Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 25, 2023
Decision Letter - Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, Editor
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-23-33818Perioperative outcomes and causes of postpartum hemorrhage in patients undergoing cesarean delivery in Thailand: a comprehensive retrospective studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nivatpumin,

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 Mar 15 2024 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,

Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, M.D.

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

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

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Very impressive study with an interesting findings,

I would like to highlight some points that need to be modified so that the paper could be more clear for the readers:

1- Could you please write the inclusion and exclusion criteriae for the sample size that you included into your study?

2- What are the limitations of your study?

3- 12 out of your 37 references are up to dat, could you please update some of your references?

4- Reference N. 16 needs to be written in a correct citation style.

**********

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: Mena Abdalla

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Prof. Emily Chenette

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS ONE

February 7th, 2024

Re: PLOS ONE Manuscript PONE-D-23-33818

Dear Prof. Emily Chenette,

Please find attached the revised version of the original article “Perioperative outcomes and causes of postpartum hemorrhage in patients undergoing cesarean delivery in Thailand: a comprehensive retrospective study” for consideration for publication in PLOS ONE.

Your comments were highly insightful and enabled us to improve the quality of our manuscript markedly. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to the reviewer's comment. Details and revisions in the text are shown using the red font.

We have incorporated comprehensive details into the manuscript and its associated discussion, following the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. Additionally, we have added the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the method part. Furthermore, we have added the limitation of the study in the discussion part. The updated references have also been added (reference numbers #10, 13, 14, and 15), and rewritten all the reference styles to the PLOS ONE format by Endnote X20 for Mac.

We hope that the revisions made to this article, along with our accompanying response have met the necessary criteria to render our manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Patchareya Nivatpumin, M.D.

Associate Professor

Division of Obstetric Anesthesia

Department of Anesthesiology

Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital

Mahidol University

2 Prannok Road, Bangkok, Thailand 10700

Tel: +66 89 666 2187; Fax: +66 2 411 3256

E-mail: patchareya.niv@mahidol.ac.th

Responses to the comments of Reviewers

1. Could you please write the inclusion and exclusion criteriae for the sample size that you included into your study?

Response: We have added the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the method part. “We accessed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent cesarean deliveries at Siriraj Hospital between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. Records were identified using the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) code O72.1, labeled “other immediate postpartum hemorrhage.” Only records with this ICD-10 code were included in the analysis. We excluded patients with a gestational age of less than 24 weeks and those with incomplete anesthetic records.

2. What are the limitations of your study?

Response: We have added the limitation of the study in the last paragraph of the discussion part. “Nonetheless, there are limitations to our study. The retrospective nature of our study constrains the granularity of data, with details such as the indications for blood transfusion and pretransfusion hemoglobin levels remaining unknown. Anesthesia techniques, intraoperative management, and obstetric interventions varied according to the discretion of the attending anesthesiologists and obstetricians, introducing a degree of clinical variability. Moreover, as the study is based on data from a single tertiary referral center, it may not capture the full spectrum of PPH incidences, outcomes, and causes of cesarean deliveries throughout Thailand, where regional and hospital-level variations are likely.” A more expansive national study examining perioperative outcomes from countrywide data on cesarean deliveries is recommended.”

3. 12 out of your 37 references are up to date, could you please update some of your references?

Response: We have incorporated the revised reference list, encompassing citations 10, 13, 14, and 15. Notably, the definition of Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) has undergone modification, with reference 15 now reflecting this change: 'A consensus redefinition of transfusion-related acute lung injury. Transfusion. 2019;59(7):2465-76.' This update has been implemented accordingly. However, it is pertinent to highlight that the definition of acute kidney injury (AKI) remains consistent with the previously published iteration from 2012, as delineated in 'KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120(4):c179-84.' This aspect has been maintained without alteration.

4. Reference N. 16 needs to be written in a correct citation style.

Response: The references have all been reformatted to adhere to the PLOS ONE citation style using EndNote X20.

Decision Letter - Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, Editor

Perioperative outcomes and causes of postpartum hemorrhage in patients undergoing cesarean delivery in Thailand: a comprehensive retrospective study

PONE-D-23-33818R1

Dear Authors,

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,

Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, Editor

PONE-D-23-33818R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nivatpumin,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .