JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Identification of Causes and Consequences of Kolberi among Iranian Kurdish Women:
A Grounded Theory Study
Version: 3 Date: 09 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you very much to let me  re-reviewed the article.
Authors mostly have manipulated the article according to the comments. But, there is a problem
in finding yet. I emphasized on providing the findings with "Core Category". Unfortunately
authors have not care to this comments and answered: "We also agree with you that grounded
theory requires a core category, but in this version of grounded theory, the causes, consequences,
and reactions of the phenomenon are analyzed simultaneously. Therefore, it is no longer possible
to analyze all cases by assigning a core category to them. For this reason, the phenomenon under
study, which is Kolberi, is placed at the center of the model, and the categories and subcategories
are explained within the framework of the model and paradigm."
This is not acceptable. Core Category is the main element of grounded theory. It seems they
confused "Core Category" with "the center of the model", as they said. It is not supposed to
place "Core Category" in the model necessarily. it is the most abstract concept of your findings
which cover all others. As I said before, without core category, this study is simply a qualitative
content analysis. Authors say "in this version of grounded theory," please cite to that version,
book, paper by page number which clearly says there is no need to core category.
2. regarding my second comment in Discussion section, which deal with the theoretical
explanation or linking your findings specially core category with existing theories, it is not
acceptable your answer: "we do not follow a specific theory in grounded theory, and since the
phenomenon of Kolberi women is a new topic that has been studied less, there is no specific
theory in this area. Therefore, there is no opportunity for comparison with other theories." You
can refer to feminist theories on subordination of women, you can apply feminist theories on
women actions, etc. Authors have not offers a specific theory in "their Grounded Theory", also
do not have any theoretical explanation of their findings. Maybe in doing grounded theory we
do not use any specific theory at the beginning, but researcher must improve his/her theoretical
sensitivity and at the end of the study connect his/her core category or other categories of totally
his/her paradigmatic model to those theories.
Best Regards.
Title: Identification of Causes and Consequences of Kolberi among Iranian Kurdish Women:
A Grounded Theory Study
Version: 5 Date: 26 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
1-What is the clear statement of the aims of the research?The statement of problem has not
clearly defined
2-Please provide description and significance of the problem/phenomenon studied; review of
relevant theory and empirical work; problem statement is not defined well
3-Please proved clearly methods for processing data prior to and during analysis, including
transcription, data entry, data management
4-How has relationship between researcher and participants adequately considered?
5-Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many?
6-Was a relationship established prior to study commencement?
7-Were field notes made during and/or after the interview?
8-Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction?
9- themes identified in advance or derived from the data?
10-authors  should provide a description of the coding tree
11-There are not enough consistency between the data presented, findings and discussion
12-Please provide clearly the explanation of how findings and conclusions connect to, support,
elaborate on, or challenge conclusions of earlier scholarship
[
13-Major themes were not clearly presented in the findings.
14-How valuable is the research? Regarding political and social considerations in Iran
Title: Perceptions of Pregnant Women on Antenatal Care visit during their First Trimester at
Area 25 Health Center in Lilongwe, Malawi – A Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Cameron Bowie
Reviewer's report:
This is a comprehensive description of women's attitudes to one aspect of antenatal care which is
clearly a potential issue.  The results provide health managers and professional staff in  Malawi
and elsewhere insight into how the service can be adapted to improve its quality.
There are still one or two typographic errors which can be easily corrected.  The methods section
still contains some results of the study itself which should be deleted.
I recommend acceptance once these very minor corrections are made.
Title: Perceptions of Pregnant Women on Antenatal Care visit during their First Trimester at
Area 25 Health Center in Lilongwe, Malawi – A Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Precious Madula
Reviewer's report:
This is a good study and I recommend it for publication however, the authors should address
the following:
1.  On study and population they should provide citations for their claim that Area 25 Health
Centre receives 11,102 pregnancies
2. The authors should provide an explanation of how the sample size of 55 was arrived at and
how the researchers reached data saturation point.
3. The last paragraph on Data Analysis should clearly spell out what the research objectives
were and how they have been dealt with in the findings and discussion of findings sections.
4. On the Limitations sections, the authors should kindly state why they still feel that the findings
of this study are valid and reliable despite the limitations that they have stated in their write-up.
5. The manuscript should be proofread by a language expert in order to resolve some grammar
and syntactical issues. I tried to resolve a few as seen in the attachment but there is more work
to be done.
Title: Perceptions of Pregnant Women on Antenatal Care visit during their First Trimester at
Area 25 Health Center in Lilongwe, Malawi – A Qualitative Study
Version: 2 Date: 13 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Cameron Bowie
Reviewer's report:
The changes made following the review recommendations make for an article well worth
publishing.  One tiny detail needs to be added - you sought but did you obtain COMREC
approval?
Title: A Case Report of Laparoscopic Surgery for Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome
with Preservation of Functional Primordial Uterus
Version: 1 Date: 07 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Congratulation for success management of very rarely congenital abnormality related to femal
genital tract.
I read the paper with the great interest of treatment. However, the authors should clarify some
points before publication.
-Please classified MRKH syndrome following type 1 or type 2. Since MRKH is classified into
two groups. Type I (isolated) without any extragenital abnormalities and type II (including
MURCS association) with presence of extragenital abnormalities. (Herlin MK, Petersen
MB, Brännström M. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome: a comprehensive
update. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):214. Published 2020 Aug 20. doi:10.1186/
s13023-020-01491-9).
-The authors should also describe the findings of the heart, renal structure, and vertebral colume,
or other organs if the malformation is present (Committee on Adolescent Health Care. ACOG
Committee Opinion No. 728: Müllerian Agenesis: Diagnosis, Management, And Treatment.
Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):e35-e42. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002458.).
-The karyotype is needed to be determined.
-Please address the histopathological examination of chocolate cyst if it related to endometriosis
cyst.
-After surgery, the team applied any method to avoid recurrent atresia of artificial vaginal tract.
Intruterine adhesion is also a major concern.
-Did the team assess the HSG X-ray in this case after reconstrucion?
-The follow-up of the pregnancy outcome in future is surely expected in this case.
After minor revision, I recommend this report for publication in BMC Women’s Health.
Phuc Nhon Nguyen MD
TD-CRU, Tu Du Hospital
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Title: A Case Report of Laparoscopic Surgery for Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome
with Preservation of Functional Primordial Uterus
Version: 1 Date: 09 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Basilio Pecorino
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
In my opinion, the procedure has to be better explained by many images or clips to watch the
final anatomy of the pelvis after anastomosis.
I also suggest related literature, for example:
- Scibilia, G., Pecorino, B., Pagano, I., Scollo, P. Case Report: Laparoscopic Uterovaginal
Anastomosis for Congenital Isolated Cervical Agenesis. Journal of Minimally Invasive
Gynecology, 2017, 24(4), pp. 677–682
- Pecorino, B., Scibilia, G., Borzì, P., ...Veroux, P., Scollo, P. Diminished ovarian reserve
and ectopic ovaries in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome candidates for
Uterus Transplantation: Our experience Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology,
2021, 48(4), pp. 907–912
Title: A Case Report of Laparoscopic Surgery for Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome
with Preservation of Functional Primordial Uterus
Version: 3 Date: 27 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing all comment points.
The revised manuscript is more clarified now and can be  accepted now.
Congratulation.
Best regards,
Phuc Nhon Nguyen MD
Department of High-risk Pregnancy
Tu Du Clinical Research Unit (TD-CRU)
Tu Du Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Title: Patient Perspectives of Using Reproductive Autonomy to Measure Quality of Care: A
Qualitative Study
Version: 3 Date: 07 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have considered all my previous comments in revising
the manuscript. The revised manuscript looks much better and clearer. I do not have any further
comments on the revised work.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Accept
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No
Title: Breast Cancer Survival after mammography dissemination in Brazil: a population-based
analysis of 2,715 cases
Version: 2 Date: 27 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is an  interesting  report to know statistics of breast cancer in Brazil. However breast cancer
prognosis is very varied depend on the subtype and this report did not include analysis form this
standpoint. This very difficult to apply and interpret .
Title: Breast Cancer Survival after mammography dissemination in Brazil: a population-based
analysis of 2,715 cases
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I am pleased to review the manuscript entitled, ‘Breast Cancer
Survival in the mammography era in Brazil: a population-based analysis of 2,715 cases,’
by Fernandes and colleagues. This cancer epidemiology paper will contribute to the current
understanding of the breast cancer survival outcome within the geographic region of interest.
The authors have nicely collected a cohort of 2,715 women with breast cancers diagnosed in the
so-called mammography era in Brazil. They also provided 5-year overall survival stratified by
stage of the cohort. However, issues easily spotted in the current manuscript need to be solved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The time when mammography was available for breast cancer screening in the studied region
should be explicitly stated.
The first sentence in the Background section needs to be corrected. Patients aged beyond 40 to
69 range are frequently encountered.
The following paper should be cited and discussed regarding the ethnic difference in breast
cancer survival. Ref.: Marcelino et al. Lower breast cancer survival among Black women in
Brazil: a population-based retrospective study. Public Health 2023 Apr;217:190-195.
Table 3. The variables selected for the multivariate Cox regression models should be stated
clearly in the Table footnote.
In the Discussion, lines 144—145, the phrase ‘that the diagnoses were early’ is not easily
understood. Do you mean most breast cancers were screen-detected by mammograms? Also,
our readership will wonder what proportion of the entire cohort of 2,715 patients were screen-
detected in the so-called mammography era.
Figure 3. Typo: Cumulative.
Title: Breast Cancer Survival after mammography dissemination in Brazil: a population-based
analysis of 2,715 cases
Version: 4 Date: 15 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have adequately responded to the questions or concerns
I raised in the previous peer review report. They have also made changes to reflect their responses
in the manuscript per se. My overall impression is that the manuscript can be accepted for
publication after a Minor Revision.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Internationally, breast cancer survival is compared between studies using median overall
survival (mOS) with 95% confidence interval. However, in Table 1 and Table 2 of the revised
manuscript, the overall survivals were reported in mean survival. Table 3, the term for 95% CI
HR should be corrected to 95% CI.
In Discussion, paragraph I, the citation was not properly presented.
Title: Breast Cancer Survival after mammography dissemination in Brazil: a population-based
analysis of 2,715 cases
Version: 4 Date: 04 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
We appreciate the author's thoughtful comments. Although you have revised the article again in
detail, as a whole, it still remains a summary of prognostic data of breast cancer patients in one
area in Brazil and does not seem to be a discussion of the mammography era, as the title suggests.
Title: Breast Cancer Survival after mammography dissemination in Brazil: a population-based
analysis of 2,715 cases
Version: 7 Date: 11 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This time, the authors have adequately responded to each of the
questions or concerns I raised in the previous round of the review. They have also made changes
to reflect their responses in the revised manuscript. I think the revised manuscript can add to the
current literature, and I feel comfortable recommending it for publication.
Title: Breast Cancer Survival after mammography dissemination in Brazil: a population-based
analysis of 2,715 cases
Version: 7 Date: 13 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
the authors answered all questions adequately
i have two suggestions
1- delete the word primary on line 82 because it is twice in same sentence
2- the graphic on stage  pelase replace 1,2,3,4  for I.II,III and IV
I recommend  publication
Title: Women’s Autonomy in Healthcare Decision Making: A Systematic Review
Version: 1 Date: 25 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Aisa Maleki
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
1. Why your search is limited to 2017-2022?
2. You lost the mass data of abstracts, related reviews and references, and grey literature. How
did you fill this data gap?
3. Provide your logic to exclude this mass of literature.
4. How was your standardized data extraction form developed and validated?
5. Mention how stakeholders can improve women’s autonomy in healthcare decision-making.
"Only articles from 2017 to 2022 were included, hence reducing the variation in the article
searching process": You should decrease the variation through keywords and booleans...
Introduction
1. The introduction must be concise and more relevant. Decrease it to one page.
Methods
1. You must provide your entire keywords and syntaxes.
2. How many documents were obtained from each database?
3. Provide the logic for the exclusion criteria.
4. Describe the tools used for quality assessment. Attach the critical appraisal checklists too.
5. Why do you use MMAT?
6. How was your standardized data extraction form developed and validated?
7. "Patient and public involvement" is extra.
8. "The approval from institutional review board (IRB) was not applicable for this systematic
review." is extra.
Results
1. The "Keywords search used in the screening process" table should move to the methods.
2. Provide the table of included studies' characteristics.
3. Most of the parts of the discussion are written with an introduction. Remove the redundant
sentences,
4. Compare your results with developed countries.
5. Announce the difference in women's autonomy between developed and developing countries.
Title: Women’s Autonomy in Healthcare Decision Making: A Systematic Review
Version: 1 Date: 11 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is addressing a very interesting topic worth of consideration, yet some points
need to be attended.
The title is vague
It is not clear decision making for receiving health care or
For example doing their activities in health care as an employee or manager etc…
Women’s utilization of health care!!!
at the end of intro, Similar studies could be added…
end of research question formulation, More elaboration is needed: Context as HC decision
making?  It might be the factors affecting HC decision making
Table 1:
Searching just titles could give a complete picture?
Table 2
They are all just developing countries. In a way it is strange…
In developed ones it’s possibly rare!!
Table 3-
These factors as mentioned above, seems to affect women utilization of HC
For this purpose there are some known models including mainly Anderson and Newman’s
Findings could be categorized thematically including separate titles
The conclusion is very generic
Could be made more specific and with practical recommendations and avenues
Title: Association between Risk Factors and Migraine in Pakistani Females
Version: 2 Date: 03 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is quite confusing to readers like me, on one hand, authors are saying that they have
conducted study hospitals, universities, colleges, parks, urban and rural areas. On the other hand,
they are saying that ...the cross-sectional study was performed at Lady Willingdon, Lady Aschen,
Gosh-e-Shifa, and Mayo hospitals from September 2019 to March 2020.
During this time Pakistan was under lockdown and COVID-19 infection was spreading very
quickly. I am quite surprised how the hospitals allowed authors to collect the data. And they
have not mentioned any preventive measures in the study setting.
The question was are you suffering from migraine? Those females responded yes consider it as
a case and those females responded no considered as a control. How have authors established
that a person suffering from a migraine just by saying yes? This sounds unscientific to establish
things like this based on perception. How will the authors explain this data?
The authors have not taken into consideration age-gender-matched controls which is a great
limitation of this study. Controls are underrepresented. This would be inappropriate to generalize
the findings of the study. How will the authors explain this?
In Table 1 authors have shown that they have taken data from a person whose age is <10 and 182
samples were from ages 11-20 years. For all the participants who are below <18 years informed
consent must be obtained from the parents of the study participants. This information is also
missing. How will the authors justify it? Why have they made a group of age <10 years even
though there is only one sample? How will authors explain this? People with age >40 are less
represented. Why? Authors have not explained what mean by Upper, middle and Lower class?
Table 2 they have analyzed clinical traits of participants. They have not defined the answers
properly what mean by each catagroy?
The flow chart is not clear. A PDF would be required.
The authors have not mentioned which quality of life scale was used to assess quality of life. How
do they ensure the reliability of the quality-of-life questionnaire? I have read the manuscripts
about migraine and quality of life no one has used the chi square to assess. Why authors use chi
square in such QOL questionnaire?