Next Article in Journal
Cognitive Function and Neuropsychiatric Disorders after COVID-19: A Long Term Social and Clinical Problem?
Previous Article in Journal
Perspectives on Light-Based Disinfection to Reduce the Risk of COVID-19 Transmission during Dental Care
Article
Peer-Review Record

The GooD Pregnancy Network: An Alternative Approach for Gestational Diabetes

BioMed 2022, 2(1), 37-49; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomed2010004
Reviewer 1: Nader Aldewik
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
BioMed 2022, 2(1), 37-49; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomed2010004
Received: 30 October 2021 / Revised: 1 January 2022 / Accepted: 10 January 2022 / Published: 12 January 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The draft is well written, including the important elements of pregnant women with diabetes. However, it is a quite original study.

The authors need to cite data in the design section.

Are the survey's questions validated? it needs to be tested to ensure the production of reliable, accurate results.  A copy of survey needs to be added in the appendix section.

The authors need to elaborate more about cost calculation.

The authors need to work more on the discussion section and compare their findings with other studies.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present article is entitled as a quality improvement report on the effects of a gestational diabetes network. Although the effectiveness of the approach is interesting and relevant, very much background knowledge is implied in readers, e.g. by using a lot of complex abbreviations, and little introductive matter is given, making the manuscript hard to read.

 

Some comments:

Please indicate the country of the study in title and abstract, as ii is unclear where the Basildon and Thurrock University Hospital is situated.

Please be consistent in writing, e.g. when comparing the subtitles used in 2.2.2. and 2.2.3.

The introduction is very short and does not explain the rationale of the study.

Please add citations for various arguments such as National census data, also in the discussion.

Design: please avoid extensive use of enumerations.

Definitions of the Quality Improvement approach are missing.

The percentages in figure 3 are hardly visible.

Figure 5. is incomplete and would be better presented as a table.

Please add practical and theoretical applications for an international readership.

I would like to suggest to also add thoughts on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the network.

 

In sum, the article is interesting, but could be provide more introductive and explanatory information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction needs to be lengthened and have references to other literature, it is way too short.

What kinds of statistical testing was done? The results are entirely based on visual trends. Rates are not meaningful without statistical significance. You cannot make any conclusions without indicating what was actually significant. This is especially important for Figures 3 and 4 with birth outcomes, because you may have enough data for statistical significance. Do not need to do statistical testing for the first two figures based on process outcomes.

Maybe just keep the QI parts of the paper, and get rid of the birth statistics unless you can make claims of significance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the comments. I approve the manuscript for publication.

Back to TopTop