JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Health Related Quality Of Life Among Pregnant Women Living With HIV In Kenya,
Results From Comparing A Patient Generated Index And The Euroqol 5 Dimension 3 Level
Version: 1 Date: 01 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
This article examines the use of a patient generated index of health-related quality of life in
pregnant women living with HIV in Kenya. The authors compared results of the PGI to results
of the EQ-5D-3L.
The main concern about this paper is that the description of how the PGI instrument was used
is different in two places. On lines 128-130, the authors state that the impact on their lives was
rated “on a numeric scale of 0-6, with zero(0) being the worst they can imagine, to six (6) being
as good as they could possibly be.” On line 188, the authors state that the scale used was “0
being no effect and 10 being severely affected.” The ranges are different (0-6 vs 0-10) and the
direction of the scales are opposite. This makes me question the results.
The text, overall, needs to be edited for grammar and consistency (e.g., make sure to write the
names of the instruments consistently throughout, including in the title), and the Discussion
section is a bit repetitive.
In the Background section, it would be helpful if you named some of the generic and HIV-
specific instruments. For example, the HAT-QOL instrument has four questions about economic
health, which you mention in the Discussion section.
In the Methods section, please provide the range of possible PGI scores.
In the Methods section, please provide a more detailed description of the EQ-5D-3L, including
a description of the possible range for the index score.
In line 158, clarify that you are referring to the EQ-5D-3L index score.
Line 176. How was the disclosure question asked? Whether they had disclosed to anyone?
In Table 1, I realize that the denominator is 100, so percentages will look exactly the same as
the n’s. But you should report percentages anyway. (And for both language and salary, the n’s
may not be 100).
In Table 1, do you have data on whether participants are on ART, adherent, undetectable? That
information could be very relevant to their quality of life.
Line 183. If participants do not list 5 areas of importance, how does that affect the scoring?
Line 198. Please report the results of the correlation analysis.
Fix abbreviations in citation #9.
Title: Health Related Quality Of Life Among Pregnant Women Living With HIV In Kenya,
Results From Comparing A Patient Generated Index And The Euroqol 5 Dimension 3 Level
Version: 1 Date: 05 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
You presented a really comprehensive abstract.
The background on health related quality of life tools, quality of life of PLHIV was good as well
as the link with the UNAIDS goals.
The rationale for the PGI was also clear in complementing health related quality of life tools
among PLHIV.
Methods were well-described.
Was the PGI tool adapted and validated for use in the Kenyan context and how was that done?
In line 120, you mentioned that the tools were piloted before the trial among pregnant women
living with HIV. Among how many of them?
Overall- very good
Title: Health Related Quality Of Life Among Pregnant Women Living With HIV In Kenya,
Results From Comparing A Patient Generated Index And The Euroqol 5 Dimension 3 Level
Version: 1 Date: 28 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript aims to test and correlate the patient generated index (PGI) scores, used to
assess health related quality of life (HRQoL), and the Euroqol 5 Dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L)
scales to gain patient-centered insights into the quality of life among 100 pregnant women living
with HIV in Western Kenya. Overall, the goals of this study fit the direction of necessary HIV
research and practice in this study setting and population. There is a need for validated and
easily implemented patient-centered scales focused on HRQoL in this setting. The manuscript
is clearly organized and well-written.
I suggest the following revisions:
METHODS:
- Provide more details on the parent study (WELTEL PMTCT), particularly on any interventions
and SMS content that might have impacted how your participants perceive their health related
quality of life. This is particularly important since the authors used a convenient sample of 100
of the WELTEL participants. A more detailed description of how your 100 participants have
been selected should also be included as the study results might not be generalizable to a general
population.
- Authors acknowledge that this population might have struggled with comprehending all the
steps involved in the PGI theme/score generation process. Please include more details on this
process and its impact on results as well as the feasibility of the use of this tool in this setting.
The scores seem to be rather low. Is it because of the process which participants failed to fully
understand, is it because they receive some interventions from the main study, or is it accurate?
- Include more details on the selection and limitations of using the EQ5D-3L scale and weights
from the validated scores from Zimbabwe.
- Include more details on the correlation analysis between the PGI and EQ5D. More details are
needed especially because no correlation has been detected, and there are some biases in each
of the scales used.
RESULTS:
- Results: a brief description of characteristics should include measures related to economic
well-being as it's highly relevant to the study results.
DISCUSSION:
- Please include more details on potential limitations.
- Conclusion seems to use 'strong,' conclusive language. Please soften the language, e.g., line
274, "The PGI is a useful tool to assess" could be changed to The PGI may present a useful
tool.....
Other COMMENTS:
Formatting/minor improvements needed:
- In several cases, there is no space between the words and parenthesis, e.g., in tables or 88,
etc. Check throughout.
- Some words are repetitive, e.g., lines 164-165 aimed and aiming; or lines 203-204  helped
reveal and helped to reveal.
Title: Sexual Assault of Women in the region of Kairouan, Tunisia: An eight-year retrospective
study on epidemiological and medicolegal characteristics
Version: 0 Date: 15 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Manudi Vidanapathirana
Reviewer's report:
This is an extremely important topic and a lot of important  policy-relevant data has been
uncovered, specially considering that not much data has come out of Tunisia in this regard.
A couple of issues:
1. The title implies a more qualitative research. Perhaps you could consider changing the title to
'Sexual Assault of Women in the region of Kairouan, Tunisia: An eight year retrospective study
on epidemiological and medicolegal characteristics'
2. Was there a reason as to why pregnant female victims with an old hymen tear, who declare
being a victim of previous sexual abuse were included, when victims with an old hymen tear,
without physical or biological proof of a recent SA, were excluded?
3. A few punctuation, capitalization errors here and there
Title: A Predictive Model of Genital Warts Preventive Behaviors among Women in the South
of Iran: Application of health belief model
Version: 0 Date: 13 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Please find some comments as follows:
The authors present a study of the Predictive Model of Genital Warts Preventive Behaviors
among Women in the South of Iran. They use to a reliable and valid researcher-made
questionnaire which explored demographic information, knowledge items and the model
constructs. A multivariate linear regression analysis was run to determine the predictors of
adopting GWs preventive behaviors. A path analysis was also used to test the direct and indirect
effects of the model constructs on the dependent variable.
I have a few comments:
Reviewer comments
Spelling and grammar corrections need to be done.
Title
In title please revised based on HBM
Predictive Model of Genital Warts Preventive Behaviors among Women in the South of Iran:
Application of health belief model
Abstract
The abstract was well-written and explicit.
Please type of sample size 720 participant in methods section.
Please remove first phrase in result section "The data collected through 720 questionnaires were
statistically analyzed. The response rate was 95%"
Introduction
Overall, I think the study background provides enough data on the current empirical evidence
and the study rationale.
Methods
In the methods section please provide type study  "analytical and cross-sectional study"
There seems to be two versions of the abstract, one states the analytical methods the other does
not. Which is correct?
In data collection edit " marrix"
What were the results of normality tests? Are there any graphics or statistics? The use of Pearson
makes me to presume that the tests showed normality, which may not be likely for scale-
type responses. " As Pearson’s correlation coefficients showed, knowledge (r=.197, p<.001),
perceived susceptibility (r=.434, p<.001), severity (r=.463, p<.001) and self-efficacy (r=.434,
p<.001) were significantly correlated …"
Again, the authors should include the conceptual frameworks (schema) for the study. The
conceptual frame facilitates a better understanding of the link variable ; construct HBM,  primary
and secondary outcomes, design, and …
Results
The authors vividly described the results.
Discussion
The section is well-written by the authors. However, the authors should provide plausible reasons
why novelty this study?
Study limitations
The study has several limitations. The authors only reported a few.  For instance, the study used
a self-report with the potential for selection bias. The authors should explain the efforts taken to
mitigate the limitations and how future studies could avoid such methodological flaws.
Title: A Predictive Model of Genital Warts Preventive Behaviors among Women in the South
of Iran: Application of health belief model
Version: 0 Date: 01 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Hanieh Jourmand
Reviewer's report:
This is  important study for Genital Warts Preventive Behaviors  among females. I have some
comments on how the
a manuscript may be improved, which I hope will be useful to the authors.
Title: I think would better application HBM model mention the title.
Background sections:
- please apply updated and contextualize references (2020-2021)  in the main manuscript.
for example (in The health belief model subtitle)  " Khani Jeihooni, A., Jormand, H. & Harsini,
P.A. The effect of educational program based on beliefs, subjective norms and perceived
behavior control on doing pap-smear test in sample of Iranian women. BMC Women's Health
21, 290 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01419-w".
or "Khani Jeihooni, A., Jormand, H., Ansari, M. et al. The effect of educational intervention
based on health belief model and social support on testicular self-examination in sample of
Iranian men. BMC Cancer 21, 685 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08411-5".
-Please improve the language  of your manuscript.
-Also, check format of references with journal recommended format.  I suggest a review of
sentence repetition, standardization of font size, and punctuation.
Methods section:
-For measurement Preventive behaviors of GWs  were not mentioned, please add explanations.
-Also, knowledge added  to HBM, and model extended, what reason?please add essential subtitle
for addition.
-The questionnaire with Likert scale  answers should be published as supplement.
Result section is clear.
Discussion section:
-Please  use and compare updated and contextualize references with results of this  manuscript.
recommended references is useful.
Title: Peers Empowering Peers-feasibility of a peer educator training program to prevent
diabetes
Version: 2 Date: 29 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Methods, second paragraph, second to last sentence beginning with, “The grandmother must be
willing to completes…”
Please add additional detail regarding the questionnaires used. Are they validated questionnaires,
demographic, etc.?
Discussion: Generally, this section provides little information on where this study is situated in
the literature regarding peer-led diabetes education programs or the larger DPP. Are there other
studies that support this paper’s findings or are contrary to this paper’s finding that may provide
guidance for additional research? No literature is referenced to support this program’s findings,
use of particular study sites, possible challenges, etc.
Title: Peers Empowering Peers-feasibility of a peer educator training program to prevent
diabetes
Version: 5 Date: 23 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editorial,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. Please find some comments as follows:
The authors present a study of the Peers Empowering Peers-feasibility of a peer educator training
program to prevent diabetes. They use a Thirty AA women between the ages of 49 to 72 were
enrolled in the pre-post single group study. The participants were required to attend a two-
hour Diabetes Prevention Program session every week for 16 weeks. The sessions covered the
role of the peer educator and encouraged participants to increase their physical activity and
consume more servings of fruits and vegetables daily. We noted the number of participants who
successfully completed the training and solicited their perspective regarding the strengths of
the program and suggestions to improve the program. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was
performed to evaluate changes in body weight, self-reported physical activity, and fruit and
vegetable intake from baseline to week 16.
Reviewer comments
Minor revision
Thanks to the authors for the corrections but following correction are need.
Abstract
The abstract was well-written and explicit.
Introduction
Overall, I think the study background provides enough data on the current empirical evidence
and the study rationale.
Methods
In the methods section please provide type study ( intervention…)
The training program was prepared for 16 week in 4 month targeted at the intervention group.
This seems like a very long training session; would it be possible to scale this intervention to
non-study populations? It sounds like it would require a great commitment, which might not be
feasible in natural environments. The amount of time involved might reduce the likelihood of
adoption of the findings.
Results
The authors vividly described the results.
Discussion
The section is well-written by the authors.
Title: Peers Empowering Peers-feasibility of a peer educator training program to prevent
diabetes
Version: 5 Date: 26 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Open-ended interviews are mentioned as a study measure and results are reported. However,
there is no information on how this qualitative data was analyzed mention in the Analyses
section. Some detail about the qualitative analysis process should be included.
Sentence 1 of the 4th paragraph in the introduction is missing the appropriate citation.
There is a typo in the Discussion section, “For future studies, a research associate who does
not interact with the participants will administer the survey to each participant individually, so
participants are pressured to impress the research staff or peers.” This should read, “For future
studies, a research associate who does not interact with the participants will administer the survey
to each participant individually, so participants are not pressured to impress the research staff
or peers.”
Title: Assessing the Relationship between Body Image and Quality of Life among Rural and
Urban Breast Cancer Survivors in China
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
This is a cross-sectional study assessing the relationship between body image and quality of life
among rural and urban breast cancer survivors in China. The study found that body image is
associated with physical and mental well-being in Chinese breast cancer survivors, suggesting
that incorporating interventions that address body image issues can help breast cancer survivors
enhance quality of life. The study idea was not particularly novel, however, the research
design and analyses were appropriate and the manuscript is well-written. The findings address
psychosocial well-being, which is clinically important patient outcome, in association with self-
reported body image in both urban and rural breast cancer survivors in China. There are several
minor suggestions that the authors can consider:
1. Introduction
1) Overall length of the introduction appears to be too extensive and need to be shortened to
provide a concise background of the study.
2. Methods
1) Please provide ethics approval information (i.e., intuition, IRB numbers)
2) How was convenience sampling conducted?
3. Discussion
1) It would be worth discussing if there were differences in QoL depending on the type of surgery
(not as a covariate, but potentially subgroup analysis). Also, it would be interesting to see the
types of cancer surgery are different between urban and rural cancer survivors.
Title: Knowledge, attitude and practice of female university students regarding human
papillomavirus and self-sampling in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a cross-sectional survey
Version: 1 Date: 30 Aug 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the chance to review this article.
Despite good overall merit, I have some minor comments:
How many patients had a pregnancy or are pregnant at the moment of the survey?
Please discuss about relationship between cervical cancer and pregnancy (eg doi 10.1002/
jcp.28340).
Please better discuss about costs of self collection (eg doi
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33759)
Title: Knowledge, attitude and practice of female university students regarding human
papillomavirus and self-sampling in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a cross-sectional survey
Version: 2 Date: 09 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer Notes - 09 February 2022
BMC Women’s Health
Ref: Submission ID c9e6168d-4643-4170-a9a8-9bac818f0676
Full Title: Knowledge, attitude and practice of female university students regarding human
papillomavirus and self-sampling in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a cross-sectional survey.
General comments:
I would like to thank the authors for the substantive revisions as suggested by the previous
reviewer round. There is now more clarity on the argument for this manuscript and the chosen
methodology. Well done!
Background
• Addressed sufficiently
• Line 211 -212, “to the best of my knowledge”. Please consider rephrasing to “the best of our
knowledge”
Methodology
• Addressed sufficiently
Results
• Addressed sufficiently
Title: Ecological factors influencing parenting self-efficacy among working mothers with a
child under 36 month old in South Korea : a cross#sectional and correlational study
Version: 2 Date: 26 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Azita Fathnezhad-kazemi
Reviewer's report:
Dear Author
The authors have conducted a cross-sectional study to determine Ecological factors influencing
parenting self-efficacy among working mothers with a child under 36 months old in South Korea.
The manuscript is well written, however, I have some comments.
Comments
Please state that Did you check the normality of data?
Please write standard deviation in the parenthesis like this Mean (SD)
Please explain more about models 1 to 4 in Table 4
Title: Ecological factors influencing parenting self-efficacy among working mothers with a
child under 36 month old in South Korea : a cross#sectional and correlational study
Version: 3 Date: 26 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor in chief of the BMC Women's Health
The study entitled  "Ecological factors influencing parenting self-efficacy among working
mothers with a child under 36 month old in South Korea : a cross#sectional and correlational
study" is accepted with no comment
Best regards
M. Azizi
Title: Clinical Analysis of 44 Cases of Atypical Polypoid Adenomyoma of the Uterus
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- To date, the combination of transvaginal ultrasound and hysteroscopy is recommended to plan
an appropriate management of intrauterine disease. Authors should stress this point, referring
to:  PMID: 25022557; PMID: 29082726.
- I would suggest to stress the potential correlation between adenomyosis and endometrial cancer
occurrence (authors may refer to: PMID: 32497607; PMID: 33098396).
Title: Clinical Analysis of 44 Cases of Atypical Polypoid Adenomyoma of the Uterus
Version: 0 Date: 30 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written  basic clinicopathologic  study of a sizable cohort with good clinical follow
up hysteroscopic and radiologic correlation. I think it adds to the growing body of literature
which focuses on the diagnostic criteria as opposed to ancillary techniques. I recommend
accepting without revision.
Title: Increased serum LOXL2 concentration in pelvic inflammatory disease with pelvic
adhesion
Version: 1 Date: 30 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest
opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors
should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style.
- Pelvic Inflammatory Syndrome shares many similarities with endometriosis, especially
considering the latter as a pro-inflammatory condition. - Accumulating evidence suggests that
immune cells, adhesion molecules, extracellular matrix metalloproteinase and pro-inflammatory
cytokines activate/alter peritoneal microenvironment, creating the conditions for differentiation,
adhesion, proliferation and survival of ectopic endometrial cells. I would discuss these points in
the light of new theories about the pathogenesis of endometriosis, referring to: PMID: 26739265;
PMID: 28100109; PMID: 31717614.