Peer Review History
Original SubmissionMay 24, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-13750 Systematic and Meta-analysis of Factors Associated with Preeclampsia and Eclampsia in sub-Saharan Africa PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Meazaw, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS: Two expert reviewers in the field handled your manuscript. We thank them for their time. Although interest was found in your study, there were several major concerns that arose during review. These comments include: 1) the need to follow journal guidelines on word count, 2) clarification of definitions and statements, 3) more information needs to be provided about this sample of patients, 4) expanding the results about ANC visits, and 5) the conclusions statements needs to be more specific. Please address all of the reviewers' comments in your revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is a well reviewed paper where the authors systematically examined the factors associated with preeclampsia and eclampsia among pregnant women in South Saharan African countries. Using PRISMA, they looked at articles published between January 2000 and may 2020 and looked at 12 risk factors known to be associated with Preeclampsia/eclampsia. After the systematic and meta analysis they concluded that 7 out of the 12 factors were associated with Preeclampsia/eclampsia. The most importatant risk factors included a history of preeclampsia and eclampsia of the pregnant woman, obesity, not attending ANC, anaemia during pregnancy and any underlying chronic disease. The conclusions support the review data analysed from the systematic and meta analysis. The statistical analysis were appropriate for this type of analysis. . The abstract word count exceeded the journal's required 300 words likewise the referencing style did not meet the required vancouver style and need to be revised. Reviewer #2: Introduction: Reviewers would like the following corrections: 1) According to the American Association of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ASOG) definition- Authors mean American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). 2) Definition of pre-eclampsia: “preeclampsia is defined as the presence of hypertension (≥140mmHg/90mmHg) after 20 weeks gestation in previously normotensive women on at least two occasions more than four hours apart.” Authors have used the definition of pre-eclampsia only based on hypertension, which is incorrect per ACOG definition (need proteinuria or in the absence of proteinuria, thrombocytopenia, renal insufficiency, impaired liver function, pulmonary edema, new-onset headache). 3) “This hypertension association with proteinuria +2 and above in a 24 hour collection of urine, arising de novo after the 20th week of gestation in a previously normotensive woman and resolving completely by the 6th postpartum week “- Reviewers suggest revision. Incorrect statement. Method: Reviewers would like to know if any of the included studies had patients with pre-eclampsia who went on to develop HELLP syndrome. If this specific subset was not included. Reviewers would like it to be mentioned under exclusion criteria. Risk factors: II. Previous Preeclampsia/eclampsia: Reviewers would like to know if any of the studies showed a relationship between history of Early Onset Preeclampsia (EOPE) and risk of pre-eclampsia in future pregnancies. IV. Maternal Body Mass index “…Tanzania found that women who were overweight and women who were obese were 1.4...”- Reviewers recommend adding BMI 25-29.9 and >30 next to overweight and obesity, respectively. MUAC: Reviewers recommend introducing abbreviation in parentheses V. Maternal pre-existing medical conditions: Reviewers recommend clarifying heading to include only diabetes and chronic hypertension. Was there any association with gestational diabetes with preeclampsia/eclampsia in the studies included? VI. Anaemia during pregnancy: Reviewer recommends defining cut off for anemia in the studies used (e.g Hb <11). Reviewer also suggests using Iron deficiency anemia instead of anemia during pregnancy, if the studies included are pertaining to Iron deficiency anemia. VIII: Nutrition and related factors: “Furthermore, women with hypocalcemia were about eight times more likely to develop preeclampsia compared to those with normal serum calcium”- Reviewers recommend including mean serum calcium level <8.6 in parenthesis. Minor edit: low plasma vitamin C as compared to “adequated” plasma vitamin C were more likely to develop preeclampsia: Suggests spell check. IX: Drinking alcohol during pregnancy: Reviewers recommend quantifying alcohol consumption (e.g glasses/week). X: ANC visits- recommend Introducing abbreviation in parentheses. Reviewer recommends summarizing the number of ANC visits with the development of preeclampsia. This may be beneficial for future recommendation and changes in WHO recommended ANC models. “odds of having preeclampsia/eclampsia as compares to women”: minor edit: suggests spell check. “ A study conducted in Mozambique showed that women without transport access or had walk to reach health facility for ANC visits were four times more likely to develop eclampsia than women with transport access (OR: 4.31; 95% CI: 2.77, 6.72) (13)” Reviewer recommend using this study under ANC visits instead of Pregnancy related risk factors. This is a key factor for missed ANC visits in the developing countries. XI: Pregnancy related risk factors for preeclampsia/eclampsia: “Whereas another study reported, women had abortion from the same reduced the risk of hypertension in present pregnancy”- Reviewers recommend describing the type of abortion (induced/spontaneous). Do authors mean same father/paternity, thereby implicating and immunological risk factor for preeclampsia? “In this review, paternity (25, 40), marital status (49), HIV/AIDS (36, 41), place of residence (34, 40, 57), family size (13, 51), maternal sleeping potion (22) , blood type (45, 64), H. pylori seropositivity (16) distance from health facility (52), placental malaria (64) and seasonal variation (19).”- Reviewers would like authors to consider re-writing sentence fragment. Discussion: “Not only does a woman having previous preeclampsia/eclampsia have an effect, but also having a family history of preeclampsia/eclampsia has an effect among family members during pregnancy.”- Reviewers would like authors to consider re-writing sentence fragment. Conclusion: Reviewers recommend authors to expand on the fact that most of the study findings are well known risk factors of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia in the existing literature. This study confirms what is already known but adds value as it is specific to the SSA population (first time it has been reported in this population). ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-20-13750R1 Systematic and Meta-analysis of Factors Associated with Preeclampsia and Eclampsia in sub-Saharan Africa PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Meazaw, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENT: There is a minor revision requested. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Excellent work! Thank for your corrections. Only minor edit recommended would be: (line 460-463) “Not only woman having previous preeclampsia/eclampsia have an increased risk of preeclampsia/eclampsia, but also having a family history of preeclampsia/eclampsia has positive association with present pregnancy.” Women with obstetric and family histories of preeclampsia/eclampsia were noted to be at an increased risk for development of preeclampsia/eclampsia in the subsequent pregnancies. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 2 |
Systematic and Meta-analysis of Factors Associated with Preeclampsia and Eclampsia in sub-Saharan Africa PONE-D-20-13750R2 Dear Dr. Meazaw, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-13750R2 Systematic and Meta-analysis of Factors Associated with Preeclampsia and Eclampsia in sub-Saharan Africa Dear Dr. Meazaw: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .