JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Ten-year follow up of cosmetic outcome, overall survival, and disease-free survival in
endoscope-assisted partial mastectomy with filling of dead space using absorbable mesh for
stage #IIA breast cancer: Comparison with conventional conservative method
Version: 3 Date: 28 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this paper the authors report Ten-year follow up of cosmetic outcome, overall survival,
and disease-free survival in endoscope-assisted partial mastectomy with filling of dead space
using absorbable mesh for stage #IIA breast cancer: Comparison with conventional conservative
method. However, there are several minor issues in this paper.
1. Please describe how you differentiated between CCM and EAPM indications for partial
mastectomy.
2. Since the patient background (ex T and N factors) is different between the CCM and EAPM
groups, it is not meaningful to compare DFS and OS in these two groups. If the study is only
about cosmetic outcoms , the comparison of these two groups may be sufficient. However, if you
want to reveale the long-term outcome(ex DFS, OS), you need to examine the prognosis with the
same background by using propensity score matching methods. In order to show the long-term
safety in the EAPM group, I think you can emphasize that the ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence
was comparable between the CCM and the EAPM group, instead of comparing DFS and OS.
3. Although the text states that boost irradiation was added in the case of close to the tumor
edge (#5 mm), the percentage of patients who underwent boost irradiation and the percentage
of patients with margin status (#2 mm) differ in Table 1.
4. (Materials and Methods)
Patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were also eligible for BCT. Does this
mean that such patients were excluded in this study. If so, please describe the reason for
exclusion.
5. The title of the article says "with filling of dead space using absorbable mesh", but there is
no description of the method in the text. There is no description of the specific surgical method
for EAPM, so please describe it. Also, is the absorbable mesh used only for patients undergoing
EAPM?
Title: Ten-year follow up of cosmetic outcome, overall survival, and disease-free survival in
endoscope-assisted partial mastectomy with filling of dead space using absorbable mesh for
stage #IIA breast cancer: Comparison with conventional conservative method
Version: 3 Date: 22 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
1. In lines 100-101, I think Herceptin is a product name so Herceptin score is an unusual term
and I suggest writing it as HER2 score.
2. In Line 146 it is unclear that how frequency MMG and US testing, only 6 months or every 6
months etc., also every 6 months MMG is not generally used. I would suggest writing them.
Title: Implementation of HPV-based screening in Burkina Faso: lessons learned from the
PARACAO hybrid-effectiveness study.
Version: 3 Date: 27 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thanks to the authors for considering all my comments and suggestions and revised the
manuscript accordingly. However, I have some minor comments as follows:
1.Line 132-137: The description of the Burkinabè health system is not correct.  Burkina Faso
has a three-level pyramidal health system as follows:
- Central level with university and national hospitals
- Intermediate level: Regional hospitals
- Peripheral level: District hospitals and primary healthcare facilities called CSPS, which are the
entry point of the health system.
I suggest that you revised this paragraph.
2.Line 143: Is it US dollar? Please clarify.
3.Line 208: In the previous version of the manuscript, the authors designed a  hybrid-
effectiveness implementation Type III study and mentioned Type I in the current version. Is it
a mistake or, did you change the study design? In the latter case, why?
Title: Women of reproductive age in a tertiary intensive care unit: indications, outcome and the
impact of pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study.
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Jose Carugno
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the manuscript submitted for consideration for publication entitled “Women
of reproductive age in a tertiary intensive care unit: Indications, outcome and impact of
pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study” I found the manuscript interesting; I have the following
considerations:
I congratulate the authors in writing this easy to read informative manuscript.
Please expand on the criteria for ICUI admission that are in place at your institution. The reader
could speculate that pregnant of peripartum patients are admitted to the ICU with less complex
conditions than non pregnant individuals.
Line 226: The authors mention the impact of the ICU admission of the quality of life of the
patient. The data presented does not support such affirmation, hence it could only be considered
speculative.
Table 3. Recommend to change intervention “None” for “Observation only” or “medical
intervention only”
Title: Women of reproductive age in a tertiary intensive care unit: indications, outcome and the
impact of pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study.
Version: 1 Date: 19 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Kornelia Zareba
Reviewer's report:
The presented study tackles an issue of women of reproductive age in a tertiary intensive care
unit. The study was conducted reliably with appropriate selection of tests. Overall, I think that
this article should be published.
However, some issue require complementary information:
1. I suggest including in the Discussion that uterine artery embolization nad hysterectomy are
commonly performer due to peripartum haemorrhage.
Title: Women of reproductive age in a tertiary intensive care unit: indications, outcome and the
impact of pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study.
Version: 3 Date: 30 May 2021
Reviewer:  Jose Carugno
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors on addressing all the comments raised by the reviewers. Their
manuscript has improved considerably and is now of great quality. I am happy to recommend
accept for publication.
Title: Reductions in endometriosis-associated pain among women treated with elagolix are
consistent across a range of baseline characteristics reflective of real-world patients
Version: 1 Date: 11 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Accumulating evidence suggests that immune cells, adhesion molecules, extracellular matrix
metalloproteinase and pro-inflammatory cytokines activate/alter peritoneal microenvironment,
creating the conditions for differentiation, adhesion, proliferation and survival of ectopic
endometrial cells. I would discuss these points in the light of new theories about the pathogenesis
of endometriosis, referring to: PMID: 31717614; PMID: 31663401; PMID: 28571791.
- Although peritoneal superficial lesions and ovarian endometriomas represent the majority
of endometriotic implants within the pelvis, deep infiltrating endometriosis and extrapelvic
endometriosis are the most challenging conditions to face off. Despite sometimes medical
therapy is enough to reduce symptoms and signs (PMID: 28537213; PMID: 30074068), in
a large number of patients a complete eradication, with nerve-sparing and vascular sparing
approach (PMID: 27579309; PMID: 30415128) is needed to restore the normal pelvic anatomy
and its functions. I would add few lines to discuss these points, referring to the abovementioned
works.
Title: Reductions in endometriosis-associated pain among women treated with elagolix are
consistent across a range of baseline characteristics reflective of real-world patients
Version: 1 Date: 18 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
The paper is well written and methodologically correct.
Elagolix for sure merit a subgroup analysis to better clarify the clinical application.
However, the readability of the article should be improved limiting the written results to what
is significant and reporting the rest on the graph shortening the paper that result a bit redundant.
The authors should discuss the possible overlapping of effectiveness  due to adenomyosis
especially in dysmenorrhea. The discussion  should comprare the complications related to
elagolix administration with GnRh analogs and others antagonist to help the clinicians in the
choice.
The conclusion should be more clear pointing the results and leaving.
Title: Perianal Ultrasound (PAUS) – visualization of sphincter muscles and comparison with
digital-rectal examination (DRE) in females
Version: 1 Date: 05 Apr 2021
Reviewer:  Veronika Anzeljc
Reviewer's report:
Review of the review article:
Perianal Ultrasound (PAUS) – visualization of sphincter muscles and comparison with digital-
rectal examination (DRE) in females
The establishment of sphincter ruptures during labor is of utmost importance for the quality
of life of women. That is why it is important to have methods at disposal to discover any
irregularities of the anal sphincter in a simple, quick, and painless way for the woman. From
this point of view, the topic of the article is interesting and topical.
My comments and suggestions:
• The gold standard for the assessment of sphincter muscles is the endoanal ultrasound. It might
make sense to emphasize or point that out since the perianal ultrasound is compared to a digital
rectal examination, which is a subjective assessment. The reliability of the perianal ultrasound
to establish irregularities is lower compared to an endoanal ultrasound.
• The patient population is small and heterogeneous. In addition, female patients from a wide
age range, i.e. from 28 to 84 years, are included. It would make sense to suitably limit this. In
order to analyze the fundamental measurements, it would be more suitable to include comparable
patients into the trial, perhaps only younger women who have not had labor yet.
• It would make sense to add a table with the basic characteristics of the included patients.
• The data on the rupture type (stage III, IV, etc.) is merely obtained from the medical history.
It is difficult to presume that women will know the type of their rupture during labor for several
years after the labor. As a consequence, it is difficult to link only the data from the medical
history with the ultrasound imaging.
• It would be beneficial to add a scale with which the patients could assess how unpleasant the
examination was for them.
Title: Perianal Ultrasound (PAUS) – visualization of sphincter muscles and comparison with
digital-rectal examination (DRE) in females
Version: 2 Date: 24 May 2021
Reviewer:  Faris Mujezinovi#
Reviewer's report:
Authors have corrected the manuscript according to the suggestions. Therefore, I suggest  the
acception of the article for publication.
Kind regards, Faris Mujezinovi#
Title: Modified laparoscopic lateral suspension with a five-arm mesh in pelvic organ prolapse
surgery
Version: 1 Date: 14 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author,
I read this interesting article titled “Modified Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension with A 5-Arm
Mesh in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery”. The authors described a new laparoscopic technique
using 5 arm mesh and they concluded that this technique may be effective also for posterior
compartment defects. I think this article can be accepted after English language editing and some
minor revisions. It will contribute significantly to the literature for POP surgery management.
1. Abstract-in the background section, please correct grammar mistake as “The LLS procedure is
a laparoscopic technique used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP), performed with a T-shaped
synthetic mesh graft.”
2. Abstract-in the background section , in the last sentence please use simple past sentence.
3. Abstract-in the conclusion section, please correct grammar mistake “#n”
4. Introduction-line 14- please use injury term instead of lesion
5. Line25- please insert Figure 1 into material method section instead of introduction
6. Line 51- Please use optic instead of camera
7. Line 138- #f you gave the whloe complications of the patients please delete “other” term
8. Line 153- what does it mean of “miction”. Micturition?
9. Line 184- please use abbreveated form of sacrocolpopexy (SCP)
10. 13. Please edit the reference in line 195.
11. Line 215- please correct the grammar mistake for Strenghts
12. Line 218- the last sentence of the limitations may be more suitable for conclusion section
“Further studies are required to find the optimal surgical method in POP treatment.”
After these revisions, the article can be accepted for publication.
Title: Modified laparoscopic lateral suspension with a five-arm mesh in pelvic organ prolapse
surgery
Version: 1 Date: 19 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Serdar Ayd#n
Reviewer's report:
I very much appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have read the manuscript
carefully. However, this manuscript have major problems.
Title of manuscript is appropriate.
Structure of the manuscript, style and font size should be revised.
The manuscript should be edited by native speaker.
The major limitation of this retrospective  study was the lack of power calculation.
The abstract section should be revised and abbrevations should be fixed.
Many typos should be fixed and again manuscript should be edited by native speaker
Please clarify the sentence in introduction “The prevalence of POP which negatively affects the
lives of women is 3–6% in postmenopausal women when defined and graded based on symptoms
compared with 41–50% when defined and graded based on examination(2)”
Also  addition of line number will ease the review of the text.
The use of term “gold standart “ for SCP is problematic if it is gold standart why you choose
LLS instead of “gold standart in this retrospective study.
Please give citation that you state that success of LLS is over 90%.
Is there any commercial use LLS mesh? Please give design and picture of these mesh that you
create alternative to it.
Method:
How about is you informed consent. Was it specific to operation or these study ?
What do you mean  with tried to dissect? Please clarify and revise the statements.
The statistical analysis is problematic. The statistical test are completely revised and re
calculated. Please explain where have you used student t test or X2/Fisher. The major limitation
of this study is inappropriate statistical test and design .
You should obtain the other points and measurements of POPQ evaluation.
I think repeat surgery term for SUI is not appropriate.
Please clarify what is miction? Micturation?
Please clarify “The best anatomic result was in the apical compartment and the success rate was
95.3%.” statement. Was it your results or literature. If it is literature please give reference.
Please obtain intraoperative view (Figure) t# clearly show peritoization and level od posterior
dissection .
You should more discussed about performing two posterior arms insteasd of one posterior
midline arm. In other word 5 arm instead of four arm. Is there any central posterior defect after
surgery?
Please clarify “ damaged anatomical structure” in discussion section.
I think measuring sexual function with “sexually more active after surgery compared to earlier”
is not an objective measurement.
One of the major limitation lack of use of Qol and symptom severity indexes (POPDI, FSFI,
PSQ?). Is there any linguistic validation of PQL please give reference.
Title: Modified laparoscopic lateral suspension with a five-arm mesh in pelvic organ prolapse
surgery
Version: 4 Date: 10 May 2021
Reviewer:  Serdar Ayd#n
Reviewer's report:
Revisions is OK for me. I would emphasize a few points
Retrospective design is not a handicap for power calculation (not sample size calculation) . I
prefer to see power of study.
Limitations of study should be clearly noted in the text. Text should be tracked or highlighted
for the revisions. It is really hard to follow changes.
Lastly I remembered that previous submission had one author and revision has two author. Please
explain the change. Please add author contribution to text or form
Title: A 5-year experience on perinatal outcome of placenta accreta spectrum disorder managed
by cesarean hysterectomy in southern Iranian women
Version: 1 Date: 07 Feb 2021
Reviewer:  Robinsonc Onoh
Reviewer's report:
All cases of PAS disorder must not be managed by Hysterectomy in a prospective study. It is
expected that there should be some that would be managed by caesarean delivery.
The details of diagnosis is needed and it is expected that there should be some misdiagnosis not
minding the experience of the the Radiologist.
Patient selection by PROM, Vaginal bleeding could also be misdiagnosed.
Most other comments are in the Reviewed Manuscript.
Title: A 5-year experience on perinatal outcome of placenta accreta spectrum disorder managed
by cesarean hysterectomy in southern Iranian women
Version: 5 Date: 11 May 2021
Reviewer:  Ismet Hortu
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed entitled “A 5-year experience on perinatal outcome of placenta accreta spectrum
disorder managed by cesarean hysterectomy in southern Iranian women”
The topic is very important in both low-resource settings and developed countries. Hence, due
to increasing cesarean sections, we are facing placental adhesion abnormalities from the first
trimester of the pregnancy (cesarean scar pregnancy, PAS, etc.). Authors have reported their
results betweenthe  last five-year retrospectively. I should mention some points;
1. “Retrospective cohort “should be more suitable in the abstract (background section) in the
place of only “cohort”. However, this study is retrospective.
2. In line 74 (introduction): “in vivo fertilization” or “in vitro fertilization”?
3. Cesarean section is witten as “caserean” in some points, it should be unified.
4. Some abbreviations in the introduction such as lab. should be clarified.
5. “Materials and methods” title is more suitable.
6. The authors should be mentioned the main findings of the current study in the first paragraph
of the discussion section.
7. Whole manuscript contains some typos. They should re-evaluate.
In addition, the support the evidence and enhance the manuscript’s readability, I strongly
recommend referring to some manuscripts that were published recently.
- Prediction of success of uterus preserving management in women with placenta accreta
spectrum (CON-PAS score): A multicenter international study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Dec
5. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13518. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33278833.
- Effectiveness of segmental resection technique in the treatment of placenta accreta spectrum.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Dec 12:1-7. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1702019. [Epub
ahead of print]
Finally, I would like to re-review after necessary improvements.
Sincerely.
Title: A 5-year experience on perinatal outcome of placenta accreta spectrum disorder managed
by cesarean hysterectomy in southern Iranian women
Version: 5 Date: 16 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
PAS is a highly growing condition in routine obstetric practice as the number of cesarean section
rises. And also, it has a devastating effect on the maternal-fetal outcomes. The bleeding during
these surgeries may become ominous and life-threatening.
In my opinion, this issue and its surgical management should be evaluated deeply and the
obstetricians should be aware of its consequences.
With regards to this article,
It presents the outcomes PAS patients of a clinic and made necessary corrections that advised
by the previous reviewers. The authors reported the data well-documented.
However, i will suggest one more minor revision to the authors that should stated in the
article regarding the surgical attempt that tried to decrease the obstetrical hemorrhage which
is very crucial in these surgeries. The authors should write some sentence regarding the FIST
maneuver( doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1856810) is published recently that showed a very
practical step to reduce the bleeding during cesarean hysterectomy.
Title: A 5-year experience on perinatal outcome of placenta accreta spectrum disorder managed
by cesarean hysterectomy in southern Iranian women
Version: 5 Date: 25 May 2021
Reviewer:  Pedro Pinto
Reviewer's report:
The article submitted relates to an important topic in contemporary obstetrics, PAS disorders. It
is interesting as it reports the reality from a resource limited setting.
The abstract is well written and summarizes well the article
The incidence of this disease was 1 in 4000 pregnancies in the primary reports, but recently it
has been reached out of 1 in 533 pregnancies (3)
- I am not sure that this reference is adequate; it should be used the original articles referring
to these incidences
Line 74 - in vitro fertilization
I’m not sure if maternal cigarette smoking is a relevant risk factor
Lines 81 and 82 - even though that is the result of the referred study, modern recommendations
usually advocate a later pregnancy termination (RCOG; ACOG, IS-PAS association)
Literature suggests that caesarian section and hysterectomy in the same
time for management of this  pathology as a scheduled operation (17)
- I suggest something like - Literature suggests that caesarian section and hysterectomy in the
same surgical time as the best option for management of this pathology (17)
In the abstract you explain that patients were treated by a multidisciplinary team but you don’t
explain that on the methods …
Antenatal diagnosis was made between 26 +- 12 weeks - were cases diagnosed at 38 weeks of
gestation? Why an ultrasound at that time?
For 151 cases, the antenatal diagnosis was made after 20th weeks of pregnancy and in 20 cases
the diagnosis was made before 20th weeks’ - this means 171 cases of antenatal but only 163
had a prenatal diagnosis
If there was an antenatal diagnosis in 163 cases why only 65 had a planned hysterectomy? As
you stated that the recommended treatment is cesarean hysterectomy…
Were the cases that died the ones born before 24 weeks of gestation?
Regarding the prevalence of PAS in the study, I understand that this is a reference centre, which
make it “easier” to have a higher incidence. However a cesarean section rate of 50-60% is
impressive
Limitations should be better explained in the discussion.
Finally the English should be thoroughly reviewed
Title: Change in medical practice over time? A register based study of regional trends in
hysterectomy in Finland in 2001-2018
Version: 2 Date: 04 May 2021
Reviewer:  Erdinc Saridogan
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I strongly recommend the acceptance of this original study, which presents the temporal and
regional change of the hysterectomy procedure from a different perspective. However, I have a
few suggestions that I think will make your work better quality.
1. Please indicate that whether peripartum hysterectomies are included or excluded from the
study.
2. Please correct “hysteroskopic” as “hysteroscopic” on the 121st line of 7th page.
3. Please explain the reason that one of the selected age groups is 25-49 years. In my opinion, this
age group should be divided as 25-39 years and 40-49 years as the approach in perimenopausal
period may be completely different.
Sincerely.
Title: Change in medical practice over time? A register based study of regional trends in
hysterectomy in Finland in 2001-2018
Version: 2 Date: 09 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
For all age groups, there was a significant decline in hysterectomy rates between two study
period. Especially  for leiomyoma for all  age groups, medical treatment supposed to be the
reason of decline .  Written data do not include  the rate of intrauterine device (levonorgesterol )
use ,also do not include hysterectomy rates after levonorgesterol device use.
Change in hysterectomy  rate   with malignancy indication decreased 14 % but the   reason
was not reported. Finland cancer data reported   a decline in ovarian cancer rate in 2018 .
Hysterectomies  due to cervical cancer,uterine cancer and ovarian cancer may be reported .
Finaly surgical treatment  can not be underestimated