Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Quality of life, its factors, and sociodemographic characteristics of Polish women with lipedema
Version: 
1 
Date: 
07 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
Thank you again for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. Following the revision, the
manuscript has been much improved. There are still some points that need to be addressed before
publication. Some of these were discussed in the authors' responses to reviewer comments but not fully
addressed within the manuscript itself, as shown below: 
Title: I understand the intent of using the word "determinants" in the title but wonder if it could mislead
readers about what was investigated in the study as the data in this study was cross-sectional; perhaps
using the word factors or such might be a better fit. 
Thank you for addressing that the rationale for the current study has been provided in a number of ways
throughout the document; the original comment and raised here again, was intended to point out that the
rationale (in a way that sets up the aim for the current study) is not fully explicit (e.g., why is it important
to understand these factors among Polish women; how might nationally representative data assist in
improving practice/treatment etc?) The original comment was: "Rationale for the current study is based on
the fact the sociodemographic, quality of life and clinical characteristics of Polish women with lipedema
has not been previously scientifically described. This could be strengthened by stating why this is
important and what the research knowledge could help to progress." Some text has been inserted to better
demonstrate where this is needed. 
"However, the prevalence of lipedema, patients' quality of life, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and
psychological functioning in Poland have not previously been scientifically investigated [18]. This
knowledge is needed…. In this study, for the first time, we sought to evaluate and describe the
sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of Polish women with lipedema and to investigate their
quality of life."
Regarding participant response rate - how many members does the online support group have and
therefore what response rate does 130 equate to? 
Thank you for responding to the comment above within your responses, however, it does not yet appear to
have been included in the revised manuscript - therefore, in line 1, page 7 "overall, 130 women responded
to the survey" still does not provide any context for understanding response rate. 
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 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?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes