RETRACTED: Endometriosis and pregnancy: The illusion of recovery

Axel Veyrié; Antoine Netter; Xavier Carcopino; Laura Miquel; Aubert Agostini; Blandine Courbiere

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272828

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 26, 2022
14 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Diego Raimondo, Editor PONE-D-22-21031Endometriosis and pregnancy: the illusion of recovery.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Netter, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 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, Diego Raimondo 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. 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. 4. 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: N/A 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: I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, the authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below. Authors should consider the following recommendations: - Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style. - I would suggest to discuss, at least briefly, the results from the SAFE (surgery and ART for endometriomas) trial, and in general of the integrated approach (surgery + ART) aimed to improve reproductive outcomes in women with endometriosis-associated infertility (PMID: 34585638; PMID: 29274003). - Authors should discuss the detrimental role of infertility associated with endometriosis on psychological wellbeing (they may refer to: PMID: 27750472; PMID: 26319653). Reviewer #2: thank you to give me tha chence to revie this qualitative study on the illusion of recovery during pregnancy involving patients affected by endometriosis. The study is well conducted and explored a very important topic giving new insights to medical literature. It can help counselling patients in our outpatient clinics. I suggest only to revise english language throughout the manuscript and add relevant and specific literature regarding the medical therapy adopted to treat deep lesions (doi 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.008) focusing on the importance to suggest medical therapy also after delivery. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272828.r001
Revision 1
19 Oct 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: I read with great interest the manuscript, which falls within the aim of this Journal. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, the authors should clarify some points and improve the discussion, as suggested below. Response: We thank reviewer #1 for his/her comments. Authors should consider the following recommendations: - Manuscript should be further revised in order to correct some typos and improve style. Response: The reviewer is right, there was a need to review the English. We did a full proofreading and editing throughout the manuscript to improve the style and syntax. We also commissioned scribbr to validate this proofreading (https://www.scribbr.fr/). We enclose the invoice as an additional document as proof. We hope the result will be satisfactory. Nevertheless, we know that these proofreading companies are not foolproof. If the reviewer finds any errors that have escaped our attention, we will gladly correct them. - I would suggest to discuss, at least briefly, the results from the SAFE (surgery and ART for endometriomas) trial, and in general of the integrated approach (surgery + ART) aimed to improve reproductive outcomes in women with endometriosis-associated infertility (PMID: 34585638; PMID: 29274003). Response: The reviewer is right: these data from the literature are important and relevant to our topic. We have added a paragraph to the discussion integrating the literature suggestions of both reviewers: Our study focuses on infertile women who have undergone IVF and achieved pregnancy. Some data in the literature have already established that endometriosis and endometriosis-induced infertility have a negative impact on quality of life [17,18]. The qualitative data we present allow us to explore the changes that take place precisely when infertility treatments have worked, and patients are pregnant. Our results are indeed in favor of an improvement during the pregnancy following IVF but suggest that this improvement is only temporary. Only quantitative data based on questionnaires should clarify whether quality of life is durably improved after pregnancy, but our results do not seem to suggest this. The interviews deliberately address very little about surgical treatment, even though most of our patients had undergone surgery prior to IVF according to an integrated approach already described in the literature [19,20]. It is likely that this integrated approach for endometriosis-associated infertility has an impact that should be explored to determine which of surgery or IVF has the greatest influence on patient experience. Several of our results also showed how these changes in patients' experiences make it difficult to resume hormone treatment after pregnancy. Several data in the literature suggest that this treatment is important to reduce the symptoms and progression of endometriosis [5,21]. Our study highlights the need to better inform patients of the importance of this medical treatment after childbirth even in the absence of symptoms. 17. Ban Frangež H, Vrtacnik Bokal E, Štimpfel M, Divjak Budihna T, Gulino FA, Garzon S, et al. Reproductive outcomes after laparoscopic surgery in infertile women affected by ovarian endometriomas, with or without in vitro fertilisation: results from the SAFE (surgery and ART for endometriomas) trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;42: 1293–1300. doi:10.1080/01443615.2021.1959536 18. Šalamun V, Verdenik I, Laganà AS, Vrtačnik-Bokal E. Should we consider integrated approach for endometriosis-associated infertility as gold standard management? Rationale and results from a large cohort analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297: 613–621. doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4633-0 - Authors should discuss the detrimental role of infertility associated with endometriosis on psychological wellbeing (they may refer to: PMID: 27750472; PMID: 26319653). Response: The reviewer is right: these data from the literature are important and relevant to our topic. We have added a paragraph to the discussion integrating the literature suggestions of both reviewers: Our study focuses on infertile women who have undergone IVF and achieved pregnancy. Some data in the literature have already established that endometriosis and endometriosis-induced infertility have a negative impact on quality of life [17,18]. The qualitative data we present allow us to explore the changes that take place precisely when infertility treatments have worked, and patients are pregnant. Our results are indeed in favor of an improvement during the pregnancy following IVF but suggest that this improvement is only temporary. Only quantitative data based on questionnaires should clarify whether quality of life is durably improved after pregnancy, but our results do not seem to suggest this. The interviews deliberately address very little about surgical treatment, even though most of our patients had undergone surgery prior to IVF according to an integrated approach already described in the literature [19,20]. It is likely that this integrated approach for endometriosis-associated infertility has an impact that should be explored to determine which of surgery or IVF has the greatest influence on patient experience. Several of our results also showed how these changes in patients' experiences make it difficult to resume hormone treatment after pregnancy. Several data in the literature suggest that this treatment is important to reduce the symptoms and progression of endometriosis [5,21]. Our study highlights the need to better inform patients of the importance of this medical treatment after childbirth even in the absence of symptoms. 19. Vitale SG, La Rosa VL, Rapisarda AMC, Laganà AS. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and psychological well-being. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;38: 317–319. doi:10.1080/0167482X.2016.1244185 20. Laganà AS, Condemi I, Retto G, Muscatello MRA, Bruno A, Zoccali RA, et al. Analysis of psychopathological comorbidity behind the common symptoms and signs of endometriosis. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2015;194: 30–33. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.08.015 Reviewer #2: thank you to give me the chance to review this qualitative study on the illusion of recovery during pregnancy involving patients affected by endometriosis. The study is well conducted and explored a very important topic giving new insights to medical literature. It can help counselling patients in our outpatient clinics. Response: We thank reviewer #2 for his/her remarks. I suggest only to revise english language throughout the manuscript and add relevant and specific literature regarding the medical therapy adopted to treat deep lesions (doi 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.008) focusing on the importance to suggest medical therapy also after delivery. Response: The reviewer is right, there was a need to review the English. We did a full proofreading and editing throughout the manuscript to improve the style and syntax. We also commissioned scribbr to validate this proofreading (https://www.scribbr.fr/). We enclose the invoice as an additional document as proof. We hope the result will be satisfactory. Nevertheless, we know that these proofreading companies are not foolproof. If the reviewer finds any errors that have escaped our attention, we will gladly correct them. The reviewer is right: these data from the literature are important and relevant to our topic. We have added a paragraph to the discussion integrating the literature suggestions of both reviewers: Our study focuses on infertile women who have undergone IVF and achieved pregnancy. Some data in the literature have already established that endometriosis and endometriosis-induced infertility have a negative impact on quality of life [17,18]. The qualitative data we present allow us to explore the changes that take place precisely when infertility treatments have worked, and patients are pregnant. Our results are indeed in favor of an improvement during the pregnancy following IVF but suggest that this improvement is only temporary. Only quantitative data based on questionnaires should clarify whether quality of life is durably improved after pregnancy, but our results do not seem to suggest this. The interviews deliberately address very little about surgical treatment, even though most of our patients had undergone surgery prior to IVF according to an integrated approach already described in the literature [19,20]. It is likely that this integrated approach for endometriosis-associated infertility has an impact that should be explored to determine which of surgery or IVF has the greatest influence on patient experience. Several of our results also showed how these changes in patients' experiences make it difficult to resume hormone treatment after pregnancy. Several data in the literature suggest that this treatment is important to reduce the symptoms and progression of endometriosis [5,21]. Our study highlights the need to better inform patients of the importance of this medical treatment after childbirth even in the absence of symptoms. 21. Mabrouk M, Frascà C, Geraci E, Montanari G, Ferrini G, Raimondo D, et al. Combined oral contraceptive therapy in women with posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18: 470–474. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.008 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272828.r002
21 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Diego Raimondo, Editor Endometriosis and pregnancy: the illusion of recovery. PONE-D-22-21031R1 Dear Dr. Netter, 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, Diego Raimondo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272828.r003
Formally Accepted
25 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Diego Raimondo, Editor PONE-D-22-21031R1 Endometriosis and pregnancy: the illusion of recovery. Dear Dr. Netter: 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. Diego Raimondo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272828.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .