Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Ravit Peretz-Machluf 1,2,
  • Galit Hirsh-Yechezkel 3 and
  • Yoav Yinon 1,2,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well constructed review of the retrospective cohort in a well controlled population and health system.

Author Response

Thank you for your review!

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. Over all a very reasonable paper and well done.
  2. It would be helpful if the results of the paper were described in a more positive manner instead of the several “no associations” between vaccination status descriptions provided etc.
  3. The authors correctly addressed the important possible limitation of statistical power for their study.
  4. Line 19, add the word “different” following significantly.
  5. Line 45, move the word “each” to in front of the word “published”.
  6. Line 63, change “does” to “dose”.
  7. Line 67, change “variables” to variable” (or change the sentence to allow for the plural variables).
  8. Line 99, correct spelling of “included”
  9. Line 189, the earlier gestational age of delivery among the vaccinated women in this study is not significant, and therefore I do not believe it is worth mentioning at in this explanation. Doing so may confuse the reader.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit the revised manuscript entitled "Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes following COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy". We found all the reviewers’ comments to be very constructive and have changed the manuscript accordingly. Our point by-point reply appears below. 

Point 1: Over all a very reasonable paper and well done.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback.

Point 2: It would be helpful if the results of the paper were described in a more positive manner instead of the several “no associations” between vaccination status descriptions provided etc.

Response 2: Results description was adjusted.

Point 3: The authors correctly addressed the important possible limitation of statistical power for their study.

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback.

Point 4: Line 19, add the word “different” following significantly.

Response 4: Corrected. 

Point 5: Line 45, move the word “each” to in front of the word “published”.
Response 5: Corrected.

Point 6: Line 63, change “does” to “dose”.
Response 6: Corrected.

Point 7: Line 67, change “variables” to variable” (or change the sentence to allow for the plural variables).
Response 7: Corrected.

Point 8: Line 99, correct spelling of “included”
Response 8: Corrected.

Point 9: Line 189, the earlier gestational age of delivery among the vaccinated women in this study is not significant, and therefore I do not believe it is worth mentioning at in this explanation. Doing so may confuse the reader.

Response 9: The discussion paragraph was rephrased accordingly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx