Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Anxiety and depression among infertile women: a cross -sectional survey from Hungary  
 
Version: 1 Date: 16 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Andrew Edmonds  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have conscientiously c onsidered the reviewers' comments, as and such, the revised 
manuscript has been strengthened. While the majority of suggestions were incorporated, there 
are still some items that would be worth considering. For example, while the authors did mention 
that o nline data collection precluded clear determination of whether respondents met inclusion 
criteria, I think it could be explicitly acknowledged that there is no verification whatsoever of 
respondents (as there was no phone call or clinic follow -up of these women). We have no idea 
whether respondents are who they said they are. It is mentioned that informed consent was 
obtained but details are lacking; for online respondents, did study staff call people by phone to 
obtain consent (I think not?), or did "infor med consent" simply consist of checking a box online? 
I still find the "willingness" criterion for fertility to be unclear, even though the authors have now 
provided details about fertility categorization in the response document. If a woman is sexually 
active and did not conceive for a year, but she doesn't want to have a baby (perhaps her husband 
is pressuring to have a baby but she doesn't want to), I would think she would be infertile. 
Feelings about liking to have a baby would not figure into categoriz ation of a biological process 
(fertile vs. infertile), I'd assume, but if you do use this definition, it seems that mentioning it as a 
limitation (and potential source of misclassification) would not be a bad idea. Giving 
explanations in the response docum ent is helpful, but if you don't make changes in the paper, 
readers will still likely have the same questions I did (e.g., 2.38: what is the "normative" 
Hungarian female population of the same age? If you don't reference the Hungarostudy, the 
reader will n ot know). The specification of variables in models is still not provided in the 
response document or the paper itself (2.41). I think the authors did a good job considering 
reviewer feedback in general but if these points are addressed the paper would be e ven stronger.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 t o 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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manus cript:  
 
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, fu nding, 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 al l 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 n ame 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 availa ble under a n 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