Structured PREreview of Endometrial Polyps and Subfertility in Women Under 40: Pathophysiology, Fertility Outcomes, and Clinical Management

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

Yes, it explains the objective

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

1. There is not much clarity on the methodology used. We recommend a rewording as a narrative review with a systematic search method. 2. The type of systematic review study screened should be clearly spelt out.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The conclusion of the study was highly based on the data realized from the study

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The study throws more light on the relationship between chronic endometrial polyps and infertility, as well as provides practical clinical recommendations.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

They might need minor language editing to improve lay knowledge.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The methodology

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.