JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Cross-sectional study for derivation of a cut-off value for identification of a early versus
delayed diagnosis of endometriosis based on analytical and descriptive research methods
Version: 3 Date: 17 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports a study of the number of years before endometriosis is diagnosed.
Endometriosis is a disease that significantly reduces a woman's quality of life, and a delay in
diagnosis may not be a desirable outcome for patients.
The warning about the delayed diagnosis of young patients with endometriosis would be a very
important message for physicians and patients if it leads to early detection of the diagnosis.
However, although this paper is a small study of 130 patients, it is a detailed study and uses
many cited articles, and its publication in this journal should not be a problem, but the following
modifications are necessary.
The paper states that the time to diagnosis is slower in younger patients with endometriosis,
but it is generally believed that endometriosis increases in correlation with the frequency of
menstruation. Therefore, does a bias exist that the diagnosis is more likely to be made in older
women in their 30s and 40s than in those in their 20s?
In addition, as the childbearing age is getting older in developed countries, the age at which one
wishes to conceive is also getting older. Endometriosis is said to be present in half of infertile
patients. Isn't it inevitable that diagnosis will be easier in infertile patients in their 30s and 40s?
The data certainly show a longer time to diagnosis, but does this mean that doctors are
overlooking endometriosis, as described in the discussion?
Also, although the present study has been fully analyzed, it is likely that higher evidence than
the present data would arise if the conditions were aligned, such as propensity score matching.
Title: Prevalence, socio-demographic determinants, and self-reported reasons for hysterectomy
and choice of hospitalization in India
Version: 1 Date: 27 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an important topic and the authors have used the most recent national large scale data set.
However, there are enough papers on the subject based on NFHS-4 including the one mentioned
here from the list of references: Shekhar C, Paswan B, Singh A. Prevalence, sociodemographic
determinants and self-reported reasons for hysterectomy in India. Reproductive Health. 2019
Dec;16(1):1-6. The only difference is data from the NFHS-5 and place of the procedure: Public
and Private.  But the place of procedure does not bring out any important insights. For any
signifi8cant contributions, authors should focus on questions on why the prevalence is much
higher in states such as AP/Telengana.
Title: Prevalence, socio-demographic determinants, and self-reported reasons for hysterectomy
and choice of hospitalization in India
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Kamalesh Kumar Patel
Reviewer's report:
Authors have reported well defined survey analysis using the NFHS data sets with elaborative
analysis. the manuscript is acceptable  by the doing following minor revisions:
1. Strength, limitation  and future implications of findings from the existing datasets are required
to be added in the discussion of the manuscript.
2.  Authors should also provide the study design and timeline of the study in the methodology
section of the study.
Title: Prevalence, socio-demographic determinants, and self-reported reasons for hysterectomy
and choice of hospitalization in India
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thanks for inviting to review this important piece of paper. Then paper has provided several
socio-economic information about the hysterectomy, however there are few observations that
author should provide in this study.
In its current state, the level of English throughout your manuscript does not meet the journal’s
required standard from Abstract to Conclusions.
There are few comments and suggestions which are important to include according to the
standard of Journal. The specific comments are
Abstract
1. Other rounds of NFHs has also collected the data on hysterectomy in India, therefore , I suggest
to mention of the other NFHS round, not just NFHS-5 in the introduction section of the Abstract
2. Authors should also mention about odds ratio in numerical form.
3. This is the not standard format of writing conclusions.
Introduction
1. There is no information given in the introduction section about  the findings from NFHS-4
data. Several authors of India have used this data and published based on NFHS-4 (Singh et al.
2020; Meher and Sahoo 2019).  Authors should also cite the same to improve the paper.
2. Authors should also give the rationale behind the study as this is not anew study based on
NFHS
Results
I think the Odds ratio written in the result section is not only odds ratio, it is adjusted odds
ratio, as authors have adjusted the background variables while estimating the associations with
prevalence of hysterectomy.
Discussion
Discussion section is properly not written, it is just repetition of results and supporting the
findings with other article. They should also give the appropriate reasons behind the findings.
Conclusions
There are many conclusions emerged from the findings, but authors only mentioned few.
Authors should also provide some more conclusions, only providing few  conclusions do not
justice with this paper.
Title: Prevalence, socio-demographic determinants, and self-reported reasons for hysterectomy
and choice of hospitalization in India
Version: 3 Date: 24 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
I still believe that the paper does not contribute  significantly to advance our knowledge. It is
already known that most important reason for hysterectomy is bleeding and most hysterectomies
are done in private hospitals to exploit government schemes. If the authors are interested to work
on this topic, they should focus on ill effects of hysterectomies.
Title: Value of endometrial thickness for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical
hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 22 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Ayush Anand
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the work on the manuscript. This manuscript aims to determine the endometrium
thickness (ET) cut-off to distinguish premalignancy and malignancy in asymptomatic
postmenopausal women. I have reviewed the manuscript and would like to suggest following
changes:
1. Abstract
In the methodology sub-section try to include the study design, study setting, study population,
study duration, and statistical analysis in brief.
In the result sub-section, the statistical results such as odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-
values have not been written in a consistent manner and appear confusing.
2. Introduction
The authors have stated that “TVS is performed in postmenopausal women due to a variety
of indications such as pelvic pain, pelvic mass, and physical examination.” Please provide a
reference for this statement.
The authors have stated that “However, it remains controversial that how to manage an incidental
finding of thickened endometrium in asymptomatic postmenopausal women, consequently
leading to a large number of invasive biopsies, associated surgical risks, patient anxiety as well
as significant healthcare costs.” I suggest the authors to justify this statement by citing various
relevant studies.
3. Methodology
This section is well written.
4. Results
The authors have stated that “There were 2537 patients to whom the hysteroscopy was offered
during the period between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020. 1464 were excluded for not
meeting the inclusion criteria. 101 patients with breast cancer were excluded for the absence of
information of tamoxifen therapy in the medical records. Patients diagnosed with uterus duplex
(n=2) and ovarian cancer (n=2) were not included. Finally, 968 patients were available for study
(Figure 1).” This section is should be included in the methodology in the selection criteria sub-
section along with figure 1. So, I suggest the authors to move it to the selection criteria sub-
section in methodology.
5. Discussion
I suggest the authors summarise the significant findings of the study in the first paragraph and
compare them with other studies in the subsequent paragraphs.
I suggest the authors include one paragraph stating the future implications of the study in details.
6. Conclusion
This section is well written.
7. References
Please double-check the referencing style based on the journal’s guidelines.
Please double-check the manuscript for any grammatical errors.
Title: Value of endometrial thickness for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical
hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women
Version: 1 Date: 05 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Value of endometrial thickness for the detection
of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women",
which falls within the aim of the Journal.
Indeed, the topic is of utmost importance given that a clear indication has not yet been universally
agreed.
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 point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key
articles about the topic.
- Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker to improve clarity and
readability.
-Although it is a retrospective analysis, Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by
extending their description;
-I suggest also authors to not repeat some concepts more than once and to organize better
the discussion section following this ideal structure: main findings of the study, strength and
limitations of the study, implications and comparison with literature, future directions;
-In order to improve the quality of the discussions I suggest the authors to cite some recent and
relevant articles: PMID: 31657456; 35343352; 35793638.
Considered all this points, I think it could be of interest for the readers and, in my opinion, it
deserves the priority to be published after major revisions.
Title: Value of endometrial thickness for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical
hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women
Version: 2 Date: 08 Nov 2022
Reviewer:  Tullio Golia D'auge
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, thank you to have sent me the correct manuscript.
I read your work with great interest and pleasure. With the changes made after my advice and
those of the other authors the work is, in my opinion, complete and ready for publication.
Title: Value of endometrial thickness for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical
hyperplasia in asymptomatic postmenopausal women
Version: 2 Date: 20 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear author (s),
Thank you for the work on the manuscript. Although the number of participants in your working
group is low, I think that your article will attract the attention of readers with the revisions you
have made.
Best wishes
Title: Using Delphi method to develop Chinese women’s cervical cancer screening intention
scale based on planned behavior theory
Version: 2 Date: 29 Aug 2022
Reviewer:  Kavitha Dhanasekaran
Reviewer's report:
I like to congratulate the authors for attempting this study.
My comments are as follows:
In line 55, the sentence may be changed as
Fortunately, cervical cancer is one of the few cancers that has a known cause ....
In line 98, the sentence may be rewritten as ...
this manuscript aims to better understand and predict women’s intention to undergo cervical
cancer screening and sense of control,......
In line 106, remove the reference number 18.
In line 132, the word conducted may be changed to communicated or circulated.
In line 327, may be written as .. of Medicine approved  and waived the need for a written
informed consent signature, because this study was in the
Title: Using Delphi method to develop Chinese women’s cervical cancer screening intention
scale based on planned behavior theory
Version: 5 Date: 02 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Francesca De Nard
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I appreciate your consideration for my suggestions. I hope that the peer review process
contributed to the improvement of the reporting of your well conducted research.  I have only
one last suggestion: in line 132 there is a repetition you might want to correct: 'the evaluation
scale. the evaluation scale'. Thank you for the constructive change.
Title: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG PRIVATE
COLLEGE FEMALE STUDENTS IN DESSIE CITY, ETHIOPIA: MIXED METHOD
STUDY
Version: 5 Date: 29 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Title: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS AMONG COLLEGE
FEMALE STUDENTS IN DESSIE CITY, ETHIOPIA: MIXED METHOD STUDY
The authors made visible changes to the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions.
Here below are some issues which need correction.
1. Please make it clear about your study area and population. Private versus private and public
college students.
2. What is your intention, studying lifetime GBV or GBV perpetrated in colleges? Make it clear
from your document and it needs thorough revision.
3. You made a correction from your inclusion and exclusion criteria; it is fine but if there were
subjects excluded, it is not plausible. Please clarify it. Just avoiding the sentence is wrong since
the data is already collected.
4. The justification “studies that are conducted on private college female students are limited”
is not appropriate, since there are studies done in different parts of Ethiopia.
5. Your discussion needs thorough revision. Explaining sentences, plausible explanations…
Title: Sexual dysfunction in women with genital warts: A systematic review
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Flávia Fairbanks
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
First of all, I would like to congratulate your effort in studying such an interesting issue.
Despite many other health conditions, female genital warts bring lots of physical and emotional
consequences. These must be more detailed and, for this reason, this paper is really relevant.
My comments aim to help you improving it to publication. I read your material carefully and I
am pretty sure that, with minor corrections, it will be ready to be published.
My questions/suggestions are:
1- Definition of Female Sexual Dysfunction: you've used (references 24 and 25) a very particular
definition. It is crucial to use the worldwide recognized one: APA ( American Psychiatry
Association) and/or WHO one and, just in order to be very actual, include the Female Sexual
Distress Dysfunction on it.
2- I loved the way you have shared the article in 3 parts on its results: prevalence of sexual
dysfunction in women with GW, types od sexual dysfunction and psychosexual impacts.
Although the division of these parts is very useful, this article is too long! I strongly recommend
you to summarize it. It is not necessary to discuss each of the 19 papers included. Try to
combinate their findings and present a shorter version.
3- I thought it was interesting the discussion about causes of divorce among iranian couples. I
just consider that this is not the regular panel for most ocidental cultures, so it could be important
to write a paragraph with  simple comparasion or just to avoid including it on your paper.
4- Improving English writing is also mandatory. Ask a native English speaker to help you.
I hope you receive these comments as possibilities to improve the overall quality of this
important article. I will be pleasant to write my congratulations when you publish it.
Title: Sexual dysfunction in women with genital warts: A systematic review
Version: 5 Date: 07 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Title: Sexual dysfunction in women with genital warts: A systematic review
I was unsure of the validity of the conclusion made in this systematic review inferring a language
of causality when it stated in the abstract: “..of the effects of genital warts on female sexual
dysfunction”, i.e., genital warts impair sexual function. Can we conclude the impact of genital
warts on sexual function in a systematic review? As its limitation, the relationship findings are
typically bidirectional. Maybe we could.  Please enlighten me on this matter. An association
language would be more appropriate in this context. If so, please revise the writing of the
manuscript accordingly. Only meta-regression in a meta-analysis, which was not conducted in
this study, can make the cause-and-effect conclusion. There was some reading material on this
matter in academic journals.
DOI: 10.1111/jan.14311. Editorial. Deependra K. et al. 2019 Being honest with causal language
in writing for publication.
DOI:10.1101/2021.08.25.21262631 August 2021 Causal and Associational Linking Language
from Observational Research and Health Evaluation Literature in Practice: A systematic
language evaluation.
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.023 April 2022. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Causal
language use in systematic reviews of observational studies is often inconsistent with intent: A
systematic survey
Specific comments:
Regarding abstract: Please correct some typos. For example, the abstract should be “genital
warts” in conclusion. The “Psychosocial” should be a small letter for p, not a capital P after
“and.”
Regarding the study's objective, what are this review's hypotheses?
Regarding the results of Tables 1 and 2. Please explain the ++/-- symbols in the legend. The
tables appear crowded, and you may consider an abbreviation.  Please furnish the abbreviation
in the legend.
Regarding the discussion, it is very brief. The relationship between genital warts and sexual
dysfunction was articulated superficially, i.e., the appearance of warts deters sexual functioning.
How about other reasons, e.g., fear of contracting the illness (warts may spread via sexual
intercourse), location and pain due to warts, and husband’s factor (sexual dysfunction, erectile
dysfunction and/or ejaculatory problems)?
Poh Yih Chew. Chia Lip Choy. Hatta bin Sidi. Hajar Mohd Salleh Sahimi, Farah Deena Abdul
Samad, Arun Ravindran. The Association Between Female Sexual Dysfunction and Sexual
Dysfunction in the Male Partner: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JSexMed, 2021; 18:
99 – 112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.10.001
Title: Sexual dysfunction in women with genital warts: A systematic review
Version: 10 Date: 10 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Overall,  a satisfactory revision has been performed on the manuscript. I have a minor comment
regarding the statement: "The change in the frequency of sexual intercourse is one of the most
obvious changes in the sexual behavior of patients. Sometimes, this decrease in the frequency
of sexual intercourse occurred in the early stages of the disease, which improved over time." I
suggest the word "may" be added: "...disease, which may improve over time."
Please check for other minor grammars mistakes. Thank you.
Title: Endometrial Microstimulation Effects on Endometrial Receptivity Assessed by
Transvaginal Color Doppler Sonography
Version: 2 Date: 15 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
1.  Please indicate day  interval between endometrial microstimulation and the highest LH level
2.  Please add information about  day interval between LH surge detected and tansvaginal
ultasound performed
Title: Application of Two Level Count Regression Modeling on the Determinants of Fertility
among Married Women in Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 04 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Mekuanint Simeneh Workie
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the author:
A.   abstract part
1. Method: included the study design and statistical model.
2. Why not included Addis Abeba?
b. Method
1. Not clearly explain the  study design and  data  source,
2.  The response variable of this study was the total number of children ever born among married
women in Ethiopia, the count data depend time or space etc.  What is your response variable?
3.  You use only one software either R-3.6.3 or SAS- 9.4.
4. Page 7 write the negative binomial regression model equation like Poisson regression
5. Page 7 write in two level negative binomial regression models
6.page 8 The histogram were no extremely at the beginning. And the data are not zero inflated,
so you can not apply ZIP or ZINB? The histogram are not visible each count data points as much
as possible use R software
7. page 10  Table 1 Descriptive Statistics are wrong out put since The response is quantitative
variable  and independent variable categorical, therefore you can not use #^2- value(P-value).
Hint use simple Poisson regression .
8.  page 11 Table 2 Model Selection ZIP  and ZINB are incorrect out put sine the data are not
zero inflated data
9.  “This study targeted the application of a two-level count regression model on the determinants
of fertility among married women in Ethiopia. The source of the data for this study was the
fourth (2016) demographic and health survey of Ethiopia. The survey was implemented by the
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) with support from the Ministry of Health. The sampling design
for EDHS 2016 was a two-stage stratified cluster sampling design.  The histograms for the
total number of children ever born has a positively skewed distribution extremely picked at the
beginning.” Are these Conclusions?   Generally revise the conclusion
Generally comments  revise the whole manuscripts
Title: Application of Two Level Count Regression Modeling on the Determinants of Fertility
among Married Women in Ethiopia
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors raise important issues which need evidence for the improvement of women's health.
I am not a statistician, is the DHS data set suitable for count analysis? or the authors made
adjustments, to how the count function was utilized. This needs further discussion to make clear
to the reader
Abstract
The sentence “The global population showed a major increment from time to time because of
these dynamics, particularly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa including Ethiopia”.  Not
complete and clear
In the abstract part the method, result, and conclusion are not separately addressed and need
further consideration. The result looks like the method and the conclusion looks like the result
Introduction
Definition of fertility please consider WHO or other standard definition
First paragraph and last sentences the term “components” should be correct as the continent
Method
Data set and utilization need further discussion herein method part
DHS data recommend utilizing weighting the data, the authors consider it in the analysis plan?
it is not clearly described?
Result
Address Legends or captions for each figure and table.
Language edition required
Title: Essential maternal health service disruptions in Ethiopia during COVID 19 pandemic: a
systematic review
Version: 0 Date: 05 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Bayram Nejati-zarnaqi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor, thank you for choosing me as a reviewer
A few comments are suggested below:
1- In the method section, please mention why haven't author used other databases like Scopus?
2- In the method section, please mention an example of search syntax.
3- Kindly use the 2020 PRISMA diagram for the manuscript.