JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Harmful alcohol use among mothers of under-five child: findings from the Panel Study
on Korean Children
Version: 1 Date: 02 Feb 2021
Reviewer:  Sarah Soyeon Oh
Reviewer's report:
This is a wonderfully written manuscript with sound statistical analyses. It also addresses an
extremely important topic - harmful alcohol use in young mothers and the effects on their
children. I commend the authors for choosing to analyze the Panel Study on Korean Children
(PSKC) which I know is a dataset that can be difficult to analyze because of its lack of a precise
codebook.
1. Why was the analyses only conducted until 2011? I understand that the PSKC has been
conducted until now, and there are many studies with data until at least 2017. Why only mothers
of children under-5? Also - the analysis seems to also include fathers which should be mentioned
in the title/abstract in more detail if possible.
2. Definition of alcohol use - please specify that this is 'pure alcohol' content as "g" may be
confusing.
3. Why were cut-off values for household income set with 2015's national median household
income? This survey uses data from 2008-2011. Were weights used to adjust for longitudinal
bias?
4. It would have been great to see the results of such harmful alcohol use on long-term effects of
the child - I understand that the PSKC has variables for children's CBCL scores, a baby's weight/
height/head circumference etc. which are important outcomes of prenatal alcohol exposure
(Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders which the author mentions).
5. It is a pity that longitudinal statistical analyses techniques such as lag sequential analysis were
not used to see onset or change of a certain variable. However, I commend the author for using
time-dependent covariates which I believe gives this paper statistical validity.
6.***** Even if not statistically significant, it would be SO interesting to see if such harmful
drinking has had an effect on the child. A simple logistic regression analysis of the harmful
drinking group of mothers and fathers - and various outcomes of the baby (preterm birh?
miscarriage?) / grown-up child (learning difficulties? disabilities? birth defects?) would make
this paper a lot more relevant and interesting.
Overall, this paper should definitely be accepted for publication - mostly because the PSKC is a
difficult dataset to use, and the study question is very important. Also, the authors have adjusted
for time-varying covariates using a time-dependent model which takes more time and effort,
and controls for various longitudinal biases.
I truly hope that this manuscript is accepted upon revision as this is an important topic that has
been much under-researched for the South Korean population.
Title: Harmful alcohol use among mothers of under-five child: findings from the Panel Study
on Korean Children
Version: 1 Date: 11 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Kamil Wrona
Reviewer's report:
I read the article entitled «Harmful alcohol use among mothers of under-five child: findings
from the Panel Study on Korean Children» with great interest. It is a current and relevant topic in
women's and child's health. Readers of "BMC Women's Health" might profit from your article.
However, I have some major suggestions for the revision of the manuscript and I encourage you
to re-submit your article.
Abstract:
In your study, you refer to the Korean population. This should be mentioned in the background
of the abstract.
Please consider to  elaborate the statement "Harmful alcohol use in young mothers has a
profound impact on their own health and their children." In addition please give an exaple for
"profound impact".
Some more details on methods would enhance your abstract. Please name the specific
methodology directly with the first sentence and only then describe it. It is not entirely clear
exactly which method was used.
In the conclusions, the language is from "In a cohort of Korean mothers." It is not clear from
this which cohort is being referred to.
Please be more specific about the keywords. They don't seem to quite match the content.
Background:
There should be a more precise introduction to your topic to optimally guide readers. You
introduce some relationship(s) which you should elaborate in more detail to contribute to readers'
understanding. Please consider introducing more references throughout your work. For example,
the first sentence in the background section needs a reference because it is a statement that is,
apparently, evidential.
In the last section of the introduction, it is noted that "elucidating risk factors and potential targets
of intervention would be important." Please elaborate a little on that at this point.
Methods:
In the section "Definition of harmful alcohol use and covariates" you refer to limit values. You
refer to limit values. Please elaborate on how exactly these conditions originate and how they
are determined. It would also be interesting to know what effects are associated with them.
In the section "Statistical analysis" the factor smoking is addressed. However, it is not clear if
this factor is relevant for the results of the study. Please consider to point that out.
Conclusions:
The conclusion would have to be elaborated a bit more. The question arises whether these were
really all the core results of the study?
Furthermore, please consider to include recommendations for action for health care stakeholders.
The description of the intervention also needs to be elaborated.
Title: Baseline Audiological Profiling of South African Females with Cervical Cancer: An
Important Attribute for Assessing Cisplatin-Associated Ototoxicity
Version: 2 Date: 09 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
Comments to authors
Data collection:  page 8, line 183 why did you decide to perform the extended high frequency
audiometry.  In regression analysis significance is present already in high frequencies.
page8, line 186: please define ASHA and HPCSA.
Table 3. : degrees of hearing loss should be explained and defined by decibels
Figure 1 is showing the same data more exactly also with frequency distribution, so Table 3
can be omited.
Table 4. Word recognition scores are not defined, as well as intensity levels
Discussion
Page 19, line 361 : At the end of the sentence something is missing.
Page 20, line 389 : The sentence has no sense. Please rewrite.
Page 23, line 452: Speech audiometry would be ideal to asses the hearing loss in patients with
comorbidities. Monitored live voice testing is not exact enough to draw the serious conclusions.
I would not include the Table 4 into the article.
Page 24, line 486: What would authors suggest for appropriate treatment management protocols
of cisplatin?
Title: Baseline Audiological Profiling of South African Females with Cervical Cancer: An
Important Attribute for Assessing Cisplatin-Associated Ototoxicity
Version: 2 Date: 09 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
BMC Women's Health
Submission ID 2d8cde3e-92bd-4134-98bc-c9143d95d3ea
"Baseline Audiological Profiling of South African Females with Cervical Cancer: An Important
Attribute for Assessing Cisplatin-Associated Ototoxicity"
General remarks
The authors performed a study which aimed to describe a profile of risk factors and hearing in
a cohort of females with cervical cancer before cisplatin treatment commenced. A descriptive
study design that included 82 female cervical cancer patients, who underwent audiological
evaluation prescribed for ototoxicity monitoring, was conducted. All participants (n=82)
presented with risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and
antiretroviral therapy) for cisplatin ototoxicity and/or pre-existing sensorineural hearing loss.
High-frequency tinnitus was the most common otological symptom experienced by 25 (31%)
participants. Fifty-nine (72%) participants presented with normal hearing, twenty-two (27%)
with a sensorineural hearing loss, and 36% were diagnosed with mild hearing loss. Abnormal
Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAE) findings were obtained bilaterally in two
participants (2.4%), in the right ear only of another two (2.4%) participants and the left ear
of three participants (3.7%). Most participants (94%) had excellent word recognition scores,
demonstrating an excellent ability to recognize words within normal conversational levels under
optimal listening conditions. Age was significantly associated with hearing loss at all thresholds.
Among the co-morbidities, an HIV positive status significantly triggered hearing loss, especially
at higher frequencies. Authors concluded that their study demonstrated that South African
females with cervical cancer present with various co-morbidities, which may predispose them
to develop cisplatin-associated -ototoxic hearing loss. Moreover, identification of these co-
morbidities and hearing loss is essential for the accurate monitoring of cisplatin toxicities. They
are convinced that appropriate management of these patients is pivotal to reduce the adverse
effects that hearing impairment can have on an individual’s quality of life and to facilitate
informed decision-making regarding the commencement of cisplatin chemotherapy.
The topic of the manuscript is very interesting and could serve as an excellent basis for further
research.
There are some corrections needed before the article is suitable for publication, which are marked
in the attached document.
Title: Baseline Audiological Profiling of South African Females with Cervical Cancer: An
Important Attribute for Assessing Cisplatin-Associated Ototoxicity
Version: 4 Date: 06 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Tables 5- 9 have to be renumbered because two tables were omitted.
Page 19, line 361: At the end of the sentence word »function« is still missing.
Title: Role of husband’s attitude towards the usage of contraceptives for unmet need of family
planning among married women of reproductive age in Pakistan
Version: 0 Date: 08 Dec 2020
Reviewer:  Sajid Bashir Soofi
Reviewer's report:
The overall discussion needs to be revised in light of the results. It may be best to first summarize
important study findings and discuss each of them one by one with supporting literature (write
how your results are similar or different from other studies, especially studies conducted in
Pakistan if possible).
Discuss the implications of these findings in local context, and in terms of what it adds to the
currently available literature, and how it can be useful to influence policy. Please document the
strengths and limitations of the study and further directions for future research.
The last three sentences in discussion section can be merged to make the point more concise and
so it doesn’t seem like the results are being re-written in the discussion.
The conclusion should be drawn based on the discussion instead of vague and overarching
content.
Title: Role of husband’s attitude towards the usage of contraceptives for unmet need of family
planning among married women of reproductive age in Pakistan
Version: 1 Date: 14 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have address the concerns expressed in the previous review. I have two minor
recommendations:
1) The writing needs significant and careful revision. There are multiple spelling and grammar
errors. Also, the phrase "the odds of UMNFP was higher among woman who were opposed
to use contraceptives by their husband" is used a few times and it difficult to follow. I
recommend: "Odds of UMNFP was higher among women with husbands who opposed the use
of contraception."
2) I believe a paragraph should be added around page 9 that provides more interpretation of the
effects of husbands' opinions toward contraception relative to religious prohibition. It appears
the effects of husbands' opinion toward contraception are larger. This should be stated clearly
and given as evidence for the large role of this variable.
Title: Fresher with Flavour: Young Women Smokers’ Constructions and Experiences of
Menthol Capsule Cigarettes and Regular Cigarettes
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Yachao Li
Reviewer's report:
Using semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews, this qualitative research examines how
young women construct and experience menthol flavor capsule cigarettes as part of their
smoking practices. Overall, this study is informative, well-written, and contributes to the
literature. I have some minor suggestions and questions which I elaborate on below.
1. Introduction: The authors did a great job providing the background of this study and justifying
its significance. I think this section is very well written.
2. Method-Participants: In the first paragraph (p. 5), the authors used “the majority of
participants” to describe their cultural identities, first-generation college experiences, and
parental smoking status. Instead of using the relatively vague term, “majority,” I’d suggest the
authors specifying the numbers/percentages when reporting those characteristics.
3. Method- Participants: The author wrote, “There were no differences in the preferred use
of menthol flavour capsule cigarettes or regular cigarettes across social or regular smokers,
cultural identity, or sexual identity” (p. 6). Did the authors run any statistical analyses (e.g., t-
test, ANOVA, cross-tabulations) to make that conclusion? If so, please specify the tests. If not,
please clarify how the “no difference” conclusions were determined. This comment also applies
to the last sentence on page 12.
4. Method-Procedure: The author wrote, “Semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews were
then conducted with women smokers to explore ‘current insights and experiences with smoking’,
‘the feelings attached to smoking cigarettes’, ‘thoughts on plain packaging’, ‘cigarette types and
brands smoked’, and ‘preferences for capsule or regular cigarettes’. The interview schedule can
be found in the appendix.”
Why are phrases such as “current insights and experiences with smoking” are quoted? The
quotation marks confused me. In addition, I could not locate the appendix in the submission.
5. Method-Analysis: The authors did a great job explaining the data analysis procedure.
6. Results: I’d suggest the authors adding a brief paragraph at the beginning of this section to
(a) revisit the research questions/aims (to remind readers what this paper is about) and to (b)
provide a brief summary of the findings. For instance, “Menthol Capsule Flavour Cigarettes are
‘Fresh’, ‘Light’, and ‘Minty’,” is very interesting, but at the first glance, I don’t know which
RQ it answers or speaks to.
7. Discussion: I found this section well-written and informative. If space allowed, I’d suggest
the authors adding a brief discussion about the practical implications for tobacco control and
anti-smoking public health campaigns before the conclusion paragraph.
Title: Fresher with Flavour: Young Women Smokers’ Constructions and Experiences of
Menthol Capsule Cigarettes and Regular Cigarettes
Version: 2 Date: 15 Feb 2021
Reviewer:  Erin Mead
Reviewer's report:
The paper presents the findings of a qualitative study about the use and perceptions of menthol
capsule cigarettes by young women. This topic is important, and the study is well designed, well
executed, and informative. This paper will be an important contribution to the literature. My
comments are relatively minor, so I’ve divided them by section.
1. Abstract: the authors spend too much space on the Background and not enough on the Results.
Some of the Background should be re-classified as Methods.
2. Abstract: Moreover, the discussion of plain packaging in the Background implies that the
study is about perceptions of the packaging. In the Introduction, the authors clearly link plain
packaging laws to the rise of menthol flavored capsulate cigarettes. But it’s harder to do that in
the space of the Abstract. I recommend removing that part from the Abstract, and just describing
the increased use of these cigarettes.
3. Introduction: This section was very well written and informative for the rest of the paper.
The only thing that seemed to be missing was a description contrasting women to men. Is there
any research showing difference in use of menthol cigarettes by gender, or how they experience
smoking menthol or regular cigarettes differently?
4. Introduction: What does this study add to the Moodie focus group study described on p 4?
5. Methods, Participants: it should be made clear in the first paragraph that these are university
students.
6. Methods, Analysis: From the description provided, it sounds like exploring flavored capsule
cigarettes was not the purpose of the study, but rather it came out organically from the interviews.
Is that accurate? That should be made clearer.
7. Methods/Results: There’s no clear discussion of menthol cigarettes vs. menthol flavored
capsule cigarettes. In the Participants section, are these menthol smokers? In the Results section,
how did they discuss menthol cigarettes differently from the capsule cigarettes? The term
“regular cigarettes” used in the Results is not clear. Are these unflavored (non-menthol) or
menthol cigarettes?
8. Results: Were there any differences in responses by key demographic characteristics or
smoking behaviors? The Discussion p. 13 mentions findings for social vs. regular smokers. This
should also be described in the Results.
9. Discussion: Similar to #7 above, discuss the differences for menthol flavored capsule
cigarettes vs menthol cigarettes in this study and the literature.
10. Discussion, Limitations: Another limitation to mention is that the study population were
lighter smokers. Further research is needed on heavier smokers.
11. Double-check for typos. For example, p. 4, “because the were seen” should be “because
they were seen”.
Title: Fast track sacrospinous ligament fixation. Subjective and objective outcomes at six
months.
Version: 3 Date: 06 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this study the authors seek to explore subjective and objective outcomes of fast track SSLF.
The study is well designed and assessments are adequate. The manuscript will benefit from
the addition to the objectives the time point used for assessment (6 months). In the methods
the authors should include the statistical tests used for the different studied variables. The data
provided supports the conclusion that there’s no significant difference in terms of outcomes
for this cohort compared to other cohorts of patients that underwent this procedure. I suggest
the authors at the p values to the text for those variables that had a significant change post
procedure. The discussion focused on comparing this cohort to other studies of SSLF, which
detracts from the novelty of the study in that these patients that had the procedure performed
in a fast track setting. A more robust discussion regarding the fast track setting, benefits, and
comparable outcomes to a traditional setting will bring more interest.
Title: Fast track sacrospinous ligament fixation. Subjective and objective outcomes at six
months.
Version: 5 Date: 10 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Omima T Taha
Reviewer's report:
Title
Line 1, the title. 6 should be written in letters
Background
Line 92, the word "6 months" needs proper arrangement in the sentence.
The exclusion and inclusion criteria need to be defined and clarified.
The use of the PISQ-12 questionnaire which was not validated should be mentioned as a study
limitation.
Methods:
Line 124: what was the indication for cystoscopy after SSLF?
Line 132- 133: "have previously been reported" should be replaced with "have been reported
previously"
Results:
Line 149: "had previous been hysterectomized" should be replaced with" had previous
hysterectomy".
"The 18 women had stage 1 apical prolapse. But they had predominantly anterior or posterior
vaginal wall prolapse stage 2 or more. The apical component was found to be pronounced
leaving correction in the anterior or posterior compartment insufficient". Your reply regarding
the inclusion of women with stage 1 apical prolapse should be clarified as an inclusion criterion
in the methods.
Line 186: the word "sexually" should be replaced by "sexual"
Table 4 should be presented in figures
Discussion:
Line 195: " god" should be replaced with "good"
Line 203:  use "had previous hysterectomy" rather than " had previously been hysterectomized"
Title: Knowledge on Cervical Cancer Screening and Vaccination among females at Oyibi
Community.
Version: 3 Date: 17 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study evaluates the knowledge that women in Ghana have about cervical cancer screening
and vaccination. The study utilizes a qualitative exploratory design using semi-structured
interview guide. It is an interesting perspective to study possible causes of high incidence of
cervical cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, the manuscript should be more balanced with
a brief overview of the screening system in Ghana and a short conclusion paragraph. I have the
following comments:
1. It would be helpful if the authors stated the incidence of cervical cancer in Ghana in the
introduction section.
2. How is cervical cancer screening performed in Ghana and how is primary gynaecologic
service organised? What would be possible benefits of primary HPV screening? Please include
this information in the introduction section.
3. What is the HPV vaccination coverage in Ghana? Could a widespread vaccination lower the
incidence of cervical cancer irrespective of screening? Please include this information in the
introduction section.
4. I would suggest a short conclusion paragraph at the end of the manuscript. What are the
possible ways to improve awareness about screening and vaccination in the studied population
and nationwide?