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 have addressed the comments from the reviewers and the manuscript may be acceptable for publication at the current stage.
Please carefully read the comments and suggestions from the reviewers and provide your point-to-point responses.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Yes
Yes
Yes
no comment
no comment
no comment
I'm very glad to review your manuscript. We found that the author explained the updated meta-analysis of risk factors associated with adverse pregnancy in Chinese women. However, during the trial, we found some problems that need to be modified by the author.
1.The abbreviations appearing for the first time in the abstract and manuscript need to be defined. Please check the full text.
2.Cite others’ literature and compare it with this study to explore its possible mechanisms in the section of Discussion.
3. Please elaborate on the core differences between the meta-analysis you have done and the published meta-analysis with the similar name.
4.In the past five years, the citations of relevant literature should exceed 80%.
5. Are there clear conceptual definitions for the key variables, and are the variables available from the primary studies appropriate given the conceptual definitions above?
6. Are the methods used to extract data from studies justifiable, clearly documented, and repeatable?
7. Please pay attention to English grammar, sentence structure and reformat the paper according to the requirement of the journal.
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.