The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: Application in Indonesia

Dewi Anggraini; Mali Abdollahian; Kaye Marion

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240436

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 3, 2019
20 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Giovanni Delli Carpini, Editor PONE-D-19-33469 The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: application in Indonesia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Anggraini, 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. ============================== ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 09 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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, Giovanni Delli Carpini Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please revise the manuscript according to Author's instructions and Manuscript preparation guidelines. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: I Don't Know 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: No, i don't have any comments for authors. But he did not follow author's instructions and manuscript preparation guidelines. Author needs to follow journal's manuscript preparation guidelines in order to create good manuscript. Reviewer #2: The present study entitled “The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: application in Indonesia” by Anggraini Dewi at al. showed that the proposed model based on maternal fundal height has a comparable ability in predicting fetal weight with less error than existing model and it would improve the quality of fetal risk assessment during pregnancy and reduce the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Despite relevant topic and public health importance of the study, there are many issues related to presentation of results, discussions and conclusions which need to be addressed for strengthening the paper in order to maintain readers’ clarity and interest. Major revisions: • In results, while describing the general characteristics of study population, total number of enrolled women is missing and without this, it is difficult to understand various percentages given in this section. • While describing tables 1 and 2, authors have reported all estimates (ME, MPE, MAPE, PEDPE, etc.) in lines from 285 to 297. This text should be rephrased to simplify the message of both tables. • In Tables 1, all median percentages and median absolute percentages for various models are same, whereas in table 2, both values are different for all models except Stirnemann (2017). These should be rechecked. • The lines 320 and 321 regarding F test should be removed from here as it has already been described in lines 134 – 136 in methods section. • Lines 373 and 374 “However, since ………. Problems.” Should be part of discussion. • Lines 413 and 414 on page 19 regarding F test should be moved to methods. • Lines 418 – 420 can be moved to discussion/conclusion. Similarly, lines 457 – 459 on page 21 “The reason ………….EFW-FH model” should be moved to discussion. • The text “Since the aim ………………percentiles” in lines 501 and 502 should be the part of discussion • The conclusion part should be revised as most of the text given in 1st and 3rd para of conclusions should be part of discussion. Similarly, the strengths and limitations of the study given on pages 32 and 33 under conclusion section should be moved to discussion section. Minor corrections: • The abstract can be presented with standard headings, such as Introduction, methods, results, and Conclusion. • Some language corrections will further improve the quality of paper. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240436.r001
Revision 1
12 Aug 2020 Author Response SUMMARY OF MAIN CHANGES FOR PAPER Paper Title: The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: Application in Indonesia Manuscript ID: PONE-D-19-33469 Response to reviewers' comments The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their constructive comments on the paper. Responses to the editor's and reviewers' comments have been provided immediately after the comment. Additional requirements "When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response to additional requirements 1: Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript based on PLOS ONE's style requirements and templates, including file naming. 2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure". Response to additional requirements 2: We have amended the ethics statement as suggested and highlighted the changes in lines 190-207 in the revised manuscript. Additional Editor Comments "Please revise the manuscript according to the Author's instructions and Manuscript preparation guidelines." Response to additional Editor Comments: We have revised the manuscript according to the Author's instructions and Manuscript preparation guidelines. Reviewer 1 Comment 1: "No, I don't have any comments for authors. But he did not follow the Author's instructions and manuscript preparation guidelines. The author needs to follow the journal's manuscript preparation guidelines to create a good manuscript". Authors' response to comment 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the manuscript and followed the Author's instructions and Manuscript preparation guidelines Reviewer 2 Major Revisions Comment 1: "In results, while describing the general characteristics of the study population, the total number of enrolled women is missing, and without this, it is difficult to understand various percentages given in this section." Authors' response to comment 1: Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have put the total number of enrolled women used for: the local evaluation, the validation of the prediction models deployed in the development of existing growth charts for estimated fetal weight, and the comparison with the proposed model. The correction is highlighted on line 250 in the revised manuscript. Comment 2: "While describing tables 1 and 2, authors have reported all estimates (ME, MPE, MAPE, PEDPE, etc.) in lines from 285 to 297. This text should be rephrased to simplify the message of both tables". Authors responses to comments 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have rephrased the paragraph to simplify the message of Tables 1 and 2. The changes are highlighted in lines 269-274 in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: "In Tables 1, all median percentages and median absolute percentages for various models are the same, whereas, in table 2, both values are different for all models except Stirnemann (2017). These should be rechecked". Authors responses to comments 3: Thank you for the critical feedback. We have rechecked, and all median percentages and median absolute percentages for various models in both Tables 1 and 2 are correct. Comment 4: "The lines 320 and 321 regarding F test should be removed from here as it has already been described in lines 134 – 136 in methods section". Authors responses to comments 4: Thank you for the correction. We have removed the sentence in lines 320-321 regarding the F test in the revised manuscript. Comment 5: "Lines 373 and 374 "However, since ………. Problems." Should be part of the discussion". Authors responses to comments 5: Thank you for the suggestion. We have removed the sentence in the revised manuscript. Comment 6: "Lines 413 and 414 on page 19 regarding F test should be moved to methods". Authors responses to comments 6: Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have moved lines 413 and 414 to the Methods section and highlighted in lines 133-135 in the revised manuscript. Comment 7: "Lines 418 – 420 can be moved to discussion/conclusion. Similarly, lines 457 – 459 on page 21, "The reason ………….EFW-FH model" should be moved to the discussion." Authors responses to comments 7: Thank you for the critical feedback. We have moved lines 418-420 and lines 457-459 to the Discussion section. The changes are highlighted in lines 524-525 and lines 577-579, respectively, in the revised manuscript. Comment 8: "The text "Since the aim ………………percentiles" in lines 501 and 502 should be the part of the discussion". Authors responses to comments 8: Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have moved lines 501-502 to the Discussion section. The changes are highlighted in lines 621-622 in the revised manuscript. Comment 9: "The conclusion part should be revised as most of the text given in the 1st and 3rd para of conclusions should be part of the discussion. Similarly, the strengths and limitations of the study given on pages 32 and 33 under the conclusion section should be moved to the discussion section". Authors responses to comments 9: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. We have moved the 1st and 3rd paragraphs of the conclusion to the Discussion section. The changes are highlighted in lines 564-571 and lines 591-600, respectively in the revised manuscript. We also moved the strengths and limitations of the study to the Discussion section. The changes are also highlighted in lines 627-631 and lines 632-635 in the revised manuscript. Minor Corrections Comment 10: "The abstract can be presented with standard headings, such as Introduction, methods, results, and Conclusion." Authors responses to comments 10: Thank you for the comment. However, the abstract has been presented and written based on the following PLOS ONE's style templates https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf. Comment 11: "Some language corrections will further improve the quality of the paper." Authors responses to comments 11: Thank you for the suggestion. This paper has been proofread and corrected from some language errors. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240436.r002
28 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Giovanni Delli Carpini, Editor The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: application in Indonesia PONE-D-19-33469R1 Dear Dr. Anggraini, 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, Giovanni Delli Carpini Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240436.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Oct 2020 Acceptance Letter - Giovanni Delli Carpini, Editor PONE-D-19-33469R1 The development of an alternative growth chart for estimated fetal weight in the absence of ultrasound: Application in Indonesia Dear Dr. Anggraini: 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. Giovanni Delli Carpini Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240436.r004

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 .