All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors carefully addressed the issues, the manuscript is in good shape now.
The authors carefully discuss the sample size issues.
The authors carefully discussed the statistical analysis and interpretation.
The authors carefully addressed the issues raised in the first round of review, the manuscript is in good shape now.
The authors have shared raw data and related documents which is quite helpful for future research kept consistent.
Here is a good improvement.
no comment
A minor issue in reference list should be corrected: the contents of the 3rd and 4th paper are almost identical (Bardi et al), except for the year 2022a and 2022b.
In addition to the reviewer's comments, one of the limitations of a single-center study is generalizability; The authors should add this to their limitations.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Overall, the article is well written. The literature references are appropriate and up-to-date. The structure is clear. The source of data is clearly stated. However, there are some grammar mistakes and format issues to be improved. I also suggest adding marginal numbers to the first row (Number of
cases, Delivery, Termination of pregnancy) in Table 1.
The sample size is limited, especially, for the Diagnostic gestational age(W)(%) <= 13 subgroup. If possible, researchers should try to increase the sample size.
It is not clearly stated in the statistical method session whether the researchers control for any potential confounding variables in the logistic regression models. I suggest elaborating more on this part and explaining in more detail what variable we need to adjust and why. More rigorous statistical methods are needed.
The conclusion sentence 'The gestational age at diagnosis, the number of abnormal diagnoses, and treatment recommendations are factors that influence the decision to induce labor in pregnant women with fetal abnormalities.' is ambiguous and a little misleading. We can only conclude the association but not the causation using the method. The interpretation of statistical results should be improved.
No additional comments
The manuscript is well-structured, adhering to professional standards with clear, unambiguous English. The literature review provides an adequate background, setting a solid foundation for the study's relevance and necessity. Figures and tables are appropriately used to summarize the study's findings, enhancing the reader's comprehension. However, the manuscript could benefit from explicitly stating the availability and access details of the raw data, aligning with PeerJ's policy for transparency and reproducibility.
The study presents original primary research that fits within the journal's scope, addressing a significant gap in the literature regarding the outcomes of pregnancies affected by fetal abnormalities in a Chinese hospital context. The research question is clearly defined, relevant, and meaningful. The methods are described with enough detail to allow replication, and ethical considerations are adequately addressed. Nevertheless, this section could be enhanced by further discussing the selection of statistical methods and elaborating on how potential biases were managed.
The findings are supported by robust, statistically sound data and are well-aligned with the initial research question. The study's conclusions are appropriately limited to the evidence presented. However, the impact and novelty of the findings could be further emphasized, detailing how this research contributes to existing knowledge and suggesting avenues for meaningful replication. Clarifying how these findings could influence practice or policy would add value.
Raw Data Accessibility: Provide a clear statement regarding the availability of raw data, possibly through a public repository, to facilitate transparency and replication efforts.
Impact and Novelty: Enhance the discussion on the study's impact by comparing its findings with existing literature, highlighting its unique contributions to the field.
Encourage Replication: Outline potential settings or populations where replication could yield additional insights, promoting further research based on this study's findings.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.