JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Determinants of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy after the Disaster of the Century in Türkiye
Version: 7 Date: 13 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Hojjat Farahmandnia
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved
in the following ways: Abstract -Please correct all parts of the article according to the guidelines
of the journal authors guideline In the methods section please bring year of performing of this
study, sampling methods and data analysis methods -In the conclusion part, it is necessary
to specify the researcher's proposal to improve the conditions and use of the beneficiaries
Introduction Please bring the following items 1- Definition of the research problem 2- The
magnitude and importance of the study variable 3- Expressing the necessity of conducting the
study Finally, the practical purpose of the study should be stated. Methods Please report the
details scoring and validations of study tools Discussion In the discussion section, it is necessary
y to compare the main results of the study with the results of other studies in this field. To
strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section the following studies
are suggested, please if possible add to article reference
- Investigating the burden of disease dimensions (time-dependent, developmental, physical,
social and emotional) among family caregivers with COVID-19 patients in Iran
- Nursing Students' Competency to Attend Disaster Situations: A Study in Western Iran
-Heat waves and adaptation: A global systematic review
Conclusion # What are your suggestion for future studies? Best regards
Title: Determinants of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy after the Disaster of the Century in Türkiye
Version: 8 Date: 20 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Hojjat Farahmandnia
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved
in the following ways: Abstract -Please correct all parts
of the article according to the guidelines of the journal authors guideline In the methods section
please bring year of performing of this study, sampling
methods and data analysis methods -In the conclusion part, it is necessary to specify the
researcher's proposal to improve the conditions and use of the
beneficiaries Introduction Please bring the following items 1- Definition of the research problem
2- The magnitude and importance of the study
variable 3- Expressing the necessity of conducting the study Finally, the practical purpose of the
study should be stated. Methods Please report the
details scoring and validations of study tools Discussion In the discussion section, it is necessary
y to compare the main results of the study with the
results of other studies in this field. To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and
discussion section the following studies are suggested,
please if possible add to article reference
- Investigating the burden of disease dimensions (time-dependent, developmental, physical,
social and emotional) among family caregivers with
COVID-19 patients in Iran
- Nursing Students' Competency to Attend Disaster Situations: A Study in Western Iran
-Heat waves and adaptation: A global systematic review
Conclusion # What are your suggestion for future studies? Best regards
Title: The association between dietary antioxidant quality score and intensity and frequency of
migraine headaches among women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors present an interesting cross-sectional study on antioxidants and migraine. The
present DAQS of 265/6 women. While this is a new and very intersting topic, the issues start
with the before number, which differs between abstract and results. All in all the manuscript has
far too many issues to be accepted at the current stage. Before reviewing the discussion some
methodological points have to be addressed:
- Please use more adequate references for migraine pathophysiology. The vascular theory is
somewhat outdated and the variations in blood flow have conflicting results.
- Please show more details of data (also median for small numbers).  Studying the Tables
numbers seem somewhat strange: whereas weight in low adherence group is around 10% higher,
physical activity is also higher in this group and fat and cholesterol consumption is higher in high
adherence, as well as WC and HC. This seems rather contraintuitive and has to be explained.
- Why did you exclude patients >50years and >BMI 30?
- Was there any blinding procedure (nutritionist, neurologist)?
- What do you measure by VAS? Migraine is a phasic disorder, therefore a VAS at any time
point does not say anything.
- You explain computing of WHR, however, you present BMI-data not WHR.
- Numbers and percentages in table 3 are mixed up. in VAS and HA freq percentage is between
low and high, in MIDAS between the grades.
- How can you see and discuss a difference (higher MIDAS in low adherence), when grad I and
IV are more prominent in low adherence group?
minor
- Please add flow chart on screening, exclusion and inclusion data.
- Please also improve language editing and small typos (DAQS score, S already stands for score;
cM vs. eM 15 and more vs. less than 15 days).
- Your reference 11 is an article on NSAIDs, they were not developed for migraine.
- Please do not report results in the methods/participants section.
Title: The association between dietary antioxidant quality score and intensity and frequency of
migraine headaches among women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 25 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This a cross sectional study scope to investigate DAQS in relation to the clinical features of
migraine including headache intensity and frequency.  Authors referred validated scales for
DAQS and migraine severity. However mentioned points requires to clarification or correction;
-  A reasonable conclusion sentence should added on the abstract accordingly
- reference 3 should be changed with current ones ; Stovner, L.J., Hagen, K., Linde, M. et al.
The global prevalence of headache: an update, with analysis of the influences of methodological
factors on prevalence estimates. J Headache Pain 23, 34 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s10194-022-01402-2.
- P values should be written as small letter ("P").
- reference 7 should be changed with ICHD-3, 2018.
- reference styles should be strictly revise according to journal instructions
- data recruitment period should be referred in the text clearly. 2016 could not refer this context.
- page 4, line 109; add the reference
- reference 28 should be changed with original paper of the classification as follows; Headache
Classifcation Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) (2018) The International
Classifcation of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 38:1–211.
- please remove the references in the conclusion session.
- It would be great if the authors added a figure explaine potential target of the mentioning
antioxidant on the known model of the migraine pathophysiology.
- discussion should be focus main scope of the paper. somewhere its going on the burden of
migraine and its actually not the main scope of the paper, I guess...
Title: The association between dietary antioxidant quality score and intensity and frequency of
migraine headaches among women: A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 20 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Most comments have been fully adressed, thank you.
There is still one issue remaining about VAS. As far as I understand now you used VAS for
your headache diaries. However, you do not tell the reader what you measured with VAS: was
it the maximal pain, the average pain, pain at a certain time of the day?
In my understanding an episodic migraine attack ususally starts at VAS 0/10 and the slowly or
rapidly increases to e.g. 8/10 for a few hours before going back to zero ...
If you neither explain the patient exactely what you want to measure or tell the reader what you
have measured, you will not be able to draw any conclusions or correlations.
(btw: The description of this well know tool might well be shortened).
On the other hand you use the measure of MIDAS, which collects a disability score over 90
days. Therefore it is very important to explain what you exactely measure, when you compare
an average of 90 days with a more or less "instant" pain score!
Title: The effects of positive psychology and physical activity on depression, anxiety and stress
among students with premenstrual syndrome: A single blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 1 Date: 26 May 2024
Reviewer:  Deborah R. Vivo
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript submitted for publication in the BMC
Women’s Health journal. In this single-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial study, the
authors investigated the effects of positive psychology and physical activity on depression,
anxiety, and stress among students with premenstrual syndrome. Participants were randomly
allocated to three experimental groups: the physical activity group, the positive psychology
group, and the physical activity + positive psychology group.
The paper demonstrates scientific rigor and effective writing. The quality of the presented table
is satisfactory, and the reference list adequately covers relevant literature. The statistical methods
are valid and appropriately applied. However, there are a few areas that could be improved
to enhance the overall quality of the paper. Therefore, I recommend publication with minor
revisions.
1. The paper requires additional spell-checking and grammar correction. Several misspellings
and minor grammatical errors were identified throughout the document. For instance, on page
10, the phrase “the others studies” should be revised. Similarly, on page 18, the term “activitys”
needs correction. Additionally, please ensure consistent capitalization for “SD” (Standard
Deviation). The Discussion heading should be capitalized. The reference section should be
checked for layout and consistent formatting.
2. The Discussion section contextualizes the study’s results within the broader existing literature.
However, it occasionally introduces new information that might be more appropriately placed in
the Introduction section. Furthermore, the discussion lacks a critical analysis and interpretation
of the study’s findings. To improve, consider elaborating on the relevance of the study’s
outcomes.
Title: Application of Machine Learning Techniques in the Diagnosis of Endometriosis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Yigit Cakiroglu
Reviewer's report:
General comments:
This manuscript has been processed in accordance with the author guidelines of the journal. The
writing style is clear and descriptive. The manuscript proposes information about prediction of
endometriosis with machine learning methodologies on 106 patients with EMT and 203 patients
with non-EMT conditions.
Abstract:
The abstract accurately describes the short-summarized content of the article.
Key words are adequate in quality and number.
Introduction:
Information about endometriosis, diagnosis of endometriosis, machine learning systems, and
the correlation of neutropil-to-lymphocyte ratio with endometriosis have been given in the
introduction section.
Materials and Methods
The materials and method section gives information about the inclusion-exclusion criteria,
protocole, machine learning models and statistical methods employed.
Results
The result section contains important and significant findings and observations in regards of the
analysis in between outcomes.
- Would the authors please give more information about figures 2 and 3 in the results section?
Discussion
The discussion section states the importance and significance of the findings.
References:
The references section contains appropriate and number of references.
Tables:
Tables are well-designed.
Figures:
Figures are well-designed and demonstrative.
Title: Application of Machine Learning Techniques in the Diagnosis of Endometriosis
Version: 0 Date: 17 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The topic with AI in endometriosis is interesting
Authors are advised to use a globally known capitals instead of EMT for endometriosis
Since  the studies in the accuracy of markers in endometriosis already known, authors are advised
to mention the benefit of  machine learning over classical ROC analysis alone.
Briefly include the recent biomarker studies in endometriosis (PMID: 30071521)
Authors are advised to add possible causes of Ca125 increase (refer to PMID: 22539035) and
Also utilization of NLR in gynecology  PMID: 30907061.
Title: Women’s empowerment and its influence on the uptake of breast cancer screening in
Tanzania: An analysis of 2022 Tanzania demographic health survey data
Version: 1 Date: 05 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Petmore Zibako
Reviewer's report:
1. May you include the  15 variables that were indicative of women'empowerment(SWIPER)
in your background.
2. First paragraph of your discussion should summarize or highlight your major findings.
3. Put your  recommendation as your last paragraph under discussion and your conclusions from
the study should stand alone.
4. Your exclusion and inclusion criteria not very clear.
Title: Women’s empowerment and its influence on the uptake of breast cancer screening in
Tanzania: An analysis of 2022 Tanzania demographic health survey data
Version: 1 Date: 12 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Mathias Lwenge
Reviewer's report:
I propose that the topic should read Women's  empowerment and its influence on........
The abstract seems to be long, i would recommend that it is revised from the 340 words to 300
words.
There is a need to state the version of SPSS as version 26 in the abstract .
The results should be well presented, the bivariate table looks insufficient, there are no degree
of freedom, and chi-square values.
How come that the p values for the multivariable analysis are the same as 0.00, it would be better
if all are like that to state them as P< 0.001
There is a need to present descriptive statistics  together with COR and AORs with their P values
to enable us identify confounders in this study
Title: Submucosal cystic adenomyosis: a report of five cases and review of the literature
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Greetings and Regards
The report is generally acceptable with the following modifications:
1. Due to the rarity of these cases, it seems an interesting topic.
2. Having a positive family history, previous methods of preventing pregnancy and premature
abortion If it is added, it can be helpful in future research. Therefore, if the authors can be added
in the demographic characteristics section.
Best Regard
Title: Submucosal cystic adenomyosis: a report of five cases and review of the literature
Version: 2 Date: 23 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is a summary of five cases of submucosal cystic uterine adenomyoma, a relatively rare
disease, and a valuable report, but the manuscript should be in the form of a case report (case
series) and not in the form of an original article. The data are a summary of the five cases
presented here and may not be applicable to submucosal cystic uterine adenomyosis in general. It
is necessary to present the differences and similarities with the few cases reported so far. Second,
most of the information in [Discussion] relates to normal cystic adenomyosis and [Discussion]
is unnecessarily long. In other words, all but only truly necessary content regarding cystic
adenomyosis should be removed, and content should be narrowed to submucosal cystic uterine
adenomyomas.
Other points that may need to be corrected are as follows
1. Both “adenomyopathy” and “adenomyosis” are used in the text. Should be unified into
“adenomyosis.”
2. Lines 65-67. #Background#” Submucous cystic adenomyopathy, as a special subtype of cystic
adenomyopathy, does not have much literature about it at present.”:  If it is not “no literature,”
then the need for this manuscript should be specifically demonstrated by citing the reported
paper.
3. Results: Most of the data for the five cases are listed as “mean ± SD”, which is fine if the
data are normally distributed, but if the data are not normally distributed, they should be listed
as median [range].
4. Line 138 “Mirena”: “Mirena” is a trade name and should be listed as a generic name.
5. Lines 370-384: The tense of the figure description is usually stated in the present tense, not
the past tense.
6. Figure 4a, b: Enlarged photographs should be presented to allow individual cells to be
identified.
Title: Submucosal cystic adenomyosis: a report of five cases and review of the literature
Version: 3 Date: 16 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The resubmitted manuscript has been properly revised to address the points raised by the
reviewers and is ready for acceptance. However, as I pointed out in the previous issue, it is up
to the editor to decide whether or not this manuscript can be considered an “original article.
Other items for consideration are listed below.
1. As pointed out in the previous issue, it is usually unlikely that the data from the five cases
are normally distributed, so it would be better to include the name of the test that determined
the normal distribution (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or Shapiro-Wilk test) in the (Method)
section.
Title: Relation Between Serum Sclerostin and CTRP3 Levels and Bone Mineral Density in
Diabetic Postmenopausal Women
Version: 1 Date: 06 Jun 2024
Reviewer:  Sain Sattar Safarova
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your hard work in writing this article. The results found in this study seem to be
interesting, whereas there are several problematic points to be reported.
However, the work needs several refinement:
1. Materials and Methods. You need to provide details of diabetes medications as they can affect
bone metabolism. Please clarify, was there any treatment for osteoporosis?
When evaluating CTRP3 and sclerostin in type 2 diabetes, it is necessary to exclude users of
fibrates and statins. Therefore, if you did not exclude fibrate and statin users from this study,
you will need to exclude fibrate and statin users from your analysis.
2. Results. The results do not contain data of correlation of any of the studied markers with BMD.
3. The present study does not indicate whether an adjustment was made for the condition
of the kidneys when determining the CTRP3 level, since data from other studies report an
association of serum CTRP3 levels in patients with T2DM and diabetic nephropathy [10.1371/
journal.pone.0215617].
4. The present study provides evidence about the impact of T2DM on serum CTRP3 and
sclerostinbut does not indicate the proposed mechanisms of these effects. You need to describe
in more detail about the impact of T2DM on serum CTRP3 and sclerostin.
In my opinion, the submitted MS can be accepted and published after minor revise.
Title: Relation Between Serum Sclerostin and CTRP3 Levels and Bone Mineral Density in
Diabetic Postmenopausal Women
Version: 1 Date: 14 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking my opinion #about #the #manuscript #entitled ##"Relation Between
Serum Sclerostin and CTRP3 Levels and Bone Mineral Density in Diabetic Postmenopausal
Women". #
#I believe that this manuscript should #be #minor revision:#
Q1. It is very important to change and modify the title. the #title #is not appropriate.#
Q2. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study #clearly #stated? #
#Q3.# In the abstract, the research gap was not clearly #stated. In #addition, the authors need to
rewrite the study #objectives #to be more academic writing
#Q4. In the introduction, include the  #study's significance #and #novelty. What makes the study
different #from #the rest #and #what #does it add to the current knowledge?#.#
Q5. In the introduction, the authors #should #have #explained #the #purpose of this study and
the #existing gaps #in #this field #and #explained why this study was #conducted.#
#Q6. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the #results presented to match the methods
described?#
Q7. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study #provide an advance in the field? Is the
data plausible?#
Q8. References are relevant, correct, and not #recent. #The #number #of #references should be
increased.# #please add some #references. since this is a scientific #review, all the sentences
need #to be supported with #references.#
This study is very beautiful. I liked the sequence and #enjoyed #reading. Please add more
references on similar #studies.#
#Q9. There are a lot of grammatical errors. This #must #be #taken #care #of and addressed.#
#Q10. What are the limitations of the study?# A description #of #limitations is missing at the
end of the discussion #section.#
Title: Relation Between Serum Sclerostin and CTRP3 Levels and Bone Mineral Density in
Diabetic Postmenopausal Women
Version: 2 Date: 05 Aug 2024
Reviewer:  Sain Sattar Safarova
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for your manuscript which I enjoyed reading. This study provides important
information and determines the relevance of this article.
In my opinion, the submitted manuscript can be accepted and published.
Title: Dichorionic triamniotic triplets after two blastocysts transfer underwent multifetal
pregnancy reduction: two case reports and literature review
Version: 0 Date: 12 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the paper "Dichorionic triamniotic triplets after two blastocysts transfer
underwent multifetal pregnancy reduction: two case reports and literature review"
The manuscript addresses a subject that provokes both clinical and ethical debates, necessitating
further clarity. For instance, extensive details regarding the Assisted Reproductive Technology
(ART) follow-up and therapy procedures are presented, yet they seem tangential to the core
matter at hand, potentially leading to confusion among readers. The specific conditions of
the blastocyst prior to transfer, particularly whether they were frozen, are unclear and require
elucidation for a comprehensive understanding of the procedure. The manuscript’s explanation
of the ultrasound findings is also puzzling; it declares the pregnancies as dichorionic triamniotic,
but the text mentions only two gestational sacs. A dichorionic triamniotic pregnancy inherently
involves three sacs, so the possibility of a monochorionic monoamniotic component, which
would be crucial to identify prior to embryo reduction, needs to be confidently ruled out. This
distinction is particularly challenging to make before the 10-week mark due to the thinness of the
amniotic intertwin membrane in monochorionic twins. Lastly, the treatment strategy discussed
does not align with standard reports for monochorionic pregnancies, which is significant since
the reduction of a co-twin in such pregnancies can lead to increased risks for the surviving fetus
due to shared placental connections. These points indicate a need for more precision and clarity
within the manuscript to ensure its clinical and ethical implications are fully comprehended.
A more detailed comparison with existing studies that have larger sample sizes could help
contextualize the significance of these case reports.
Discussion of the ethical considerations and decision-making process for MFPR in more depth
would provide valuable insights into the complex nature of these interventions.
The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed discussion on the limitations of generalizing
findings from case reports to broader populations.
Ethical Considerations: Can please the author clarify how they chose the embryo to reduce?