Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Sequential E2 Levels not Ovarian Maximal Diameter Estimates were Correlated with  
Outcome of Cetrotide Therapy for Management of Women at High -risk of Ovarian  
Hyperst imulation Syndrom e :Arandomised Controlled Study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 May 2017  
 
Reviewer: Elijah Onwudiwe  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
REVIEWER'S COMMENT BMC -WH 
 
1. There are some grammatical errors on the manuscript. The author should do the 
corrections as indicated on the tract changes.  
 
 
2. I don't know if the author used only GnRH agonist for the stimulation or FSH/HMG 
because am aware that the agonist is used for the purposes of downregulation and not 
stimulation as alluded by the author.  
 
 
3. The author should indicate in the methodology how the severity of nausea and vomitting 
was measured  
 
 
4. Did the author consider the renal function tests of the participants to this study since renal 
dysfunction is associated with OHSS and the Cetrotide i s also excreted via the renals.  
 
 
5. The author evaluated the efficacy but not safety of Cetrotide as stated in his aims.  
 
 
6. The discussion flow is deficient as the author did more of the literature review of other 
authors without putting his own study in p erspective  
 
 
7. The author should look at his aim again as it did not mention anything about the E2 and 
OMD but mentioned only the safety and efficacy of cetrotide  
 
 
8. The author should include a flow chart on randomization  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and we ll described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequa tely supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommende d, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being  published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publi cation of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you curr ently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any  other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that i have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named rep ort 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understa nd that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal