JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: The association of dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) with the odds of
diabetic nephropathy and metabolic markers in women: A case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Ayush Anand
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed the manuscript and would not be able to recommend it for publication.
Though the methodology is sound, this study does not add much to the existing literature. Many
other large studies have already established the importance of DASH.
Title: Associations between infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practice and attitudes toward
intimate partner violence (IPV) in Timor-Leste
Version: 0 Date: 30 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Angela Taft
Reviewer's report:
This study has potential to add make a contribution to the growing literature on the relationship
between infant nutrition and IPV, which has focused more on breastfeeding than ICYF.
I believe you could strengthen your rationale by using references on the relationship between
IPV and postnatal depression and parenting.
I have made a number of suggestions on your manuscript. I strongly suggest you do not simply
repeat the cOR and aOR as you give them in the tables but find a more reader friendly description
and I have made suggestions. Using the phrase are significantly x times more
likely to provide adequate ICYF would be preferable. I suggest you do not need to  comment
on unadjusted ORs unless there is a good reason to do so and you comment on why they may
have been correlated and then found to be not significant.
As your findings should be policy relevant in TL, I suggest you consider suggestions about how
your findings should lead to specific  recommendations for improving these sobering findings.
Title: Women's Worries about Prenatal Screening Tests Suspected of Fetal Anomalies: A
Qualitative Study
Version: 1 Date: 10 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
ABSTRACT:
1-It is better to exclude, "attribution" of  keywords.
2- Write a few lines for Background and then mention the aim.
BACKGROUND:
It is good.
METHODS:
Write Trustworthiness of data
RESULTS:
1-Demographic characteristics is better than background characteristics in title of table 1 .
2- Table 1 is better to write in this way:
Participant     age             job        …….    …….
1                                32
2           26
3           33
Because in a qualitative study, the characteristics of all participants are listed in the table of
demographic characteristics, and then each participant is identified with a number, and write the
end of quotation ,that number.
For example: "I did the screening tests in two centers. The first laboratory did not explain the
test results at all, but the second laboratory explained everything very well. When individuals'
information is more accurate, they are less stressed."(p9)
3- Where does the 15-week woman, rank in the table 1?
4-There is not necessary  to write "frequency"  in the table 2 and discussion in the results.
5-The last line of Table No. 2 is incomplete and the sub-themes  are not mentioned for
"Attributing
-- In the whole text, the references should be written in this way [2] no(2).
-- References before 2012 have been deleted and replaced with newer references unless they
are necessary.
Title: Women's Worries about Prenatal Screening Tests Suspected of Fetal Anomalies: A
Qualitative Study
Version: 3 Date: 29 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Neeltje Crombag
Reviewer's report:
Background:
Thank you for your amendments. However I still have concerns on your manuscript:
I stil have doubts about reference 11: the title implicates it considers fathers rather than mothers.
So I am not sure if this is the correct paper to refer to earlier I suggested the work of Stina Lou
and Marijke Korenromp for additional reference.
Also " Oscarsson, M., Gottvall, T., & Swahnberg, K. (2015). When fetal hydronephrosis
is suspected antenatally—a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 15(1),
1-8."reference 11, is used as indicating 'scarce research' I do not think this is the correct reference,
and I do think there is a wide variety of literature available on worries due to screening tests
suspected of fetal anomalie. Your aim and 'gap in literature' should therefore be rephrased as
there is existing literature. I would suggest try to phrase were exactly is the added value of your
work.
For the inclusion criteria, were there any language restrictions set? Please add
In data-collection, because you deleted the questions, it is unclear what questions were asked,
also  I still don't see the interview guide that was used. You need to include what was asked.
You should not only revise according to COREQ, you should mention you have used it with
reference, and  fill in the list and add as appendix (Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative
research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups Allison Tong,  Peter
Sainsbury,  Jonathan Craig)
Title: Women's Worries about Prenatal Screening Tests Suspected of Fetal Anomalies: A
Qualitative Study
Version: 6 Date: 11 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your amendments. However, I still have concerns on your manuscript:
1-In a qualitative study, it is purposeful sampling until data saturation NOT (The convenience
sampling method was used herein).
2- Settings and participant: "The study was conducted on 20 eligible pregnant women, below
20 weeks of pregnancy, singleton, and suspected to have abnormal fetuses in four perinatology
centers in X, including two public hospitals (XXX)"
Write the name of centers, please (replace x, xxx)
What is mean of singleton?
3-Trustworthiness of the data: "Fourth, the researcher attempted to select the participants with
maximum female age difference, from extended and nuclear families, and from urban and rural
backgrounds"
I t is better write "Diversity of age, place of residence, income level". Because "maximum female
age difference" is not clear and common.
4-This sentence of conclusion "it is very difficult for the mother to bear it." in line 65, pp15.
Is not clear.
5-please, correct font of References 6 and 16.
Title: Role of breast cancer screening in the overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer: results from a
cross-sectional nationwide survey
Version: 0 Date: 16 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Per-henrik Zahl
Reviewer's report:
Review on Submission ID f502967b-f891-4575-9b17-1b2d888d02a4
“Role of breast cancer screening in the overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer: Results from a
nationwide survey”
In my review, I have focused on the use of statistical methods.
The authors have used a South Korean survey of people attending cancer screening to calculate
the association between breast cancer screening and thyroid cancer screening.  That makes sense
and is interesting.
What is the incentive for doing double screening, I was wondering? The manuscripts explain that
for ultrasonography: when the two organs are easily available to check with the same machine,
you check both. OR = 2.68 and significant.
This message is dulled in complex statistics and many numbers. I would have liked to see in
Table 1 the first 4 lines high-lighted. The associations here are the core of the manuscript. For
example, splitting the table in Table 1a and Table 1b would have made it easier to read, I think.
The authors use a regression model to calculate the association between mammography and
thyroid cancer screening adjusting for 12 other covariates: age, education, household income,
marital status, residential area, occupation, health insurance type, self-rated health, BMI, cancer
history and concern about cancer. There 6 are significant variables in the univariate analyses,
but only 3 in the regression: age, previous cancer history and cancer concern.
First some covariates are very closely related: income and education and occupation are closely
related. Cancer history and concern about cancer are also very closely related. The authors should
make some restriction on which covariates they use – not necessary to use all.
Regression is a type of screening for risk factors that might be causal. Many of the 13 risk
variables they adjust for cannot be causal for cancer, like marital status and type of insurance.
However, they might be explaining why people attend screening.
Twelve of 13 risk factors are risk factors for both breast cancer and thyroid cancer. To reduce
the number, I would suggest multilevel analysis, or restriction the number of covariates.
Minor comments
There are many small errors in the manuscript. For example, reference 13 is an unpublished
manuscript without link.
Abstract, conclusion. “Most screenings in South Korea are unnecessary”. I would have written
“Thyroid cancer screening in South Korea is most likely performed by screening by opportunity
– not by evaluating individual risk. Thyroid screening should only be performed on written
medical indications- That would solve the problem”
Title: Role of breast cancer screening in the overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer: results from a
cross-sectional nationwide survey
Version: 0 Date: 17 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
1. This is a rather unusual paper. The authors flag up the high rate of thyroid cancer in Korean
women, and demonstrate a strong association between self-reported breast screening and self-
reported thyroid cancer screening. It is noted that often thyroid ultrasonography is practised
at the same time as breast ultrasonography in breast screening episodes in Korea. The authors
hypothesise that the high rates of thyroid cancer include substantial overdiagnosis and that the
practice of carrying out thyroid cancer screening at the same time as breast is partly responsible.
The first comment that occurs is what other evidence is there that the high rates of thyroid cancer
incidence are due to overdiagnosis? For example, are the high rates of incidence accompanied
by correspondingly high rates of mortality? If so, overdiagnosis is less likely, but if not, then
the suspicion of overdiagnosis would be stronger.
2. The second point which occurs is that some of the association observed is likely to be due to
the practice of ultrasound of both organs during breast screening episodes, but some will also be
due to the fact that people participating in one screening programme are more likely to participate
in another. The OR of 1.44 associated with mammography only screening is testimony to this.
Rather informally, one might propose that this 1.44 represented the behavioural effect above
and that the effect of offering the thyroid screening at the same time is breast would be 2.69/1.44
= 1.89.
3. A third major point is that if there is strong evidence that thyroid cancer screening is doing
more harm than good, the solution would be to stop the thyroid screening, regardless of the
policy on breast cancer.
4. A presentational point: Table 2 should have the corresponding numbers reporting and not
reporting thyroid cancer screening in the various risk categories, not just the odds ratios.
Title: Incorporating End-Users’ Voices into the Development of an Implant for HIV Prevention:
A Discrete Choice Experiment in South Africa and Zimbabwe
Version: 1 Date: 16 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments
Point 1: Congratulations on your good research and report. Your introduction gives me a clear
idea of why you need to do that study. However, please allow me to share some areas for
improvement in your presentation.
Point 2: In the methods section, you mention that “an enrollment target was set based on
experience ever using an Only 4% of Zimbabwean women (n=7) and 18% of South African
women (n=23) who were implant-experienced were nulliparous. The discussion
The differences between Zimbabwean and South African women are mentioned though no
possible reason has been given. It could be worthwhile to mention cultural differences.
My assumption is the history of arm implants in each country’s status quo was not stated in the
report. Is it possible that Zimbabwe has been providing arm implants much longer than South
Africa hasn’t (2014 if I am not mistaken)? I stand to be corrected. If that is the case, I suggest it
be clarified as it affects the choices in each country and the myths around arm implants.
Point 3: The following was noted in the report under the methods and analysis sections:
- All analyses were completed using Stata 16.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).”
- A D-efficient algorithm was used to construct a fractional factorial design, which produced 72
choice task questions that were then split into eight blocks of nine questions each.
-The survey was programmed using Qualtrics and offered in English, Shona, and Tswana.
It is, however, not clear what Software was used for the Design. May you provide references for
the Software. I would also suggest you put an endnote to explain Qualtrics.
Point 4: Under the DCE and Survey Instrument Development section, it is mentioned that
“Attribute descriptions and images were pre-tested in cognitive interviews”. It is not very clear if
this was to check for quality assurance, and face validity and to identify any difficulties engaging
with the questions.
Point 5:  In the result session, you mention the South African and Zimbabwean results as a visa
vi. The paragraphs appear too long and can be difficult to read. I would suggest separating the
SA and Zim results per paragraph.
Point 6: It would be worthwhile to run a DCE subgroup analysis linked to the demographic
information. Examples using age, education or Marital status in each country
Point 7: There are grammatical errors that need to be fixed throughout the document.
Once again, congratulation on the research.
Title: Incorporating End-Users’ Voices into the Development of an Implant for HIV Prevention:
A Discrete Choice Experiment in South Africa and Zimbabwe
Version: 1 Date: 16 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be commended for conducting a discrete choice experiment with 800 young
women in Zimbabwe and South Africa on their preferences for attributes of hypothetical HIV
pre-exposure prophylaxis implants. They found that duration of protection was the most salient
attribute shaping women’s choices while other characteristics were also relevant.
Comments:
1. The study is well conducted and the paper is well written. The information is of interest to
the field of HIV prevention research and development.
2. Its unclear why only nulliparous and recently post-partum women were included. Why
exclude women who had had an abortion or miscarriage or women with older children? This
should be explained or noted as a limitation.
3. “Exchanged sex” in the abstract is unclear. Exchanged for what?
4. The enrollment quotas should be mentioned in the methods section of the abstract.
5. The enrollment quotas should be described in the methods.
6. Another limitation to note is that both study sites are urban areas, but Zimbabwe is only about
1/3 urban. South Africa is about 2/3 urban.
7. A brief comment could be made about potential limitations or generalizability related
to conducting the study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most participants reported that
COVID-19 reduced their access to money. Could that affect their responses?
8. “HIV” and “Southern Africa” or “Sub-Saharan Africa” could be added to the study key words.
Title: Incorporating End-Users’ Voices into the Development of an Implant for HIV Prevention:
A Discrete Choice Experiment in South Africa and Zimbabwe
Version: 2 Date: 12 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Tafadzwa Akim Lukwa
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. DCE's are now continuously being
used in public health policy, so this a very interesting and relevant study.
Thank you for incorporating changes suggested by the first reviewers. In my view all the
suggested changes have been incorporated. I just have one suggestion that you might need to
check with the journal referencing guidelines if the references are outside the full-stop or inside.
Otherwise well done.
Title: Construct Validity and Internal Consistency of the Home and Family Work Roles
Questionnaires- a Cross-Sectional Study with Exploratory Factor Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Ayush Anand
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the work on the manuscript. I have reviewed the manuscript and would like to
recommend it for publication. The methodology is sound and the manuscript is well prepared.
Please double-check for grammatical errors and referencing style.
Title: Construct Validity and Internal Consistency of the Home and Family Work Roles
Questionnaires- a Cross-Sectional Study with Exploratory Factor Analysis
Version: 1 Date: 10 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Hojjat Sheikhbardsiri
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor
Thank you for sending the manuscript for review
This manuscript has been written very well in terms of the methodology of tool making, and all
the stages of structural validity have been well implemented.
Only in connection with the introduction and discussion, the following items need to be added
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
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.
What are the strengths and limitations of the study?
Conclusion
# What are your suggestion for future studies?
To strengthen the article, especially in the introduction and discussion section the following
studies are suggested, please to use and cited and add to article reference.
- Effect of massage on behavioural responses of preterm infants in an educational hospital in Iran
- Domestic Violence Against Women Working in Four Educational Hospitals in Iran
- Psychosocial Needs of the Families With Hospitalized Organ Transplant Patients in an
Educational Hospital in Iran
Mothers and nurses' perceptions of the family-centered care barriers in pediatric departments of
an educational hospital in Iran
Best regards
Title: Construct Validity and Internal Consistency of the Home and Family Work Roles
Questionnaires- a Cross-Sectional Study with Exploratory Factor Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jan 2023
Reviewer:  Sampson Opoku Agyemang
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have few comments I think may help
improve the manuscript.
Line 105: how were the study participants were selected from a large sample? What do you
imply when you say “large sample”?
Title: ASSESSING SURVIVAL TIME OF OUTPATIENTS WITH CERVICAL CANCER:
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR REFERRAL HOSPITAL USING THE BAYESIAN
APPROACH
Version: 2 Date: 04 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Point 1.  The part referring to the design of the study needs to be expanded and, in it, the
term ‘retrolective’ (no retrospective) be considered. In a retrolective study, data are gathered
from medical records or other sources without prior planning for the needs of the investigation
(Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiology: the architecture of clinical research. EE. UU.: Saunders;
1985).
Point 2. It is recognized that local disease factors impact OS in cervical cancer (CC)  more
than other factors included in the study (e.g. residence, educational level, abortion...). Common
independent predictors of OS and CC are grade, histology, chemotherapy, metastasis number,
tumor size, regional nodes examined, FIGO stage, lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI), and
radiation.
LVSI, FIGO stage, lymphnode metastasis, complete or partial response after treatment,
difference between early and late in stage are important gaps of the analysis
Point 3. The KM according to the smoking status and OC uses in table 2 are unsupported, because
there is no subgroup analysis. In other words, it is known that a patient with IIB-IIIC1-IIIC2
FIGO stage cervical cancer has a worse prognosis than IA1-IA3, so reporting a survival curve
stating that non-smokers have a higher chance of survival is conceptually wrong ; if all women
smokers in the analysis were advanced CC it is easily demonstrable that they have a worse
prognosis.
Point 4. Correct earl in early in table 1 .
Point 5. The conclusions of the paper are unsupported; thus, a type III error is reaching because
the conclusion is not supported by the research. The following lines in conclusions are a
illustration:  ‘The survival time of outpatients with cervical cancer has been significantly affected
by weigh, co-morbid disease, treatment, HIV, history of obrtion, oral contraceptives, smoking,
histology type and stage of cervical cancer’. Therefore, my recommendation is that this paper
could be considered (in extreme case) as a pilot study including the variables described above,
since it was conducted on a sample that is arbitrary in size.
Title: ASSESSING SURVIVAL TIME OF OUTPATIENTS WITH CERVICAL CANCER:
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR REFERRAL HOSPITAL USING THE BAYESIAN
APPROACH
Version: 2 Date: 08 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Martina Arcieri
Reviewer's report:
The objective of this manuscript is interesting, but it should be completely rewritten to improve
the English language and make it easier to read and understand.
Title: Utilizing First Void Urine for High-Risk HPV Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in
HIV-Positive Women in Katete, Zambia
Version: 1 Date: 09 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Xinfeng Qu
Reviewer's report:
Generally, the manuscript was well organized in term of presentation. However, I think you
prepared this manuscript in an improper direction and should be completely modified, because:
As you did not biopsied patients who were indicated abnormal by EVA and Pap. Thus, I don't
think you can have correct sensitivity and specificity for EVA and Pap, there for the comparison
of those two with Physician Colpo are all unfair, because you don't know how many high grade
lesion were missed by colposcopy. For example, in the lines: "Out of 50 cases which were
normal according to physician  diagnosis, EVA Visual check reported 27 (79.4%) as normal
and 23 (20.4% ) as abnormal ", you don't know how many CIN2+ there were among the 23
abnormals detached by EVA but missed by colposcopy, may none, maybe some. You have
no date to validate the sensitivity and specificity as you did not biopsied all women primarily
screened abnormal.
I think  You should focus your manuscript on the non-inferiority of EVA in comparison with
Colposcopy in detection of CIN2+, because that is what your data can partially validated. Based
on your data in the manuscript, I think you can only tell us  how many CIN2+ or CIN 1 cases
that was detected by colposcopy were also detected by EVAn and what is the consistent in
terms of abnormal and pathology diagnosed CINs. You dong have enough date to validate the
sensitivities and specificities but you have date to validate the non-inferiority of EVA
In addition, you should address few issues as 1) what is expert colposcopist? is there any
difference with qualified colposcopist? 2) whether the colposcopists conducting your study
qualified? 3) have you compared whether Colposcopy under MobileODT and conventional
colposcope are the same to those colposcopists?
I would strongly suggest you to keep in mind that EVA is designed to assist primary doctors
who are not experienced in colposcopy to conduct screening-see-treatments, thus sensitivity
and specificity is also important. Unfortunately, I personally don't thin you have enough date to
validate the sensitivity and specificity.
Title: Clinical outcome analysis of intramural myoma greater than 8cm in diameter removed
during caesarean section#a retrospective study
Version: 0 Date: 26 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Maddalena Mallozzi
Reviewer's report:
The topic of the article is of increasing interest considering the increasing age of first pregnancy
worlwide.
It is well written.
I would only adds more details on the appropriate hemostatic measures: how they are performed
and why you choose one or another one.