First I would like to congratulate you on the work. 300 pregnant women are an expressive number that reveals how much effort was made for this work to be carried out. In order to collaborate with the improvement of the manuscript, I will leave some considerations.

1- Abstract: In the methodology part, there is no mention of the statistical method used.

2- introduction. I think the authors could go more directly to the subject of anemia during pregnancy. The text could start already talking about epidemiological and clinical aspects of anemia in pregnancy. from there, the authors could better untangle which types of anemia pregnant women are more exposed to. the objective of the work is not exposed in this section.

3 - the methodology is not very detailed. the authors could explore further: the period when the study was carried out, the types of variables used (categorical, discrete, etc) and their measurements (mg/dl, e.g), sample losses, exclusions made, and more details of statistical analysis. The authors would explain why the authors chose the t-test, as there is no mention of sample normality testing, as there is a big difference from anemic to non-anemic. Is the T-test really a good choice?

4 - Results: I was reflecting on the way you presented the results. I'll leave a reference on the presentation of the results: Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results Kotz, Daniel, et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, Issue 9, 945; Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VII: tables and figures.Kotz, Daniel et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, Issue 11, 1197. Another issue missed is the division of types of anemia: how often is iron deficiency anemia, b12, folic acid? what is the frequency of hemoglobinopathies (sickle cell and thalassemia)? The authors speak in the text but there is not much explicit in the results. I saw a percentage for sickle cell disease, but what is the n?

5- I think the discussion was too superficial and could improve.

First I would like to congratulate you on the work. 300 pregnant women are an expressive number that reveals how much effort was made for this work to be carried out. In order to collaborate with the improvement of the manuscript, I will leave some considerations.

1- Abstract: in the methodology part, there is no mention of the statistical method used.

2- introduction. I think the authors could go more directly to the subject of anemia during pregnancy. The text could start already talking about epidemiological and clinical aspects of anemia in pregnancy. from there, the authors could better untangle which types of anemia pregnant women are more exposed to. the objective of the work is noexposed in this section.

3 - the methodology is not very detailed. the authors could explore further: period when the study was carried out, the types of variables used (categorical, discrete, etc) and their measurements (mg/dl, e.g), sample losses, exclusions made and more details of statistical analysis. The authors would could explanation as to why the authors chose the t-test, as there is no mention of sample normality testing, as there is a big difference from anemic to non-anemic. Is the T-test really a good choice?

4 - Results: I was reflecting on the way you presented the results. I'll leave a reference on the presentation of results: Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results Kotz, Daniel et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, Issue 9, 945; Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VII: tables and figures.Kotz, Daniel et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, Issue 11, 1197. Another issue missed is the division of types of anemia: how often is iron deficiency anemia, b12, folic acid? what is the frequency of hemoglobinopathies (sickle cell and thalasemia) . The authors speak in the text but there is not much explicit in the results. I saw a percentage for sickle cell disease, but what is the n?

5- I think the discussion was too superficial and could improve.

First I would like to congratulate you on the work. 300 pregnant women are an expressive number that reveals how much effort was made to carry out this work. To collaborate with the improvement of the manuscript, I will leave some considerations.

1- Abstract: In the methodology part, there is no mention of the statistical method used.

2- introduction. I think the authors could go more directly to the subject of anemia during pregnancy. The text could start already talking about epidemiological and clinical aspects of anemia in pregnancy. from there, the authors could better untangle which types of anemia pregnant women are more exposed to. the objective of the work is no exposed in this section.

3 - the methodology is not very detailed. the authors could explore further: the period when the study was carried out, the types of variables used (categorical, discrete, etc) and their measurements (mg/dl, e.g), sample losses, exclusions made, and more details of statistical analysis. The authors could explain why the authors chose the t-test, as there is no mention of sample normality testing, as there is a big difference from anemic to non-anemic. Is the T-test really a good choice?

4 - Results: I was reflecting on the way you presented the results. I'll leave a reference on the presentation of results: Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results Kotz, Daniel, et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, Issue 9, 945; Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VII: tables and figures.Kotz, Daniel et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, Issue 11, 1197. Another issue missed is the division of types of anemia: how often is iron deficiency anemia, b12, folic acid? what is the frequency of hemoglobinopathies (sickle cell and thalassemia)? The authors speak in the text but there is not much explicit in the results. I saw a percentage for sickle cell disease, but what is then?

5- I think the discussion was too superficial and could improve.