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: 19 Jun 2017  
 
Reviewer: Mário Sousa  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
- -A better definition of the control group is necessary regarding the ovulation trigger.  
 
 
 
- -Why AA did not use antagGnRH as ovulation induction and agGnRH f or ovulation 
trigger, when necessary, as this scheme avoids OHSS?  
 
 
 
- -In AA Hospital, from how many patients these 48 OHSS cases derived? It was IVF or 
ICSI? For all, what was the CP rate, the IR and the LBDR? And the luteal support? It 
would be better if AA  describe the stimulation, gamete and embryo handling procedures. 
Why AA did not use the other patients as controls additionally?  
 
 
 
- -Is it correct to have moderate and severe OHSS patients without treatment besides 
avoiding embryo transfer (control group)?  
 
 
 
- -Table 5: where is day 8?  
 
 
- -the 3 cases with hospitalization for antiemetic and crystalloid replacement fluid therapy 
had not paracentesis?  
 
 
 
- -of the hospitalized cases there were no other complications?: thrombosis, pleural 
effusion?  
 
 
- -what AA mean with "both therapeutic policies" in cases treated with antagGnRH as 
trigger?  
 
 
 
- -do AA with "favorable outcome" mean "no dangerous complications"?  
 
 
 
- -why AA did not discuss the antagGnRH protocol and the agGnRH as trigger?  
 
 
- -please verify if there  are not any articles on the subject from 2017.  
 
 
 
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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