Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: A multi-centre prospective cohort study

Amy Keir; Alice Rumbold; Carmel T. Collins; Andrew J. McPhee; Jojy Varghese; Scott Morris; Thomas R. Sullivan; Shalem Leemaqz; Philippa Middleton; Maria Makrides; Karen P. Best

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272583

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2021
7 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Wubet Alebachew Bayih, Editor PONE-D-21-31091Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr.Amy Keir/>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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The authors come up with a study problem of significance to the existing literature. Moreover, it has been stated using understandable English. However, there are minor typos and confusing statements as the reviewers raised. Most importantly, kindly address all the reviewers concerns as they would further enrich your manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 2022 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: 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, Wubet Alebachew Bayih, M.Sc. 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. 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. 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: Find my comments here below This manuscript is interesting to a global audience having an Australian perspective. However, I see the need for some clarifications, and hopefully my comments will help you to improve your manuscript. Methods 1.Page 5, line 81 & 82: Indicate the specific recruitment date, completed date, and data collection finalised date 2.Page 6, line 107: Is that any human milk or their mothers’ milk? Does this include donor breast milk? 3.State the way you used to take consents for under 18 years old participants under ethical consideration section 4. Was the questionnaire validated in the local context and how? 5.Have you tested multicollinearity and the model fitness? If not reason? If yes, indicate it clearly. Results 6.Table 1: what do you mean “born in Australia, (n=220)”? since your study was conducted completely @Australia. Reviewer #2: Thank you Dr.Wubet for inviting me to review this manuscript. This article describes the breastfeeding outcome of late preterm infants. The stated goal of the study was to explore factors associated with breastfeeding duration and describe infant feeding practices during initial hospitalization and up to 6 months corrected age in infants born late preterm with mothers intending to breastfeed. The article is generally well-written and interesting. If possible, the methods and analysis should be reviewed by a university biostatistician. It is important to spread awareness of exclusive breastfeeding to create opportunities in improving infants' health. Therefore, this study is very important and needs to be published. Suggestions, questions Abstract Avoid abbreviations in the abstract Background -It would be better if you add the burden of the problem and the rationales why you are doing this research In the methods and materials section of the abstract- The type of model used to determine the factors associated with breastfeeding duration was not mentioned. I didn't understand why you used method and material? What materials did you use in this study? The conclusion section of the abstract – I have confused by the findings stated in your result section and conclusion. Receipt of formula milk was associated with BF (breastfeeding) duration in the result section but in the conclusion part, early feeding practice and intention to breastfeed were predictors of BF duration.? Introduction, method, and material -I am satisfied with this section of the manuscript. Outcome: line 104 - initial hospital length of stay and exclusive or any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months CA. what parameters do you use to categorize the outcome variable into 6 weeks,3 months, and six months? - I couldn't find the adjusted odds ratio value in your multivariate logistic regression model to identify the factors associated with breastfeeding duration. if I was not mistaken, how could you conclude the factors associated with breastfeeding duration without making an adjusted odds ratio? you have made only bivariate logistic regression based on table 4. Result –you have made too long and interrupted tables, and lacks description Table 3- breastfeeding at 6 months, (n=??? 248) - I am not clear about it? Generally, tables are not prepared in the way of attracting readers. Discussion Line 212- Line 215 this paragraph lacks reference. Line 218 – L 220. This statement lacks justification about exclusive breastfeeding at discharge related to an increase from 60 % to 74% and decreasing to 33% by 3 months of CA. Maternal intention to breastfeed>6 months is the most consistent predictor of breastfeeding duration. This factor was not well discussed with other research findings. ****** 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: Yes:** Tamirat Getachew 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.0272583.r001
Revision 1
4 Mar 2022 Author Response Dr Wubet Alebachew Bayih PLOS One Editorial Office RE: PONE-D-21-31091: Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort study Dear Dr Wubet Thank you for considering our Original Research paper listed above for publication in PLOS One. Please find our rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). Reviewer #1: 1.Page 5, line 81 & 82: Indicate the specific recruitment date, completed date, and data collection finalised date All dates updated to exact date. 2.Page 6, line 107: Is that any human milk or their mothers’ milk? Does this include donor breast milk? Methods clarified and wording updated; Exclusive breastfeeding was defined as a baby receiving only breastmilk and medications, including oral rehydration solutions, vitamins and minerals, but no infant formula or non-human milk at each study time point and the week immediately preceding them. 3.State the way you used to take consents for under 18 years old participants under ethical consideration section Ethical Considerations section updated; Mothers of late preterm were approached in the Neonatal Units or Postnatal ward and informed consent was obtained for their infant/s. Ethics approval was granted by the Women’s and Children’s Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee HREC/18/WCHN/064. Site-specific and local governance approvals were obtained at each study site. 4. Was the questionnaire validated in the local context and how? There wasn’t really one questionnaire for the study. Data at enrolment was obtained via maternal report in person, telephone or surveys that were designed as electronic data capture instruments. Short follow up surveys were sent to women at study timepoints (6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months) so that women could report on their breastfeeding practices remotely via text or email. Methods updated for clarity. 5.Have you tested multicollinearity and the model fitness? If not reason? If yes, indicate it clearly. Relationships between measures of breastfeeding over time, or between exclusive breastfeeding and any breastfeeding at each time point were considered in separate statistical models. We have now explained in the methods that “There was no evidence of collinearity between characteristics or poor model fit in any of the multivariable models considered.” We have also clarified in the statistical methods that measures of breastfeeding (exclusive or any) were analysed in separate models at each time point (hence there were no concerns around collinearity in the breastfeeding outcomes over time). 6. Table 1: what do you mean “born in Australia, (n=220)”? since your study was conducted completely @Australia. This is listed under maternal characteristics and refers to mothers born in Australia, table line headings have been updated for clarity. Reviewer #2: Abstract - Avoid abbreviations in the abstract Abbreviations removed unless used multiple times, i.e. corrected age. Background -It would be better if you add the burden of the problem and the rationales why you are doing this research Further explanation added line 57 and 58: ‘Breastmilk is the optimal nutrition to support overall growth and development, gut maturation and immune protection. Complications relating to poor feeding are major contributors to the health burden in this population and one of the leading causes of extended hospital stay and readmission.’ In the methods and materials section of the abstract- The type of model used to determine the factors associated with breastfeeding duration was not mentioned. I didn't understand why you used method and material? What materials did you use in this study? In the methods it states that “Associations between maternal and infant characteristics and breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months CA were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models (separate models for exclusive breastfeeding and any breastfeeding at each time point), with generalised estimating equations used to account for clustering due to multiple births. Effects are described as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Maternal and infant characteristics were included in multivariable models based on factors associated with increased breastfeeding rates reported in the literature.” Heading changed to Methods. The conclusion section of the abstract – I have confused by the findings stated in your result section and conclusion. Receipt of formula milk was associated with BF (breastfeeding) duration in the result section but in the conclusion part, early feeding practice and intention to breastfeed were predictors of BF duration? Sentence revised for clarity: Early feeding practices including the use of formula in hospitals, and intention to breastfeed >6 months were significant predictors of breastfeeding duration in this population. Outcome: line 104 - initial hospital length of stay and exclusive or any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months CA. what parameters do you use to categorize the outcome variable into 6 weeks,3 months, and six months? Key outcomes were exclusive or any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Surveys were sent to women at these timepoints. Initial length of stay was assessed but not in relation to feeding practices at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. observation. This paragraph has been edited for clarity. - I couldn't find the adjusted odds ratio value in your multivariate logistic regression model to identify the factors associated with breastfeeding duration. if I was not mistaken, how could you conclude the factors associated with breastfeeding duration without making an adjusted odds ratio? you have made only bivariate logistic regression based on table 4. All odds ratios in Table 4 are from multivariable logistic regression models. For example, the odds ratios provided for centre are adjusted for duration planned to breastfeed, sex, NICU admission, formula as first milk feed and SEIFA. To make this clearer, we have now labelled the effect estimate as “Adjusted OR” in the table. Result –you have made too long and interrupted tables, and lacks description Tables re-formatted and description added. Table 3- breastfeeding at 6 months, (n=??? 248) - I am not clear about it? Generally, tables are not prepared in the way of attracting readers. Table 3 corrected and all tables modified for readability. Discussion Line 212- Line 215 this paragraph lacks reference. This paragraph has been modified: Nevertheless, formula use during the neonatal admission may be modifiable with interventions such as pasteurised donor human milk or oral dextrose preparations. There remains little high-quality evidence to guide the clinical management of nutrition support in late preterm infants. Further research is warranted to understand the impact of adopting alternative strategies to maximise nutritional outcomes in this population. Line 218 – L 220. This statement lacks justification about exclusive breastfeeding at discharge related to an increase from 60 % to 74% and decreasing to 33% by 3 months of CA. This paragraph has been modified. Maternal intention to breastfeed>6 months is the most consistent predictor of breastfeeding duration. This factor was not well discussed with other research findings. Line 226 to line 234 in revised manuscript discusses intention to breastfeed: Maternal intention to breastfeed for >6 months was the most consistent factor associated with a longer duration of breastfeeding across all time periods. This is consistent with previous research, predominantly in term infants, and points to the need to promote breastfeeding antenatally to help women clarify their intentions. Our findings suggest there is room to improve support for women after they leave the hospital. Previous research has identified a lack of support from health care professionals in hospital and after discharge home and perceptions about low breastmilk supply as key barriers to breastfeeding late preterm infants. These barriers require addressing and are identified as a priority by parents and care providers. A clean and marked up copy of our revised manuscript has been uploaded to Editorial Manager. We look forward to hearing back from you. Yours sincerely Associate Professor Amy Keir On behalf of the Authorship Group Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272583.r002
6 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Wubet Alebachew Bayih, Editor PONE-D-21-31091R1Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Amy Keir, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: The authors have made significant improvement to the raised concerns. However, there are still some issues that need to be considered as of reviewer 2. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 2022 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: 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, Wubet Alebachew Bayih, M.Sc. 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: 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: The authors were not fully addressed my concerns especially in the abstract part of the manuscript. For instance, 1. In the methods and materials section of the abstract- The type of model used to determine the factors associated with breastfeeding duration was not mentioned. Subheading in the abstract is still method and material. 2. The conclusion section of the abstract – I have confused by the findings stated in your result section and conclusion. Receipt of formula milk was associated with BF (breastfeeding) duration in the result section but in the conclusion part, early feeding practice and intention to breastfeed were predictors of BF duration? 3. Table 1 and table 3 needs description in the frequency column ****** 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: Yes:** Tamirat Getachew 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.0272583.r003
Revision 2
8 Apr 2022 Author Response Thank you for your email received 7th April 2022 with additional comments from Reviewer 2. We appreciate the thorough review and feedback to improve our manuscript. Please find our responses below: Reviewer #2: The authors were not fully addressed my concerns especially in the abstract part of the manuscript. For instance, 1. In the methods and materials section of the abstract- The type of model used to determine the factors associated with breastfeeding duration was not mentioned. Subheading in the abstract is still method and material. A description of the model has been added to abstract methods: “Associations between maternal and infant characteristics and breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months CA were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models.” Subheading updated to “methods”. 2. The conclusion section of the abstract – I have confused by the findings stated in your result section and conclusion. Receipt of formula milk was associated with BF (breastfeeding) duration in the result section but in the conclusion part, early feeding practice and intention to breastfeed were predictors of BF duration? Abstract conclusion updated for clarity to: “Formula as the first milk feed and intention to breastfeed >6 months were significant predictors of breastfeeding duration. 3. Table 1 and table 3 needs description in the frequency column Description added to frequency column in Table 1 and 3. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_To_The_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272583.r004
22 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Ralph C. A. Rippe, Editor Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort study PONE-D-21-31091R2 Dear Dr. Keir, 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, Ralph C. A. Rippe, Ph.D. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: 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 addressing all my concerns . Now, the manuscript is suitable for publication to plos one ****** 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: Yes: Tamirat Getachew Reviewer #2: Yes: Natnael Moges ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272583.r005
Formally Accepted
5 Aug 2022 Acceptance Letter - Ralph C. A. Rippe, Editor PONE-D-21-31091R2 Breastfeeding outcomes in late preterm infants: a multi-centre prospective cohort study Dear Dr. Keir: 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. Ralph C. A. Rippe Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272583.r006

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 .