JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Outcome and associated factors of high-risk human papillomavirus infection without
cervical lesions
Version: 0 Date: 29 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
Comments to Author:
Title:  Outcome of high-risk human papillomavirus infection in the female genital tract and its
associated factors
I enjoy reading the manuscript of Feng et al, which investigates the outcome of HPV infection
in women with cervical pathology results of non-CIN or cervical cancer and positive high-risk
HPV test, as well as analyzes the associated risk factors affecting the outcome of infection.
A few minor things:
Please add more recent references
The paragraph of Conclusions  in the abstract can be summarized in this  sentence
“These findings suggest that non-young women or those with high viral loads have a higher rate
of persistent HR-HPV infection. Thus, intensive screening should be recommended. “
Keyword: Can add cervical cancer
Introduction: Good introduction
In paragraph 1.2.1.2
Line 9-10, please add the recent  reference
1.2.4 Questionnaires
Please refer to it by a number in the references or a copy in the index
2.2 Outcome of HR-HPV infection
Line 4, Spontaneous, please check it with abstract
Please uniform the terms either Natural to  Spontaneous, or vs. versa
Line 6, “was 13 months (6-21 months) “Please check it with abstract
The figure 2, Put it in paragraph 1.2
2.5 Association of other factors with the natural clearance of HPV infection
Line  5, “the factors significantly associated with HPV clearance rate and time to HPV clearance
consisted of menopause and full-term delivery (P < 0.05). “ this result can add to the abstract.
3. Discussion
Good, but  please add more recent references
Reference:
Please put more recent references
Title: Outcome and associated factors of high-risk human papillomavirus infection without
cervical lesions
Version: 2 Date: 16 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Title: Outcome and associated factors of high-risk human papillomavirus infection without
cervical lesions
After a careful review of the new issue, the authors have attended to most of the previous
requirements, For example, some new recent citations have been added to support their
hypothesis.
Title: Outcome and associated factors of high-risk human papillomavirus infection without
cervical lesions
Version: 2 Date: 26 Dec 2022
Reviewer:  Wisam Akram
Reviewer's report:
.  The English editing and correction of fonts and spacing is strongly advised
2.  Revise the methods section in your abstract and include the study type and parameters tested
and how.
3.  Introduction Kindly define abbreviation, especially in line 122=127
Line 134-140 ??? Rephrase unclearly
4.  Methods: study type is missing, steps of study and flow are unclear. Inclusion and exclusion
needs revision to be clear. Kindly add a clear description to the figure of how exclusion was
done and at which stage. What about OCCP and smoking? PCOS, DM? drugs like aspirin??
Steroid. Kindly describe in simple terms what is your follow-up period for the patients; there are
too many contradictions. In Kaplan Meier, you seem to follow for 10 months, while in methods,
you say 6 months. Which is true?
5.  Line 225 adds a reference to the Bethesda system
6.  What do you mean by cystotomy position  ?? line 251.
7.  Sample size calculation is usually presented as the final number. Where is it??
8.  Statistics kindly check them; there are too many tables and figures that have the same
meaning ; which weakens the impact of the result .check with your statistician's pleas and revise
them in a more concise way. They are unclear and seem to be [over statistic analysis]
9.  Many contradicting result about risk factors and those who were in good agreement with your
results were not discussed. Add a brief explanation of the risk factors
Title: Outcome and associated factors of high-risk human papillomavirus infection without
cervical lesions
Version: 5 Date: 24 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you to send me this abstract but there is few notes to be corrected:
1.in the abstract the author should change the statement that the follow up  should continue if
the CIN lesion is discovered
2.in the follow up also the same statement should be changed that if the CIN lesion is discovered
follow up continue because CIN either mild or moderate or severe before it change to malignant
and sometimes mild CIN can regress to normal so follow up is  useful for CIN changes
Title: Outcome and associated factors of high-risk human papillomavirus infection without
cervical lesions
Version: 6 Date: 20 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Nora Sabah Rasoul
Reviewer's report:
Dr. Nora Sabah Rasoul
Dear authors
Thank you for your answers to my comments and suggestions. The manuscript is now way
clearer than before but please explain this statement for the  readers in line 180 regarding LSIL
& AUSCUS" or AUSCU or LISL, cervical pathology results for non-CIN or cervical cancer
cervical" .
Title: Factors Associated with Psychological Burden of breast cancer in women in Morocco:
cross#sectional study
Version: 0 Date: 23 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this work entitled "Factors Associated with Psychological
Burden of breast cancer in women in Morocco: cross#sectional study"  which aims to estimate
the prevalence, as well as the predictors, of anxiety and depression in women with breast cancer.
it is very nice study and I believe it is important. some comments were raised and need to be
addressed.
1. introduction : well written but very long! please try to be focused and to the point. many
paragraphs are suitable for discussion section.
2. check the  requested referencing style
3. methods and results very well written, Thank you!
4. discussion section: this section needs to be re-organized, remove the subheading and try to
focus on the most important findings which critical interpretation. at the end of this section
highlight the clinical implication of your work.
Title: Body image dissatisfaction and its relation to body mass index among female medical
students in Sudan: A cross-sectional study 2020-2021
Version: 1 Date: 25 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Ayse Gökçe
Reviewer's report:
First of all, the subject of this study is very important for public health.
The fact that it was conducted in women despite studies conducted in the general population
will make the subject more explanatory in this respect.
I would like to thank the authors in this respect
In the method section of the manuscript, please indicate how BMI was calculated and how it
was divided into groups with the source.
Title: Body image dissatisfaction and its relation to body mass index among female medical
students in Sudan: A cross-sectional study 2020-2021
Version: 1 Date: 04 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
I would like to congratulate all the authors for this article that addresses the issue of body
image dissatisfaction, which can sometimes lead to obsession and malpractice all over the world,
especially among young women.
However, there are important errors and omissions that need to be addressed.
Why female medical students were selected for the study should be explained in the introduction.
The population size (the number of all female students studying at HU Faculty of Medicine in
2020-2021) should be given in the sample size and sampling section.
The study is said to be conducted online, so it is not clear what kind of simple random
sampling method was applied. The study appears to have been conducted using non-probability
convenience sampling.
The literature sources used to create the questionnaire should be cited.
The discussion section should be developed using current literature to include all findings.
Title: Investigating the Trends of Incidence Rates of Breast Cancer in Southern Iran: A
Population Based Survey
Version: 1 Date: 21 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
Overall, this paper is well-written with a clear focus on investigating the incidence trends of
breast cancer in Southern Iran, offering valuable insights into disease prevalence, patterns, and
trends in this region. However, several areas need to be resolved:
Abstract
• In Results, rather than simply stating they are increasing, but at a decreasing rate, you could
include some specific statistics or percentages. The abstract needs to be clearer about how
exactly the trends have changed over time.
• Please ensure that all acronyms, technical jargon, and specific codes are clearly defined or
explained, to ensure comprehension by a broad audience.
Introduction
• Provide references to support the claim that the prevalence of risk factors for breast cancer has
changed globally over the past few decades.
• The introduction could benefit from sources that are more specific to the study’s context and
aims.
Methods
• Clarify what is meant by ‘stratum-specific mid-year population’. Is this a standard
epidemiological term? It needs further definition.
• Please clarify the study design, is it retrospective or prospective?
• Elaborate on the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study.
• The data analysis section describes the use of joinpoint regression software but does not
sufficiently explain why this particular method was chosen on how it works. Provide more
information about the choice and the use of this statistical tool.
• Under ethical considerations, mention if any personal data were de-identified or if any measures
were taken to ensure patient confidentiality.
Results
• Please describe whether any regression model diagnosis for the joinpoint regression model has
been conducted. If so, please include the model evaluation results.
Discussion and conclusion
• Mention if there are any limitations of the data ie any issues with missing data.
• The mention of male breast cancer is brief. Provide more context, such as whether the 2.45% of
male cases represents an increasing or stable trend, which would give a more complete picture
of breast cancer in the population.
• The recommendation to lower the age of breast cancer screening from 50 to 40 years is a
significant proposition and should ideally be supported by more rigorous data. While your study
provides important insights, additional studies focusing on the cost-effectiveness and potential
benefits and harms of this change in policy would provide a more complete basis for such a
recommendation.
• Include potential future work after discussing the limitations of your study.
• You mentioned both increasing and decreasing trends in the discussion. However, the reasons
behind this pattern and their implications aren’t clearly explained. For example, why is the trend
increasing less in recent years?
Title: Investigating the Trends of Incidence Rates of Breast Cancer in Southern Iran: A
Population Based Survey
Version: 2 Date: 06 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I want to extend my appreciation to the authors for their thorough
responses to my previous comments. Overall, I'm content with the responses, but there are two
specific comments that require further attention.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In my previous comment 2, I suggested that the authors provide the specific numbers for each age
group of the study area and worldwide (in 2000), as this information is crucial for calculating the
standardized incidence rate. Unfortunately, no relevant data has been provided in the manuscript
(or as a supplemental material) yet.
In my previous comment 7, regarding the questionable non-linear lines with ascending trends
for upper outer quadrant breast cancer in Figure 7, the authors replied, 'APCs are calculated
on a logarithmic scale, which yields an exponential trend on the original scale.' This response
does not address my question. I did not inquire about APCs in this context. The thing is, the
original rates did not exhibit any trend, whether linear or exponential. It is not appropriate to fit
an exponential trend to the original rates as what shown in the figure.
Additionally, please provide the STROBE checklist with corresponding page numbers for each
item as a supplementary file .
Title: Investigating the Trends of Incidence Rates of Breast Cancer in Southern Iran: A
Population Based Survey
Version: 3 Date: 01 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I appreciate that the authors responded to my previous comments
thoroughly. I’m satisfied with the current version and have no more comments.
Title: Investigating Influencing Factors on Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) among Female
College Students
Version: 2 Date: 19 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Hadi Tehrani
Reviewer's report:
I applaud the authors for conducting an interesting article. However, minor is still needed to
improve the quality of this paper. Please revise the manuscript to address the expressed concerns.
After thorough review, I am recommending some revisions. In this regard, kindly address the
following comments and suggestions to further improve your manuscript
Please write the date and country of study in both abstract and Method section
The introduction need some revision. You could summarize this section a bit more for
readers. Write about the problems, the novelty of your study, and your study goals within the
introduction. The limitations of prior research might also be mentioned by the authors as further
support for their present investigation.
The novelty of your work must be discussed , it seems it is so weak
The methods need to be improved by providing more detail information related to participant’s
selection (e.g. respond rate; necessary permissions from who? How did the researcher contact
the potential participants?)
The materials & methods section is relatively immature. You could expand it a bit more clearly
for readers. For example, write the year and the name of place in which you had done this survey.
Furthermore, write about all applied exclusion and inclusion criteria a bit more clearly by which
you selected samples for this survey.
Mention the possible score (range) for each scales and meaning of it so easier to readers interpret
the results.
In the discussion section I would like to see a more profound discussion about the findings.
What is the meaning of your results in light of earlier studies. The discussion should be more
than only a repetition of the results accompanied by some arbitrary studies. in sum, the authors
need to state how the research fills an identified knowledge gap and how the new knowledge
will be used to improve population
Title: Investigating Influencing Factors on Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) among Female
College Students
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I reviewed the article. I appreciate the researchers and authors. The following are suggested:
1. The title of the manuscript is somewhat ambiguous. What factors were the researchers
interested in? stimulatory, intensifying, sustaining, aggravating or protective factors?
2. The authors have written in several places that the samples of college students with
dysmenorrhea were selected, but in other parts and also the title of the manuscript, it seems that
the entire community of students was, not only those with dysmenorrhea.
3. Usually, when  Multiple t- tests are performed, the error rate increases.
4- PMS and PMDD are different and it seems that they are considered the same in the manuscript.
5. Table 1 has been deleted.
5. It is suggested that Table 2 be modified and completed.
Title: Investigating Influencing Factors on Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) among Female
College Students
Version: 4 Date: 15 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Hadi Tehrani
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised manuscript and detailed responses to my previous suggestions. I
find the revised manuscript to be much more clear and more comprehensible. Although the
authors responded to reviewer comments and addressed the issues identified, I believe that the
manuscript still requires some revisions to ensure it is suitable for publication in BMC women
Health. In this regard, kindly address the following comments and suggestions to further improve
your manuscript
1- The method section should be written coherently: To write a coherent procedure for a research
study, you should start by stating the design and type of study, as well as the time and place of
conducting the research
2- Discuss more about your sampling strategy? The structure of your sampling is so vague and
understandable. Did you have sampling frame? how did you access to this frame
3- What are the data extract’s center characteristics? is it governmental or private, is it referral
or not referral and so on, discuss more about it
4- The methods need to be improved by providing more detail information related to participant’s
selection (e.g. respond rate; necessary permissions from who? How did the researcher contact
the potential participants?)
Title: Comparative effects of lymphatic drainage and soft tissue mobilization on pain threshold,
shoulder mobility and quality of life in patients with axillary web syndrome after mastectomy
Version: 1 Date: 22 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Marlena Krawczyk-Suszek
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
The topic of rehabilitation among women after breast cancer is important and the quality of life
should be constantly monitored, especially with the expanded offer of physiotherapy services.
The manuscript is prepared correctly, but I would recommend:
1. I would consider rephrasing the sentence “The normality of data was assessed through the
Shapiro-Wilk test” as: The compliance of the variable distribution with the normal distribution
was verified using the Shapiro Wilk test.
2. Please use the abbreviation “ROM” earlier in the text where there is a full description
of the abbreviation. For people outside of physiotherapy, this may be an incomprehensible
abbreviation.
3. The references indicated in the article does not exhaust the topic, unless there is a limitation
of the references position by the journal. Otherwise, I recommend a wide range of references.
kind regards
Reviewer
Title: Spontaneous and induced abortions in women with a diagnosis of gestational related
neoplasm: a population-based linkage study in Lombardy, 2010-2020
Version: 0 Date: 25 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I would like to thank you for researching a topic that has become even more important with the
increase in women's cancers during the reproductive period.
Best wishes
Title: Spontaneous and induced abortions in women with a diagnosis of gestational related
neoplasm: a population-based linkage study in Lombardy, 2010-2020
Version: 0 Date: 05 May 2023
Reviewer:  Fatima Mutasher Swadi
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor i would like to thank you for your trust to allow me to revise this article
The overall wark is good
With the following simple notes
The title it should be chaneged into spontanous and induced abortion  in women with diagnosis
of gestational related noplasms better than pregnancy associated cancer.
And
Some of the abbreviation s have not been explained, should be mentioned
But the overall work is good
Title: Spontaneous and induced abortions in women with a diagnosis of gestational related
neoplasm: a population-based linkage study in Lombardy, 2010-2020
Version: 0 Date: 09 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
PAC is a notable issue affecting public health. The fact that there is limited data on this subject
in the literature makes the study valuable. I thank the authors for their quality contribution to
the literature. I would like to make a few suggestions to increase the quality and readability of
the article:
1. Kindly correct or explain the cancer-free women percentage and women with PAC percentage
in Table 2.
2. Please state briefly and concisely the objectives of the study and then the main results at the
beginning of the discussion.
3. Please make comments on the difference in abortion rates (60% vs. 27%) among women with
PAC compared to reference 3.
4. Kindly discuss possible causes of the higher rate of PAC among deliveries rather than
abortions in the last 2 years.
5. Please discuss the factors that may affect the outcome of pregnancy (i.e. delivery or abortion)
in women with PAC.
6. Please refrain from citing references in the conclusion section. Kindly indicate the results of
your study per the objectives stated in the abstract, its contribution to the literature, and finally,
your suggestions for future work. If the topic of oncological treatment in pregnancy is desired
to be discussed, please discuss it in a separate paragraph before the strengths and limitations of
the study, not in the conclusion.
Sincerely
Title: Spontaneous and induced abortions in women with a diagnosis of gestational related
neoplasm: a population-based linkage study in Lombardy, 2010-2020
Version: 0 Date: 12 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
Generally well written but might benefit from more nuanced analysis and clarification
- Among the 34 patients who aborted and had PAC diagnosis during gestation, which trimester
was the diagnosis made?
- Diagnosis post pregnancy was broken down to 0-3,4-6 and 7-12 months. What is the rationale
for this breakdown instead of eg. 0-6 months and 7-12 months or 0-3,4-6,7-9 and 10-12months?
- The type of cancer can impact risk of abortion eg. abdominal or gynaecological malignancies.
Was this examined?
- Among induced abortions how many were due to purely patient decision and how many were
due to diagnosed congenital abnormalities?
- How many patients received chemotherapy during gestation and were there subsequent
abortions due to congenital abnormalities?