Author's response to reviews Title:The association between dietary factors and gestational hypertension and preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies Authors:

“Few studies examining foods and dietary patterns suggested a beneficial effect of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables on preeclampsia, even though results were not all statistically significant.” (line 36-38) Results section page 11/12, line 247-250: “Two case-control studies (based on one study population) [21, 47] and two cohort studies [26, 36] all adjusting for confounding factors (Additional Table 5) suggested a beneficial effect of higher fruit and/or vegetable consumption on preeclampsia, although not all statistically significant.” Discussion section last sentence of first paragraph on page 13, line 275-276: “Systematic review of a few studies examining foods and dietary patterns suggests a beneficial effect of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables on preeclampsia.” 24. Discussion section, 8th paragraph reads: ”Apart from intake of total energy, magnesium, calcium and fruit and vegetables, consumption of other nutrients and foods were not associated with HDP. This may be due to studying low risk populations where nutrient deficiencies are rare and women regularly take multivitamin supplements [55], or due to lack of heterogeneity of intake in most well-nourished populations reducing the ability to detect an association with HDP [32]. Further studies in different populations are needed to examine a range of nutrients and foods in relation with HDP.” Does this mean that the reported calcium intake in the reviewed studies in general was adequate as well? Or could differences in intake between study populations perhaps explain some of the between-study heterogeneity? This