JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Association between Premenstrual Syndrome and Eating Disturbance in College
Students; A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
The findings of this research shed light on the relationship between premenstrual syndrome
(PMS) symptoms and bulimia, offering valuable insight into women's health. Nonetheless, there
is still room for improvement in terms of manuscript quality and potential impact in the field.
1. It is important to note that the prevalence data from the years 1992–2002 may not accurately
reflect the current situation regarding eating disorders. This is because current eating habits
among female college students might be influenced by social media and accessibility to food,
which may have changed the trend of eating disorders.
2. I was unable to find any data analysis specifically for undergraduate and postgraduate students
in the findings report.
3. If you are referring to the current symptoms listed by ACOG, there should be around 20
emotional and physical symptoms. Therefore, it is unclear why you are referring to symptoms
based on the 2000 ACOG report, which does not meet current standards. Additionally, adding
8 symptoms based on old citations may not be necessary if you follow the latest report.
4. My concern is regarding the sample size used in the study. The sample sizes for both groups
are unequal, which may affect the accuracy of the results. It may be worth considering using
Welch's t-test for unequal variance and sample size to identify any differences between the two
groups.
5. The discussion on respondents' BMI does not support the current demographic data, as all
respondents in both groups were classified as having a normal BMI. This could suggest that there
may be other factors that explain why PMS severity is higher among the group with tendencies
towards eating disorders than the other group with no tendencies.
6. It is important to note that the discussion of the findings should not overlook the perspectives
of the respondents as college students. Although this was mentioned in the introduction, it should
be emphasized and elaborated on in the discussion section. By doing so, we can gain a deeper
understanding of the data and draw more accurate conclusions.
7. It would be beneficial to update the citations, as most of them are outdated. This will ensure
that the study represents the current situation accurately and provides a strong foundation for
the research.
Title: Association between Premenstrual Syndrome and Eating Disturbance in College
Students; A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Matteo Panero
Reviewer's report:
Author approach the interesting topic of the connection between PMS and Eating Disturbancies.
The topic is interesting but the draft has many flaws that should been addressed before it could
be considered worth a publication.
Page 5 line 66 authors stated “Another health problem among young women in Japan is eating
disorders, which are harmful to health and wellbeing”. This sentence introduces the topic of ED
in the paper. The fact that PMS and ED are two health problem among young woman seems
not to be a sufficient reason to deepen the associantions between the two. The connection of
PMS and dietary and vitamin alteration is different from suffering from a psychiatric disorder
and this should be made clear.
Line 73: the connection between covid and this paper's topic is unclear.
Line 74: the sentence is not justified by data or by a clear epidemiologic explanation.
Line 75: Which findings? There is no presentation in the introduction of any data on ED and PMS
Line 77: Few studies? Why are not cited? Is there anything outside Japan?
Page 7: is the PMS questionnaire been created by authors? Has it any form of validation? Is
tested for internal consistency?
Page 11: the table present the label “Eating disorder” and “No eating disorder” which is
misleading because no diagnosis of eating disorder can be made with the test used. Check all
the other tables.
Page 13: the table would be easier to read if instead of only the word Factor authors have used
the definition of the factor. I suggest also to write a legend in which it is explained that Factor
pertain to EAT26.
Page 16 line 220: the use of the diagnosis bulimia does not seems appropriate due to the absence
of a screening to ascertain if in the sample there are individuals with full diagnosis.
Page 17 line 245: the link between ED, PMS and sleep disturbances appears out of the blue and
not well linked to the results presented.
Line 251: same problem with diagnosis vs eating symptoms.
Line 274-275-276: this conclusion is not based on data.
No second-level statistical analysis is provided
There is no discussion of the implication of having a sample of college students vs other
populations that can differ in age and status.
No declaration of response bias.
Title: Association between Premenstrual Syndrome and Eating Disturbance in College
Students; A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 29 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. This article aims to explore the
association between premenstrual syndrome and eating disturbance in college students. Overall,
I feel the research topic is interesting and the article appear well-designed and well-written.
However, I have a few small suggestions to improve the quality of the article.
In this study, the main concern is related to the sample size. It is unclear that did authors perform
power analysis? I believe that they should describe the sample size, power, and precision.
Authors should provide information about the study type, study year, the sampling method, and
inclusion and exclusion criteria in the methods section.
The discussion section should be reconsidered in terms of essential items including implications
for nursing.
In my point of view, the biggest limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature of the data
collection. Actually, the cross-sectional research cannot explore the causal relationship between
study variables. Therefore, I suggest that the authors mention this limitation.
Title: Association between Premenstrual Syndrome and Eating Disturbance in College
Students; A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 29 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
The necessary arrangements were made in line with my suggestions. The work is written in an
up-to-date, fluent and clear language. Additionally, the issue discussed is important for women's
health. I wish you success in your work.
Title: Association between Premenstrual Syndrome and Eating Disturbance in College
Students; A cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 15 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
I cannot see in the point to point file the answer to my previous comments.
I copy-paste those  old comments here:
"Congratulations to the authors who have greatly improved the paper.
I would still like to highlight a few points
on some occasions in the revised text, the expression "patients with AN" and "patients with BN"
is still used, which is confusing both for the reason that no clinical cutoffs are used in this paper
and because the expression is currently considered stigmatising and "individuals with AN" is
preferred.
Page 5, line 82: I suggest citing this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36085407/ which
highlights the prevalence of eating disorders and the small number of articles on eating
symptoms from non-western countries."
After these minor revisions, I think that the paper is worth publication.
Title: Development and validation of a prediction model for postoperative urinary retention
after prolapse surgery: A retrospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 28 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Luis Gustavo Morato de Toledo
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review this elegant work. The authors are straight
forward in all segments of the text, justifying the research relevance and its clinical applicability.
The methodology is clearly stated e reproducible. Results are well presented and discussed. I
would like to have authors comments on the following points:
1) Instead of using POP-Q stages, as stage 3 englobes a wide range of prolapse severity, the use
of point C and/or Ba wouldn't be more adequate to patients’ individualization?
2) As authors pointed out in discussion, the use of opioids, in anesthesia or post operative
analgesia, may cause POUR. Was it recorded? Shouldn't it be analyzed as a possible predictive
factor?
3) Please clarify the statement "concomitant levator ani plication in women receiving
extraperitoneal native tissue apical suspension” justifying greater and prolonged risk of POUR
in SSLF. In our practice these procedures have independ indications. In the same rational, why
wasn't levator ani plication analyzed as an independent predictive factor?
4) Knowing that most prevalent prolapse sites are anterior and apical, why you have almost 60%
of posterior repair and only 30% of AR?
5) Discussion, line 217, the statement "patients only had an MUS if they had a continence
procedure". Instead of "contince procedure", wouldn't it be "stress incontinence" or something
alike?
As pointed by the authors, the current study has several strengths and few limitations. Its findings
are based on a robust database and apparently well done statistics, with clear clinical relevance.
Title: Oil-soluble contrast medium bathing attenuated endometrial inflammation and improved
endometrial receptivity in women with recurrent implantation failure: a descriptive study
Version: 2 Date: 05 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. The purpose of this study was to assess
the endometrial histological changes in implantation window before and after bathing with the
oil-soluble contrast medium in women with recurrent implantation failure. I feel the research
topic is interesting and the article appear well-written and well-referenced. However, I have a
few small suggestions to improve the quality of the article.
What is the type of study and how is the sample size estimated?
Are there no exclusion criteria for participants?
The conclusion section is not acceptable in its current form. This section should be briefly
described the practical implications of the study, followed by recommendations for future
studies.
Moreover, there are minor concerns regarding English grammar, expression, and acronyms. So,
I strongly recommend that the paper be checked by a native English speaker or professional
English editing service before re-submission.
Title: Oil-soluble contrast medium bathing attenuated endometrial inflammation and improved
endometrial receptivity in women with recurrent implantation failure: a descriptive study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
- - The type of descriptive study should be written in the title.
- The methodology of the study in the abstract section should be more detailed, write the method
of data collection.
- How were the samples selected?
- How was the data collection?
- - Write the application of the study in the conclusion
- In the introduction, you should review other studies if they have been done in this field and
write the differences with this study.
- Bring the necessity of study at the end of the introduction
- Write the innovation of the study
-- In the work method, how to implement this study should be written by mentioning the entry
and exit criteria.
- How was the selection of samples
- - The results have been written very briefly, so they should be corrected
- Author's own reasons and comments should be written for all sections in the study discussion
- To be compared with other similar foreign studies
- Bring opposing opinions with this study as well
- Write the strengths and weaknesses of the study
- Write suggestions
- Update the resources
Title: Oil-soluble contrast medium bathing attenuated endometrial inflammation and improved
endometrial receptivity in women with recurrent implantation failure: a descriptive study
Version: 4 Date: 03 May 2024
Reviewer's report:
- The corrected article has been written, but the corrections have not been highlighted at all
- The author must answer each and every question in the answer file to the referees
- The summary of the results is too long, you should summarize the main results here
- There are too many keywords, first, reduce them, and secondly, match them with the mesh
- More introduction is written about the scientific part of contrast material
- You have to show the importance of this issue in your studied examples
- You must specify why and for what reasons it was necessary to conduct this study
- You have not shown the importance of the study well enough to convince the audience that
this issue is important
- At the end of the introduction, you did not review similar studies
- Write the work method in an organized manner
First, bring the type of study and then the target population, and then explain the sampling
method
- Write the entry and exit criteria
- The results must be checked and confirmed by a statistician
- At the beginning of the discussion, write the main result of the study and compare it with
similar studies and also write the author's reasons
- In all the parts of your discussion, you have failed to write the author's own reasons and opinions
- Comparison with both internal and external studies
- Write down the strengths and weaknesses
- Write the applications of the study
- Write suggestions
- Write the moral cases
- Write sources for the last 3 years
Title: Key Barriers to the Provision and Utilization of Maternal Health Services in Low- and
Lower-Middle-Income Countries; A Scoping Review
Version: 0 Date: 05 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Prachi Pundir
Reviewer's report:
The authors have carried out an interesting and extensive review on the topic using the scoping
review approach. The scoping review has rich and meaningful results. I share my feedback in
the following points:
1. The current rationale does not argue why this study is relevant, a suggestion is to stregthen
the rationale and adding how will it help in achieving SDGs. The authors should also mention
why were  LLMICs considered in this review.
2. Please define (operationalize) provision and utilization of services in your scoping review.
Additionaly, the authors can define supply, demand, maternal care and maternal health services
and maintain uniformity in terminology.
3. Please mention if the scoping review protocol was registered/ published? If not, please state
it as a limitation (and the reason).
4. Please check reference 15 and 16,  scoping review method is used for broad topics (like yours)
and contrary to the popular statement, it does not identify gaps in research. For identifying gaps,
we use an evidence and gap map.
5. Please use scoping review term consistently (I noticed it was scope in one place)
6. Please do not write the results in the methods section (number of hits or article screened are
a part of results, and Figure 1 intext reference should be in the results section).
7. Can the authors please give a reason why the year 2000 was chosen as the start date of search?
8. A suggestion is to move the Table 1 to appendix
9. Please use PRISMA 2020 flowdiagram (Page et al., 2021) for displaying the study selection
process and reasons for exclusion( Figure 1)
10. Please mention if the Figure 2 was adapted or authors' creation?
11. The authors have some brilliant results but it is not visible in the conclusion, a suggestion is
to reframe some of the general statements in the conclusion.
12. According to me, the manuscript would benefit from English language editing services.
Title: Key Barriers to the Provision and Utilization of Maternal Health Services in Low- and
Lower-Middle-Income Countries; A Scoping Review
Version: 0 Date: 22 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Jorge Barreto
Reviewer's report:
This scoping review aimed to map the barriers to the provision and utilization of maternal health
services in low-and lower-middle-income countries, considering evidence of different types
found in the global literature.
Here we have a topic of high relevance in the global, national and local context, as this type
of mapping can be considered in situational analyzes to identify relevant barriers in specific
contexts, which will be the subject of contextualized interventions. In short, this type of study
has, in my opinion, direct applicability in decision-making processes, as a valuable subsidy.
The authors did not make it clear whether they adhered to PRISMA for scoping reviews in
their report, but I took the liberty of using this checklist as a reference in my evaluation of the
manuscript.
So, from now on I will point out what I consider can be improved or included in the report.
1/ In the abstract, I suggest including an expression of the eligibility criteria;
2/ If the authors used any supporting acronyms to structure the question of interest and the
searches, please mention it explicitly;
3/ A prior study protocol was not mentioned (except in the declarations), so I suggest including
more information about this, although it was not registered or published in advance. Perhaps the
protocol could be included as supplementary material for the information of interested readers;
4/ Supplementary material containing the detailed searches in each information base (if this was
done) could be useful for other interested parties, so perhaps this could be included, in addition
to the basic search already presented;
5/ Although scoping reviews do not assess the methodological quality of the studies included,
it is often more important to think about this, depending on the object studied. In this case, we
have an empirical object inserted in real contexts, so it is reasonable for me to ask myself which
information collected is more reliable. I consider that the lack of assessment of confidence in the
findings of the included studies may be a limitation that needs to be expressed and, if applicable,
explained how the authors dealt with it;
In general, as I said, I consider that the study is relevant and will certainly be recognized by actors
from academia, governments and society, interested in improving the performance of maternal
health services in countries where there are still important gaps and failures in implementation.
Title: Key Barriers to the Provision and Utilization of Maternal Health Services in Low- and
Lower-Middle-Income Countries; A Scoping Review
Version: 1 Date: 02 May 2024
Reviewer:  Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto
Reviewer's report:
Based on my previous comments, the responses the authors provided, and the revised
manuscript, I consider that the authors have resolved or justified the points regarding my
previous concerns.
Title: Enhancing Cervical Cancer Knowledge among Women of Reproductive Age: A
Dialogue-Based Community Health Education Intervention in Rural Kisumu County, Kenya
Version: 0 Date: 05 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Stephen Kiptoo
Reviewer's report:
Overall Review:
Background Section
The manuscript is well-structured, providing a clear background, methods, results, and
discussion sections. The abstract effectively summarizes the study, and the methodology is
robust, incorporating a control group and pre- and post-intervention assessments. The key
findings are presented logically, and the conclusions align with the study's objectives. However,
there are some suggestions to enhance clarity, coherence, and completeness. As follows for each
section:-
Under Title:
- I suggest if you can consider revising the title to provide a more concise and direct
representation of the study, ensuring that the essential elements, such as the location and
intervention, are highlighted, you can consider
e.g:- Enhancing Cervical Cancer Knowledge: A Dialogue-Based Community Health Education
Intervention in Rural Kisumu County, Kenya
Under Abstract:
- The abstract is comprehensive, but it could be condensed slightly for brevity without losing
vital information.
Under Background:
- The introduction provides a thorough background, but it would benefit from a clearer statement
of the study objectives. Specify the primary aim and hypothesis if applicable.
Methods:
- Clarify whether randomization was used in allocating the intervention and control groups. If
not, provide details on the rationale for the chosen allocation method.
- Include information on the duration of the follow-up period.
- Include reference/cite under target population (According to the 2019…….)
- I not understanding ….. Initial statement Data Collection……..Form the CHV’s rewrite the
statement.
- Specify the statistical tests used for comparing baseline characteristics and knowledge scores.
- The inclusion of a flowchart detailing participant enrollment, intervention, and analysis process
could enhance transparency.
Results:
- Clearly present the baseline characteristics of the intervention and control groups. A table
summarizing participant demographics at baseline would be helpful.
- Ensure consistency in reporting statistical significance (e.g., p<0.0001) throughout the results
section.
- In Table 3, it is not clear why there is a p-value associated with 'Knowledge categorization.'
Clarify.
Discussion:
- The discussion is comprehensive, linking the findings to existing literature. However,
discussing the limitations and potential biases is crucial for a complete interpretation of the
results.
- Consider exploring the reasons behind the decrease in knowledge in the control group, as this
could offer insights into the broader context of health education in the region.
Conclusion:
- Reinforce the key takeaway messages in the conclusion, summarizing the study's contributions
and potential implications for public health practice and policy.
Title: Enhancing Cervical Cancer Knowledge among Women of Reproductive Age: A
Dialogue-Based Community Health Education Intervention in Rural Kisumu County, Kenya
Version: 0 Date: 19 Feb 2024
Reviewer:  Griffins Manguro
Reviewer's report:
Generally good manuscript and the topic is interesting. However, the manuscript could be made
more accurate.
1. Please note that ca cervix is not the leading cause of death among women in Kenya unlike
what you have stated in the abstract introduction and introduction sections. Rather, it is the
leading cause of  reproductive cancers in women. Please check and make the correction to make
it more accurate.
2. Methods: there needs to be a much more elaborate description of the intervention. If the aim
of the study was to show that an intervention through CHVs is effective in increasing knowledge
of the women on ca.cx and uptake of ca.cx screening services. Would it be possible to provide
more information on the dialogue-based approach? What is the difference between this dialogue-
based approach and other approaches that have been used in other studies? How exactly were the
CHVs trained? using which curriculum? how long did the training last? All these detail would
be important as we are comparing the intervention and non-intervention arm.
3. Study design: Would have been better to carry out a cluster-randomized study, where
clusters (villages) were randomized either to intervention and non-intervention. In your design,
intervention was carried out in one sub-county (Nyando) and a different sub-county was used as
the control (Nyakach). There's likely to be differences in the two sub-counties that may present
bias.
4. Overall, it's hard to prove that the knowledge difference between the baseline and end of the
intervention was due to the intervention. this is the main pitfall with this study.  The authors
found a significantly greater change in knowledge between the intervention and the control arm
but there is little proof that the intervention resulted in the difference in change.