PONE-D-22-23913Protective and vulnerability factors for PTSD after preterm deliveryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Eutrope,

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 19 2023 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,

Charles Martin-Krumm, Ph.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. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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: Thank you very much for the work you have done.

I don't have any particular recommendation for your introduction your discussion and your conclusion which in my opinion was well done.

On the other hand, your result part has for me several shortcomings.

First, the Cronbach's alphas of your scales in your study are missing. This is a problem since we cannot guess the minimum psychometric properties of your scales in your sample.

Second, you present some results in your tables and you do not present the data for your multiple regression apart from the explained variance. This forces the reader to take your word for it.

I am asking for a major revision so that you can rewrite this section and present the results according to research standards. Otherwise, your paper will not be published.

I know that it is frustrating and complicated to revise part of your work, but your work is important to the field, and without these elements, it loses its strength.

Good luck, I'm sure you'll get through it.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PONE-D-22-23913R1Protective and vulnerability factors for PTSD after preterm deliveryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Eutrope,

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 Dec 28 2023 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,

Giuseppe Marano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank to you for the opportunity to review the manuscript ‘Protective and vulnerability factors for PTSD after preterm delivery’ by Grand et al.. The manuscript describes a correlational study between postpartum PTSD symptoms with neuroticism and extraversion among mothers who gave birth prematurely. While the issue of vulnerability to postpartum PTSD and other psychopathologies is of utmost importance, a correlational study at a single timepoint, with a very small sample, does not qualify as addressing “protective and vulnerability factors”. Unfortunately, my assessment of the manuscripts is that it should be rejected, for the following reasons.

1. As noted above, the design of the study and size of the sample do not qualify as addressing protective and vulnerability factors, which are predictive terms. Also using the phrase “propensity to develop PTSD”, is not accurate – the PPQ assesses the number of current symptoms.

2. The manuscript in general is not well written.

a. The introduction has repetitions (for example the first and second paragraphs).

b. It delves into topics completely irrelevant to the study such as mother-infant bonding, attachment or long-term effects of stress.

c. There several missing citations (e.g., lines 67, 68, 85, 89…).

d. There’s confusion regarding the structure of the methods and results: For example, demographics of the sample and reliabilities of the scales should be in the methods section; providing information on the study and obtaining informed consent is in the procedure, it is not pertinent information that participants received a copy of the informed consent.

e. The sources of the original questionnaires need to be cited, as well as their translations.

f. There’s also inconsistency in the use of the decimal point, in some instances it’s a comma in others it’s a period.

g. The use of the term “control group” is incompatible with a correlational study.

h. Typically, statistics are reported once – either in tables or figures or in text. For example, reporting the beta values of the regression, can be either in the table or in the text. The table can contain other information (e.g., B, SE, t, VIF etc.).

3. Results section:

a. In the first part the sample is divided by PPQ cutoff, but this cutoff is not used for hypothesis testing, so why is it necessary? Also, there’s no citation for the cutoff of 6.

b. There are statements in the results section that should be removed completely (e.g., 23% is nearly a quarter), or addressed only in the discussion section (e.g., lines 239-240).

c. Testing the difference in PPQ between women with or w/o a history of depression is not a hypothesis, why was this done?

d. In contrast, after testing whether demographic measures correlated with PPQ, those that were significant could and should have been included in the regression.

Given the small size of the study, the simple replication of previous studies and poor methodological execution I think the manuscript should be rejected.

Reviewer #3: The authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in the previous round of review as seen in the manuscript and author's responses attached to the submitted manuscript. The manuscript describes a technically sound piece of scientific research and conclusions have been drawn from the data presented. The key results as indicated are the protective and vulnerability factors for PTSD among mothers with preterm babies. The study has highlighted these factors well and in the discussion they (factors) have been given as the possible reasons for and against PTSD. The results presented are of immediate interest to many people in my own discipline, or to people from several disciplines since the study highlights protective and vulnerability factors associated with PTSD among mothers with preterm babies, a disorder that has been neglected for a long time yet it is detrimental

All the data has been included in supporting information under database and is available without restriction

Reviewer #4: Thank you for this paper on Protective and vulnerability factors for PTSD after preterm delivery. This is an important topic, and as you pointed out, has been understudied.

TITLE

1. Please include that your study assessed personality traits, perhaps “Protective and vulnerability personality traits associated with PTSD diagnosis after preterm delivery.”

INTRODUCTION

1. Line 69 – I’m not sure that cerebral immaturity is a reason for stress in parents of preterm infants, all babies are cerebrally immature. Do you perhaps mean the potential for neurodevelopmental adverse outcomes in the preterm period? Please explain this thought more.

2. Line 84-86 – stress has also been shown to cause premature activation of the hypothalamic pituitary axis, and may be a risk factor for preterm birth, I think this should be addressed/discussed as well.

3. Line 97-98, you note that ”Research on this subject estimates that it occurs in 25% to 33% of mothers after a preterm birth.” What were the risk factors for the development of PTSD in mothers who experienced preterm birth. Please add this to the discussion here, as it makes the reader interested to find out more from your study.

4. Line 132, you note that ”Certain personality traits, notably extraversion and 133 neuroticism, are strongly correlated with the emergence of anxiety disorders.” However, there is no citation for this statement. Please include one as well as additional rationale for choosing only these 2 of the 5 personality traits to include in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Line 154 – you note that mothers whose babies died were not included in the study. Please discuss your rationale for this decision. Also I think you should discuss later how this may have affected your results. By excluding participants whose babies died, I think you are skewing the results. People whose babies died are more likely to experience PTSD from the event.

2. Please include the validity, sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative predictive value of the PPQ and NEO-FFI surveys.

3. Was a sample size calculated for this study? Please include this information.

DISCUSSION

1. Please include a discussion of how the results may have been impacted by the exclusion of mothers whose babies died.

2. I think you should also discuss how your results were likely influenced by the inclusion of mothers of preterm infants born at < 33 weeks (morse severe than infants born between 34 and 36 weeks (late preterm)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: BEATRICE MUKABANA

Reviewer #4: 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.

PONE-D-22-23913R2Protective and vulnerability personality traits associated with PTSD diagnosis after preterm deliveryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Eutrope,

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 28 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,

Giuseppe Marano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: 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 #5: Partly

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: 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 #5: 1. In Table 4, Cohens d value has not been included.

2. in Table 4 confidence intervals of upper and lower limit also not included.

3. In table 5 confidence intervals of upper and lower limit also not included.

4. In table 5, F value not mentioned.

5. In Table 5 Both Unstandardized and standardized beta coefficients have to be reported

Reviewer #6: I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.

please delete the question "What were the risk factors for the development of PTSD..." and discuss the risk factors associated with PTSD Development as recommended by previous reviewer 4.

Before line 128, it would be appropriate for the authors to provide two or three statements on the findings of previous empirical studies on personality traits in this context. This might justify why they choose neuroticism and extraversion as recommended by previous Reviewer 4.

It is kindly recommended that the authors also discuss the results of the second hypothesis (comparing PTSD Mothers and Non-PTSD Mothers concerning history of depression) in the discussion section.

Thank you.

Reviewer #7: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between personality traits and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in mothers who experienced preterm delivery. The research question and objectives were clear and well-defined, and the literature review provided a solid foundation for the study. The methodology and statistical analysis were well-explained and appropriate for the research question.

The study's findings on the correlation between neuroticism and extraversion with PTSD were interesting and relevant. However, the study had several limitations that should be addressed in future research. The small sample size (51 participants) and specific population studied (mothers who gave birth prematurely before 33 weeks) limit the generalizability of the findings. The lack of a control group or comparison with full-term mothers makes it difficult to determine if the findings are unique to preterm delivery. Additionally, only two personality traits were found to be correlated with PTSD, while other traits were not explored.

The study's reliance on self-reported measures may be subject to bias, and the lack of longitudinal follow-up to assess the long-term effects of PTSD on mothers and children is a significant limitation. Furthermore, other potential explanatory variables, such as social support, coping mechanisms, or obstetric history, were not considered.

Recommendations:

- Increase the sample size and diversify the population studied to enhance generalizability.

- Include a control group or comparison with full-term mothers to determine if the findings are unique to preterm delivery.

- Explore additional personality traits and potential explanatory variables.

- Use multiple measures, including clinical interviews, to reduce bias.

- Conduct longitudinal follow-up to assess the long-term effects of PTSD on mothers and children.

Strengths:

1. Clear research question and objectives

2. Relevant literature review on PTSD, preterm delivery, and personality traits

3. Well-explained methodology and statistical analysis

4. Interesting and relevant findings on the correlation between neuroticism and extraversion with PTSD

5. Discussion of limitations and potential avenues for future research

Weaknesses:

1. Small sample size (51 participants)

2. Limited generalizability due to the specific population studied (mothers who gave birth prematurely before 33 weeks)

3. No control group or comparison with full-term mothers

4. Only two personality traits (neuroticism and extraversion) were found to be correlated with PTSD, while other traits (openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) were not

Add these limitations as future recommendations

1. Longitudinal follow-up to assess the long-term effects of PTSD on mothers and children

2. Consideration of other potential explanatory variables, such as social support, coping mechanisms, or obstetric history

3. The study relied on self-reported measures, which may be subject to bias

Overall, the article presents a clear and well-structured research study, but with some limitations that should be addressed in future research. The findings on the correlation between personality traits and PTSD are interesting and relevant, but require further exploration and replication with larger and more diverse samples.

**********

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 #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes: Dr. Syeda Rubab Aftab

**********

[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.

Protective and vulnerability personality traits associated with PTSD diagnosis after preterm delivery

PONE-D-22-23913R3

Dear Dr. Eutrope,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Giuseppe Marano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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 #5: The article is now in appropriate form to be published. Check thoroughly once the references and in text citations.

Reviewer #6: I am thankful for the chance to review this manuscript. The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous submission. I look forward to seeing it in print.

**********

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 #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

**********