Title:Obesity and pregnancy: a transversal study from a low-risk maternity
Version:2Date:18 May 2014
Reviewer:Rafael Moroni
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a cross-sectional study conducted at a Brazilian maternity hospital that provides care for women with low-risk pregnancies. The study evaluated 1,779 pregnancies at 40 weeks through the collection of sociodemographic and obstetrical data in a single visit. Labor and delivery information and neonatal data were also further collected and added to the 40 weeks transversal data. All these collected data were the dependent variables.
The presence or absence of obesity in the participants was the independent variable. The study was well planned; the reasoning behind the study’s hypotheses (whether or not the presence obesity has any impact on the dependent variables) was adequately described; study setting, patients, period of recruitment and data collection methods were also described.
The authors have greatly improved the quality of written english throughout the manuscript, enhancing its readability There are still some minor points that deserve attention, however, but those are few and could easily be handled by the authors themselves or during the editorial phase.
The lack of regression / multivariate analyses is now adequately acknowledged as a limitation.
The number of patients included for each studied variable is now clearly depicted, and the presence of attrition for some these variables is more easily appreciated.
I believe the changes performed by the authors have made this manuscript suitable for publication, and would only recommend an additional minor english review.
Level of interest:An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English:Acceptable
Statistical review:No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:

I declare that I have no competing interests
REBUTTAL First reviewer – Thank you for your kind response. We have done a second review for English corrections and we think it is perfectly well-fit for publishing now.
Version:2Date:16 June 2014
Reviewer:Gustavo A Neppelenbroek
Reviewer's report:
Opinions on the following points:
1. The question proposed by the authors is clear and well defined.
2. Data are objective. However, I would suggest the inclusion of the type of incision in obese, middle or pfanniestiel, compared with the control group incision. Another important factor would be the amount of cesarean deliveries that were made because the only condition of fetus with over 4000 grams in the two groups.
REBUTTAL Second reviewer– Thank you for these suggestions. About incision type, we do not have this variable in our data bank. We believe that we will be able to include it in a future study. The other comparison that was suggested we created a dummy variable
(macrossomy) and we found an statistical association with higher cesarean section. This was added at the results section.
3. The manuscript is relevant, especially when proposing change in protocols with a significant number of samples.
4. The discussion and conclusions are consistent with the data presented.
5. Limitations of the work are clearly stated and not interfere with the final result.
6. Authors acknowledge the originality of the work performed.
7. The title and abstract are consistent with the text and answer what is proposed.
8. The writing is acceptable. Just some suggestions for inclusion of data (if possible) to enrich the work were previously proposed (discretionary revisions).
Level of interest:An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English:Acceptable
Statistical review:No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests