Reviewer’ s report
Title: Prognostic factors for future mental, physical and urogenital health and work ability in
women, 45-55 years. A six-year prospective longitudinal cohort study.
Version: 0Date: 14 Jan 2020
Reviewer's report:
Review of the research Article BMWH-D-19-00748 from BMC Women's Health
Prognostic factors for work ability and health in women in "middle of life", 45-55 years, attendingprimary health care. A six-year prospective longitudinal cohort study.Lena Rindner, Lena Nordeman, Gunilla Strömme, Irene Svenningsson, Åsa Premberg, DominiqueHange, Ronny Gunnarsson, Gun RembeckFinal Decision: The article is required the critical changes before possible publication.
Main Reasons for Critical Changes:
*The first question is about the characteristics of the study cohort. The term "middle age" is notacceptable. It is not clear what age classification the authors used for this study (for decades - 45-54 is correct, not 55, WHO classification - 15-yars terms...). The term "perimenopausal age" or"menopausal transision" might be appropriate, but there is no information regarding themenopausal status in this study accordind to "Limitation" part as well as Cohort characteristic orResults.*The authors use 2 terms "prognostic factors" and "predictive factors" in this article. This isabsolutely not correct because they are not the same. It is necessary to determine that the authorsstudy.*Analysis of novelty revealed that it was narrated poorly. Some clarification and additions are
required.
Additional questions...
*The Purpose is different in first and second Abstract and Main Text. The most appropriated one ispresented in Main text.*The term "health" (tittle-aim) is very wide and should be clarified. Later authors narrated thatthey studied psychological, physical and urogenital health (it not presented as Keywords).*Author should re-check the Keywords list. Some words should be re-assessed and deleted-added.*The first and second Abstracts have a different Method part.*The Introduction is long with repeating thoughts and is difficult to perceive (should be rewordedand shortened). Two parts from "Women's health" should be combined; part "The remainingdilemma"should be more specific.*It is unclear why the authors from the first sentence emphasize "mental stress". They did notstudied this points in the study.*Abbreviation "OECD" should be presented in full view.*The sentence "Work ability and work is an important part of life…" should be re-assessed andchanged (Introduction).
*Authors should clarify the size of studied population (131 participants - in Abstract, no
information in Methods part, 110 women in Results (first paragraph), Table 1(first assessment) -71).*The authors narrated that they used questionaries (1 or 2 times and when?). It should be added.*In "Data collection" (Methods) authors wrote that they assessed the menopause status, in"Strengths and limitations" they narrated "we did not include information about being pre andpost-menopausal". It should be clarified. It is unclear whether the age of menopause has beentaken into account.*The term "health" in "Data collection" (Methods part) is very wide. What does it mean
(comorbidity, etc.)
*The term "Cardiovascular hystory" in "Data collection" (Methods part) is very wide and shouldbe changes. İt is not only high blood pressure, myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular disease.
*Inclusion criteria should be expanded. Exclusion criteria should be added. Previously, authorswrote that they included healthy women, but this is not explained more precisely in the Methodssection.*Results part. Current medication for high blood pressure was reported at the end of this study butinformation at baseline is missed.*"Strengths and Limitations" interrupt the discussion and should be moved below.*Tables. It is unclear why mean and median are presented in Table 1. The data should be presentedaccording to distributions of parameters. The information about SF-36 score at baseline is missed.*The data presentation in Table 1 should be clarified (%, in brackets...).*The titles of Tables 3(a-c) are not correct. It is not "Predictors", but it is results form logisticregression analysis.*It is unclear what does it mean "The active group intervention". It shold be clarified early (notonly in table).*Abbreviations in titles (Table 3b and c) should be presented in full view for better perception.*Figure 1 should be re-assessed according study design.
After all necessary corrections have been made, the article should be revised again to assess the
possibility of publication.
With best wishes, Reviewer
Prof. Nataliia GrygorievaInstitute of Gerontology named after D.F.Chebotarev NAMS of Ukraine
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment 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:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 interestsI 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 reportincluding 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 Creative 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 included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal