All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for resubmitting the revised version of this manuscript. The manuscript has been significantly improved, and I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript.
No further comment
no further comment
no further comment
Manuscript was nicely revised. no further concerns/comments
Suggested changes were made by the Authors.
Suggested changes were made by the Authors.
No comment.
In the light changes made I suggest accepting the article for publishing.
Thank you very much for the submission. In reviewing the information provided by the reviewers, I am requesting revisions before the manuscript can be considered further. Please carefully revise the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
Intro: Intro is well framed and supported with excellent highlighting of broad (global) relevance and significance of the health problem. However, while yes, this is a manuscript reporting is for a pilot study conducted in Romania. What is missing is small amount of broader context for the specifics of this pilot that help to offer up this pilot as a model for broader interest.
—Suggest providing context as to whether IVF procedures are similar in Romania as more broadly in the EU.
—Suggest Providing context as to whether the lifestyle guidance surrounding IVF is similar in Romania as is across the EU
Results:
• There are too many supplemental tables and descriptions placed between the primary tables. Supplemental Table 3 seems out of place since data for the intermediate. IVF variables hasn’t been presented in its primary form until Table 4. Moreover, supplemental Table 3 is occurring before primary Table 3 so it is an awkward construction for the reader.
—Suggest reorganizing to place the tables for the intermediate IVF variables together with bridging text to make it clear that is how the presentation is flowing. Note: This reorganization would appear to make sense given the way authors have framed the beginning paragraph of the discussion section.
• Text in the results section for Table 2 is too thin.
—Suggest revising to provide more detail so the reader can read the section before looking at the table.
• Current Supplemental Table 1 really goes hand-in-hand with Table 2
—Suggest including in the primary material (not supplemental) for the article.
Discussion:
• “Exercise….. the larger study… 4 or more hours per week….” — hours per week is missing
• Note: the OR etc. in this section of the discussion don’t match the numbers reported in the article’s abstract, Reviewer doesn’t have access to paper so maybe these are still correct
—Suggest verifying numbers provided here match the published research findings
no comment
Discussion:
• There is no mention of how the absolute outcome results “scale” with normal clinical practice in Romania, and EU. Is the rate of pregnancy and live birth in the expected range? It would appear the pregnancy rate is https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/543795 .... The live birth rate also seems reasonable based on large UK data https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4934614/
—Suggest the inclusion of absolute scaling context to increase the strength of the pilot’s generalizability
—Suggest the inclusion of whether PCPs are similar across EU or specific to Romania? Same with general population lifestyle preferences for physical activity and diet.
no comment
The Authors take up the interesting and socially important topic related to infertility treatment.
This work has potential but needs a few improvements.
Introduction
1. Infertility affects both women and men, so I suggest using "Many couples" instead of "Women" in the first sentence (line 44).
2. I also suggest that you rephrase the last sentence in this section, (Lines 75-78), as it is too long. The aim of the study should be clearly stated and be the same in the main text and in the introduction.
Material and methods
1. The Authors should first list the methods used in the work, and then describe them in detail in turn.
2. The used questionnaire could be better described. (Who was the author of the questionnaire? How many questions does it contain?)
No comment.
1. I suggest changing the title, for example:
Selected lifestyle factors and the success of in vitro fertilization in Romanian women: a pilot study.
2. The abstract is included twice in the manuscript.
3. All tables should be corrected in accordance with the guidelines of the journal (e.g. font size, italics, bold, footnotes).
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.