Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age—Nationwide data from a 13-year period in Hungary

Dániel Bereczki; Mónika Bálint; András Ajtay; Ferenc Oberfrank; Ildikó Vastagh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274873

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 20, 2021
12 May 2021 Decision Letter - D. M. Basavarajaiah, Editor PONE-D-21-09199 Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age - nationwide data from a 13-year period in Hungary PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bereczki, 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 Jun 26 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. 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, Basvarajaiah D. M., ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Below are a few comments that the authors can consider. (i)The author unable to describe the research gap and rationality is not up to the mark, the practical utility of the research is well planned and derived properly. In Methodological section, I have not seen , what are the tests used for assessing the patients and selection of concomitant variables. (ii) In result part, the research hypothesis is not tested by relevant statistical methods .The flow of resulted part is not fulfilled our journal criteria. Plz repharse the sentence and describe the result part by using accurate estimation of variables to be tested by statistical methods. (iii) Discussion and conclusion part is not fulfilled our journal criteria-Major revision should be necessary by the author Decision of the research paper: Major revision and resubmission, because topic is more useful for the scientific community Requested the Author, plz Rephrase the above limitation and comments. 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 (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research." 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: [The work was partly supported by the National Brain Research Program (2017-2-1-NKP-2017-00002). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]. Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reviewer comment 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r001
Revision 1
13 Jun 2021 Author Response Dear Editor, thank you for the valuable feedback provided on our manuscript Bereczki D Jr. et al: Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age – nationwide data from a 13-year period in Hungary submitted with the intention to publish it in the journal PLOS ONE. Please, find our responses to the reviewers’ comments: “(i)The author unable to describe the research gap and rationality is not up to the mark, the practical utility of the research is well planned and derived properly. In Methodological section, I have not seen , what are the tests used for assessing the patients and selection of concomitant variables.” The relevant part of the manuscript in the “Introduction” part on describing the research gap and rationality has been updated as follows: “Comprehensive statistics from large population on neurological disorders affecting future pregnancies are scarce, thus besides concentrating on specific diseases among women in general or focusing on conditions developing during gestation itself, it seems rational to retrospectively study those women of childbearing age who have certainly become pregnant and had a delivery and thereby evaluate the magnitude of pregnancies complicated already at the time of conception by various neurological diseases. Nationwide data on such selected population would be desirable to further optimize prenatal care from the very beginning of gestation and thereby improve maternal and fetal outcomes.” The “Materials and methods” section of the manuscript has been divided into two main parts: “Database design” and “Data evaluation”. In the latter part, it is now emphasized that we have used descriptive statistics by inserting the following sentence to the very beginning of the section: “During data analysis, we used descriptive statistics.” Also, for the sake of clarity, we updated the wording in two sentences: 1. Instead of “For the identification and classification of neurological and obstetrical conditions, three-digit codes from the 10th International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) were used.”, the updating wording is as follows: “For the identification of labours and for the classification of neurological disorders, three-digit codes from the 10th International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) were applied.” 2. Instead of “Temporal distribution of obstetrical and neurological diagnoses enabled the identification (…)”, the updated wording is as follows: “Temporal distribution of the receipt of labor-related and neurological diagnoses given by clinical specialty areas enabled the identification (…)”. Also, in the “Materials and methods” section, the ethics statement has been updated emphasizing that this was a retrospective study of medical records and also approval number provided by the Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary was added. The updated wording is as follows: “During the retrospective study of medical records, data anonymization was provided by the use of encrypted codes derived from original patient identifiers, thereby also making record linkage possible. Study approval was provided by the Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary (Approval No.: SE TUKEB 88-1/2015) and data management was in line with personal data protection rules.” “(ii) In result part, the research hypothesis is not tested by relevant statistical methods .The flow of resulted part is not fulfilled our journal criteria. Plz repharse the sentence and describe the result part by using accurate estimation of variables to be tested by statistical methods.” As pointed out above and also emphasized in the revised manuscript, we used descriptive (and not comparative) statistics during our work. As per SAMPL guidelines, we updated the “Results” part by providing numerators and denominators to all percentages. “(iii) Discussion and conclusion part is not fulfilled our journal criteria” The “Discussion” part has been split into three subunits with following titles: “Pregestational neurological disorders in general”; “Specific neurological disorders before conception”; “Strengths and limitations”. The subunit “Specific neurological disorders before conception” has been further divided into subsections. The “Conclusion” part has been reworded putting more emphasis on the research gap. The updated wording is as follows: “As the scientific literature is scarce on data from large populations concerning the wide range of neurological disorders, nationwide statistics enabling the optimization of prenatal care are desirable.” As per request, funding statement has been amended and included in the updated cover letter as follows: “The work was supported by the National Brain Research Program (2017-2-1-NKP-2017-00002). There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” We hope that after considering our revisions and comments, you will find our manuscript worth to consider it for publication. Sincerely yours, Dániel Bereczki Jr., MD Corresponding author E-mail: bereczki.daniel@hotmail.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r002
30 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Emily W. Harville, Editor PONE-D-21-09199R1Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age - nationwide data from a 13-year period in HungaryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bereczki, 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 provide their calculations for percentages, which doesn’t seem completely necessary (at least the “x 100”) piece, and the “Pregestational neurological disorders in general” piece of the discussion is a little redundant with the methods section. The English could be more idiomatic (for instance, the section added in the introduction has several long and wordy sentences) but doesn’t seem to be incorrect. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 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-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Lucinda Shen Staff Editor on behalf of Emily W. Harville Academic Editor PLOS ONEo:p/o:p 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. 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: The most important practical observation is that neurological diagnoses are not just from neurologists - so incidence data can be misleading. I feel that it is a significant shortcoming that there are no data on the course and outcome of pregnancies. This would significantly increase the value of the article. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Revised Manuscript with Track Changes (Autosaved).docx Attachment Submitted filename: Plos editor.docx Attachment Submitted filename: reviewer comment 2 (1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r003
Revision 2
24 Aug 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, thank you for the valuable feedback provided on our manuscript Bereczki D Jr. et al: Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age – nationwide data from a 13-year period in Hungary submitted with the intention to publish it in the journal PLOS ONE. Please, find our responses to the reviewers’ comments: (i) „The authors provide their calculations for percentages, which doesn’t seem completely necessary (at least the “x 100”) piece.” The concerned calculations have been removed from the revised manuscript. (ii) “The “Pregestational neurological disorders in general” piece of the discussion is a little redundant with the methods section.” In order to dissolve the abovementioned redundancy, the concerned part of the Discussion section has been revised and simplified accordingly. The updated wording is as follows: “After the application of the above detailed specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, it has been revealed that (…)” (iii) “The English could be more idiomatic (for instance, the section added in the introduction has several long and wordy sentences) but doesn’t seem to be incorrect.” The concerned section added in the Introduction part has been split into three shorter sentences. The updated version is as follows: “Comprehensive statistics of neurological disorders affecting future pregnancies in large-scale populations are scarce. Thus, besides concentrating on specific diseases among women in general or focusing on conditions developing during gestation itself, it seems rational to retrospectively study those women of childbearing age who have certainly become pregnant and had a delivery. Thereby it is possible to evaluate the magnitude of pregnancies complicated already at the time of conception by various neurological diseases.” (iv) As per request, additional literature citations have been added to the manuscript. The newly added references (Reference 1, 24, 28, 40 and 46) are the following: • Bereczki D Jr. Terhesség és akut ischaemiás stroke [Pregnancy and acute ischemic stroke]. Orv Hetil 2016;157:763-766. • Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Jensen R, Uluduz D, Katsarava Z. Migraine remains second among the world's causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019. J Headache Pain 2020;21:137. • Bösner S, Schwarm S, Grevenrath P, Schmidt L, Hörner K, Beidatsch D, et al. Prevalence, aetiologies and prognosis of the symptom dizziness in primary care – a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2018;19:33. • Chen S, Chen M, Wu X, Lin S, Tao C, Cao H, et al. Global, regional and national burden of low back pain 1990-2019: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2019. J Ortop Translat 2021;32:49-58. • Kremer C, Gdovinova Z, Bejot Y, Heldner MR, Zuurbier S, Walter S, et al. European Stroke Organisation guidelines on stroke in women: Management of menopause, pregnancy and postpartum. Eur Stroke J 2022;7:I-XIX. We hope that after considering our revisions and comments, you will find our manuscript worth to consider it for publication. Sincerely yours, Dániel Bereczki Jr., MD Corresponding author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r004
1 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Emily W. Harville, Editor PONE-D-21-09199R2Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age - nationwide data from a 13-year period in HungaryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bereczki, 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 substantive issues have been corrected, so I had just a few more suggestions to make the English more idiomatic.============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 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-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Emily W. Harville Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 2. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The authors have addressed the substantive comments and I have just a few English suggestions. Throughout - clarify that GP is not considered a specialty; diagnoses were taken from secondary care practitioners. (to my understanding.) Objectives: “The” main objective Remove “massive” Conclusion: “The” present research, algorithms Line 82 It thereby rather than Thereby it 105 remove comma after specialties 106 remove comma after noted 128 remove comma after patients 138 an IT specialization and extensive 145 change have been to were 146 change Out of them to Of those 185 move first clause to end of sentence 278 headache add “sufferers” or “patients” 279 move comma after that 280 put comma after specialties 322 40 years [36], change to semicolon 335 comma after palsy 444 add “The” main [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r005
Revision 3
4 Sep 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, thank you for the additional comments provided on our manuscript Bereczki D Jr. et al: Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age – nationwide data from a 13-year period in Hungary submitted with the intention to publish it in the journal PLOS ONE. Please, find our responses to the comments: (i) “Throughout - clarify that GP is not considered a specialty; diagnoses were taken from secondary care practitioners. (to my understanding.)” For the sake of clarity, we reworded the concerned parts of the manuscript: In the Materials and methods section, the updated wording is as follows: “To exclude non-clinical specialty areas (e.g. laboratory diagnostics, diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy, psychology, etc.), only diagnoses which had been confirmed by secondary care clinical specialties were involved in the study by the use of specific clinical specialty codes applied in Hungary. It is to be noted that primary care reports submitted by general practitioners were not included in the database.” In the Strengths and limitations section, the updated wording is as follows: “(3) the dataset contained diagnoses given by secondary care specialists, however medical reports submitted by general practitioners were not involved in the study” (ii) All of the grammatical suggestions have been implemented in the updated manuscript. We hope that after considering our revisions and comments, you will find our manuscript worth to consider it for publication. Sincerely yours, Dániel Bereczki Jr., MD Corresponding author Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r006
7 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Emily W. Harville, Editor Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age - nationwide data from a 13-year period in Hungary PONE-D-21-09199R3 Dear Dr. Bereczki, 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, Emily W. Harville Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r007
Formally Accepted
12 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Emily W. Harville, Editor PONE-D-21-09199R3 Pregestational neurological disorders among women of childbearing age – nationwide data from a 13-year period in Hungary Dear Dr. Bereczki: 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. Emily W. Harville Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274873.r008

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 .