Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMay 9, 2021 |
|---|
|
Transfer Alert
This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.
PONE-D-21-15342 Obstructive sleep apnea increases risk of female infertility : A 14-year follow-up nationwide population-based cohort study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chien, 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. The authors have serious and reasonable comments about this manuscript. The most compelling is the study design itself; this editor agrees that what the authors have shown is that amongst infertile women, OSA is more common, not that OSA is a potential cause of infertility. In addition, the editor would like to know how the diagnoses were searched for in the database. Were ICD codes used? If so, the authors need to indicate which codes were searched for (this could be done in a table). Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, James Andrew Rowley 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 either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: Partly Reviewer #2: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** 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: No ********** 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 population-based cohort study evaluated whether women with OSA had increased risk of subsequent infertility. This study explores an interesting topic, but there are some significant issues noted below. Major points: 1. This study draws subjects from a large database, however, the number of with infertility and OSA was only 33 with only 30 subjects with OSA and no infertility in the control group. 2. It is not clear what prior exposure to OSA means. Is this the presence of disease at the start of the study, the development of OSA during the time of the study, or both? Similarly, it’s not clear what the “years of OSA exposure” is referring to. I’m not sure what Table 4 is trying to tell me. 3. The groups were then stratified into five-year age groups, making the numbers even smaller and the conclusions less robust. 4. The definition of infertility includes a time period of at least one year. How would the authors know which season has the highest risk for infertility? 5. The limitations section is very brief and should address the issue of the small sample sizes of the OSA/infertility and OSA/non-infertility groups. 6. The authors conclude that detection and diagnosis of OSA may help to increase fertility, but this is speculative. There is no clear data to support this. Minor points: 1. Many acronyms are not defined when first used: NHIRD, NASD, PCOS, COPD. 2. The last sentence of the “Study Population” section is incomplete. 3. Under “Results,” a sentence reads “Women aged 26-30 years… had the highest percentage.” The highest percentage of what? 4. Reference 21 in the manuscript does not appear to refer to reference 21 in the References section. 5. in the discussion section, the word choice of “elderly” is not appropriate, since elderly women are clearly post-menopausal and not candidates for infertility. 6. There is a sentence in the discussion that reads, The increased of cortisol…” A word appears to be missing. 7. Under the Results section, the Tables are mislabeled. Reviewer #2: This is a study of the impact of OSA on fertility in women. The authors did a retrospective nested 2:1 matched control study of women with and without infertility and analyzed OSA as a risk factor for infertility, accounting for multiple co-morbidities. This is a companion to their prior prospective study on non-apnea sleep disorders (NASD) and the relationship to infertility. The authors demonstrate an association of OSA with female infertility with an odds ratio of 2.1 for women with infertility to have OSA versus those without infertility and also conclude that length of exposure to OSA increases risk of infertility. However, they conclude that women with OSA are more likely to be infertile than those without, which was not the design of their study. Strengths: The relationship between OSA and fertility is an important topic and they used a large sample size and they performed sophisticated analyses on many co-variates. MAJOR WEAKNESSES General: 1. There is confusion as to what the authors are trying to prove. They conclude that women with OSA are more likely to be infertile but what they show is that women who are infertile have greater odds of having OSA than women who are fertile. This study is not the same design as the prior work, where they looked at women with NASD and then did a prospective study to see the risk of infertility. 2. They do not mention how they define infertility nor if they excluded male infertility. 3. It is surprising that a cohort of 2400 women with infertility has no cases of endometriosis (with an estimated prevalence of 25-50% among infertile women) or PCOS (present in about 40% of women with infertility) making generalizability of any conclusions questionable. 4. There is no discussion of how they determined the duration of the diagnosis of OSA relative to the timing of the diagnosis of infertility. 5. The abstract suggests a different protocol, which would have been to look at women with OSA and see how many are infertile while the actual protocol was to determine odds ratio of having OSA in a cohort of subjects who are infertile. Introduction: 6. There is a discussion about effect of physiological consequences of OSA on sperm production in mice. This does not seem relevant to a paper on female infertility. Consider discussing more about female-relevant hormones, such as you do in the discussion. Study Population: 7. Did you exclude women who were infertile because of male infertility issues? 8. How did you determine the prior exposure of OSA? 9. Last sentence is incomplete. Statistical Analysis 10. There is mention of a Table 5 that is not included in the submission. Results: 11. Table 3 is confusing—consider deleting these data. Table 2 is sufficient Discussion: 12. You did not demonstrate that women with OSA had twice the risk of infertility but, rather, that infertile women had an odds ratio of 2.1 of having OSA compared with women who were fertile. 13. The fifth paragraph is confusing and the conclusion does not follow. The sex hormones do not mask the severity—they influence the severity. MINOR WEAKNESSES Suggested Content Edits: Study Population: 1. “The diagnosis of OSA is made BY polysomnography . . . .” Statistical Analysis: 2. “Correlation[s] analysis WAS used” 3. “Women aged 26-30 years and 31-35 years had the highest percentage”. I believe you mean “constituted the highest percentage”. If this is not what you mean, then please state what they had the highest percentage of. Discussion, 4. 1st paragraph, last sentence: “This article is the second study that our groups have shown that women . . . infertility”. Consider substituting instead “This article is the second study in which our group has shown that women with sleep disorders . . . infertility.” 5. 3rd paragraph: “. . . elderly women are more likely to become infertile”—I believe you want to say “. . . OLDER women are more likely to BE infertile”. Endnotes: 6. Endnotes 31 and 32 do not relate to the sentence they are in. ********** 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-21-15342R1 Obstructive sleep apnea increases risk of female infertility : A 14-year follow-up nationwide population-based cohort study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chien, 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. While the first reviewer feels that you have responded to her comments in a satisfactory manner, the second reviewer still has concerns at this time. In reading her comments, I must agree that you have two different analyses here and both need to be clearly delineated: 1. You find a higher prevalence of OSA in patients with infertility 2. OSA increases the risk of infertility I also agree with some of the other changes the second reviewer recommends; they would greatly improve the manuscript and readability. I strongly urge you to consider these changes. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, James Andrew Rowley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ********** 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: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** 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: 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 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: Thank you for your work addressing both my concerns and those of the other reviewer. This revision makes it more clear that you are attempting to do two different analyses, which still needs to be clearly enunciated (see comments below). In addition, I am still concerned and confused about the absence of cases of endometriosis and the presence of just one case of PCOS (which happened to be in the fertile cohort). Please address these issues directly, particularly as I found an analysis of the LHID covering a similar period of time that was published in 2019 (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/jwh.2018.7648) looking at the relationship of PCOS and periodontal disease that identified 744 patients with PCOS and it is surprising that not a single one of these cases also had a diagnosis of infertility and did not have one of your exclusionary criteria. Finally, I have some issues with your description about the timing of OSA diagnosis and onset of infertility and I believe that the discussion about seasonality is less relevant. MAJOR WEAKNESSES ABSTRACT Objectives: There are actually two objectives: to determine the risk of having OSA in a cohort of female subjects who are infertile and the odds of being infertile in women with OSA. Results: Highlight the disparity between the prevalence of OSA in the infertile versus fertile group: “Of those women with infertility, 1.38% had a history of OSA compared with 0.63% of fertile controls (p=0.002). Conclusion: You did not show that OSA is underdiagnosed nor did you fully show that if untreated, it increases the likelihood of infertility. Please be more precise: “Our study showed that OSA is more commonly seen in infertile women and increases the odds that a woman will be infertile. In addition, the likelihood of being diagnosed with infertility increases with time from the diagnosis of OSA [although please see my discussion about this particularly factor below]. More studies need to be done on the whether or not diagnosing and treating OSA can decrease the rate of infertility.” INTRODUCTION Third Paragraph: Please delete the whole section about mice as it is irrelevant and relates to male mice. RESULTS Second Paragraph: You should have the increased likelihood of subjects with OSA to be infertile at the end of this paragraph where you discuss the other results from Table 2 rather than coming after the information about stratification by possible years of exposure to OSA that starts paragraph 3. Third Paragraph: I would eliminate the discussion about years of prior OSA exposure since you do not know which patients, if any, were treated nor do you know severity, rendering this a statistically significant result that may or may not have clinical relevance. It is enough to establish an association between having a diagnosis of OSA and one of infertility unless you had more information. Also, Tables 3 and 4 are confusing—it is not clear what you mean about first and last exposure to OSA prior to diagnosis of infertility. DISCUSSION First Paragraph: You not only found that women with OSA had an odds ratio of 2.1 of being infertile but also that infertile women were more likely to have OSA. Third Paragraph: I do not think it adds much and would consider deleting it. Fourth Paragraph: 1. Is it clear that OSA increases the risk of PCOS or, rather, that patients with PCOS are at greater risk of having OSA, not just because of obesity but also because of hyperadrenergism? Also, I am not aware of OSA increasing the risk of endometriosis. Reference 29 talks about progesterone—I do not think it addresses what you wrote. 2. Reference 32 describes the presentation of sleep-disordered breathing in women and does not discuss the HPA axis and infertility. Either delete this sentence or put in the correct reference. Perhaps you mean to be referencing reference 32 from the initial draft and the article by Ferin? 3. The last 2 sentences seem relevant as this is not a study of salivary cortisol. Fifth Paragraph: Consider deleting this. It is not relevant to your argument and has some confusing concepts. For example, the lower prevalence of OSA In women is not because they have different presenting symptoms, it is because of other reasons you mention. Sixth Paragraph: I have difficulty with the concept of determining an association of the season of onset of infertility with the date of diagnosis so I would eliminate this entire finding/discussion. Seventh Paragraph/Limitations: 1. You need to mention that when assessing the duration of OSA, it is approximated by date of diagnosis code and that you do not know whether or not it is treated subsequent to that. I would delete the analysis of this factor because of the limited knowledge but if you keep it in, you need to mention this as a limitation. 2. Secondly, you mention the low rate of PCOS (I think there was 1 case in the fertile group) and endometriosis but do not then provide any explanation and as above, I am concerned given another recent publication that you found so few cases of PCOS overall. CONCLUSION You conclude that OSA is more common in infertile women but left out what you had prior that women with OSA have a greater likelihood of being infertile so please add this back. I believe you have greater difficulty with the length of exposure given that you do not know if women are treated or not and should narrow your conclusion to the increased prevalence and likelihood and conclude that infertile women should be screened for signs and symptoms of OSA. TABLES Table 2: You do not mention what variables you adjusted for in the adjusted odds ratio. Please add that to the footnote at the bottom of the table. Delete the “without” and “with” headings under the associated disease as they are not necessary and it is confusing. Tables 3 and 4: I do not understand what is meant by first and last exposure to OSA prior to the diagnosis of infertility. Given how speculative this information is, you might to consider deleting it since you do not know if the OSA is treated or not. MINOR WEAKNESSES INTRODUCTION Second paragraph: 1. website reference to definition of infertility should be a footnote; 2. The reduction in fertility rate could be a function of societal change and not necessarily indicate a change in rate of infertility. Consider rephrasing or eliminating that discussion. Third paragraph: “Infertility can be associated with multiple factors”. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Population, first paragraph: The diagnosis of OSA is made BY polysomnography. RESULTS First Paragraph: Move the sentence about the prevalence of women of different age groups before the sentence about the prevalence of OSA as it interrupts the flow. DISCUSSION: 6th paragraph: Please edit the sentence about the cows to be grammatically correct. ********** 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 |
|
PONE-D-21-15342R2Obstructive sleep apnea increases risk of female infertility : A 14-year follow-up nationwide population-based cohort studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chien, 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 make the suggested revisions for Reviewer #2. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 11 2021 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 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, James Andrew Rowley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: Thank you for your attention to my previous comments. This paper is much improved. There are still some minor weaknesses to address but we are almost there. Please see remaining comments below. Minor Weaknesses Abstract: delete the sentence in the conclusion about the likelihood of being infertile increasing with time from diagnosis of OSA as you deleted this analysis because of insufficient information. Introduction, 3rd paragraph: please delete the sentence about CPAP improving erectile function—not relevant to a population of women (and be careful about adjusting your references). Discussion, 1st paragraph, second sentence: “ . . . found that infertile women had” should be “infertile women have” and 3rd sentence: . . . which our groups have shown” or “which our group has shown”—whichever version is correct. Discussion, 3rd paragraph: As mentioned before, the first sentence is incorrect. Women with PCOS are at increased risk for OSA; women with OSA are NOT known to be at increased risk for PCOS. Your topic sentence really should be about a theoretical relationship of hormonal dysregulation from OSA leading to infertility. Please change it. Discussion, 3rd paragraph: . . . “ . . . cortisol31. The increase in cortisol levels can downregulate the HPA axis and inhibit GnRH at the pituitary level, which may alter sex hormone profiles and thus lead to infertility.32” Discussion, 3rd paragraph: delete the discussion about salivary cortisol. It does not add anything and is confusing. Discussion 4th paragraph: “ . . . prevalence of OSA In women is lower than IN men”. Discussion 4th paragraph: the lower prevalence of OSA in pre-menopausal women is not a function of atypical presentation, it simply is. The atypical presentation explains the underdiagnosis of women but the prevalence is still lower in women so please revise this section. Limitations: Delete the first limitation. Limitations: fourth limitation: please point out that the absence of women with endometriosis and PCOS in the infertile cohort potentially limits the applicability in populations where these disorders are more common. Please delete the sentence about no infertility in PCOS and reference 45—not the point here. Limitations: please delete the fifth limitation as you have removed that analysis from this paper. ********** 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 #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 3 |
|
PONE-D-21-15342R3Obstructive sleep apnea increases risk of female infertility : A 14-year follow-up nationwide population-based cohort studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chien, 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. The academic editor went through the latest revisions for the reviewer and most of have been changed in a satisfactory manner. However, there is still one small change to make, regarding the comment on prevalence (5th paragraph of discussion). The reviewer was pointing out that the lower prevalence in women is NOT due to an atypical presentation as epidemiologic studies, in which all subjects are studied, is lower in women. However, what is lower is underevaluation because of atypical presentations. Thus,the second sentence of this paragraph should be changed to: 'There is also likely underdiagnosis of OSA in women due to atypical symptoms such as...'. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2021 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 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, James Andrew Rowley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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 4 |
|
Obstructive sleep apnea increases risk of female infertility : A 14-year follow-up nationwide population-based cohort study PONE-D-21-15342R4 Dear Dr. Chien, 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, James Andrew Rowley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-15342R4 Obstructive sleep apnea increases risk of female infertility: A 14-year nationwide population-based study Dear Dr. Chien: 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. James Andrew Rowley 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 .