The title and abstract show the exact scope of the study and encourage scientists to read it.

The introduction section leads the reader directly to the objectives of the research. Abbreviations were used appropriately. The study concerned an essential medical problem as caffeine is a commonly used product worldwide. From 75% to 93% of the population consume caffeine daily. Therefore, there might be some concerns about its harmful influence on the fetus due to perinatal caffeine consumption. The objective of the study was presented and could have a significant impact on the health habits of pregnant women.

The study group was well selected with appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, there was a low percentage of losses and refusals at the follow-ups. The children were monitored for up to 11 years, which seems to be an appropriate follow-up time. The reviewer finds only one thing unclear, namely caffeine intake measurement. Moreover, information about caffeine intake was collected retrospectively. As a result, there is a recall bias of assessed information. Validity and reliability were appropriately identified.

The Tables presented the data very well. Only one remark should be made about IEN - I would advise the authors not to use the abbreviation in the table and explain what each level of Q1-5 means, as it is not sufficiently clear. The description of the statistical methods used is missing. To make the study more accurate, a list of the statistical tests or even software used should be included in the study. For example, the text mentions “Test for the linear trend”, but it is not specified in the publication which tests were used. Probably the authors wanted to focus on clinically relevant information. Nevertheless, this information seems crucial for the assessment of the accuracy and statistical significance of the results. All the described results were presented to answer the research question. Adherence to conventions was done properly.

The first paragraph of the discussion section consists of the repeated results fragment. It should be deleted from the discussion section. Only the interpretation of the results should be present in this section. The study was discussed from multiple angles and well placed in the context of the paper. The comparison to the previous five studies is present in the discussion section and was correctly made. Despite some limitations of the study, it seems that they do not have a considerable impact on the main results of the investigation. The conclusions of the study accurately answer the main objective of this research and leave the reader with the right take-home message.

Major points: 1. To write exact information about statistical analysis performed, software and tests used. 2. The results should be not repeated in the discussion section. Only the interpretation of the results should be present in this section.

Minor points: 1. Abbreviations should not be used in the Tables. 2. Q1-Q5 classes of the National Economic Index need to be explained at some point in the paper.