JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: HIV status and knowledge of cervical cancer among women in Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 03 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Moses Banyeh
Reviewer's report:
General
The revised version exhibits significant improvement; nevertheless, certain questions still linger
Study population
The authors initially mentioned that the study encompassed individuals with both HIV-positive
and HIV-negative or unknown status. However, later on, they exclusively refer to participants
as either HIV-positive or HIV-negative. Please provide a more accurate description."
Results
I am still struggling to comprehend Table 2. The study's objective is to investigate the association
between HIV status and knowledge of cervical cancer. I anticipated that Table 2 would include
variables assessing knowledge of cervical cancer. Typically, in a bivariable analysis comparing
HIV-positive to HIV-negative/unknown, one performs a univariable logistic regression analysis
(Model 1). This is then followed by a multivariable model (Model 2), where significant
sociodemographic variables from Table 1 are added to control for their effects as confounders.
However, I observe a repetition of Table 1 in which sociodemographic factors are controlled
for in relation to knowledge of cervical cancer. The results seem to be focused on identifying
the determinants of HIV-positive status rather than exploring the association with knowledge of
cervical cancer. It is not entirely clear to me unless further clarification is provided.
Limitations
Furthermore, it is important to note that the study's scope is restricted by the inclusion of women
with an 'unknown' HIV status.
Title: HIV status and knowledge of cervical cancer among women in Ghana
Version: 1 Date: 14 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors have largely addressed concerns raised in the first round of review.  The following
comments need to be borne in mind when advancing the manuscript to the next stage.
1. The present report is for a case control study.  That should be clearly noted in the manuscript
2. The statement "Recruitment of this comparison group was premised on a 1:1 distribution using
a simple random sampling technique" can be elaborated. A simple-random technique requires
a sampling frame to ensure that every member of the population has an  equal probability of
being included in the sample. Without a population register, it is not accurate to  suggest that
the sampling was by simple random technique. Perhaps, "semi-random" may be used
3. "The parent study for this paper excluded anyone who have had screening in the past 5 years
with HPV based test or past 3 years with cytology-based screening. This also affects this analysis
ensuring that the findings in this paper are not affected by this potential confounding factor." If
women with prior screening exposure were excluded, it should be clearly stated in this report  as
has been done for other exclusion criteria . Some readers may not refer to previous  publication.
4. "We appreciate this observation and suggestion. We have now revised the section to clarify
exactly what the study population and sampling procedures involved after broad consultations."
The limitations imposed by a small sample size need to be acknowledged under Limitations
5. "Blinding was not feasible as this was not a typical intervention study..." Acknowledge this
under Limitations
.6.  Under Limitations, acknowledge that HIV status was not verified for either group and state
reasons given.  Readers should be cautioned about the possibility  that an unknown  percentage
of controls may be  HIV positive when interpreting the data presented
7. Under Limitations, authors should caution that the findings are not generalizable to the general
population of women but HIV-positive and negative women attending gynae clinics
Title: HIV status and knowledge of cervical cancer among women in Ghana
Version: 2 Date: 26 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors have sufficiently addressed concerns raised in the first  and second  rounds of
review and the manuscript may now proceed to the next stage. However, the  authors should
bear in mind that they have confounded stratified random sampling (which is what they describe
in the manuscript) with simple random sampling. You may refer  http://www.stat.yale.edu/
Courses/1997-98/101/sample.htm. This can be corrected without another round of review.
Title: Maternal and perinatal outcomes of oligohydramnios in late term and post term
pregnancies at public hospitals in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 29 Jul 2022
Reviewer:  Molla Taye
Reviewer's report:
Comments to the authors
General Comment:
This manuscript can provide a contribution to scientific literature.  However, the manuscript
needs improvement and major revision.  The manuscript lacks consistency, appropriate flow
of ideas and robust methods. Please, improve language problems and editing. There is some
repetition in the manuscript, please remove repetitions.
The authors didn’t provide page numbers and line numbers. It is somewhat difficult to indicate
a specific comment/s on each page throughout the manuscript.
Specific Comments:
Title: Please consider improving the title. The title should be clear.
Abstract.
Objective: Please, revise.
Methods: Please provide adequate information. Also, please change “Methodology” to Methods.
Conclusion: The conclusion is not appropriately supported by your findings.
Introduction:
I think it is better to change “Introduction” to “Background”.
It is good if you improve the flow of ideas throughout the manuscript.
Paragraph 4, please check the citation of 4-5; 16-17. Because there is no number between these
numbers.
Also, please consider language editing in the introduction section.
Materials and Methods:
Please change “Bivariate” to Bivariable.
Please give subheading (example: Study settings, Study design, Study participants and Source
population, Sample size determination, etc.). The methods should be robust.
Please, provide adequate explanation/description for each subheadings of the methods section.
I think the authors didn’t provide adequate information for some of the methods sections.
Sample size: authors described that “We recruited consecutive mothers presenting with
oligohydramnios after 41+0 weeks of gestation”. Did you include all late and post term pregnant
mothers with oligohydramnios?  If you include all, did you consider a purposive sampling
method?
Please keep consistency in the method section.
Results:
The results section requires improvement.  I think the authors didn’t clearly/sufficiently describe
the findings of this study in text. Because there is limited information in the text form of the
results section. Please revise the results section.
I think it is good if authors put their findings under the sub headings, for example,
sociodemographic characteristics of participants, Obstetric history of participants, prevalence of
oligohydramnios, associated factors of oligohydramnios, maternal and perinatal outcomes, etc.
In general results should be clear and consistent.
Discussion:
The discussion section needs to be improved. I think the authors didn’t discuss their findings
adequately. Hence, please discuss based on your findings and compare the findings with those of
other similar studies. Also, please, consider what your findings, interpretations and implications
are.  The way you presented the discussion section is not well fitted. Please, revise and improve
the discussion.
Title: HEAL Africa score to predict failure of surgical repair of obstetric urethro-vaginal fistula
in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Version: 1 Date: 05 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Title: HEAL Africa score to predict failure of surgical repair of obstetric urethro-vaginal fistula
in the Democratic Republic of Congo
General comment: This is a good study focusing on an under researched area _ failure of surgical
repair of obstetric urethro-vaginal fistula in the DRC.
There is need for Authors to be consistent in the use one of the names for the score "HEAL
Africa score " or  "FSROUVF predictive score".
Abstract; well structured and derived from the body of the manuscript.
Introduction: Fairly well written.
Para. 2 page 4;  the abbreviation "DRC" should be written in full when it first appears in the
main body of the manuscript rather than writing it in full later on in 3.1 page 4.
Materials and methods: Fairly well written and structured.
In the statement "Regarding fistula clinical features, we collected the age of the fistula (<1 year,
1-5 years or 5 years)..." the  "or" in the 1-5 or 5years ought be replaced with a comma.
Results : Well presented.
The commas (",") in the  values of the tables would be better be replaced with points (".") as
was done for the last row in table 1 "<0.0001".
Discussion:
Can the authors clarify as to the reasons why "Pushkar et al. " with a failure rate of 9.53% was
highlighed yet there are other studies that had documented lower failure rates?
The variable "Pre-operative use of intravaginal indigenous products" as one those associated
with failure rates merits some  more space in the discussion.
Conclusion:
The conclusions are derived from the data in the results section.
Title: HEAL Africa score to predict failure of surgical repair of obstetric urethro-vaginal fistula
in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Phuc Nhon Nguyen
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you again for all your responses to my concerns.
The paper is well improved and more clarified now.
The  study addressed importantly the HEAL Africa score to predict failure of surgical repair
of obstetric urethro-vaginal fistula in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Although some
unchanged limitations that the authors have explained clearly, the study is really interesting and
helpful in practice at the authors center. I recommend for publication.
Congratulation on hard work!
Best regards,
Phuc Nhon Nguyen MD,
Tu Du Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Title: Key Drivers of Hysterectomy among women of reproductive age in Three States in India:
Comparative Evidence from NFHS-4 and NFHS-5
Version: 3 Date: 03 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Danish Ahmad
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the papers. My comments are mainly accepted and addressed.
The revised paper represents an important contribution to women's health in India, and I am
pleased to recommend its acceptance. However, I do share reflections from the last peer review
process below for the author's consideration.
To help with the peer review process in response to the reviewers' letters, in the future, please
indicate specific places in the paper where revisions were made. In many places in the paper,
the reviewer is asked to 'kindly refer to the updated paper', which needs to be more indicative.
While I accept the paper, please check the formatting of the author's name and websites used
for the references in the references list.I will indicate these to the editor to review before final
publication.
Please also ensure that the formatting of all tables is as per journal requirements; this will be
done in the next steps but before the final publication.
Title: Perceptions and experiences of fertility preservation in female patients with cancer in
Greece
Version: 0 Date: 30 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
The topic of this Manuscript falls within the aims of our Journal. The article provides a valuable
and methodologically correct data analysis, the conclusion is consistent with data discussion
and with available evidence throughout the text. The topic of this study is actual, so it may be
of great interest for the readers. Proof-reading by native English speaker is mandatory, in order
to improve its readability. I suggest to the Editor to accept the Manuscript if the Authors will
perform a language revision.
Title: Perceptions and experiences of fertility preservation in female patients with cancer in
Greece
Version: 0 Date: 22 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
The study entitled " Perceptions and experiences of fertility preservation in Greek female cancer
patients" aims to fill in the gaps regarding cancer patients' specific feelings or needs for fertility
preservation options. My comments are as follows:
- The authors should describe the study population more clearly. Table 1. Participant
characteristics, is not clear. The number of subjects interviewed is not clear.
- The results section is very long; authors should use tables to best describe the results.
- The discussion should be shortened. In addition   the integration of critical evaluation of all
currently available techniques for fertility preservation could improve the manuscript.
Title: LncRNA WWTR1-AS1 upregulates Notch3 through miR-136 to increase cancer cell
stemness in cervical squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 18 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted a series of experiments in the study. Typing mistakes are in the text, such
as CECC, and mir-134.
There are some concerns in this manuscript.  Would the authors explain more about the male
CSCC patients?
The luciferase reporter assay is not well described in Method and Material. The legend and
figures are not self-explanatory.
Bioinformatics analysis predicts WWTR1-AS1 and miR-136 could interact with each other,
however,  evidence is not solid and convincing.
Title: LncRNA WWTR1-AS1 upregulates Notch3 through miR-136 to increase cancer cell
stemness in cervical squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 21 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal and offers
a high-quality overview of the topic.
The tables and figures are clear and interesting.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of high quality, I would suggest taking into
account the following minor recommendations:
- I suggest another round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve
readability.
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be better clarified by extending their description.ù
- I find it interesting to include a reference to the screening programs for early cervical cancer
diagnosis (Golia D'Augè T, Giannini A, Bogani G, Di Dio C, Laganà AS, Di Donato V, Salerno
MG, Caserta D, Chiantera V, Vizza E, Muzii L, D’Oria O. Prevention, Screening, Treatment and
Follow-Up of Gynecological Cancers: State of Art and Future Perspectives. Clin. Exp. Obstet.
Gynecol. 2023, 50(8), 160. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5008160).
- The authors have not adequately highlighted the strengths and limitations of their study. I
suggest better specifying these points.
Title: LncRNA WWTR1-AS1 upregulates Notch3 through miR-136 to increase cancer cell
stemness in cervical squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 24 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Is “LncRNA WWTR1-AS1 upregulates Notch3
through miR-136 to increase cancer cell stemness in cervical squamous cell carcinoma" which
falls within the aim of the Journal.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability;
- Considering topic and results of this study, the authors could extend and improve the discussion
by evaluating and citing recent current evidence about the possible role of therapeutic vaccines
and other therapeutic strategies in cervical cancers, and how contribute to determining more
accurately tailored therapy.  I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point PMID:
29958629
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.
Title: LncRNA WWTR1-AS1 upregulates Notch3 through miR-136 to increase cancer cell
stemness in cervical squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 6 Date: 06 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has improved thanks to the changes made. I think it could be of
interest to the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority to be published.
Title: LncRNA WWTR1-AS1 upregulates Notch3 through miR-136 to increase cancer cell
stemness in cervical squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 6 Date: 12 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
I read your work with great interest and pleasure. The work with the changes made after my
advice and those of the other reviewers is complete and, in my opinion, ready for publication.
Title: Review of Asherman Syndrome and Its Hysteroscopic Treatment Outcomes: Experience
in a Low-resource Setting
Version: 0 Date: 05 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Moses Banyeh
Reviewer's report:
Receiver comment
General
1. It is recommended to add line numbers to manuscripts for easy reference during review
2. There are minor grammatical errors throughout the manuscript that require correction
Abstract
1. There are two separate mean and range values for age for the study participants. However,
there is no indication of subgroups within the study population
2.  “majority (47.5%)”. Majority is used when the proportion of a variable is above 50%. It is
preferable to use “most” in this instance.
3. The results are descriptive and can not be considered as “risk factors” since there is no robust
statistical evidence to back them
Methods
1. Cross-sectional studies are not appropriate in the determination of risk factors. A case-control
or cohort study is recommended. Cross-sectional studies can determine associations
2. What were the possible confounding variables of the study?
Results
1. The bivariate analyses were done using Chi-Square or Fisher’s Exact test. Even though this
is appropriate, it is always difficult to tell from which cell the significant difference is coming
from. It is recommended to perform a Post hoc test for Chi-Square or perform a bivariate logistic
regression analysis.
2. Another limitation of the Chi-Square or Fisher’s exact test is the inability to control for
confounding factors.
3. Table 5. “Hypomenorrhea and amenorrhea, which are both current menstrual patterns, had
relatively low conception rates (4.8% and 7.4%, respectively) (P. value=0.04)” What is the
statistical evidence for this statement? Similarly, for Table 7 and 8.
Discussion
1. The mentioned “risk factors” have no statistical evidence of significance. It is problematic to
consider a variable as a risk factor just based on its prevalence. I think the statistical analysis
should be reconsidered before discussion the results.
Title: Review of Asherman Syndrome and Its Hysteroscopic Treatment Outcomes: Experience
in a Low-resource Setting
Version: 6 Date: 19 Dec 2023
Reviewer:  Moses Banyeh
Reviewer's report:
While most of my concerns were addressed in the revised paper, some still remained
unexplained.
Statistical analysis
1. It is good statistics to summarize data as “mean ± std” and just “mean”
Results
1. “The observed difference in conception rate could arise from stage III (severe) Asherman
syndrome (adjusted p-value= 0.0013)  (Table 4)”. Is this an assumption or a definite statement?
Why not perform a binary logistic regression if you are not sure? This also goes for Tables 5,
7 and 8 as well.
2. It is still not clear where the differences between groups emanate from despite the assertion
that a post hoc test was performed. I strongly recommend binary logistic regression analysis
3. After performing the logistic analysis, the discussion and the abstract should be based on
those findings and not just the frequencies
Title: Review of Asherman Syndrome and Its Hysteroscopic Treatment Outcomes: Experience
in a Low-resource Setting
Version: 7 Date: 05 Jan 2024
Reviewer:  Moses Banyeh
Reviewer's report:
I am not satisfied with your responses to my comments. You should have conducted a case study
or case series if you just wanted to describe the condition. So far as you decided to compare
groups, it is prudent you use effect sizes that show clearly the differences between the groups.
In this instance, odds ratio should be done after Chi-Sqaure or Post Hoc after Chi-Square. You
insist you did post hoc after Chi-Square, however I find difficult to see where the difference
between the groups lie.
Title: Tumor polo-like kinase 4 protein expression reflects lymph vascular invasion, higher
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and shortened survival in endometrial cancer
patients who undergo surgical resection
Version: 1 Date: 08 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
1
Tumor markers in tables
Put cut off values rather than just mentioning they are abnormal
2
In discussion
Refrain numbering sentences.
Title: Tumor polo-like kinase 4 protein expression reflects lymph vascular invasion, higher
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and shortened survival in endometrial cancer
patients who undergo surgical resection
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer:  Dmitry Aleksandrovich Zinovkin
Reviewer's report:
This is good structured manuscript with interesting aim.
Level of the research is rather good, so i have few commnets:
1. Authors have criteria of inclusion, but no criteria of exclusion from research.
2. Did you have Lynch syndrome endometrial cancers?
3. Did you do a test for normality for your data?
4. Authors didn`t describe correlation analysis , but have such paragraph in results (Correlation
of tumor PLK4 protein expression with clinical characteristics).
5. Correlation analysis results also needs coefficients  for each correlation (r for Spearman, t
for Tau-Kendall).
6.Conclusion is too short, please add some p for proof of your conclusions.
Title: Tumor polo-like kinase 4 protein expression reflects lymph vascular invasion, higher
Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and shortened survival in endometrial cancer
patients who undergo surgical resection
Version: 1 Date: 14 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled " Tumor polo-like kinase 4 protein expression
reflects lymph vascular invasion, higher Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage,
shortened survival in endometrial cancer patients who receive surgical resection" which falls
within the aim of the Journal.
Although the manuscript can be considered already of good quality, I would suggest following
recommendations:
- I suggest a round of language revision, in order to correct few typos and improve readability.
- It could be useful the evaluation of the impact that the surgical therapeutic approach could
have in patients with various comorbidity, older age and the possible application of specific
comorbidity index. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point, referring to PMID:
35793638
- The authors should the possible role of artificial intelligence, especially radiomic analysis of
radiological images, to early detection of endometrial cancer and to improve preoperatively risk
stratification. I would be glad if the authors discuss this important point, referring to PMID:
36553988.
Because of these reasons, the article should be revised and completed. Considering all these
points, I think it could be of interest for the readers and, in my opinion, it deserves the priority
to be published after minor revisions.