Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Economic burden of symptomatic iron deficiency - A Survey among Swiss women  
 
Version: 2 Date: 18 Apr 2018  
 
Reviewer: Michèle Dramaix -Wilmet  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is an interesting paper, clearly presented but I have a few questions (in particular on the 
metho dology) and remarks listed below.  
 
Methods  
- Selection of the persons included in the consumer panels: was the % of non -respondents 
important?  
 
- Why were Italian speaking women excluded from the ID survey?  
 
- How was the sample size determined? On what basis was it computed?  
 
- p. 4, line 72: "Within the survey population", does it means the whole sample from the 
consumer panels (> 130'000 active)? In which analyses were the weights applied?  
 
- Data collection: we re questionnaires completed on line by participants or administrated by 
telephone by an investigator?  
 
- Spearman correlation coefficient: why does it not provide reliable estimate of effect size? 
Cannot it be interpreted as a Pearson's correlation coefficie nt using a rule a thumb for 
interpretation such as for example those listed below?  
 
 <0.3 :"very weak"  
 
 0.3-<0.5 : "moderate"  
 
 0.5-0.8 : "strong"  
 
 0.8-1.0 "very strong"  
 
Such an interpretation has been done for the two correlation coefficients presented  p.10. 
However, one usual assumption to use Spearman's correlation coefficient is that the two 
variables should be measured on an ordinal or continuous scale (i.e., interval or ratio scale) and it 
seems that one of the two variables used to compute correla tion coefficient p. 10 was 
dichotomous (presence of misdiagnosis or sick leave). In that case, Wilcoxon - Mann -Whitney 
test is usually used, it provides the same P -value and the difference between the medians of the 
two groups can provide an idea of effect  size.   
 
Results  
- Figure 1: 266 women (18%) with missing information were eliminated, were the 
characteristics of these women not too different from those of women included in the 
analyses?  
 
- p. 7, lines 154 -155: "weeks until a medical doctor was consulte d": mean and median are very 
different, so there should be high values for this number of weeks, what's the range for this 
variable?  
 
- p.8, lines 171 -174: what's the test used to compare mean number of consultations and mean 
duration of sick leave? Were the se two variables normally distributed? The methodology 
refers to 3 tests: t, Mann -Whitney and Chi²; where are these tests applied?  
 
- p. 9, line 188: what's the range for sensitivity analysis? Is it 20% of 9.5%? How was this 
value chosen?  
 
Discussion  
- p. 11 , line 246: "if they are aware of their ID condition or not", this is not clear for me. Can 
the undiagnosed patients be aware of their ID condition?  
 
Figures  
- Figure 4: what does it means "ranked impact"? The two most important factors impacting 
daily livi ng negatively are not at the top or bottom of the graph.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well 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 adequately 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review ? 
If an additional statistical review is recommended, 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 manuscri pt: 
 
Acceptable  
 
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either no w 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  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
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 an Open Access C reative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal