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 revised version of the manuscript is improved and it's now acceptable for publication.
The reviewers found merit in your paper but also lack of practical information that preclude publishing it in its present form. The manuscript will be improved by addition of information on clinical data obtained by randomized controlled or observational studies and indications about the use of heparin in clinical practice during pregnancy. Practical implications of the in vitro findings should be discussed.
The manuscript is in a well written English
no comments
Conclusions are adequate.
The manuscript is well written. Authors should add a final paragraph reporting
- indications to use of heparins in clinical practice during pregnancy
- practical implications of the reported in vitro findings, in terms of future research or future clinical trials.
The authors report on mechanisms possibly involved in the improvement of implantation and placentation by heparins.
This is not a systematic review, it seems a "narrative" review, but this is not clearly reported by authors. If I have correctly understood the Scope of the journal this type of article is not acceptable.
This review focuses on the role played by heparins in implantation and placentation.
Data are properly reported and the paper is well written. However, the review could be improved by adding information on clinical data from RCTs or observational studies.
This review is interesting and well written. It could be improved by adding clinical data from RCTs or observational studies.
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.