JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 4 Date: 26 Apr 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I thank you for the revisions that you made in accordance with the recommendations. However,
there are some spelling and punctuation mistakes need to be corrected. For example:
1. Please write only abbreviation “MOGCT” without explanation in first sentence of methods
section.
2. Please write only abbreviation “FSS” without explanation in 6th line of methods section.
3. Please write the explanation of “SPSS” in methods section.
4. Please use dot after the sentence “Disease free survival (DFSR) was defined as the time
from diagnosis to date of recurrence, and overall survival (OSR) was defined as the time from
diagnosis to date of death or last follow up” in methods section.
5. Please write only abbreviation “FSS” without explanation in 2nd sentence of 3rd paragraph
in results section.
6. Please correct the sentence “Debulking and staging surgery were done by omentectomy and
lymphadenectomy and peritoneal biopsy and cytology of peritoneal washing.  washing.” #n
results section.
7. Please write only abbreviation “FIGO” without explanation in 3rd paragraph of results section.
8. Please write only abbreviation “BEP” without explanation in 3rd paragraph of results section.
9. Please write “disease-free survival rate” as “DFSR” at the end of the 3rd paragraph of results
section.
10. Please write only abbreviation “OSR” without explanation at the end of the 3rd paragraph
of results section.
11. The abbreviation “AC” at the end of results section should be explained when it is first
written in the text.
12. Please write only abbreviation “MOGCT” without explanation in first sentence of discussion
section.
13. Please write only abbreviation “FSS” without explanation in the first sentence of discussion
section.
14. Please select to use “FSS” or “FST” in the whole text, not sometimes “FSS” sometimes
“FST”.
15. Please write only abbreviation “FSS” without explanation in the 6th paragraph of discussion
section.
16. Please correct “AMH(Anti-Mullerian Hormone)” as “Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH)” in
the 10th paragraph of discussion section.
17. Please correct “salpango” as “salpingo” in the 13rd paragraph of discussion section.
18. Please write only abbreviation “DFSR” and “OSR” without explanation at the 17th paragraph
of discussion section.
Sincerely.
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 4 Date: 03 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author;
This revised manuscript still have a lot of typos and grammatical errors. The discussion section
is so long, complicated and lack of content integrity. In my opinion, this article is not suitable for
publication unless it has been reviewed by a native English speaker and the discussion section
has not been completely revised.
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 6 Date: 21 May 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
1. Please explain or correct the sentence that indicated in abstract “The mean of chemotherapy
cycles and age is related to a successful pregnancy.” A successful pregnancy doesn’t seem
related with age as shown in Table 3.
2. Please explain MOGCT in the first sentence of introduction, not in the second one.
3. Please make a comment on Table 4 with a sentence in results section.
4. Please explain the abbreviations in tables.
5. Please summarize first 5 paragraphs of discussion in just one paragraph.
6. There are too many paragraphs in discussion section. Please write the sentences within the
integrity of meaning in the same paragraph.
7. Please correct the number of chemotherapy cycles given in Table 5 (3-9 cycles) or on the
12nd line of 10th page (3-6 cycles).
8. Please point out limitations and strengths of the study in a separate paragraph, not in
conclusion.
Best regards.
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 6 Date: 06 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Unless I have suggested the correction of typos and grammatical errors in my first report, thera
are still some errors:
-The "point" as a punctuation mark should be placed after the square brackets of the references
and after any parenthesis at the end of the sentences.
-It would be better to indicate "87%" instead of "87 percent" at the end of the second paragraph
of introduction.
-The "point" as a punctuation mark should be erased before the parenthesis that indicates the
ranges of ages at the end of the first paragraph and at the first sentence of second paragraph of
results section.
-I could not see the 21st and 40th reference in the text.
-The "point" should be erased from the first sentence of the sixth paragraph, before the sqoare
brackets of the references [6,20,30-34] of discussion section and a "comma" should be added
before the word "but".
-"childbearing situations" would be better instead of "child birth in the patients" in the sentence
at the end of the sixth paragraph of discussion section .
-The word "amenorrhoeic" should be corrected as "amenorrheic".
-There should be a "space" between the third and forth sentence of the seventh paragraph of
discussion section.
-The 8th paragraph of the discussion section is incomprehensible. If this is an information from
the literature, what is the reference, if not what is the 25 years of experience?
-There should be parenthesis before "Table 2" at the 9th paragraph of discussion and the "point"
shuld be after the paragraph.
-There should be "Yang et al." instead of "Zhi-Juan yang" at the 11th paragraph of the discussion.
-There should be "Mikus et al." instead of "Mislav Micus" at the 12th paragraph of the
discussion.
-There should be "space" after the parenthesis at the 3rd sentence of the 13th paragraph of
discussion.
-There should be "point" instead of "comma" at the end of the second sentence of the 14th
paragraph of discussion and there should be "space" after the parenthesis in the third sentence
of the same paragraph.
-It would be better to correct the sentence "The study population average age was relatively
young" as "The average age of the study population..." at the 17th paragraph of discussion.
-Did you mean "fertility-sparing surgery" in the 18th paragraph of the discussion while you
mentioned as "preserving-sparing surgery"?
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 8 Date: 10 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I reviewed the manuscript, thank the authors for most of the corrections, but the manuscript still
needs a few corrections:
-The 21st reference was added the text, but not in correct order. The 21st reference should be
replaced after the 20th and before 22nd and 23rd references.
-In my opinion, after some corrections that the you have done, the place of my first suggestion
["childbearing situations" would be better instead of "child birth in the patients" in the sentence at
the end of the sixth paragraph of discussion section] changed and the authors have miscorrected.
I have tried to correct the sentence: "In this research, menstrual status, number of pregnancies
and child birth in the patients are studied. ", as "In this research, menstrual status, number of
pregnancies and childbearing situation of the patients are studied."
"childbearing situation" is not appropriate for this sentence. "They concluded that 42 of 45
patients who desired childbearing situation became pregnant and 56 babies were born [29]."
This sentence should be corrected like this: "They concluded that 42 of 45 patients who desired
childbearing, became pregnant and 56 babies were born [29].
-In the analysis by yang et al. [12] on 106 patients showed 59 of them underwent FSS, 45 patients
had normal menstruation. The surname of the author should be began with capital: "Yang"
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 8 Date: 11 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinç Sar#do#an
Reviewer's report:
Please also explain the abbreviations in Table 1.
Please correct “pregnancy” as “pregnancies” in 5th paragraph of discussion.
Please correct “virgins” as “virgin” in 8th paragraph of discussion.
Please correct “[13,14,15-20] as “[13-20]” in 2nd paragraph of introduction.
Please number the references in the order you specified in the article.
Best regards.
Title: Fertility sparing surgery in Malignant Ovarian Germ cell tumor(MOGCT): 15 years
Experiences
Version: 10 Date: 17 Jul 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
Thank you for corrections, in my opinion, after a minor correction, this manuscript will be
suitable for publication,  as I have recommended in my previous review: the abbreviations should
be explained under the tables.
Kind regards
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with menstruation-related school absenteeism among
adolescent girls in rural northern Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 10 May 2021
Reviewer:  Abraham Hodgson
Reviewer's report:
It is stated that Systematic random sampling was used to select 15 schools at stage one. It would
be good to state from how many schools the 15 schools were selected.
Under Factors associated with school absenteeism, it is stated that ‘The girls with parents
of moderate-income status had 43% lower odds of staying away from school during their
menstruation when compared with those from low-income status, (aOR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.34 –
0.94).’ – Instead of stating the Unadjusted OR of 43% in the sentence, it would be better to state
the AOR or to clarify that the 43% is the Unadjusted OR.
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with menstruation-related school absenteeism among
adolescent girls in rural northern Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 14 May 2021
Reviewer:  Cornelius Debpuur
Reviewer's report:
The paper deals with a topic of relevance to the health socio-economic development of
adolescent girls. The manuscript is based on data from a community in northern Ghana; however,
the implications of the findings go beyond northern Ghana. The manuscript is generally well
written.
Some suggestions to improve on the manuscript
Materials and methods
Various aspects of the study methodology need to be clarified.
• Study design and population: There is no information on the study setting to provide a picture
of the context within which the study was conducted. The authors seem to assume that the reader
has some basic knowledge of the study district. It will be useful to address why the Talensi
district for this study.
• Sample size and Data collection: The sampling process is not clear. How was the sampling
frame of eligible schools obtained? How many eligible schools were available in the sampling
frame and how exactly was the sampling of schools done?
Regarding sampling of individual participants, what sampling frame was used and how was it
obtained; what procedure was used to select individual students?
• Outcome variable: The primary outcome variable of the study is ‘menstruation-related school
absenteeism’. The same label should be used in Table 1 and the rest of the manuscript,
not ‘School absenteeism’ as is currently the case. I believe ‘menstruation-related school
absenteeism’ is a subset of ‘school absenteeism’.
• The heading for Table 1 needs to be revised; not all the variables in the table can be described
as ‘demographic characteristics’.
• Predictor variables: What specific information was used to categorize parent(s) income status
as low, moderate or high?
• How was information obtained from the individual participants? Where did the interviews
take place? In connection with this how was written informed consent obtained from parents of
participants under 18 years?
Discussion
• “The prevalence of menstruation-related school absenteeism in our study is little lower than
the 40% as found by Mohammed and colleagues [9], in Ghana, 40% in India by Vashisht and
colleagues [7]  and 54% in Ethiopia by Tegegne and Sisay [15].” The reported prevalence of
menstruation-related school absenteeism in the current study (27.5%) is at least 30% lower than
that reported in the studies cited. I will not describe this as ‘little lower than the 40%’.
• “The discrepancy could be due to differences in income levels, cultural settings and school
infrastructure”. It will be useful to check the temporal relation of the data collection of studies
cited in relation to the current study, as well as the age category of participants.
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with menstruation-related school absenteeism among
adolescent girls in rural northern Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 17 May 2021
Reviewer:  Edmund W. Kanmiki
Reviewer's report:
The paper is a good contribution to understanding the educational challenges faced by girls
especially in relation to mensuration-related school absenteeism. I have already provided a few
suggestions for improving the methods section of the paper.
1) I recommend more description of the study context so that readers can have a better
appreciation of this research.
2) This study found about 27.5% of menstruation-related school absenteeism which is much
lower than a recent study by Mohammed et al (ref 9) in Kumbungu also in northern Ghana
that reported as high as 40% absenteeism. Please can the authors discuss any specific possible
social, cultural etc differences between Kumbungu and Talensi that might have accounted for
that huge difference?
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with menstruation-related school absenteeism among
adolescent girls in rural northern Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 25 Jun 2021
Reviewer:  Edmund W. Kanmiki
Reviewer's report:
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the comments I raised earlier.
A lot of figures/information has been mentioned in the description of the study setting without
references to the sources. please authors should provide references.
Also, they are a few grammatical omissions that can be improved by carefully reading through
the manuscript once again
Title: Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the MD Anderson Symptom
Inventory for measuring perioperative symptom burden in patients with gynecologic cancer
Version: 2 Date: 26 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Well written article and data well presented. Study concluded that the MDASO-PeriOp-GYN-
C tool is valid and reliable to measure symptoms. I would recommend to include the tool in
the article (if possible). It would also be helpful in expand on how this can be incorporated into
nursing practice in caring for these patients.
Title: Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the MD Anderson Symptom
Inventory for measuring perioperative symptom burden in patients with gynecologic cancer
Version: 2 Date: 26 May 2021
Reviewer:  Oscar Galindo-vazquez
Reviewer's report:
I believe that this work is important and provides psychometric evidence for the revised scale.
The research group shows that it has a solid line of research in measuring the severity of
symptoms and their interference in the lives of patients.
However, I think they should give their point of view as to why not use stronger statistical
analyzes such as the confirmatory factorial as this would support the relevance of the study.
I suggest considering further summarizing the length of the manuscript, it seems too long for
the methodology used.
Another aspect is to justify more why to carry out another study in a specific population when
there are already previous studies.
Finally, a greater discussion directed to the role of culture in the population under study would
contribute more to the readers, researchers and clinicians of the population studied.
Title: Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the MD Anderson Symptom
Inventory for measuring perioperative symptom burden in patients with gynecologic cancer
Version: 4 Date: 09 Jul 2021
Reviewer:  Oscar Galindo-vazquez
Reviewer's report:
The instrument that you show is useful in clinical research care, I recommend its dissemination
in other populations, probably in low and middle-income countries where it would be useful, as
well as its comparison in multicenter studies in different countries.
Title: Effects of backhand stroke styles on bone mineral content and density in postmenopausal
recreational tennis players – a cross-sectional pilot investigation
Version: 1 Date: 04 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript deals with a really interesting and important topic. Overall, the manuscript is
of good quality. Nevertheless, I have some comments and suggestions for improvement of the
manuscript.
Abstract
- It will be better to add a purpose statement at the end of the background
- Please add information regarding the assessment of muscular strength
- Please add the results of the muscular strength tests
Introduction
- Line 56: please never use “etc.” in a scientific text
- Line 65: please add citation(s) to the sentence starting with “Moreover, tennis”
- Line 86: please delete “have never been investigated” and revise the sentence by using more
cautious language (for example, “To the best of authors’ knowledge”
- Authors stated the paucity of information on the effects of the different styles of backhand
stroke on bone factors among postmenopausal women. However, there may be data on tennis
players with different characteristics. Please consider adding previous studies (if exists) on the
topic.
- It would be better to add hypotheses
Methods
- Please add inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Please add an explanation regarding the justification of the muscular strength assessments
- Please add explanations regarding the normality and homogeneity assumptions.
Discussion
- Please consider starting firstly with stating purposes and hypotheses
Title: The use of Web-based interactive technology to promote HPV vaccine uptake among
young females: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1 Date: 21 May 2021
Reviewer:  Görker Sel
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating how and under what conditions do Web-based interactivity
influence vaccination intentions among young females.
randomized controlled trail
Each participant was assessed for their information avoidance behavior and vaccination intention
HPV vaccination is an important issue and internet based decision making on medical issues is
also increasing. Therefore I find this study, uptodate.
Title: Association of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) with Ovarian Cancer: A Nationwide
Population-based Retrospective Cohort Study from Taiwan
Version: 3 Date: 12 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-done register based study of the association between PID and ovarian cancer. It
is well-written and the conclusions are supported by the data. I have a few minor comments.
- In the abstract and introduction it is claimed that "the evidence is controversial" and that
"there is uncertainty in the literature as to whether there is a definite association". These claims
are not supported with any evidence or citations until the extensive review in the discussion
section. What specifically is controversial about the evidence? The evidence as reviewed in the
discussion seems completely consistent with a small positive association.
- Methods/statistics: The Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence curves are not exactly appropriate
here if some of the women died or left the insurance program (e.g. through emigration) during
follow-up. In that case the Aalen-Johansen method should be used to account for the competing
risk of death. For the Cox models, it is fine to treat deaths as censoring to estimate the HRs, but
for the curves in Figure 2 it makes a difference.
Small point in the methods section: "The difference in age of each study cohort was determined
by the t-test as your helpful suggestion", suggest rewriting as "The ages of the study cohorts
were compared using the t-test".
- Results/Discussion. There is a big jump up in the cumulative incidence in the PID group
immediately at the start of follow up. This, to me, indicates that at least in some cases, PID
may appear to be a symptom of ovarian cancer or that a previously undiagnosed cancer is found
upon examination for PID. Can the authors comment on the possible causal direction of the
association, as I do not think that it can be taken as given that PID causes ovarian cancer rather
than the reverse.
Title: Self-assessment of attitudes towards conditions to provide safe abortion among new
medical graduates in Thailand, 2018: an application of cross-sectional survey with factor
analysis
Version: 1 Date: 21 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Summary of the manuscript:
The authors collected data from newly graduated medical doctors in Thailand on their levels
of agreement to abortion based on 14 scenarios. The main hypothesis presented was the
medical entrance system was associated medical graduates’ attitude towards abortion. They used
combination of factor analysis/PCA and regression model to test the hypothesis and found a
significant effect of the entrance system.
Overall comments:
The findings would be important for preparing medical doctors in Thailand to provide safe
abortion services. The paper however did not sufficiently explore what and how medical students
from each track learned about abortion in their (different) medical curriculums. Religion belief
is another important factor that was ignored in this study.
Introduction
- “Women’s health” In the 2nd paragraph: I found mentioning of “Women’s health” in these
two sentences contradicted each other: “… (i) to protect woman’s health …” and “…  However,
the term ‘woman’s health’ is not indicated in the law.” Need to re-write in clearer manner.
- Does the ‘Act for Prevention and Solution of the Adolescent Pregnancy B.E. 2559 (2016)’
conflict with the existing penal code?
- Apart from training contexts, in my experience, medical students from both tracks differed
in several aspects such as high school’s GPAX, household’s socio-economic status, and other
background variables. I found that the rationale mentioned was not convincing enough to form
this hypothesis.
Methodology
- Not clear whether consent forms were signed before participating in the online survey
- Questionnaire development: It was not clear whether the UN document was incorporated in
the original questionnaire or only in the present study’s questionnaire.
- 14 scenarios: Information about the 14 scenarios used was lacking. It is better to provide the
actual question asked for each scenario. Especially the scenario “pregnancy with socioeconomic
problems” is vague.
- “factor analysis was performed in order to reduce the number of question items (n = 14) to a
few composite items that provided better interpretation.” Should be indicated that this was done
to use in the further analysis, not for developing a shorter from of questionnaire.
- Figure 1 should be in supplement.
Results + Discussion
- Expect more detail on difference in medical curriculum. Religion belief should be explored.
Title: Self-assessment of attitudes towards conditions to provide safe abortion among new
medical graduates in Thailand, 2018: an application of cross-sectional survey with factor
analysis
Version: 3 Date: 24 May 2021
Reviewer:  Sarah Raifman
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing the suggestions for revision so thoroughly. I do recommend a careful
copy-edit of your manuscript before publication as there are some missing words, misspellings,
extra spaces, and incomplete sentences.