Title: The impact of intrahepatic cholestasis on pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 3 Date: 29 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me evaluation opportunity this interesting work. The authors investigated
the impact of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. This is an interesting
and important point. Introduction section is substantial.
However, we have some questions in the material and methods section:
1 – Were levels of BA examined in all the women included in the study? Or only women with
ICP were tested for BA levels?
2 – page 6, by “score” do you mean Apgar score? If yes, is it Apgar score at the first minute?
3 – page 6, by “huge infants” do you mean fetal macrosomia?
In the results section:
4 - page 8, by “score” do you mean Apgar score?
Multivariate Binary Logistic Regression Analysis Results
5 – How can you explain the fact, that IUGR, mode of delivery, and fetal length appeared to
be risk factors for ICP?
6 – How can you explain the fact, that premature rupture of membranes, low birth weight infant,
number of deliveries, and gestational age (Pregnant day) appeared to be protective factors for
ICP?
In discussion section should be avoided repeating of the results of the current study.
7 - page 12, abbreviation “PE” with no explanation.
Table 3
8 – Abbreviation “PE” with no explanation
9 – When the Systolic and diastolic arterial pressure were assessed? On admission, in labor?
Also, in conclusion section, the exact conclusion of the study, at which aspect the study
contributed to the literature could be mentioned.
After this revision the study can be evaluated again. Thank you.
Title: The impact of intrahepatic cholestasis on pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 3 Date: 29 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me evaluation opportunity this interesting work. The authors investigated
the impact of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. This is an interesting
and important point. Introduction section is substantial.
However, we have some questions in the material and methods section:
1 – Were levels of BA examined in all the women included in the study? Or only women with
ICP were tested for BA levels?
2 – page 6, by “score” do you mean Apgar score? If yes, is it Apgar score at the first minute?
3 – page 6, by “huge infants” do you mean fetal macrosomia?
In the results section:
4 - page 8, by “score” do you mean Apgar score?
Multivariate Binary Logistic Regression Analysis Results
5 – How can you explain the fact, that IUGR, mode of delivery, and fetal length appeared to
be risk factors for ICP?
6 – How can you explain the fact, that premature rupture of membranes, low birth weight infant,
number of deliveries, and gestational age (Pregnant day) appeared to be protective factors for
ICP?
In discussion section should be avoided repeating of the results of the current study.
7 - page 12, abbreviation “PE” with no explanation.
Table 3
8 – Abbreviation “PE” with no explanation
9 – When the Systolic and diastolic arterial pressure were assessed? On admission, in labor?
Also, in conclusion section, the exact conclusion of the study, at which aspect the study
contributed to the literature could be mentioned.
After this revision the study can be evaluated again. Thank you.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The impact of intrahepatic cholestasis on pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 3 Date: 29 Aug 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me evaluation opportunity this interesting work. The authors investigated
the impact of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. This is an interesting
and important point. Introduction section is substantial.
However, we have some questions in the material and methods section:
1 – Were levels of BA examined in all the women included in the study? Or only women with
ICP were tested for BA levels?
2 – page 6, by “score” do you mean Apgar score? If yes, is it Apgar score at the first minute?
3 – page 6, by “huge infants” do you mean fetal macrosomia?
In the results section:
4 - page 8, by “score” do you mean Apgar score?
Multivariate Binary Logistic Regression Analysis Results
5 – How can you explain the fact, that IUGR, mode of delivery, and fetal length appeared to
be risk factors for ICP?
6 – How can you explain the fact, that premature rupture of membranes, low birth weight infant,
number of deliveries, and gestational age (Pregnant day) appeared to be protective factors for
ICP?
In discussion section should be avoided repeating of the results of the current study.
7 - page 12, abbreviation “PE” with no explanation.
Table 3
8 – Abbreviation “PE” with no explanation
9 – When the Systolic and diastolic arterial pressure were assessed? On admission, in labor?
Also, in conclusion section, the exact conclusion of the study, at which aspect the study
contributed to the literature could be mentioned.
After this revision the study can be evaluated again. Thank you.
assistant