JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 promotes sensitivity of endometrial cancer
cells to chemotherapeutic agents by inhibiting the ferroptosis pathway
Version: 1 Date: 09 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Please find my comments below:
1. The descriptive title of the manuscript is required; therefore, it should contain only full name.
2. Not all abbreviations in the abstract and main text were explained when they were used for
the first time.
3. In the introduction, please add some data about molecular classification.
4. Please consider citing in the introduction doi: 10.2174/1389201021666200629151008.
PMID: 32598254.
5. "Based on previous studies" please add references.
6. The number of cases - only 3 is not representative. Please explain why the authors decided to
use only 3 patients. The power analysis should be performed. It is my major criticism. I think
that authors should remove data from patients.
7. Anthropometric and clinical data about patients have to be added.
8. Please divide M&M and results sections into smaller sub-chapters.
9. The material and methods section was not described enough. Please provide the name of the
company, state, country, and catalog number for each reagent and equipment used in this study.
10. Please clearly describe the cell culture and provide the number of technical repetites.
11. Please describe the RNA isolation as an independent sub-section and provide the quality
and quantity assessment.
12. In the RTqPCR, how the specific reaction was checked.
13. etc., for other sub-sections.
14. The discussion is interesting, but the authors should better explain clinical implications,
comparing obtained results with other researchers' observations.
15. The last paragraph of the discussion should describe strengths, limitations, and further
perspectives.
16. Why only one EC cell line was used? Has a similar experiment been conducted in cell lines
corresponding to G2 and G3 stages of endometrial cancer? Please discuss.
Please, all changes should be marked
Title: Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 promotes sensitivity of endometrial cancer
cells to chemotherapeutic agents by inhibiting the ferroptosis pathway
Version: 1 Date: 12 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Yang Sun
Reviewer's report:
1.“Tissue specimens were collected from 3 patients pathologically diagnosed EC......”. The
sample size is too small, so it is suggested that the author increase the sample size. If it is difficult
to collect samples, I recommend that the authors analyze the difference in expression of this
gene between tumor and normal tissues from public databases such as TCGA or GEO.
2. “RT-qPCR showed that Fancd2 expression was significantly increased in EC group compared
with the Normal group (Figure 1A), and was markedly higher in Ishikawa cells than in hEECs
(Figure 1B).” It is suggested that WB experiment be added to verify the results.
3. “RT-qPCR confirmed the up-regulation of Fancd2 in the Fancd2 group compared with the
Vector group and down-regulation of Fancd2 in the si-Fancd2 group compared with the siNC
group (Figure 1C).” Why didn't the author also use WB to detect knockdown efficiency?
4. The author only used MTT assay to study drug resistance, and the results of the study were
insufficient. It is suggested that the author supplement other related experiments, such as the
detection of apoptosis by Flow CytoMetry, EDU assay, clonal formation assay, etc.
5.  If the authors have difficulty in complementary experiments, I personally recommend using
bioinformatics methods to further investigate the function of Fancd2 in endometrial cancer. For
example, the effect of Fancd2 on the prognosis of endometrial cancer.The  authors can also use
the oncoPredict package or pRRophetic package to study resistance.
In conclusion, the current study  is not sufficient, and it is recommended that the author add
some wet experiments to improve the study. If it is really difficult to carry out wet experiments,
it is recommended that the author carry out bioinformatics analysis to improve the study.
Title: Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 promotes sensitivity of endometrial cancer
cells to chemotherapeutic agents by inhibiting the ferroptosis pathway
Version: 1 Date: 15 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Fancd2 promotes sensitivity of endometrial
cancer cells to chemotherapeutic agents by inhibiting the ferroptosis pathway”, topic interesting
enough to attract readers' attention.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- Considering topic analyzed in this study, It would be interesting to evaluate and cite current
evidence about molecular insights of endometrial cancer and possible innovative therapeutic
strategies, and explain how result of this study could improve prognosis and the possibility of
tailored management. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point, referring to
PMID: 36833105 and 36979434.
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 promotes sensitivity of endometrial cancer
cells to chemotherapeutic agents by inhibiting the ferroptosis pathway
Version: 1 Date: 16 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest to take into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve
readability.
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the new molecular classification of endometrial
cancer and its importance for tailoring the approach to this important disease ( see PMID:
36983243).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
- Authors could take inspiration from PMID: 36553988 discussing about the use of radiomics
and molecular classification to predict the prognosis in patients with endometrial cancer.
Title: Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 promotes sensitivity of endometrial cancer
cells to chemotherapeutic agents by inhibiting the ferroptosis pathway
Version: 1 Date: 19 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors want to explore the molecular mechanism of EC resistance. But in fact, drug
resistance is not a major clinical problem in EC. Besides, there are other concerns in this paper:
1. Fig 1 , only three clinical samples? The sample size is too small.
2. Fig1, only Fancd2 mRNA were detected without pretein expression? both in clinical samples
and cell lines.
3. IC50 change is too small, not even twice as much. In my opinion, this is not enough.
Title: Knowledge of Cervical Cancer Screening among Omani Women Attending a University
Teaching Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript presented for review discusses the up-to-date topic of gynecology and
reproductive medicine. Although cervical cancer screening programs and  HPV vaccination is
well developed, cervical cancer incidence is increasing in many countries worldwide. Since 2006
when the approval of the first HPV vaccine occurred by June 2020, 55% of the WHO Member
States reported implementation of partial or national HPV vaccination..
Thus, any efforts to improve the public knowledge of cervical cancer and HPV vaccination
remain valuable. Therefore, the manuscript has significant value for modern medical practice
and could be published after some requested revisions are done.
Please find below my comments:
1. The title is clear and concise and represents the study.
2. The abstract in general clearly presents the study, however, needs improvement in its structure
and writing style.
3. The introduction does not explain a full rationale for the study. Please restructure it. Include
data on cervical cancer  epidemiology in Oman and updated data on cervical cancer incidence.
Important resources that potentially could be used and improve the introduction part are missing
in the reference list.
4. Provide details of the screening practices in Oman - age group, frequency, and method used
for cervical cancer screening (Pap test, HPV genotyping, or co-testing with both).
5. As a factor contributing to the increased cervical cancer incidence, HPV vaccination coverage
in Oman must be mentioned here as Cervical cancer could be prevented not via screening but
through vaccination.
5. Please clearly state the study aim(s) at the end of the introduction part.
6. The methods part is incomplete. It should include the following sections:
The study design (not clearly written), study subjects, exclusion and inclusion criteria, and study
instrument (survey) should be presented in detail, participants’ recruitment procedure.
7. Results are interesting and supported by clear tables and figures.
8. In the discussion part is too long and difficult to comprehend in the current version. It requires
restructuring. The following outline is suggested:
Outline for the Discussion part
1.1 Rationale of the study (why it was done)
1.1.1 Main findings of the study
1.1.2 What makes your study unique
1.1.3 What it adds to what we already know
1.2 Study subjects
1.3 Subject of the discussion
Comparison of your results with previous studies in the field. Agreement and
disagreement with the studies compared (suggested references to compare with  - doi:
10.1177/17455065211004135; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261203).
1.4 Study strengths and limitations
1.5 Clinical implication
Title: Knowledge of Cervical Cancer Screening among Omani Women Attending a University
Teaching Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 22 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Samira Alrawahi
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer comments:
The topic of the manuscript is interesting. However, it needs language editing.
The numbers given for the percentages if have NO decimals would be better presented in all
the manuscript.
The background needed to be more clear and a section about Cervical Cancer in Oman could
be added and elaborated to give the reader more interest in the context of Oman. In conclusion,
the background should be vividly organized.
In the Method section: There is redundancy in the study design and the data collection. Please
correct it.
In the result: The tables could be sufficient in presenting the study results. The paragraphs make
it boring for the readers (NO need for the paragraphs, this could be presented in the discussion).
The discussion could be more elaborated to strengthen the results of the study.
The conclusion is good
Title: From existential uncertainty to a new mindset promoting recovery: Exploring the
development of uncertainty experience in women with vulvar neoplasia – a qualitative
longitudinal study
Version: 3 Date: 13 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for responding to my comments. As it is when I read the point by point response  I cannot
see how or where you have made changes.  In these response authors are required to describe
what they did, and show where these changes are and give the extracts (and page numbers) from
the paper so that the reviewers can see them without having to find such changes in the paper
that relate to each point.
Happy to review in the future if this is done.
Title: Is robotic-assisted vaginectomy a better choice in vaginal high-grade squamous
intraepithelial lesions than conventional laparoscopic surgery?
Version: 1 Date: 18 Jul 2023
Reviewer:  Selim Afsar
Reviewer's report:
My comments on the manuscript are as follows:
1. The manuscript could be rephrased, such as “Is robotic-assisted vaginectomy a better choice
in vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia than laparoscopic surgery?”
2. What does “complicated vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL)” mean?
Why was it complicated? The term “complicated” is a generalized statement and doesn’t ring
the bell for me as a gynecologic oncologist.
3. Abstract must be restructured, and English editing is mandatory.
4. The use of scientific language in the manuscript must be reviewed.
5. The article omitted the most crucial and up-to-date reference in this era in the introduction
section “Kesic V, Carcopino X, Preti M, Vieira-Baptista P, Bevilacqua F, Bornstein J, Chargari
C, Cruickshank M, Erzeneoglu E, Gallio N, Gultekin M, Heller D, Joura E, Kyrgiou M,
Madi# T, Planchamp F, Regauer S, Reich O, Esat Temiz B, Woelber L, Zodzika J, Stockdale
C. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for
the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval
Disease (ECSVD), and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) consensus statement
on the management of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023 Apr
3;33(4):446-461”.
6. Lines 53-54 “In clinical practice, partial or total (???) vaginectomy for complicated vaginal
HSIL patients is favored by gynecologists.” It is correct for the first part; however, total
vaginectomy must not be considered an option for exceptional cases.
7. The inclusion criteria and the definition of complicated vaginal HSIL in the study population
section is ambiguous and incomprehensible (lines 79-83). The study necessitates a  flow
diagram.
8. The following scientific terminology in lines 123-125 “paralytic ileus time (calculated in days
from the end of the operation to the ability to pass feces or gas), urinary catheter indwelling time
(calculated in days from the end of the operation to the removal of urinary catheter smoothly
without paruria)” must be revised.
9. Lines 182-185 “In total, 8 patients (25.0%) of robotic-assisted total vaginectomy ±
hysterosalpingo-oophorectomy, and 7 (10.0%) patients of conventional laparoscopic total
vaginectomy ± hysterosalpingo-oophorectomy were examined, and this difference was not
statistically significant (P=0.059)”  ???
Title: Is robotic-assisted vaginectomy a better choice in vaginal high-grade squamous
intraepithelial lesions than conventional laparoscopic surgery?
Version: 1 Date: 04 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
There are some concerns which I would be grateful if authors consider them.
Introduction:
Authors should justify the necessity of performing robotic surgery and comparison with
traditional surgery. We see that up to line 68 it is written about cancer.
What is design of study? Case-control? Cross-sectional? Cohort?
What was the sample formula?
What was the methods of sampling?
It seems that with this sample size, it is not possible to measure the differences in the results
in the two groups.
It seems that with this sample size, it is not possible to measure the differences in the results
in the two groups.
Why was this sample size chosen?
In the table, the tests of the variables should be specified in each row.
Table 3:
CLV group (n= 75), RALV group (30). Why is this figure different than the other tables?
Title: Is robotic-assisted vaginectomy a better choice in vaginal high-grade squamous
intraepithelial lesions than conventional laparoscopic surgery?
Version: 2 Date: 14 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Selim Afsar
Reviewer's report:
Please change the term "postoperative anal exhaust time" to "the time to first flatus" or "flatus
passing time" which is suitable for you.
Please change the term in Table 2, "split in abdominal incision," to "wound dehiscence" or
surgical incision dehiscence"
Please change the terms in Table 3 "The difference in prognosis between the two groups" to
"The prognosis of the groups"
Please change the terms in Table 3 "Respond to vaginectomy" to "Short-term prognosis"  and
define the short-term period.
Please change the terms in Table 3 "Normalization" to "Disease-free" or "Regression" .
Title: The impact of text message reminders on cryotherapy uptake among women testing
positive for HPV in western Kenya: A prospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 01 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study is very important and tackles important aspect of community screening and treatment
of the precancerous cervical lesions found in HIV infected women
The results are very relevant and encouraging to involve mHealth in testing and results
transmission
Its interesting to know that enhanced SMS texting did not increase  treatment uptake
Glad to have involved phone and home visit in the strategy or design
Very good work done by the team
Title: The impact of text message reminders on cryotherapy uptake among women testing
positive for HPV in western Kenya: A prospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 03 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Ditte S Linde
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for allowing me to review this interesting manuscript and important study of how to
use mHealth to improve cervical cancer prevention in Tanzania. I have a few comments for the
authors for the manuscript to be ready for publication:
1. After reading the whole manuscript, I am still uncertain as to what type of study this is. Is it
a methodology paper of how you developed your mHealth strategy? Is it a mixed method study
of how you developed the mHealth strategy, the acceptability of it and the effect of it? Is it a
cohort study? This is not clear in the manuscript, the abstract or title, and I highly recommend
the authors to elaborate on their study design. I gather it is a mixed method method sub-study
of a randomised trial, yet I am not certain based on what is stated in the manuscript.
2. Please also more clearly specify your overall aims and objectives of your study. It goes hand-
in-hand with your methodology, and it hard to judge where the design is adequate to answer
your research questions when it is not clearly specified.
3. Please elaborate on your qualitative and quantitative methodology. E.g. were the FGDs semi-
structured, how did you recruit participants, how long did the last, how did you analyse the data,
did you have a theoretical framework that guided your FGDs,...?
4. It appears that the two groups which you compare (phase I and phase II) are significantly
different on several parameters. How does this influence your results? And how did you address
this issue in your analysis? E.g. How come you did not conduct an adjusted regression analysis
when comparing the different strategies?
5.  Please add a reporting check list til your manuscript.
Title: Barriers and facilitators for breast cancer early diagnosis in an indigenous community in
Mexico: Voices of otomí women
Version: 1 Date: 30 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting article on breast cancer screening in an understudied population, Otomi
women. Below are recommendations that may help improve the article.
According to the COREQ guide, there is a lack of information for qualitative studies because
no information is provided about:
(a) characteristics of the research team, who conducted the focus groups? Were they women?
How did they establish communication with the focus group participants? What information
about the research was provided to the participants?
b) Regarding the participants, it is not clearly explained how the 19 people who participated
were selected. How did you approach the women? Where were the focus groups held? Were
they face-to-face? Of those invited, how many chose not to participate? Who attended the focus
groups? Was a pilot test conducted? Were field notes taken?
c) Study design. The strategy for selecting participants is not clear; you mention non-probability
sampling, but do not explain how you arrived at the selection of the 19 people who participated.
Did you use inclusion and exclusion criteria? How did you approach the women? They mention
in Table 2 that 10 of them do not speak Otomi, so what were the characteristics that made them
Otomi women and therefore included in the study?
In addition, it would be interesting to add information on the contextualization of the women,
since the characteristics presented in Table 2 do not allow the reader to situate himself in the
detection of breast cancer in these women. The document mentions that the interviews were
conducted in 2021, at which time the NOM-041 included different screening tools by age group.
By not knowing the age of the women (since it only gives us the mean and the range), it does not
allow us to know which tools they should have used according to their age. It is recommended
that this information be presented in accordance with the regulations. In addition, it would be
interesting to know the use of self-examination, clinical examination or mastography in these
women, since this allows us to have a greater perspective of the women's experience in the early
detection of breast cancer.
After reading the document, I have a few questions
Could you contextualize about the early detection services that women have access to in the
community? where is the nearest mastographer?
Have any of the participants had a self-exam, clinical exam, or mastography?
Have any of the participants women been diagnosed with breast cancer?
Does the participant have a family member with a history of breast cancer?
Title: Barriers and facilitators for breast cancer early diagnosis in an indigenous community in
Mexico: Voices of otomí women
Version: 3 Date: 17 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Victoria Sánchez Antelo
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed all the reviewer's comments, implementing changes that
significantly improve the overall quality of the manuscript. The revised version describes
the methods more accurately and proposes a more refined discussion. This research not only
addresses barriers to breast cancer prevention access but also makes a notable contribution to
the literature on native populations in Latin America.
Title: Circulating blood biomarkers correlated with the prognosis of advanced triple negative
breast cancer
Version: 1 Date: 22 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors analyzed the data of  50 ICIs treated mTNBC  patients with the
counts of lymphocytes, monocytes, platelets, and ratio indexes (NLR, MLR, PLR) in peripheral
blood  investigated .The study indicated that Before the initiation of ICIs, enriched peripheral
lymphocytes and poor neutrophils and NLR contribute to the prediction of survivals.
After reading this paper, I think this paper is complete and contains all the necessary components.
The structure is reasonable and logical, and the design principle is clearly and moderately
illustrated.
Title: Circulating blood biomarkers correlated with the prognosis of advanced triple negative
breast cancer
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted a retrospectiv cohort study for Triple Negative Breast Cancer to seek
circulating blood biomarkers to predict the efficacy of ICIs. This is an important and interesting
study met the clinical requirements. The authors come to a conclusion that enriched peripheral
lymphocytes and poor neutrophils and NLR contribute to the prediction of survivals.
Several concerns were: 1) Conclusions should be cautious because of the small sample size. 2)
In Statistical analysis, multi-variable death model was modified based on according to age and
gender  In relapse case. However, all patients are female, how modified? 3) In Background, the
authors stated that  5-year survival less than 30%, refer mTNBC? please provide references. 4)
A few mistakes, such as  from 2018 to 2013 In Abs. Methods.
Title: Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) as a potential marker of endometriosis: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 02 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
This review has included 12 studies about BDNF levels in endometriosis patients. There was a
significant difference in BDNF levels in endometriosis.
The functional role of  BDNF in female reproductive system has gained popularity recently.
This review  is well organised and will guide for future studies.