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.
Please revise according to the following message. Overall, the report of findings are well, concise, and easy reading but the regression reporting of the findings should be considered again. Some sentences might not be clear “1.66-fold increased risk” since “fold” and “OR” are redundant.
“Overweight (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.35–2.01) and obese women (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) had a significantly higher risk of macrosomia compared with normal-weight women.”
“Underweight women had a significantly lower risk (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.73).”
From the revised version and response letter are quite clear about the suggestions from all reviewer. The abstract is quite clear and well design. The gap of the study quite clearer. The methods quite clear especially samples selection and quality control.
In my opinion, the design and methods are quite clear but the data analysis should be clear about the statistics analysis such as association or correlation.
Overall, the report of findings are well, concise, and easy reading but the regression reporting of the findings should be considered again. Some sentences might not clear “1.66-fold increased risk” since “fold” and “OR” are redundant.
“Overweight (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.35–2.01) and obese women (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) had a significantly higher risk of macrosomia compared with normal-weight women.”
“Underweight women had a significantly lower risk (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.73).”
Please explain about the confounding factors and how to monitor, including providing the rigour of the analysis and recommendations of this findings that link to the policy and guideline in the future. It will help the reader understand this study.
The overview of article is quite clear about the gap of the study, objectives, methods, and results. The author response to the suggestions clearly. Please, explain in details of the confounding factors and how to monitoring including provide the rigour of the analysis and recommendation of this findings that link to the policy and guideline in the future.
The methodology and design of this study is quite clear and concise. Overall, the study is well-structure that relevant with background and the findings. The author response to the suggestions about the sample size, inclusion-exclusion criteria, data collection, data analysis but the confounding factors in this study might not clear. Please reduce repetition about study design and ethical issues. In addition, please explain in details about the rationale for exclusion criteria. Overall is quite well design and methodology.
The findings is based on the aims of the study but please reduce repetition and explain more about the clinical significance for observed increases in macrosomia risk in this study and in discussion. Overall the findngs are valid and well reprt based on the objectives of the study..
Please explain about the confounding factors and how to monitoring including provide the rigour of the analysis and recommendation of this findings that link to the policy and guideline in the future. It' good for the reader to well understanding about this study. Overall, this study is great and meet the standards for publication.
The sample size and sample selection are still not not clear. Please explain it again.
Authors have done the improvements and adjusted to suggestions and comments from reviewers
Authors have done the improvements and adjusted to suggestions and comments from reviewers
Authors have done the improvements and adjusted to suggestions and comments from reviewers
Authors have done the improvements and adjusted to suggestions and comments from reviewers
The article is interesting and well response to the recommendations from the reviewers. It presents a relevant and timely study with clear objectives and a logical structure.
It is well deign but the sample size and sample selection might not clear. Please explain it again.
It's clear and well response.
The findings in this study supported the pre-pregnancy BMI and obesity are associate with macrosomia.It is important for antenatal care.
We request that the authors carefully address and revise the manuscript in response to several issues pointed out by the reviewers.
**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 scientific writing of this manuscript presents well-presented data. However, some areas of the manuscript need to be improved.
Need to be explained in detail
The discussion and the reference date need to be updated.
This article is interesting because it focuses on the pre-pregnancy BMI and macrosomia. Macrosomia is related to obesity and NCDs in offspring. The study has a huge sample size. The knowledge gap is quite clear and strong evidence. Overall, this study is valuable and well-designed.
The methods need to add the rationale of settings, calculate the sample size and effect size of the study, rationale of statistics of cubic splines with three knots. Please add the dropout rate that might be used for the future study. Please explain and add the evidence to support why choose the folic acid supplement before and first 3 months of pregnancy and macrosomia.
The findings are interesting and respond to the aim of the study. It might be better to add the discussion of dietary, exercise, and physical activity, complications, and symptoms during pregnancy, such as morning sickness, and frequency of antenatal care visits, because it's associated with pre-pregnancy BMI, gestational weight gain, and baby birth weight.
Please add the date of Ethical approval and the period of it.
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.