PONE-D-20-10898

Effectiveness of the pelvic floor muscle training on muscular dysfunction and pregnancy specific urinary incontinence in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review protocol

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Barbosa,

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: An expert in the field handled your manuscript, and we are very thankful for their time and efforts. Although interest was found in your study, there were some concerns that arose needing to be addressed by the authors. Notably, it would benefit the manuscript to expand on the type of PFM training and duration and how this affects the studied outcomes; there are comments about the MESH terms and keyword search strategy; and there are questions about the experiment design, including specifics about the exclusion and inclusion criteria, quality score and quality check of the evidence, and subgroup comparisons. Please address ALL of the reviewer's comments in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 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,

Frank T. Spradley

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. During our internal pre-review checks, we noticed some errors of English grammar and use in this manuscript. However, we felt that the language quality is sufficient to allow a scientific assessment of the manuscript. If, based on your evaluation and the reviewer’s comments, you feel a revision or accept decision is merited, we will ask authors to copyedit the manuscript at the time of first decision. If you have any questions or concerns, or if language concerns persist following revision, please email Associate Editor Nancy Beam at nbeam@plos.org.

3.We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4.Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

[The funding for this systematic review protocol (part of a Masters degree project) is provided

by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), São Paulo, Brazil and its grant number is

FAPESP 2018/17534-1. FAPESP is a government funding agency with the aim of providing

grants, funds, and programs to support research, education, and innovation. This study is

linked to the thematic project “The new gestational triad: hyperglycemia, urinary incontinence (UI)

and biomolecular profile as a long-term predictor for UI; a prospective cohort study in translational

research with biodevice with stem cells for muscle regeneration in diabetic rats” and its linked

Process number is FAPESP 2016/01743-5.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [The funders had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

5.One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [The Diamater Study Group]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very good paper. It addresses an issue that is neglected in many societies.

I have a few minor points. Hope these comments will be helpful to the authors.

Please read the following information and revise your manuscript as necessary.

Please explain more about the type of PFM training and the duration of it in detail.

The MeSH terms used will be "Pregnancy", "Hyperglycemia", "Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2", "Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1", "Pregnancy in Diabetics", "Diabetes, Gestational" and "Urinary Incontinence".

The search strategy does not mention the keywords "pelvic floor muscle strength" and "quality of life". I have the impression that it is better to mention them.

The quality score of the articles is not recorded in the item tables of study characteristics. It is better to added.

Who are two independent investigators to check the quality of evidence?

It not clear if all types of urinary incontinence in pregnancy considered or stress urinary incontinence? It is not explicitly mentioned in study inclusion and exclusion criteria.

If yes. Do the authors intend to compare subgroups?

Given that the type of PFM training and the duration of it affects the outcome. How can this be considered? It is better to be explained.

With respect

**********

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

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: reviewer comment.docx

Effectiveness of the pelvic floor muscle training on muscular dysfunction and pregnancy specific urinary incontinence in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review protocol

PONE-D-20-10898R1

Dear Dr. Barbosa,

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