Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Association between body mass index and fragility fracture in
postmenopausal women: a cross-sectional study using Korean National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2009 (KNHANES IV)
Version: 
0 
Date: 
03 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
Comments 
1. Under abstract
1.1..In the conclusion part:the recommendation of exercise and regular
examinations of bone density were not supported by evidences. These are,
scientific recommendations, not based on the result of this study.
1.2. Keywords : usually written A-Z orders
2. Methods: 
2.1. 
Definitions and measurements; 
For fragility fractures, responses to the question "Have you experienced fragility
fractures?...."Not Applicable" were allocated to a group with no fragility
fractures because the reasoning
for responding with "Not Applicable" would have to be that "they haven't
experienced it yet."This is not good reason. If it was the same with "No", why it
was asked like this initially. 
"Not applicable" may also 
include those who have
amputation or surgery for some reasons (like tumors, road traffic accidents). 
So,
you should analyze in other group or think other options.Thus may affect the
findings.
2.2.....In the health behavior questionnaire, those who responded with "smoking"
to the question
on "Current smoking status" was classified as "current smoker" and those who
responded with "smoked in the past but quit" and "Never smoked" as "none."
Questions: 1. there is no time frame to say current smoker or none. What the
time frame to a "current smoker" or none. 
2. The other question will be why
"smoked in the past but quit" and "never smoker" grouped to the same
group.Because the effect/side effect of smoking might already occurred before
they discontinued.3. how many cigarettes per a day should smoked to say
"smoker". 
I suggest regroup or find another options.
results
waist circumference 
results were mentioned but there is no explanation how it
was measured.Please explain under the methods how it was measured and cut
points to say normal or abnormal.
Discussions
...the paragraph about limitations is not good. It should include the limitation of
the study not the methodology type limitations.
Conclusions
Questions: 
1. the conclusion is not to the standard 
2. The is no evidence (findings from this research ) to make 
a conclusion about
weight loss/gain,exercise, regular examination. These are text book
recommendations not this research findings.
3. The conclusion and recommendation part should be re-write based the results
of this research
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 upon publication of the manuscript. 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
Yes
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?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes