Title: Ovarian Response to Controlled Stimulation and Its Predictors in a Limited-resource
Setting
Version: 3 Date: 02 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you so much for sharing this important work. This study investigated “Success Rate of
Controlled Ovarian Stimulation and Its Predictors among Women Enrolled in the First Cycle
of Ovulation Induction at a Fertility Center in Ethiopia: I think the question is sound and the
findings are also somewhat interesting. I, however, have a few areas in your manuscript that
could be clarified for better understanding.
Comments
A. General.
# A number line is not given for ease of assessment.
# Double line spacing is not used.
# There are too many grammatical and spelling errors as well as wrong use of tenses that make
significant portions of the text very difficult to understand, also wrong uses of capital letters
and punctuation marks.
# Overall, the entire document needs some revision or clarification.
# The whole document also should be structured as per the guidelines of the journal.
B. Title
# The word “Predictors” is not appropriate for your study design. Better to replace with
“Associated factors”.
# The title does not describe the content that the document contains. Better to present a title
that includes a study design like this “Success Rate of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation and
Associated Factors among Women Enrolled in the First Cycle of Ovulation Induction at a
Fertility Center in Ethiopia: Institution-based cross-sectional Study”.
C. Abstract
# Your too-long abstract (442 words). It should not exceed 350 words. Therefore, better to make
precise and as per the journal guidelines.
# You have mentioned bivariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses in your
methods section. There is a great difference b/n Multivariable and multivariate. In my opinion,
multivariable is the appropriate term in your case.
D. Background
# Change your headings of “Introduction” into “Background”
# What is known and not known about the problem is not well described.
# What interventions have been taken to solve the problem is not described.
# There is no concluding statement in your background section.
E. Methods
# First, change your headings “METHODS AND MATERIALS” into simply “Methods”
# Better to say “Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (good/poor) instead of “Number of oocytes
retrieved”
# Better to describe the measure of the strength of association between variables in your “Data
Processing and Statistical Analysis” section.
F. Result and discussion
# Tables 1 and 2 are not self-explanatory. Better to make your title of the table answer “what,
where, when…” questions.
# Your figure caption is not self-explanatory.
# Better to describe your association between variables using AOR
# The discussion section did not include some important papers and some considerations are
not justified by the results
# Your discussion does not show the implications of the findings in the context of existing
research.
G. Conclusions
# First, Change “CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS” into simply “Conclusions”
H. References
# Some of your references are too old like: ref. numbers 3, 5, etc.
After all the paper is potentially publishable once the authors revise their manuscript based on
the comments and recommendations given accordingly.