Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Association between sleep quality and central obesity among southern
Chinese reproductive-aged women
Version: 
0 
Date: 
03 Jan 2021
Reviewer: 
Longla Acheliu
Reviewer's report:
Generally, the manuscript seeks to address a major public health issue in the
world and China. The writeup is clear enough, the ideas are well presented with
concise language and the outcome and predictor variables, including how they
were assessed, have been well-defined. However, I found a couple of issues
while going through the manuscript that if addressed can greatly improve on its
quality. These are outlined below. 
ABSTRACT
Background- Line 51- ..........may make them more vulnerable to suffer from
obesity not suffering obesity
- this section is also too long
Methods 
- 
line 59; either say women of reproductive age or women aged 18-49
years
- here I think you should mention the minimum sample size
- will be good to also include how you measured the contributions of the
predictor variables to central obesity 
Results 
- Also give the 95% confidence interval in addition to the odds ratios and
p-values
Conclusion- Looks like its a summary of the study findings. I think proposing
strategies that can be used to reduce the incidence of central obesity resulting
from poor quality sleep will 
be very impressive 
INTRODUCTION - Some statistics on the prevalence of central obesity in China
and its impact especially on the health of women is lacking. 
METHODS- You mentioned some results in this section i.e. the number of
women you sampled for the study. I think here you should rather report the
sample size and thus the number of women interviewed should come in the
results section
- line 123, I don't really understand what you mean by central obesity rate. Is it 
a
prevalence?
- on line 125, does 10% invalid sample sample size mean a 10% non-response
rate? 
- on line 127, I think you mean simple random sampling not sample random
sampling
- I think t-test and Chi square statistics are bivariate and not univariate analysis
- Among the health related factors, I was wondering why you did not collect
information on the eating habits of the women(the frequency and times of meals)
considering the fact that it influences both the main predictor variable(sleep
quality) and the outcome and hence is a confounder
- Generally, I believe organizing the method section into subsections like the
study design, study population, sampling/calculation of the minimum sample
size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study variables, statistical analysis and
ethical considerations (including others) will be better. 
- It will also be good for you to specify the criteria that you used to include the
other predictor variables in the multivariate logistic regression model or you
included all irrespective of the results of the t-test/Chi square test
- under the statistical analysis, there are a couple of things that I did not
understand. You mentioned that sleep disturbance score and the subjective sleep
quality were among the seven criteria that you used to assess the general sleep
quality. So if you studied how each of these criteria influenced central obesity,
then you need to report how the analysis was done, especially in the multivariate
analysis because you can not include either aspects of sleep quality and the
overall sleep quality itself in the multiple logistic regression model at the same
time. This is because the two are more or less a measure of the overall sleep
quality. So there is need to specify that they were included one after the other. 
RESULTS - Also I propose that the results should be organized into subsections
(respondent characteristics/descriptive, bivariate and multivariate analysis). 
- in table 1, the columns include both numbers and percentages but the titles of
the columns include only the numbers. Also, the values for the various
rows/columns in the cluster 3 section does not really match with the tittles of the
columns. 
- specify if ORs in table 2 are crude or adjusted in the title of the table
CONCLUSION- Same comment as the conclusion section of the abstract. 
In a nut shell. I propose you consider my suggestions to improve on the
manuscript.
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. 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' below
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 publish my name with my
report.
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?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes