Reviewer’s report
Title: 
The association between endometriosis and risk of endometrial cancer and
breast cancer: A meta-analysis.
Version: 
0 
Date: 
05 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
- The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal. 
- The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of
reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references.
- Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap how your study differs from
what has already been done in literature to ascertain the contributions more
strongly.
- More explanation is needed for where there is a research gap and what the
goals of the research are. The research gap and the goals of the research are not
explained in detail which leads to the reader missing the significance of the
research.
- This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with authors
previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this
work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous
publications.
- Methods section determines the results. Kindly focus on three basic elements of
the methods section.
a. How the study was designed?
b. How the study was carried out?
c. How the data were analyzed?
- It is suggested to add articles entitled "Omotoso et al. Practice of Breast Self-
Examination and Knowledge of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening", "Barca
et al. Indoor Radon Concentration and Risk Estimation: the EURA PROJECT"
and "Ronco et al. Epidemiologic Evidence for Association between a High
Dietary Acid Load and the Breast Cancer Risk" to the literature review.
- Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be
provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results
should be made.
- For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight
major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome
them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction. 
- Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the
particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the
authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of
these parameters on the results?
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. 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
No
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?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes