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.
Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments in full. Your manuscript is now ready for publication.
- The article uses generally clear and academic English.
- Terminology (MPV, TT, AUC, etc.) is consistent and standardized.
- Pathophysiology of preeclampsia (endothelial damage, hypercoagulability) is well summarized.
- Hypothesis is supported.
- The research topic is appropriate for the aims and scope of the journal.
- Patient selection criteria, laboratory protocols, and statistical analysis (SPSS, ROC curves) are clearly defined.
Although the predictive value of the MPV/TT combination has been previously examined in the literature, this study has limited specificity in that it demonstrates the graded association of this combination with severe PE.
The corrections made by the authors are sufficient for me.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
- The language used in the article is clear and understandable.
- The references used are up-to-date and sufficient.
- Raw data has been shared.
- According to the material-method section, blood samples were taken in the control group when they were hospitalized for delivery and in the PE groups when they were diagnosed. Did this affect the results of the study?
- Pregnancy-related outcomes were not reported.
- How the control group was selected was not reported.
- Instead of mild and severe PE, I think it is correct to classify PE according to whether it has severe features or not.
- They did not specify which groups' statistical significance was found.
- How did PDW, which was not statistically significant when the groups were compared, gain significance in multiple regression analysis?
-
-
-
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. My specific concerns regarding the paper are included below:
- Studies investigating platelet parameters (like MPV, PC) and coagulation markers (like TT, fibrinogen) in relation to preeclampsia are already abundant in the literature. The association of MPV and TT with preeclampsia has been previously reported multiple times. This study neither presents a new biomarker, a novel method of analysis, nor a substantially innovative risk model.
- The study does not contribute any new pathophysiological insight into the mechanisms of PE or the clinical management of patients.
- Lots of grammatical errors should be corrected. The language of the manuscript should be improved by a native English speaker or a professional editing service.
- The objective is not clear. Is it correlation analysis, risk model development, or both? Kindly state the objective clearly and concisely.
- ‘.. including 198 cases diagnosed with mild-PE, severe-PE, respectively…’ This description is confusing.
- 'Fibrinogen mean' is not a proper termination.
- Sensitivity (0.657) is relatively poor for a clinical prediction model.
- The conclusions overstate the findings. The authors wrote that this model has a certain predictive capability. However, this is not supported by the low sensitivity.
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.