Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Blood Loss from Transverse Versus Longitudinal Uterine Incision in Abdominal Myomectomy: A
Randomized Controlled Trial
Version: 
4 
Date: 
03 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
The authors summarily responded to the reviewers' queries, reporting their comments and the changes that
were suggested during the review. 
I believe that the manuscript can now be accepted without problems.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to Publons (a
subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes”
option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal, and date of
your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the
manuscript. If you have already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and
update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will
receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on
your new profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of
Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing
in Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 publication 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 currently 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'
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative
Commons CC-BY License (
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published report have been included as
confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing the
review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to
include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change
your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use of appropriate controls), and
are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent manipulation?
Yes