Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Women born with very low birth weight have similar menstrual cycle pattern, pregnancy 
rates and hormone profiles compared with women born at term  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Oct 2018  
 
Reviewer: Robert Chatterton  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. Abstract: The statement that individuals born with low birth weight have a reduced 
likelihood to reproduce is not accurate.  In the deKeyser population study women born small 
for gestational age ha d a statistically increased rate of reproduction in the age 25 -27 group.  
This age is not substantially different from the age range in the present study so the 
hypothesis of low reproductive efficiency is not reasonable for this study.   
 
2. The authors in dicate that at the initial recruitment 27 of 38 VLBW subjects were SGA but 
not the proportion in the group that actually participated.   
 
3. In the study the proportion of VLBW women with children was not different from the 
control group so results of the h ormone measurements cannot be related to low reproductive 
efficiency.   
 
4. Table 2 does not show the number of subjects included.  Was this 24 in all cases?  
 
5. Table 3: The age at which samples were obtained should be indicted and information on the 
day of  the last menstrual period.  It was not reasonable to conduct a study in which so few of 
the subjects would be available for hormone testing.   As a result of having no information 
on the menstrual cycle and so few subjects, the power of the test is too lo w to report.    
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.  
 
No 
 
Are 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 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:  
 
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 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 receiv ed 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 i n 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 r eview 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 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 Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be i ncluded 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