors contend that preventative health practices / health care
utilization did not likely change after a stroke event,  the references provide do not provide
strong evidence for this assertion. The authors should be very careful with using incidence and
risk to describe these associations and I suggest that the use of different terms to describe the
relationships found.
In the methods section, under "health services utilization" the authors state that all women in the
panel were insured. Did the authors exclude NHIS participants who were uninsured? If so, the
authors should be clear in stating that the findings can be applied to women you are insured, as
some of the findings may be different in uninsured adults. It is especially important to consider
this when evaluating racial differences.
The tables should be edited. Table 1 can be combined with Table 2. The min/max and standard
errors reported are not necessary (Table 1). Consider adding mean + SD for the continuous
variables and proportion (only) for categorical variables.
Tables 3, 4, and 5 include SE, HR/OR, p value, chi2. These can be simplified to include HR/OR
+/- 95% CI instead of all of the output from the analyses.
In the tables where HR/OR are reported, it is important to include the reference categories. For
several of these, reference categories are unknown. For race, the authors should report which
races were assessed. Does "Black" refer to non-Hispanic Black and White to non-Hispanic
White?
For reference to race, be consistent in use of terminology/ capitalization. Avoid use of minority
and women of color. Avoid use of "Blacks" and instead use Black adults.  Be consistent in use
of capital or lower-case terms for Black and White. Consider using uppercase for all.
In the final sentence of the introduction, please check accuracy that all of the mentioned risk
factors are more prevalent in women, especially HTN and CAD.
There are multiple grammatical and typographical errors throughout the document. While
overall well written, these greatly impact readability. Please consider having an editor review
the document before submission.
Title: Heterogeneity among Women with Stroke: Health, Demographic and Healthcare
Utilization Differentials
Version: 1 Date: 08 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Hoang Phan
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating heterogeneity in health, demographic and healthcare utilization
among women with stroke using 5-year data from the National Health Interview Survey. Please
find below my comments for the manuscript.
Methods
It is important to provide more details about the NHIS and cite the methods paper(s) if published
before.
It is unclear how post-stroke functional status was captured/measured. What were the exact
questions related to the outcome?
The authors mentioned that relative risk of stroke was performed using Cox proportional hazards
regression on a match cohort of young and old women. What statistical methods were used for
matching?
The statistical approach for table 3 is unclear, whether the results are from multivariable or
univariable models. I have no idea what “-2 LOGL AIC” means. I am wondering if the analyses
for older and young women were analyses within the same model or from separate models.
Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios of having stroke. This
study faces a substantial bias whereby the time to event was not available. I think a log-binomial
regression to estimate relative risk of having a stroke in this cross-sectional study would be
more appropriate. Similarly, for functional outcome, log-binomial regression would be more
appropriate to estimate relative risk of having functional limitations rather than using logistic
regression (as OR is close to relative risk when the event rates are low only).
Results
Tables 1 and 2 can be combined into one table only. It is better to report mean (standard
deviation; rather than standard error) and number (%), and P-values for comparison between
younger and older women. (Chi-square, t-statistics, min and max are currently reported but
hardly useful for readers). Similarly, please consider to refine other tables with important
information only.
Discussion
I think the discussion needs to be clearer about the novelty of the study results. The implications
of study findings seems to be missing or buried, which needs further work.
In addition to limitations mentioned in the discussion, several points need to be acknowledged
1) Self-report stroke events
2) Self-reported functional status (not a standardised scale such as mRS)
3) Several factors that may contribute, confound, or modify (interaction) with functional
outcomes were not available for this study. For example, some well-established contributing
factors are pre-stroke functional limitations, stroke severity, etc. Potential residual confounding
should be carefully discussed.
Conclusion section should be more condense with a summary of study findings and implications.