JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Factors Causing Delayed Presentations of Breast Cancer among Female patients in
Sulaimani Governorate, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Version: 3 Date: 05 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. In my opinion, this paper is interesting and
well prepared, however, it needs some changes:
1- The objectives must be stated in a clearer and more organized way. The last paragraph of the
introduction must be changed to fulfill this comment.
2- What about treatment state of the women included? I think that this can be clarified in the
inclusion or exclusion criteria.
3- Start the discussion by a small summary of your results.
4- The conclusion is good, but it can be made better by reorganizing it and making it straight
to the point.
Overall, I believe that this manuscript can be of a great addition to the literature after making
some changes, especially by clarifying some sections and making them clearer (objectives and
conclusion).
Title: Factors Causing Delayed Presentations of Breast Cancer among Female patients in
Sulaimani Governorate, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Version: 3 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Ahed J Alkhatib
Reviewer's report:
Abstract:
- Objective: please re-write  the bojectives in a matter it can be measured.
- Patients and methods: important piece of information is required including questionnaire,
sample size, sampling technique and statisical analysis.
- Results: authors mentioned the existence of significant correlation,  please indicate if the
correlation was negative or positive.
Introduction:
- Please update the references in the first paragraph.
Patients and Methods:
- Study design was  observational, retrospective, cross-sectional,  it seems that retrospective
study design is the best to describe this design, please make appropriate modification.
- Inclusion and exclusion creteria showed the confusion  of authors regarding study design, this
needs clarification  from authors.
- study questionnaire needs some clarifications such as if it is an international or prepared by
authors, and if authors prepared it, what about its reliability and validity?
- Sample size was not mentioned to be calculated according to appropriate equations.
- in the last sentence, authors considered  very highly significant if p#0.000, please correct this
as P<0.001, or p=0.000.
Title: Female Infertility and Dietary Antioxidant Index (DAI); a Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 26 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the present Manuscript which falls within the aim of the Journal. In my
honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Methodology is
accurate and conclusions are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless, authors should clarify
some points and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic.
For all those reasons, I suggested performing the minor revisions.
-In Methods, please explain whether patients were administered with previous therapies for
ovarian stimulation or IVF techniques;
-in Methods, Authors state: “Exclusion criteria were included use of drugs affecting the
absorption of dietary antioxidants, the use of drugs that inhibit digestive enzymes such as
Orlistat, suffering from diseases affecting the absorption of dietary antioxidants including people
with malabsorption and other digestive problems affecting absorption.”
Please clarify whether patients were administered with probiotics and/or prebiotics
-in the Methods section, clarify exclusion criteria naming specific conditions causing
malabsorption (e.g., Irritable bowel syndrome, Inflammatory bowel disease);
-Authors may include references about gut microbiota modifications in contexts of infertility as
endometriosis. Please consider:
“Iavarone I, Greco PF, La Verde M, Morlando M, Torella M, de Franciscis P, Ronsini C.
Correlations between Gut Microbial Composition, Pathophysiological and Surgical Aspects in
Endometriosis: A Review of the Literature. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Feb 12;59(2):347. doi:
10.3390/medicina59020347. PMID: 36837548; PMCID: PMC9962646.”
-in the Discussion section, Authors should focus on molecular mechanisms which connect
oxidative stress to infertility.
Title: Female Infertility and Dietary Antioxidant Index (DAI); a Case-Control Study
Version: 2 Date: 31 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
This paper describes the association between dietary antioxidant and infertility. While
methodology and results are written clearly, but what is the novelty of this study?.
- More information need for consecutive  method.
- The authors pointed the control group matched for age and BMI. Why again adjusted the role
of these two variables in the adjusted model?
- The authors pointed validity of the FFQ in Iran, but referenced to this study!!!
Suliga E, G#uszek S. The relationship between diet, energy balance and fertility in men.
International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research. 2019.
- For calculation of the dietary antioxidant index, the authors used mean and SD, but there is no
information about global intake or referenced!!!
Title: Psychometric assessment of the US person-centered prenatal and maternity care scales in
a low-income predominantly Latinx population in California
Version: 0 Date: 30 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Lorraine O. Walker
Reviewer's report:
Overall this report of the psychometric testing of two existing prenatal and childbirth person-
centered care scales is well written and an important contribution because several states, such
as California and Texas, Latinas/x compromise nearly half of those giving birth. A few areas
are in need to expansion or explanation.
Around line 69, the authors need to let readers know about the process used to establish
equivalence in meaning between the English and Spanish versions of the scales: for example,
was the process of translation and back-translation used?
Around line 173, clarify if the cognitive interviews were conducted for both the English and
Spanish versions of the scales.
Line 219: Include graphs of the distribution of the scale scores instead of (or in addition to) the
items, because the scales seem to be negatively skewed based on item distributions, and I did
not see that property addressed.
Should the scales be shown to be  negatively skewed, then the authors should address this in the
Discussion and recommend appropriate statistical analysis, such as nonparametric statistics or
logistic regression in future studies.
In the Limitation, it should be added that the research is based on scales that were administered
(apparently) by a person or by phone, so whether the scales would work as well if self-reported,
for example, by computerized data collection is not directly addressed.
Title: Psychometric assessment of the US person-centered prenatal and maternity care scales in
a low-income predominantly Latinx population in California
Version: 0 Date: 02 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Overall a well written scientific analysis of the Person-Centered Prenatal Care (PCPC-US) and
Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC-US) scales  with consideration to the characteristics
of low-income Latinx population.
Title: Bone mineral density and muscle mass associated with healthy eating index in
postmenopausal women; Results from RaNCD cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 17 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Editing is necessary.
Title: The association was not shown in advanced statistical analysis; so the title does not seems
correct.
Accordingly, the findings, discussion and conclusion will also change.
Abstract: What do you mean from the following sentence? “Participants in the highest quartile
had a mode daily energy intake compared to the lowest quartile”
Results in the abstract is not consistent with the manuscript:
“…higher HEI score is was not associated with greater BMC (# = 0.0014, P=0.169).
Methods: The following sentence needs reference or clarification about the validity.
“A standard cohort questionnaire was applicable to determine physical activity levels”.
Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has been proposed for measuring fat-free mass, total
body water, percent fat, body cell mass, intracellular water, and extracellular water, not Skeletal
Muscle Mass (SMM) and Bone Mineral Density (BMD)!
Reference for the validated 118-item FFQ is not clear. Refer to the main source, please:
HEI 2015 was calculated by using a validated 118-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ)(20).
Which software and food composition table did you use for nutrient analysis?
What do you mean? “…and 2 tests for categorical and continuous variables”
Why only BMC, not SMM and HEI? “Analysis of multiple linear regressions was performed to
specify the relationship between BMC and HEI”
Results: Indeed, “After adjusting for potential covariates (age, smoking status, BMI, energy
intake, physical activity and use of vitamin and mineral complement use) in the multiple
linear regression analysis, higher HEI score was not associated with greater BMC (# = 0.0014,
P=0.169) and greater muscle strength (# = 0.0063, P=0.818) (Figure 1).
Discussion: A related study from Iran was not referred:
Babazadeh-Anvigh B, Abedi V, Heydari S, Karamati D, Babajafari S, Najafi A, Rashidkhani B,
Shariati-Bafghi SE, Karamati M. Healthy eating index-2015 and bone mineral density among
adult Iranian women. Arch Osteoporos. 2020;15(1):151. doi: 10.1007/s11657-020-00826-0.
PMID: 33005974.
Title: Bone mineral density and muscle mass associated with healthy eating index in
postmenopausal women; Results from RaNCD cohort study
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
There are some points that need clarification and strengthening before the manuscript can be
considered for publication:
1. I recommend having a fluent English speaker edit the entire manuscript for clarity, grammar
and consistency before resubmission
2. The introduction could be better aligned with the study objective and title by focusing more
on the relationships between diet and bone/muscle health in postmenopausal women.
3. Please provide the reference for the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) used to assess dietary
intake. Was this FFQ validated and able to adequately capture added sugar intake? What about
wine consumption?
4. In the methods section, could you please provide more details about how nutrient and food
group intake data were extracted from the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to calculate the
Healthy Eating Index scores?
For example, did you use nutritional analysis software to analyze reported FFQ food/beverage
items and link them to a food composition database to determine levels of macro/micronutrients
and servings of major food groups? If so, please specify the software/database used.
5. Can you specify the accuracy and precision of device to measure bone mineral density, please
provide reference.
6. For scoring the Healthy Eating Index, did you use daily servings or grams of food groups?
Please include this methodological detail.
7. The discussion should focus more on interpreting the results in context of the specific food
groups and components used to calculate the HEI scores.
8. Please add the calculated HEI scores to the results tables for better interpretation.
9. Include a table listing the covariates adjusted for in the analyses.
Clarifying these points will significantly strengthen the methodology and discussion. Please
revise the manuscript accordingly. I hope these comments are helpful and look forward to
reviewing a revised version. Let me know if any part needs further explanation.
Best Regards,
Title: PELVIC FLOOR MUSCLE TRAINING WITH BIOFEEDBACK OR FEEDBACK
FROM A PHYSIOTHERAPIST FOR URINARY AND ANAL INCONTINENCE AFTER
CHILDBIRTH - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Version: 1 Date: 12 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This is an interesting systematic review about the effect of pelvic floor muscle training with
biofeedback or feedback from a physiotherapist for both urinary and anal incontinence after
childbirth. In general, the manuscript is well-written and the method presented an adequate
systematic performance according to guideline. I have just a few comments and suggestions,
as follows:
ABSTRACT
- At the background, the authors refer to urinary and anal incontinence. However, it is not clear
if the aim of the study was to examine the scientific evidence for PFM with feedback from a
physiotherapist or biofeedback in both urinary and anal incontinence. Please, let it clearer in the
abstract section.
DISCUSSION
- The authors included information on the instruments used for incontinence assessments.
However, I think would be also interesting to include some information regarding the type of
biofeedback tool that were used in the included studies.
Title: PELVIC FLOOR MUSCLE TRAINING WITH BIOFEEDBACK OR FEEDBACK
FROM A PHYSIOTHERAPIST FOR URINARY AND ANAL INCONTINENCE AFTER
CHILDBIRTH - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Version: 2 Date: 28 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for answering the requested revisions from both reviewers. I have noticed a detailed
review of the points and suggestions raised and, therefore, I consider that the manuscript can
be accepted for publication.
Title: PELVIC FLOOR MUSCLE TRAINING WITH BIOFEEDBACK OR FEEDBACK
FROM A PHYSIOTHERAPIST FOR URINARY AND ANAL INCONTINENCE AFTER
CHILDBIRTH - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Version: 4 Date: 26 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to read and review the new version of the manuscript. The
researchers addressed my previous comments. The paper is easier to read and understand.
Figure 1 – first box: “total” instead of “totalt”
Line 286: “PFMT” instead of “PMFT”
The authors mention “The primary search was performed in September 2022. On October 9th
2023 a complementary search was performed, including publications up to October 9th, and also
adding the search term ‘physical therapy’ to block #3 in all search engines.” But they didn’t add
the term in additional file 1.
Title: Differential Patterns of Lifestyle Behaviors among Low- and High-income
Postmenopausal Women in Korea: A Latent Class Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 24 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Gullo
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
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:
In my opinion you have to refer in the paper to the updated literature about THE INCREASED
RISK OF  Urinary incontinence IN MENOPAUSE AND ITS INIDENCE ON QoL as well its
influence on the sexual function.
Focus regardind the changed hormone balance its really pertinent to the context as well the
androgen changed pattern in the neuroendocrine axys.
In this scenario lifestyle and dietary play an important role for a beeter quality of life.
I suggest you to read and cite these articles:
Urinary incontinence and quality of life in high-performance swimmers: An observational study
Androgens and Female Sexuality: Molecular Insights, Neuroendocrine Crosstalk and Future
Therapeutic Directions
Menopause: Hormones, Lifestyle, and Optimizing Aging
The impact of stress urinary incontinence on sexual function and quality of life
Title: Differential Patterns of Lifestyle Behaviors among Low- and High-income
Postmenopausal Women in Korea: A Latent Class Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 09 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Tarek Tawfik Amin
Reviewer's report:
BMC Women’s Health
Title: "Differential Patterns of Lifestyle Behaviors among Low- and High-income
Postmenopausal Women in Korea: A Latent Class Analysis".
Comments to the authors:
- This study employed a novel statistical analysis technique in classification of lifestyle patterns
among postmenopausal women in a proxy indicator for the SES, income, but in the lights of the
limitations incurred due to the nature of data used and inevitable non-adjustment of the many
possible extraneous and confounding factors, the practical implications should be cautiously
communicated.
- What will this manuscript add to the existing literature “this should be mentioned clearly”
as many of the previous researches reporting similar results, authors should emphasis the
uniqueness of their manuscript.
- A fundamental question should be answered, how income was classified (and measured)?
Abstract:
- Mention all the nine lifestyles domains.
- The income How was it calculated/assessed?
- lack of weight control “no intention to control weight”
- However, lifestyle patterns in low-income group showed multiple and unhealthy characteristics
than those in high-income group. I did not see these in the manuscript?
Introduction:
- identified two to five homogenous latent classes “only four were mentioned”
- household income in instances is a proxy of the SES.
- At the end of this section “LMCs” what do you mean by this abbreviation?
- A concrete rationale should be stated clearly at the end of this section as well as your hypothesis
(if possible)?
Methods section:
- How much was the difference in income in each quintile, define low income and high income
groups in terms of income?
- To estimate the LCMs, we dichotomized all indicators based on the literature. Mention the
reference in the literature??
- Reference to the formula used to assess sleep duration (was all the variables included in this
equation was mentioned in the secondary data?
- Kimishi???
- In this study, four demographic variables and two chronic diseases were used as predictors.
Please give the justification for using these predictors???
- In statistical analysis mention the criteria for model fitting using different parameters.
Results:
- Table 1: the title of the table is missing (stand-alone criteria for a table)
-  Table 2 is very confusing, Explanation for the fit model should be provided in the footnote?
Title: Differential Patterns of Lifestyle Behaviors among Low- and High-income
Postmenopausal Women in Korea: A Latent Class Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Giuseppe Gullo
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
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:
In my opinion you have to refer in the paper to the updated literature about  the menopausal
syntoms as well to the possible urinary incontinence as its impact on quality of life and to the
possible management and therapy.I also suggest you to refer to hormonal change that happens
before and during menopausal transition.
I SUGGEST YOU TO READ AND CITE THESE ARTICLES:
The impact of stress urinary incontinence on sexual function and quality of life
Sacral neuromodulation for refractory lower urinary tract dysfunctions: a single-center
retrospective cohort study
Urinary incontinence and quality of life in high-performance swimmers: An observational study
Androgens and Female Sexuality: Molecular Insights, Neuroendocrine Crosstalk and Future
Therapeutic Directions
Title: Differential Patterns of Lifestyle Behaviors among Low- and High-income
Postmenopausal Women in Korea: A Latent Class Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Tarek Tawfik Amin
Reviewer's report:
BMC Women’s Health
Title: Differential Patterns of Lifestyle Behaviors among Low- and High-income
Postmenopausal Women in Korea: A Latent Class Analysis.
Comments to the authors:
Introduction:
- Replace “recent researchers” with explicitly mentioning the references 21-23
- In the methods section, please define entropy
Title: Women’s experiences of psychological treatment and psychosocial interventions for
postpartum depression: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis
Version: 1 Date: 19 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Jan Taylor
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.  I offer the following comments in the
interests of improving the reporting of this study.
Line 55 - unsure what" av support" means
Line 59 - adding perhaps 2 risk factors would enhance the clarity of this sentence
62-62 rather dated research regarding women's negative attitudes to pharmacological
interventions and a preference for psychological interventions in the perinatal period.  While
Dennis & Chung -Lee are referenced in other publications about this fact there are more recent
references that could be considered.
I would like a justification for including articles published since 1995 in the search.  I also
note that 4 of the final studies are over 10 years old (1x 11years, 1x12, 1x 13 years, 1x 17
years). What differences in the context and the delivery of CBT/home visits might have occurred
during this timeframe?   I looked for some acknowledgement of this in the discussion and
limitations however it was not mentioned.  I consider it important to acknowledge this. I would
also encourage the authors to provide a stronger conclusion (more emphasis on how useful this
information is for practice).
Title: Women’s experiences of psychological treatment and psychosocial interventions for
postpartum depression: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis
Version: 4 Date: 10 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Kenneth Finlayson
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing the queries and comments. The discussion and conclusion sections
in the manuscript are much improved and offer a broader perspective on the issues identified
in this review.
I still have some minor reservations about the terminology used to describe the findings. The
authors appear to follow the 3 step process outlined by Thomas & Harden  (2008) but choose
to  label their findings as levels 1, 2 & 3 or sub themes (level 2) and main themes (level3). This
terminology doesn't align with thematic synthesis where the 3 step process labels 'findings' as
codes, descriptive themes and analytical themes. It's a minor point but an important one - if a
particular method is referenced then authors should adopt the terminology they are referring to.
Since there are a number of different methods used to synthesize the findings from qualitative
research it's important be consistent with how the process is reported to maintain credibility.
Title: Women’s experiences of psychological treatment and psychosocial interventions for
postpartum depression: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis
Version: 5 Date: 01 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Kenneth Finlayson
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for addressing these concerns.
I think the explanation and associated text better reflect the methodological approach and it
would be counter-productive to insist on the development of analytical themes.