Reviewer’s report  
 
Title:  Follicular flushing increases the number of oocytes retrieved in poor ovarian responders 
undergoing in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort study  
 
Version:  1 Date:  24 Sep 2018  
 
Reviewer:  Reviewer  2 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
"REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER:  
 
Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a 
technically sound contribution? Yes  
 
Reviewer comments: The discussion is fuller and more rounded. It remains  interesting and 
relevant  
 
I would still like the authors to explain to explain their SOP in the text of the paper rather than in 
the notes back to the Editor and reviewers as it is still unclear why you would record this data 
prospectively outside of a tr ial" 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 t hat may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscrip t, 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, eit her n ow 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 inter ests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing inter ests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid r egardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
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 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://creativec ommons.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