{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016981132075471698, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037735849056603774, 'mean_word_length': 5.50920245398773, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Authors' reply re: Evaluation of treatments for Bartholin's cyst or abscess: a systematic review

interventions in terms of patient acceptance, overall satisfaction and longterm outcome. Also, this analysis compiled data from countries where health services are provided by the private and/or the government sector where the financial incentives for performing procedures vary widely. The article does not elaborate on the proportion of women who had received pharmacological treatment for varying durations before these surgical interventions, which undoubtedly may have influenced the outcome. The analysis also does not include any study where marsupialisation was performed under local anaesthetic, which may be equally if not more effective than the Word catheter at equal cost. In light of the current worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, expertise in minimally more invasive gynaecological procedures to be performed in the office setting would also be a key point of consideration. We look forward to the authors’ comments on these factors.&