您好,欢迎访问三七文档
当前位置:首页 > 临时分类 > SampleResponseToRevisions
October15,2013Re:ResubmissionofmanuscriptPrimaryCesareanDeliveryAmongPandas,ONG13-XXXXTheEditorsObstetrics&Gynecology40912thStreet,SWWashington,DC20024-2188DearEditors:Thankyoufortheopportunitytoreviseourmanuscript,PrimaryCesareanAmongPandas.Weappreciatethecarefulreviewandconstructivesuggestions.Itisourbeliefthatthemanuscriptissubstantiallyimprovedaftermakingthesuggestededits.Followingthisletteraretheeditorandreviewercommentswithourresponsesinitalics,includinghowandwherethetextwasmodified.Changesmadeinthemanuscriptaremarkedusingtrackchanges.Therevisionhasbeendevelopedinconsultationwithallcoauthors,andeachauthorhasgivenapprovaltothefinalformofthisrevision.Theagreementformsignedbyeachauthorremainsvalid.WeagreewiththeclassificationofthepaperasLevelIIIevidence.Thankyouforyourconsideration.Sincerely,AnneleeBoyle,MDComment[C1]:Includethemanuscriptnumbergiventoyouwhenyousubmittedthearticlethefirsttime.Comment[C2]:Helpfulhint:IturnofftrackchangesasIrevisethemanuscriptbutdo“comparedocument”totheoriginalsubmissionattheend(otherwisemyresubmissionwouldlooklikethis:OurTheThisOurstudy...).Comment[C3]:Helpfulhint:alwayssubmittheauthoragreementformwiththeinitialsubmission,orasearlyaspossible.Pertheeditorialstaff,itisthenumberonethingthatdelayspublishingofanacceptedpaper.SampleResponsetoRevisionRequestREVIEWER#1:1a.Theabstractmightbetterdifferentiateamongthethreecategories.1b.Thedataintheabstractdon’tsupporttheconclusionsintheabstract.1c.Probablyshouldrewritethispartsothatthemethodsarereflectedintheresultsthatthensupporttheconclusions.Thankyoufortheseobservations.Wehaverewrittentheabstracttobetterdifferentiateamongtheobjectivesandeditedsothatthemethodsarereflectedintheresultsandthedatasupporttheconclusions.2.Giventhatyouciteobesityasrelatedtothehighercesareanrateintheintroduction,youmightwanttospendaparagraphdiscussingyourfindingsregardingBMIinthediscussion.Weagreethattheassociationofobesitywithhighercesareanrateisimportant,butthisrelationshiphasalreadybeenexploredindetailinanotherpublication[DoeAB,RaeCD,MeEF,etal.Pandabodymassindex:astrongassociationwithdeliveryroute.PandaObstetGynecol.2010;100(1):X-Y].Wehaveaddedthisasareference,butchosenottodevoteanentireparagraphtodiscussingBMI,giventhepriorworkandspacelimitations.Iftheeditorwouldlikeustoexpand,wecandoso.REVIEWER#2Thisstudyisasecondaryanalysisofalarge,multisiteprospectiveobservationalcohort.Thecurrentanalysisaimedtoidentifynationalindicationsforpandacesareandelivery,characterizecontributingfactorstopandaCD,andidentifyopportunitiestoreducethepandaCDrate.Thisstudyaddsvaluableinformationre:thestateofpandaCDintheU.S.Whilegenerallywellwritten,thisstudyhasseveralmethodologicalissuesthatneedtobeaddressedpriortoconsiderationforpublication.1.Thetypeofstudyshouldbelistedundermethods.Weagreewiththereviewerandhaveaddedthatthisisaretrospectivecohortstudytothemethodssectionoftheabstract(linesX–X).2.Theintroductioniswellwritten,butdoesnotinformthereaderastothereasonswhyweshouldseektoreducethehighrateofcesareandeliveryamongpandas.Inthefirstparagraph,theauthorsshouldbrieflysummarizetherisksassociatedwithCD.TheimplicationsofprimaryCDonriskofsubsequentaccretaspectrumdisorders,amajorsourceofmorbidity/mortalityrelatedtoCD,shouldbementioned.Weagreewiththereviewerandhaveaddedthefollowingsentencesintheintroduction(linesXX–XX):“Cesareandeliveryinpandasisassociatedwithhighermorbidityandmortalitythanvaginalbirths.Cesareandeliveryalsoincreasestheriskofabnormalplacentationinsubsequentpregnancies,whichcanleadtouterinerupture,placentaaccreta,hemorrhage,hysterectomy,andmaternaldeath.”Comment[C4]:Formatyourresponsetobeasclearaspossible.Comment[C5]:Reviewer1didnotincludecommentnumbers,sointhiscaseIgroupedsimilarcommentstogetherComment[C6]:Includeeverythingthereviewerswrite,evenifyoudon’tneedtoreplytoit.Comment[C7]:Includelinenumberswhereverapplicable.Comment[C8]:Inadditiontolinenumbers,thequotedtexthelps(thelineswillshiftifthetrackedchangestothemanuscriptareaccepted)SampleResponsetoRevisionRequest3.Inthediscussiononfetalmalpresentation,therateofattemptedECVwasnotreported.Theauthorsthereforecannotcommentonwhetherincreasingtheavailability/performanceofECVwouldreducetheCDrate.Rather,theyshouldstatethatlackofECVinformationwasalimitationandhighlightthatnoconclusion/recommendationcanbemadebasedonthisdata.Weagreeandhaveaddedtothediscussion(linesXX–XX):“Sinceattemptedexternalcephalicversionswerenotcapturedinthedata,wecoulddrawnoconclusionsabouttheireffectonthepandacesareanrate.”REVIEWER#3Thismanuscriptcontainsimportantinformationaboutthepandacesareandeliverythatisusefulforotherstatesandcountries.1.Itwasagooddecisiontoincludeintheanalysisofthework,thecriterionof6cmtodefineactivephaseoflabor,becauseitispartofelementsproventoreducetheratesofcaesareandelivery.Thankyou.STATISTICALEDITORCOMMENTSTheStatisticalEditormakesthefollowingpointsthatneedtobeaddressed:1.Aclearandcompletestatementofhowthesamplesizewasdeterminedwasnotincludedintheoriginalmanuscript.Pleaseaddressthisinyourrevisedmanuscript.Werevisedthemethodssect
本文标题:SampleResponseToRevisions
链接地址:https://www.777doc.com/doc-4939236 .html