Pre-Eclampsia: From Etiology and Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Tools—A Review of the Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written, well-summarized review describing the preeclampsia from multiple aspects. This reviewer does not have any major comments on this review, but have small comments on further clarification and updates. See below for the detailed point-by-point comments.

 

Comment:

1)    Line 98: What is “Albert 51's theory ("a latent microbic endometritis")”? 

2)    Line 236: Parbovirus B19?

3)    Line 257: Please double check “anti -2 glycoprotein-I“

4)    Line 295/302/328: Authors have been using preeclampsia throughout the manuscript, then all the sudden brought up “pre-eclampsia” with hyphen. Please be consistent.

5)    Line 327-329: “It dramatically lowers preterm preeclampsia when used to determine who should be provided aspirin to avoid pre- eclampsia.” Either no reference or wrong reference because 123 and 124 does not have this information. If the 125 is the right reference, authors might want to re-organize this section because the more details are in the next paragraph, and it was very confusing to me. Also NICE was listed full name in the next paragraph (Line 333-334) but acronym showed earlier. Please be consistent.

6)    There are several typos. Please double check. (i.e. endothelitiis)

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute and Ms. Codruta Comos, assistant editor, for the opportunity to review this article. 

I would also like to thank the authors of this article for their effort in reviewing the etiology, possible pathogenic/molecular pathways in preeclampsia, and clinical tools to predict this disease. 

 

I read Tabacco et al.'s article entitled "Preeclampsia: from etiology and molecular mechanisms to clinical tools. A review of the Literature." 

  

Overall, the manuscript is interesting, read well, and adequately written. 

Nevertheless, there are significant essential concerns regarding this paper.

First: the authors do not make good use of the references that can be found in PubMed.

Second: This review does not add any new knowledge to the field

 

 

General: 

This study's approach is interesting, though not different from other more complete reviews. The authors must elaborate better in this review.

 

Please make sure to correct the minor spelling errors throughout the manuscript too. 

  

 

  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

 please  see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the changes