Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The prevalence  of primary ovarian insufficiency in Sweden; a national register study.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 18 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Aleksandar Rajkovic  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of yo ur report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
The authors responded to some of my queries, but few were unsatisfactory responses. For 
example, in question 1, I asked for denominators, of the registries, and the author states that these 
are all same from Swedish Medical Birth Register. What about Presc ribed Drug Register, and 
Patient Register?   I do think that stating what was the numerator and denominator in these two 
registries from which data was derived  is important for the reader. For example, is incidence of 
POI 10% in PDR, versus 0.5%PR? It wou ld be nice to know these numbers as part of the 
discussion regarding under or over estimates in different registries.  The response to 
hysterectomies is also inadequate. Hysterectomy is known to significantly affect ovarian function 
and authors should stat e, why hysterectomy alone was no included, and briefly discuss it.  
Perhaps in Sweden few women get them prior to age 40?  
 
 
 
 
 
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 addition al 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 gai n 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 fu ture?  
 
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' below  
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, i f 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 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