JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The correlation of the fecal microbiome with the biochemical profile during menopause:
A Brazilian cohort study.
Version: 4 Date: 10 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Not all the required revisions are done, check the required revisions below:
Line 1,2: the title should be changed to (The correlation of fecal microbiome with biochemical
profile during menopause. A Brazilian cohort study)
Line 144: Did you include or exclude women with preexisting alcoholic hepatitis?
- Regarding Participant’s characteristics:
. Are the metabolic and hormonal disorders and drugs that can affect the metabolic tests taken
into consideration such as DM, PCOS, thyroid disorders, and lipids-lowering drugs?
- Table 4:
. No need to compare (estradiol, LH, FSH) between groups, it is already expected, and any
subsequent discussion regarding this comparison should be removed.
Line 266-267:  Are antibiotic usage, bowel habit, or any type of bowel cleansing taken into
consideration?
Line 324: Are any of the postmenopausal women on hormonal replacement therapy?
Line 374: Did other possible diseases that affect ALP are excluded? Otherwise, they should be
added as possible explanations e.g. bone disorders.
Line 381-383: Kidney damage causes elevation of urea and creatinine and NOT vice versa.
Title: Predictive models for overall survival in breast cancer patients with a second primary
malignancy: A real-world study in Shanghai, China
Version: 0 Date: 17 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Pietro Serra
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening
Service Utilization among Women Attending Health Care Services in Amhara Region Referral
Hospitals; Case-Control Study.” (Submission ID 00cc8c60-f9f6-4f66-9eab-da767aa95319),
which falls within the aim of this 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. Nevertheless, authors should
clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the
topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker.
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest clarifying these points.
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report the results
obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to adequately highlight what
contribution this study adds to the literature already existing on the topic and to future study
perspectives.
- Does this manuscript conform the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health
Research (EQUATOR) network guidelines? It would be mandatory to declare about this
element.
- To date, several lines of evidence support the possibility to use specific biomarkers to identify
early-stage cervical cancer and, in this way, offer a better prognosis to the patients. This point
deserves to be discussed, referring to: PMID: 33152105; PMID: 28918603.
- I would recommend to stress novel pieces of evidence about high-risk HPV-negative high-
grade cervical dysplasia, which seems to have more favorable outcomes than patients with
documented high-risk-HPV infection (PMID: 32552158; PMID: 33514481).
Title: Predictive models for overall survival in breast cancer patients with a second primary
malignancy: A real-world study in Shanghai, China
Version: 0 Date: 22 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Ayush Anand
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your work on the manuscript. This manuscript aimed to screen independent
overall survival risk factors and establish nomograms to predict the survival probabilities of
breast cancer patients with secondary primary malignancy. I have reviewed the manuscript and
would like to suggest following changes:
1. Abstract
This section is well written.
2. Introduction
The authors have stated that “The overall 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year survival rates for female
BC patients were up to 89%, 83% and 78%, respectively, over the period of 1994–2012 in the
United States[3].” The data regarding the USA does not fit well as the current study has been
done in China. I suggest the authors put global data regarding survival rates and not specifically
about the USA. Also, include some data from southeast Asian countries.
The authors should add a few more sentences regarding the importance of nomograms before
they specify the objective in the last paragraph of the introduction section.
3. Methodology
The methodology is sound.
4. Results
This section is written well. Figures and tables are sufficient.
5. Discussion
Please summarize the significant findings of the study in the first paragraph and then compare
them with other studies in subsequent paragraphs.
Add one paragraph regarding the future implications of the study.
6. Conclusion
This section is written well.
Please double-check the manuscript for grammatical errors.
Title: Predictive models for overall survival in breast cancer patients with a second primary
malignancy: A real-world study in Shanghai, China
Version: 2 Date: 14 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Pietro Serra
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled Predictive models for overall survival in
breast cancer patients with second primary malignancy: A real-world study in Shanghai,
China” (4488b22c-3ac7-40a8-8735-cbbab1731052), which falls within the aim of this 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.
Title: Predictive models for overall survival in breast cancer patients with a second primary
malignancy: A real-world study in Shanghai, China
Version: 2 Date: 25 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Ayush Anand
Reviewer's report:
This study could not include all the major risk factors that might have affected the predictive
model. Also, long-term follow-up was not possible. Another drawback is the small sample
size. These issues appear to be significant drawbacks.  Hence, the practical application of
the predictive model is questionable. Therefore, I would not recommend this manuscript for
publication in this journal.
Title: Predictive models for overall survival in breast cancer patients with a second primary
malignancy: A real-world study in Shanghai, China
Version: 2 Date: 15 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Devon J. Hensel
Reviewer's report:
I was asked to review the revision of this paper, so I did not see the first version. I do think,
however that the revised version reads well, and has responded to the reviewer requests. I have
nothing further to add.
Title: Association Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, and Physical Fitness of Female
College Students in China
Version: 0 Date: 24 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved
in the following ways
Abstract
Please modify the headlines based on the format of the journal
- In the method section, please include the year of the study; sampling method, location of study
and. (please also add to method section of main body of text)
-In the conclusion part, it is necessary to specify the researcher's proposal to improve the
conditions and use of the beneficiaries
Introduction
Please bring the following items
- Definition of the research problem
- The magnitude and importance of the study variable
- Bringing the variable epidemiology information of the study at the world level, the country
of India and the place of study
- Expressing the necessity of conducting the study
Finally, the practical purpose of the study should be stated
Methods
In this section, the following information needs to be provided
Year of implementation of the study
- The location of the study
-Sampling method
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Describe in detail how to score the tools used in this study
- Please report the validity and reliability status of the tools used.
Discussion
Discussion is well written, but it needs the interpretation of authors. Please add your
interpretation and explanations to this section.
Conclusion
What are your suggestion for future studies?
To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section the following
studies are suggested, please if possible to use, cited, and add to article reference
-A proactive risk assessment through healthcare failure mode and effect analysis in pediatric
surgery department
-Emotional intelligence and learning strategies of postgraduate students at Kerman University
of Medical Sciences in the southeast of Iran
-The Prevalence of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Among Health Care Workers During the
COVID-19 Pandemic: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis
- Observance of patients’ rights in emergency department of educational hospitals in south-east
Iran
- Attitudes of Iranian Nurses Toward Spirituality and Spiritual Care
-Human resources for health: A narrative review of adequacy and distribution of clinical and
nonclinical human resources in hospitals of Iran
The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among nurses during the coronavirus disease
2019: A comparison between nurses in the frontline and the second line of care delivery
-Motivation of the nurses in pre-hospital emergency and educational hospitals emergency in the
southeast of Iran
Best regards
Title: Association Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, and Physical Fitness of Female
College Students in China
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Emmanuel Biracyaza
Reviewer's report:
Title : Association Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, and Physical Fitness of Female
College Students in China
Comments
I would like to thank the authors for their significant improvements. Almost the comments were
addressed, however, very few clarifications need to be addressed.
1) The authors have to use simple past in the abstract, methods, results and discussions. Example;
in abstract part, change « this study examines … ». When you start the sentence, it is not good
to start with a number (ex. the 2nd sentence of methods section in abstract « 512 Chinese female
college students participated in this study through snowball sampling ».
In abstract, you made an important improvement and the research gap and interest are well
written however, the study aim is not clarified. You can either, restructure the sentence (it is
necessary to investigate the association between PA, ST, and PF among Eastern female college
students to inform policy and practice) or include the study purpose.
2) In the methods section, your analyses for the internal consistency for the instruments (IPAQ-
SF) is not clear while it very important. If you did it well I think the instruments might present a
poor internal consistency, which means that the items are not correlating well with each other.
This might indicates that that the instruments are not eligible for the study participants. The
internal consistency (it is assessed using the Alpha of Cronbach's or #) is different from the
interclass reliability or test retest! Please, if they instruments were previously validated in the
same population from your study setting, you can provide the references and indicated that that
the instruments  have good internal; consistency. you can refer to the following studies:
1. Yi, X. et al. Body mass index and physical fitness among Chinese adolescents from Shandong
Province: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 19, 81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12889-019-6420-2
2. Macfarlane DJ, et al. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of IPAQ (short, last 7
days). J Sci Med Sport. 2007 Feb;10(1):45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.003.
3) For the CNSPFT, the internal consistency was not indicated. Indeed, there is a need of testing
of reliability and validity for battery to assess PF.
3) For the results, I should suggest the authors to have use 1 or 2 decimal place  to report the
results (except p-values which are well written) .
Title: Association Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, and Physical Fitness of Female
College Students in China
Version: 3 Date: 30 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Emmanuel Biracyaza
Reviewer's report:
I would like to appreciate the effort of the authors have helped them to produce this important
study. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Best regards
Title: Clinical Manifestations and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma of uterine fibroids
in Tianjin China
Version: 3 Date: 01 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Nouf A Alshamlan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper with the title: Clinical Manifestations and
Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma
The article is interesting. However, it needs a revision, especially in the method section.
I recommend some changes to improve the manuscript which is as follows:
1. Title: I suggest modifying the title to include the setting, country, population, …etc.
2. Abstract
- More details must be included here.
- In the background you have to discuss justification to conduct this study before the aim.
The authors mentioned (To investigate the clinical manifestations and treatment of unexpected
uterine sarcoma (UUS) and thus to improve the preoperative diagnostic rate and to reduce the
risk of unexpected tumor dissemination.) the objective must reflect the actual work, did the
authors assess the preoperative rate?
- In the methodology it is important to mention the population, study setting, period. For eg:
This incidence among whom?
2. Background:
- Kindly include more studies with a similar objective.
- Kindly revise the objective, it is different than what was mentioned in the abstract
3. Methods:
- Kindly include citations in the first paragraph
- (Among them, 16 were diagnosed with uterine sarcoma by MRI) I think there is missing
statement before this paragraph.
- The authors must mention more details about the study setting
- I suggest adding a subtitle here (study variables) and include all variables used with their
definition, for eg: staging of the condition
4. Results:
- (In UUS group, the duration of symptoms is0 years 3.52±2.28 years, whereas in PDUS group
the average duration of symptoms was 2.89 ± 1.79 years.) kindly check this statement
- all tables and figure titles must include more details, for eg: setting, population, year, …etc.
5. Discussion:
- Kindly include citations. I see many statements mentioned without citation, for eg: (Uterine
sarcoma is rare and the UUS was only a part of uterine sarcoma. In this study, the incidence of
unexpected uterine sarcoma was 0.67%, which is slightly higher than that previously reported
(0.09%–0.49%).)
- kindly include the limitations of the study
6. The paper requires English editing.
I hope that this information is useful to the editors and authors.
Title: Clinical Manifestations and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma of uterine fibroids
in Tianjin China
Version: 3 Date: 10 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Mario Palumbo
Reviewer's report:
I was pleased to review this paper “Clinical Manifestations and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine
Sarcoma”
The methodology used by the Authors is appropriate for the purpose of the article description.
The English language is fluid and well understood. Nevertheless, minor revision is needed.
The abstract is well defined.
Regarding the introduction, I find this article very interesting, you can add this paper to deepen
the topic.
DOI:  10.1080/13645706.2022.2095872
As regards the paper’s structuring (methods/discussion): There is a good structure of the project.
This paper analyzed 6625 patients with uterine fibroids who had undergone surgery in Tianjin
Central Hospital of Gynecology and Obstetrics between May 2011 and July 2016: a good
sample.
The skills of sonographers are a determining factor in building such a job.
The duration of symptoms in the PDUS group was longer than that in the UUS group: do you
think that the impact of age on the tolerance of any symptoms could be a determining factor?
How many patients were familiar with female cancer?
The field of study on surgical action with respect to prognosis is still an open field to be
investigated: Search and write in more detail about this with the literature.
Have you devised the surgical standards that every surgeon had to have to consider that case
even if in a retrospective study?
Results
- Cite and analyze the limits of the study;
- The statistical structure seems to me well done.
Conclusion
Increase the number of references
the data obtained are good with respect to the structuring of the work.
Title: Clinical Manifestations and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma of uterine fibroids
in Tianjin China
Version: 5 Date: 07 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Nouf A Alshamlan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the  revised paper with the title: Clinical Manifestations
and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma
it is much improves. However, I have some minor comments:
1. Title: The authors modify the title in the response file but not in the revised form of manuscript.
2. Abstract
In the background kindly mention (This study aims ) before this statement (To identify the
prevalence of unexpected uterine sarcoma (UUS) after operation for presumed leiomyoma and
compare clinical outcomes after primary therapy.)
3. Methods:
The author did not address my previous comments:
(The authors must mention more details about the study setting) and (I suggest adding a subtitle
here (study variables) and include all variables used with their definition, for eg: staging of the
condition)
4. Results
The author did not address my previous comment:
(all tables and figure titles must include more details, for eg: setting, population, year, …etc.)
I hope that this information is useful to the editors and authors.
Title: Clinical Manifestations and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma of uterine fibroids
in Tianjin China
Version: 5 Date: 11 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for submitting your revised article. I am reviewing it as the third reviewer. Thank
you for sharing the translation of the IRB, however, the translated document does not include
any official signatures etc that are typically  available.
I think "Questions 1: Title: I suggest modifying the title to include the setting, country,
population, ...etc" this has not been address appropriately.  Please, kindly consider the previous
points.
Abstract "To identify the prevalence of unexpected uterine sarcoma (UUS) after operation for
presumed leiomyoma and compare clinical outcomes after primary therapy. " this sentence needs
to be clear and requires language editing. Please, kindly write the study objective concretely.
Please, use the abbreviations after created, for instance PDUS in abstract. Also, methodology
in the abstract included results. There is no need to present p-value from the non statistically
significant result in the abstract. The incidence rate in the abstract does not match the one
presented in the introduction, please be consistent with a proper evidence. Usually, methods
sessions state inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results should include the results, as stated for
the abstract. Please, kindly update accordingly. Please, use the words and punctuations instead
of +  and other signs. Result session line 17 "...1552 underwent laparoscopic surgery..." but
Table 1 showed 1902. These inconsistencies also repeated in the text and table.  Please, clarify
and be consistent with the numbers. Also, it is not a good writing practice to repeat what has
been presented in the table as a text. This unfortunately the case for table 1 and also table 2 and
results session. Lines  11-13 in the results session, "The difference between the two groups is
statistically significant (P=0.033), the data is shown in table 2.". The data written in those lines
and shown in table 2 are different. Please, clarify.
Please, cite  NCCN appropriately. Also, explain why you did not choose FIGO Staging.
Figure 1 included some non-English text please update accordingly.
As also previously highlighted "The paper requires English editing.", I echo  this statement.
Regarding the discussion, based on the issues on methods and results, it cannot be fully assessed.
Title: Clinical Manifestations and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma of uterine fibroids
in Tianjin China
Version: 6 Date: 26 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Nouf A Alshamlan
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised paper with the title: Clinical Manifestations
and Prognosis of Unexpected Uterine Sarcoma
The article is interesting. However, it needs a minor revision,
I recommend some changes to improve the manuscript which is as follows:
1. Abstract
- (Methods: The study retrospectively analyzed 6625 patients with uterine fibroids who had
undergone surgery in Tianjin Central Hospital of Gynecology and Obstetrics between May 2011
and July 2016 and found 45 UUS patients and 21 patients of PDUS)
Kindly check this statement. Results showed be in results section not methodology.
2. Background:
- Kindly include more studies with a similar objective.
3. Methods:
- The authors must mention more details about the study setting
- I suggest adding a subtitle here (study variables) and include all variables used with their
definition, for eg: staging of the condition
Title: Spatiotemporal distribution and determinants of overweight or obesity among urban
women in Ethiopia: A Multivariate Decomposition Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 24 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper provides important information, on women's obesity in Ethiopia that needs evidence
for implementation. I have detailed my concerns, comments, and questions below:
Abstract
The total weighted sample of urban women was 5901 in 2005, 14,502 in 2011, and 3,070 in
2016 were included in the analysis, why total sample size in 2011 much different? the Data
include only urban dwellers
Categorization of Overweight/obesity as a dependent variable is confusing for analysis,
conclusion, and recommendation why not categorized as body mass index greater than or equal
to 25… or less than….?
Participants need clarification, pregnant women included?
Why a non-linear multivariate logit decomposition model was used? Need further explanation
Discussion
Line 303: 14.2% in 2005 to 21.4% in 2016 with an annual rate of reduction (ARR) of 1%. Not
clear
Line 312: There was a significant risk difference in age between 15-24 years and 15-49 years
across regions over the three surveys. What does it indicate?
319: The reason for an increment in overweight or obesity in older age might be the fat begins
to accumulate early in the young women need a reference as evidence for a reason out
Discussion needs further evidence-based explanation of the implication of the finding and
scientific explanation
Language editing needs further work