Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Sep 13;18(9):e0282381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282381

Burden, risk factors and outcomes associated with adequately treated hypothyroidism in a population-based cohort of pregnant women from North India

Neeta Dhabhai 1,#, Ranadip Chowdhury 1,*,#, Anju Virmani 2,#, Ritu Chaudhary 1,, Sunita Taneja 1,#, Pratima Mittal 3,, Rupali Dewan 3,, Arjun Dang 4,, Jasmine Kaur 1,, Nita Bhandari 1,#
Editor: Surangi Jayakody5
PMCID: PMC10499229  PMID: 37703246

Abstract

Hypothyroidism is the commonest endocrine disorder of pregnancy, with known adverse feto-maternal outcomes. There is limited data on population-based prevalence, risk factors and outcomes associated with treatment of hypothyroidism in early pregnancy. We conducted analysis on data from an urban and peri-urban low to mid socioeconomic population-based cohort of pregnant women in North Delhi, India to ascertain the burden, risk factors and impact of treatment, on adverse pregnancy outcomes- low birth weight, prematurity, small for gestational age and stillbirth. This is an observational study embedded within the intervention group of the Women and Infants Integrated Interventions for Growth Study, an individually randomized factorial design trial. Thyroid stimulating hormone was tested in 2317 women in early (9–13 weeks) pregnancy, and thyroxin replacement started hypothyroid (TSH ≥2.5mIU/mL). Univariable and multivariable generalized linear model with binomial family and log link were performed to ascertain risk factors associated with hypothyroidism and association between hypothyroidism and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Of 2317 women, 29.2% (95% CI: 27.4 to 31.1) had hypothyroidism and were started on thyroxin replacement with close monitoring. Overweight or obesity was associated with increased risk (adjusted RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51), while higher hemoglobin concentration was associated with decreased risk (adjusted RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98 for each g/dL) for hypothyroidism. Hypothyroid women received appropriate treatment with no increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes. Almost a third of women from low to mid socio-economic population had hypothyroidism in early pregnancy, more so if anemic and overweight or obese. With early screening and adequate replacement, adverse pregnancy outcomes may be avoided. These findings highlight the need in early pregnancy for universal TSH screening and adequate treatment of hypothyroidism; as well as for attempts to reduce pre and peri-conception overweight, obesity and anemia.

Clinical trial registration: Clinical trial registration of Women and Infants Integrated Interventions for Growth Study Clinical Trial Registry–India, #CTRI/2017/06/008908; Registered on: 23/06/2017, (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=19339&EncHid=&userName=society%20for%20applied%20studies).

Background

The thyroid gland plays a key role in pregnancy homeostasis and metabolic adaptations important for fetal development, as well as supply of energy to the mother. It undergoes adaptive changes to meet the increased demand during pregnancy, and women with low reserves during preconception, frequently enter pregnancy in hypothyroid state. Hypothyroidism is the commonest endocrine disorder of pregnancy, and if not adequately treated, can result in adverse pregnancy outcomes- growth restriction, prematurity, low birth weight (LBW) and stillbirth [1, 2]. However, the symptoms are nonspecific and insidious; hence, diagnosis is usually missed or made much later due to delayed reporting of pregnancy [3].

Globally, hypothyroidism affects 3–5% of all pregnant women [4], however, the prevalence is higher in South Asian countries [5, 6]. In a Chinese study of 2899 pregnant women, the prevalence of hypothyroidism (TSH >3.93 mIU/L) in the first trimester was 10.9% [7]. Yadav et al, in a meta-analysis of observational studies, reported a pooled prevalence of 11.01% in pregnant women in India [8], however, only two of the 54 studies were community based, and the cut off levels of TSH used were not uniform, varying from 2.3–4.5 mIU/mL in all three trimesters of pregnancy. Data from secondary and tertiary hospital across nine states in India showed 13.1% prevalence in the first trimester, with a TSH cutoff of 4.5 mIU/mL [9].

The thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) assay is a simple, sensitive, commonly used screening tool for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy but is limited by lack of uniformly accepted reference ranges which vary according to laboratory reference levels, type of assay, and population heterogeneity. The new third generation assays have high functional sensitivity as recommended by the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and are a good tool for diagnosing primary thyroid dysfunction [10]. The National Guidelines in India (2014) recommend treatment aimed at maintenance of TSH <2.5 mIU/mL in the first trimester and <3 mIU/mL in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, similar to the guidelines of the Endocrine Society [11, 12]. The ATA 2017 recommends 4 mIU/mL as the upper limit of normal, in the absence of population specific ranges [13]. A systematic review of normative values of trimester specific thyroid function in Indian women concluded that TSH cut offs of up to 5–6 mIU/mL, similar to the pre-pregnancy stage, should be used in the first trimester of pregnancy, although it was limited by the fact that no outcomes were included [14].

There are limited data on population-based prevalence, risk factors and adverse outcomes of hypothyroidism in pregnancy, particularly in low to mid socio-economic populations. We conducted an analysis of data from a population-based cohort of urban and peri-urban low-mid socioeconomic strata neighborhoods of Delhi to determine the prevalence of hypothyroidism in pregnancy, its risk factors, and impact of replacement on adverse pregnancy outcomes LBW, prematurity, small for gestational age (SGA), and stillbirth.

Material and methods

Study design, setting and participants

This is an observational study embedded within the intervention group of the Women and Infants Integrated Interventions for Growth Study (WINGS), conducted in urban and peri-urban low-to-mid-socioeconomic neighborhoods in south Delhi, India. A summary of WINGS is provided below; the details of methods have been previously published [15]. Briefly, 13,500, eligible women aged 18–30 years were identified through a door-to-door survey. Women who provided written consent to participate in the study were enrolled (first randomization) to receive pre and peri-conception interventions or routine care and followed up until their pregnancies were confirmed, or for 18 months after enrollment. At confirmation of pregnancy by ultrasonography, after obtaining written consent a second randomization was done wherein pregnant women received enhanced pregnancy and early childhood care or routine care.

Study description

Pregnant women in the intervention group received at least eight antenatal care visits. Body mass index (BMI) was measured, and a non-fasting serum TSH and hemoglobin tested at the time of confirmation of pregnancy. Women with TSH ≥2.5 mIU/mL were labelled as hypothyroid and were managed with replacement doses of levothyroxine, after a thorough history and clinical assessment as per the National Guidelines [11]. TSH levels were repeated monthly, and thyroxine dose titrated till TSH stabilized to normal pregnancy reference levels [11]. Once normalized, a repeat TSH for monitoring, was done twice in the second trimester, and once in the late third trimester which amounted to an approximate five to six repeat assays of TSH in pregnancy. Close follow up was done by study team workers who made weekly home visits to ensure compliance, and progress was monitored using electronic trackers. Those with uncontrolled TSH and TSH <0.1 mIU/mL (hyperthyroid) were referred to the endocrinology clinic of the collaborating government tertiary care hospital (Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India).

Laboratory analysis

Blood samples for TSH assay were collected in serum separator tubes (SST), transported in cool boxes (4˚to 8˚C) to the field laboratory where centrifugation was done at ~450 × g at room temperature for 10 minutes, to separate serum and then transported to a National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) accredited study laboratory (Oncquest Laboratory) maintaining cold chain.

Serum TSH was analyzed using the Architect (Ci 8200 Abbott-Architect) TSH assay, a two-step immunoassay using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) technology with an inter-assay coefficient of variation (CV) of 20% which meets the requirements of a of third generation TSH assay. The Architect TSH assay has an analytical sensitivity of <0.01 μIU/mL [16].

Ethics

The Ethics Review Committees of the Society for Applied Studies, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, and the World Health Organization, Geneva approved the study conducted with the relevant guidelines and regulations (e.g. Declaration of Helsinki). Written informed consent was obtained from the study participants.

Statistical analysis

Sociodemographic characteristics were reported as mean (SD), or proportions, as appropriate. We calculated incidence (95% confidence interval: CI) of hypothyroidism occurring at the time of pregnancy confirmation. Univariable and multivariable generalized linear model with binomial family and log link were performed to ascertain risk factors associated with hypothyroidism. We calculated unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (RR) and their 95% CI for the association between hypothyroidism and adverse pregnancy outcomes (LBW, SGA, preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, stillbirth) using generalized linear model with binomial family and log link. The candidate variables were related to socio-demographic and nutritional status of the women; continuous (maternal age, hemoglobin and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels at the time of confirmation of pregnancy), and categorical (height (<150 and ≥150 cm), years of schooling <12 and ≥12 years), early pregnancy (gestational age ≤20 weeks), BMI, religion (Hindu and others), type of family (extended or joint, and nuclear), family with a below-poverty-line card, and family covered by health insurance scheme. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Definitions of adverse pregnancy outcomes

LBW was be defined as weight < 2500 g on day 7 after birth. Gestation at birth was estimated by subtracting date of birth from date of dating ultrasound and adding it to gestational age as assessed by dating ultrasound according to INTERGROWTH-21 [17]. Preterm birth was defined as births occurring at < 37 completed weeks of gestation. Spontaneous preterm births will be defined as births occurring at < 37 weeks of gestation and preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes or spontaneous onset of labor. Still birth was defined as babies born with no signs of life at or after 28 weeks of gestation, 1000 grams or more, or attainment of at least 35 cm crown-heel length (WHO Maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health).

Birth weight centile was calculated using the INTERGROWTH-21 standard based on day-7 weight and gestational age at birth. SGA was defined as birth weight centile < 10th as per INTERGROWTH-21 standard.

Results

In this study 2317 women were followed up from pregnancy till delivery. The median (IQR) of gestational age at the time of recruitment was 9.5 (9.1–11.0) weeks. Socioeconomic and clinical characteristics of enrolled women prior to pregnancy are shown in Table 1. Women who were hyperthyroid (TSH<0.1mIU/ml) were excluded in this analysis. The study population was relatively young with a mean (SD) age of 23.8 (3.1) years, about half of them had education more than 12 years. Height was less than 150 cm in 34.1%; mean (SD) BMI was 22.2 (3.9) kg/m2; with dual burden of malnutrition: 15% women were underweight and 28% of women were overweight or obese in the hypothyroid group compared to 22% in the euthyroid group (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of pregnant women.

Characteristics of pregnant women Euthyroid n = 1576 Hypothyroid n = 677
Age (years), mean (SD) 23.7 (3.1) 24.0 (3.0)
Height (cm), mean (SD) 152.4 (5.5) 152.2 (5.8)
Height <150 cm 527 (33.4) 246 (36.3)
Schooling ≥12 yr 805 (51.1) 332 (49.0)
Homemaker 1503 (95.4) 644 (95.1)
Early pregnancy BMI, mean (SD) 22.3 (3.9) 22.9 (4.1)
Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2) 242 (15.4) 91 (13.4)
Overweight or obesity (≥25 kg/m2) 352 (22.3) 192 (28.4)
Hindu 1288 (81.7) 566 (83.6)
Family had a below poverty line card 52 (3.3) 23 (3.4)
Family covered by a health insurance scheme 161 (10.2) 78 (11.5)
Joint or extended family* 1032 (65.5) 458 (67.6)

All values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise

* Joint or extended family: Adult relatives other than the enrolled woman’s husband and children living together in a household

Table 2 shows the thyroid status of pregnant women at the time of confirmation of pregnancy, with 29.2% (95% CI: 27.4 to 31.1) having hypothyroidism (TSH ≥2.5 mIU/mL).

Table 2. Thyroid status at the time of confirmation of pregnancy.

TSH level n(%) 95% CI Mean (SD) Median (IQR)
n = 2317
TSH <0.1 mIU/mL 64 (2.8) 2.1 to 3.5 0.04 (0.02) 0.04 (0.04 to 0.05)
TSH 0.1 to <2.5 mIU/mL 1576 (68.0) 66.1 to 69.9 1.3 (0.6) 1.3 (0.8 to 1.8)
TSH ≥2.5 to <10 mIU/mL 652 (28.1) 26.3 to 30.0 4.0 (1.4) 3.6 (3.0 to 4.6)
TSH ≥ 10 mIU/mL 25 (1.1) 0.6 to 1.6 51.9 (124.2) 15.4 (13.0 to 33.6)

Table 3 shows the association between socioeconomic and clinical characteristics of women with hypothyroidism. Overweight or obesity in early pregnancy was associated with increased risk (adjusted RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51) of hypothyroidism. Each unit increase in Hb (adjusted RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98 for each g/dL) levels was associated with reduced risk of being hypothyroidism.

Table 3. Potential risk factors for hypothyroidism in enrolled women.

Risk factors for hypothyroidism Unadjusted RR (95% CI) Adjusted RR (95% CI)
Age (per 1 year) 1.02 (0.99 to 1.04); p = 0.057 1.01 (0.99 to 1.04); p = 0.227
Height (<150 cm) 1.09 (0.96 to 1.24); p = 0.182 1.05 (0.91 to 1.21); p = 0.517
Schooling ≥12 yr 0.94 (0.83 to 1.07); p = 0.375 0.92 (0.80 to 1.06); p = 0.241
Homemaker 0.96 (0.72 to 1.29); p = 0.802 1.06 (0.75 to 1.50); p = 0.741
Joint or extended family 1.07 (0.93 to 1.23); p = 0.321 1.11 (0.95 to 1.29); p = 0.176
Family had below-poverty-line card 1.02 (0.72 to 1.44); p = 0.905 1.02 (0.70 to 1.48); p = 0.921
Family covered by health insurance scheme 1.10 (0.90 to 1.33); p = 0.348 1.07 (0.86 to 1.33); p = 0.541
Hindu religion 1.10 (0.92 to 1.31); p = 0.291 1.10 (0.91 to 1.33); p = 0.310
Early pregnancy BMI
Normal BMI Reference Reference
Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2) 0.95 (0.79 to 1.16); p = 0.637 0.99 (0.80 to 1.22); p = 0.912
Overweight or obesity (≥25 kg/m2) 1.23 (1.07 to 1.42); p = 0.004 1.29 (1.11 to 1.52); p = 0.001
Hemoglobin at pregnancy confirmation (per 1gm/dL) 0.96 (0.91 to 1.01): p = 0.088 0.93 (0.88 to 0.98): p = 0.007
HbA1c (%) at pregnancy confirmation (per 1 percentage) 0.96 (0.80 to 1.15); p = 0.629 0.91 (0.77 to 1.10); p = 0.328

Table 4 shows the association of hypothyroidism with adverse pregnancy outcomes where management of hypothyroidism was supported by the research team. The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes i.e., LBW, SGA, preterm, spontaneous preterm birth and stillbirth, were similar among euthyroid women and those who were treated for hypothyroidism.

Table 4. Association of management of hypothyroidism with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to subjects who were euthyroid.

Outcome Euthyroid Hypothyroid Unadjusted RR Adjusted RR*
n(%) n(%) (95% CI) (95% CI)
Low birth weight n = 1329 n = 560 1.09 1.09
309 (23.3) 142 (25.4) (0.92 to 1.30) (0.92 to 1.30)
Small for gestational age n = 1376 n = 586 1.19 1.20
353 (25.7) 180 (30.7) (1.03 to 1.39) (0.98 to 1.44)
Preterm birth n = 1592 n = 649 0.92 0.90
195 (12.8) 76 (11.7) (0.72 to 1.18) (0.70 to 1.15)
Spontaneous preterm birth n = 1529 n = 649 0.77 0.78
117 (7.7) 38 (5.9) (0.54 to 1.10) (0.54 to 1.11)
Stillbirth n = 1540 n = 659 1.56 1.54
21 (1.4) 14 (2.1) (0.80 to 3.04) (0.79 to 3.01)

*adjusted for maternal age, height, years of schooling, early pregnancy (gestational age ≤20 weeks) BMI

Discussion

The main findings of this study were, the high prevalence of hypothyroidism in early pregnancy, occurring in 29.2% of the population-based cohort and that treating hypothyroidism, early and adequately led to no increase in adverse outcomes (stillbirth, preterm birth, LBW, SGA). Anemia, overweight and obesity in early pregnancy were identified as risk factors for hypothyroidism.

A wide disparity in the prevalence of hypothyroidism in pregnancy has been reported in previous studies in India. A hospital-based study from nine states of India reported 15% prevalence of hypothyroidism using TSH levels of >4.5 mIU/mL and of 44.3% using a cut off level of >2.5 mIU/mL in first trimester [9]. A meta-analysis of observational studies with varying gestational ages and TSH cut off values found the prevalence of hypothyroidism in pregnancy to be 11% [8]. A prospective observational study from central part of India found hypothyroidism in 9.1% in the third trimester of pregnancy using a cut off of TSH >5 mIU/mL. Similar to our study, Bein et al in a systemic review and metaanlysis reported a decrease in risk of pregnancy loss and neonatal death with treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism [18].

Similar to our finding, a study from southern part of India showed overweight or obesity was a risk factor for hypothyroidism in early pregnancy, and high maternal TSH is associated with obesity and higher weight gain [19, 20]. The association of obesity and overweight with adverse outcomes is well documented including a recent systemic review and metaanalysis [21, 22]. Similarly, our finding of a higher hemoglobin level associated with reduced risk of hypothyroidism, was echoed in a systemic review and meta analysis which found that iron deficiency adversely affects thyroid function and autoimmunity in pregnant women [19, 23]. Also, a study from China found that proportion of hypothyroidism was higher in women with mild anemia in the first trimester than in women with no anemia [24].

The strengths of our study are that it is population-based; the socioeconomic strata is low to middle income, which represents the average Indian population; serum TSH was used for thyroid status assessment, which is feasible as a screening test in settings like India where pregnant women may not return after the first visit due to economic reasons, lack of easy accessibility to the health center, etc., and the evidence that early identification and adequate treatment, reduced the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The limitations of our study are that we did not test for other thyroid hormones (T4, T3, Free T4, Free T3), so we could not distinguish subclinical from overt hypothyroidism; nor did we test for thyroid antibodies, which could have helped us detect “at risk” pregnancies.

This study has important implications for health care of women of the reproductive age group. First, the high burden of hypothyroidism in early pregnancy and the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes with early management highlights the need for early detection and treatment in antenatal care programs. Secondly, preventive interventions could be introduced preconceptionally to reduce risk factors, like obesity and overweight, and low hemoglobin levels.

Conclusion

Almost a third of women from a mid-low socio-economic population may be at risk for developing hypothyroidism in early pregnancy. Anemia, being overweight or obese may increase the risk. Ensuring universal TSH screening in early pregnancy, and adequate treatment if hypothyroidism is detected, would serve to improve pregnancy outcomes. Reducing pre and periconception obesity and anemia could help reduce the risk of hypothyroidism.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We the Society for Applied Studies gratefully acknowledge the contribution and support of the mothers who participated in the study, their families and others in the community. We acknowledge the core support provided by the Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva (WHO Collaborating Centre IND-158).

List of abbreviations

CI

confidence interval

ARR

adjusted relative risk

BMI

body mass index

LBW

low birth weight

SGA

small for gestational age

TSH

thyroid stimulating hormone

WINGS

women and Infants integrated interventions for growth study

ATA

american thyroid association

SST

serum separator tubes

CMIA

chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay

CV

coefficient of variation; RR: risk ratios

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The main trial was funded by the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC), Department of Biotechnology, Government of India under the Grand Challenges India- All Children Thriving Initiative (GCIACT Ref No: BIRAC/GCI/0085/03/14-ACT) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA (Grant ID #OPP1191052). The funders has no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mahadik K, Choudhary P, Roy PK. Study of thyroid function in pregnancy, its feto-maternal outcome; a prospective observational study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2020;20(1):769. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03448-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, et al. Overview of Obstetrics. Williams Obstetrics, 25e. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Warri D, George A. Perceptions of pregnant women of reasons for late initiation of antenatal care: a qualitative interview study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2020;20(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2746-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Teng W, Shan Z, Patil-Sisodia K, Cooper DS. Hypothyroidism in pregnancy. The lancet Diabetes & endocrinology. 2013;1(3):228–37. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70109-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rajput R, Goel V, Nanda S, Rajput M, Seth S. Prevalence of thyroid dysfunction among women during the first trimester of pregnancy at a tertiary care hospital in Haryana. Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. 2015;19(3):416. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.152791 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sletner L, Jenum AK, Qvigstad E, Hammerstad SS. Thyroid function during pregnancy in a multiethnic population in Norway. Journal of the Endocrine Society. 2021;5(7):bvab078. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvab078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wang W, Teng W, Shan Z, Wang S, Li J, Zhu L, et al. The prevalence of thyroid disorders during early pregnancy in China: the benefits of universal screening in the first trimester of pregnancy. European journal of endocrinology. 2011;164(2):263–8. doi: 10.1530/EJE-10-0660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yadav V, Dabar D, Goel AD, Bairwa M, Sood A, Prasad P, et al. Prevalence of Hypothyroidism in Pregnant Women in India: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Journal of thyroid research. 2021;2021:5515831. doi: 10.1155/2021/5515831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dhanwal DK, Bajaj S, Rajput R, Subramaniam KA, Chowdhury S, Bhandari R, et al. Prevalence of hypothyroidism in pregnancy: An epidemiological study from 11 cities in 9 states of India. Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. 2016;20(3):387–90. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.179992 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aw T, Sickan J, Du S, Li J, Janel H. Reference Intervals for TSH on the Architect Analyser Based on the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Guidelines Derived from Healthy Multi-Ethnic Asians Attending a Community Health Fair. Int Arch Endocrinol Clin Res. 2019;5:015. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.India MHDMoHFWGo. National Guidelines for Screening of Hypothyroidism during Pregnancy, India. 2014.
  • 12.De Groot L, Abalovich M, Alexander EK, Amino N, Barbour L, Cobin RH, et al. Management of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy and postpartum: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. 2012;97(8):2543–65. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-2803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alexander EK, Pearce EN, Brent GA, Brown RS, Chen H, Dosiou C, et al. 2017 Guidelines of the American Thyroid Association for the Diagnosis and Management of Thyroid Disease During Pregnancy and the Postpartum. Thyroid: official journal of the American Thyroid Association. 2017;27(3):315–89. doi: 10.1089/thy.2016.0457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kannan S, Mahadevan S, Sigamani A. A Systematic Review on Normative Values of Trimester-specific Thyroid Function Tests in Indian Women. Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. 2018;22(1):7–12. doi: 10.4103/ijem.IJEM_211_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Taneja S, Chowdhury R, Dhabhai N, Mazumder S, Upadhyay RP, Sharma S, et al. Impact of an integrated nutrition, health, water sanitation and hygiene, psychosocial care and support intervention package delivered during the pre- and peri-conception period and/or during pregnancy and early childhood on linear growth of infants in the first two years of life, birth outcomes and nutritional status of mothers: study protocol of a factorial, individually randomized controlled trial in India. Trials. 2020;21(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4059-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sarkar R. TSH Comparison Between Chemiluminescence (Architect) and Electrochemiluminescence (Cobas) Immunoassays: An Indian Population Perspective. Indian journal of clinical biochemistry: IJCB. 2014;29(2):189–95. doi: 10.1007/s12291-013-0339-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.TGHN. International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century, or INTERGROWTH-21st.
  • 18.Bein M, Yu OHY, Grandi SM, Frati FYE, Kandil I, Filion KB. Levothyroxine and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with subclinical hypothyroidism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC endocrine disorders. 2021;21(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12902-021-00699-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fallatah AM, Hasanain A, Babatin H, Nassibi KM, Thigah S, Abduljabbar HS. Pregnancy Outcomes among Obese Pregnant Women with Hypothyroidism: Medical Record Review of a Single Tertiary Center in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2020;12(2):e6938. doi: 10.7759/cureus.6938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Collares FM, Korevaar TIM, Hofman A, Steegers EAP, Peeters RP, Jaddoe VWV, et al. Maternal thyroid function, prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain-The Generation R Study: A prospective cohort study. Clinical endocrinology. 2017;87(6):799–806. doi: 10.1111/cen.13412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Song RH, Wang B, Yao QM, Li Q, Jia X, Zhang JA. The Impact of Obesity on Thyroid Autoimmunity and Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in immunology. 2019;10:2349. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pillai NS, Bennett J. Prevalence of hypothyroidism amongst pregnant women: a study done in rural set up. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;7(4):1586–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Luo J, Wang X, Yuan L, Guo L. Iron Deficiency, a Risk Factor of Thyroid Disorders in Reproductive-Age and Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in endocrinology. 2021;12:629831. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.629831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nie GY, Wang R, Liu P, Li M, Sun DJ. Mild Anemia May Affect Thyroid Function in Pregnant Chinese Women During the First Trimester. Frontiers in endocrinology. 2021;12:772917. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.772917 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jing Zhang

6 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-04138Burden, risk factors and outcomes associated with adequately treated hypothyroidism in a population-based cohort of pregnant women from North IndiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jing Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses an important issue and presents findings from analysis of data collected from a population-based cohort of pregnant women in North Delhi, India. The authors have attempted to ascertain the burden, risk factors and impact of treatment, on adverse pregnancy outcomes. The methods and the findings have been presented well and I recommend publication. However, I have some suggestions that I would like the authors to consider.

1. I would suggest that the authors should focus on the associations observed and refrain from translating them to causality. With this nature of analysis, it may be difficult to ascertain causality. For instance, they have mentioned that higher haemoglobin levels were protective. This could be written as: “Each unit increase in Hb levels was associated with reduced risk of being hypothyroid”.

2. Lines 138-141: I would suggest it to write differently. For instance, the heading of Table 4 should be modified to : Table 4. Association of management of hypothyroidism with pregnancy outcomes, compared to subjects who were euthyroid. On similar lines, please modify the statements in 138-140: The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes i.e., LBW, SGA, preterm, spontaneous preterm birth and stillbirth, were similar among those with no hypothyroidism and those who were treated for hypothyroidism”.

3. Please use the terms consistently- the authors have used “Euthyroid” and “no hypothyroid” interchangeably.

4. I could note from Table 2 that around 3% of the women studied were “hyperthyroid” i.e., TSH <0.1 mIU/mL. I am surprised to see that they have been grouped under “Euthyroid” (in Table 1). I would suggest that all the analysis be re-done after excluding women with TSH levels <0.1 mIU/mL.

Reviewer #2: This well written and sound paper from Ranadip Chowdhury and colleagues presents data from an observational study embedded within the Women and Infants Integrated Interventions for Growth Study, an individually randomized factorial design trial. The study was conducted to ascertain the burden, risk factors and impact of treatment, on adverse pregnancy outcomes- low birth weight, prematurity, small for gestational age and stillbirth. My comments primarily relate to clarifications, and suggestions for additional information regarding the statistical analyses.

1. Line 100 - First mention of NABH should be in full and NABH in parenthesis

2. The authors should consider giving a bit more detail on definitions of the adverse pregnancy outcomes such as detail on how SGA was determined e.g. SGA (<10th percentile weight for gestational age using INTERGROWTH 21 standards)

3. Table 3 - It would be good if the authors can give an indication of how much missing data there was and any assumptions on the missing data mechanisms

4. Table 3 - It is not very clear which variables where adjusted for in the adjusted analyses

5. Table 3 - Under Hemoglobin at pregnancy confirmation, "per 1 percentage" should read "for each d/dL" ?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 13;18(9):e0282381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282381.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Apr 2023

Point-to-point rebuttal letter for the revised manuscript

“Burden, risk factors and outcomes associated with adequately treated hypothyroidism in a population-based cohort of pregnant women from North India”

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have checked the PLOS ONE’s style requirements and ensured the same including file naming.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

Response: Thank you. We have provided the correct information.

The main trial was funded by the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC), Department of Biotechnology, Government of India under the Grand Challenges India- All Children Thriving Initiative (GCIACT Ref No: BIRAC/GCI/0085/03/14-ACT) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA (Grant ID #OPP1191052).

The funding agencies did not play any role in study design and are neither involved in nor have any influence over the collection, analyses or interpretation of data.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

Response: We have uploaded the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate the study findings as supporting information titled S1 Data Set.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Response: We have included the following ethics statement in the Methods section (Lines 109 to 112).

The Ethics Review Committees of the Society for Applied Studies, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, and the World Health Organization, Geneva approved the study conducted with the relevant guidelines and regulations (e.g. Declaration of Helsinki). Written informed consent was obtained from the study participants.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We have added the following references in the introduction section number 5, 6 and 17, 18 under definitions of adverse pregnancy outcomes. No reference has been retracted.

5. Rajput R, Goel V, Nanda S, Rajput M, Seth S. Prevalence of thyroid dysfunction among women during the first trimester of pregnancy at a tertiary care hospital in Haryana. Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. 2015;19(3):416.

6. Sletner L, Jenum AK, Qvigstad E, Hammerstad SS. Thyroid function during pregnancy in a multiethnic population in Norway. Journal of the Endocrine Society. 2021;5(7):bvab078.

17. TGHN. International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century, or INTERGROWTH-21st.

18. WHO. Stillbirth. fact sheet.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses an important issue and presents findings from analysis of data collected from a population-based cohort of pregnant women in North Delhi, India. The authors have attempted to ascertain the burden, risk factors and impact of treatment, on adverse pregnancy outcomes. The methods and the findings have been presented well and I recommend publication. However, I have some suggestions that I would like the authors to consider.

Response: Thank you.

1. I would suggest that the authors should focus on the associations observed and refrain from translating them to causality. With this nature of analysis, it may be difficult to ascertain causality. For instance, they have mentioned that higher haemoglobin levels were protective. This could be written as: “Each unit increase in Hb levels was associated with reduced risk of being hypothyroid”.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised as following relevant sections (Lines 155 and 156).

Each unit increase in Hb (adjusted RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98 for each g/dL) levels was associated with reduced risk of being hypothyroidism

2. Lines 138-141: I would suggest it to write differently. For instance, the heading of Table 4 should be modified to: Table 4. Association of management of hypothyroidism with pregnancy outcomes, compared to subjects who were euthyroid. On similar lines, please modify the statements in 138-140: The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes i.e., LBW, SGA, preterm, spontaneous preterm birth and stillbirth, were similar among those with no hypothyroidism and those who were treated for hypothyroidism”.

Response: Thanks for the suggestions. We have revised as following the title of Table 4 (Lines 164 to 166) and subsequently the interpretation of table 4 (Lines 160 to 162) in the revised manuscript.

Lines 164 to 166

Table 4 Association of management of hypothyroidism with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to subjects who were Euthyroid

Lines 160 to 162

The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes i.e., LBW, SGA, preterm, spontaneous preterm birth and stillbirth, were similar among euthyroid women and those who were treated for hypothyroidism

3. Please use the terms consistently- the authors have used “Euthyroid” and “no hypothyroid” interchangeably.

Response: Thank you for this important observation, we have now used the term “Euthyroid” consistently.

4. I could note from Table 2 that around 3% of the women studied were “hyperthyroid” i.e., TSH <0.1 mIU/mL. I am surprised to see that they have been grouped under “Euthyroid” (in Table 1). I would suggest that all the analysis be re-done after excluding women with TSH levels <0.1 mIU/mL.

Response: Thanks for the suggestions. We have re-done all analyses (Table 1, 3, 4) excluding women with TSH levels <0.1 mIU/mL in the revised manuscript. The revised estimates are in the similar lines.

Reviewer #2: This well written and sound paper from Ranadip Chowdhury and colleagues presents data from an observational study embedded within the Women and Infants Integrated Interventions for Growth Study, an individually randomized factorial design trial. The study was conducted to ascertain the burden, risk factors and impact of treatment, on adverse pregnancy outcomes- low birth weight, prematurity, small for gestational age and stillbirth. My comments primarily relate to clarifications, and suggestions for additional information regarding the statistical analyses.

1. Line 100 - First mention of NABH should be in full and NABH in parenthesis

Response: Thank you. We have mentioned as following the corrected full form (Line 102).

National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL)

2. The authors should consider giving a bit more detail on definitions of the adverse pregnancy outcomes such as detail on how SGA was determined e.g. SGA (<10th percentile weight for gestational age using INTERGROWTH 21 standards)

Response: Thanks for the suggestions. We have included as following the definitions of the adverse pregnancy outcomes in the methods section (Lines 127-135).

LBW was be defined as weight < 2500 g on day 7 after birth, Gestation at birth was estimated by subtracting date of birth from date of dating ultrasound and adding it to gestational age as assessed by dating ultrasound according to INTERGROWTH-21. Preterm birth was defined as births occurring at < 37 completed weeks of gestation. Spontaneous preterm births will be defined as births occurring at < 37 weeks of gestation and preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes or spontaneous onset of labor. Still birth was defined as babies born with no signs of life at or after 28 weeks of gestation, 1000 grams or more, or attainment of at least 35 cm crown-heel length (WHO Maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health. Birth weight centile was calculated using the INTERGROWTH-21 standard based on day-7 weight and gestational age at birth. SGA was defined as birth weight centile < 10th as per INTERGROWTH-21 standard.

3. Table 3 - It would be good if the authors can give an indication of how much missing data there was and any assumptions on the missing data mechanisms

Response: We have only 1 missing data for all the variables included in the model for adjusted relative risks (Table 3) except HbA1c level for which ~10% data were missing. The estimates were in the similar if we exclude HbA1c from the final model.

We did not have any assumptions on the missing data mechanism. We included the pregnant women whose all variables were present.

4. Table 3 - It is not very clear which variables where adjusted for in the adjusted analyses

Response: The following variables were adjusted:

Continuous (maternal age, hemoglobin and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels at the time of confirmation of pregnancy), and categorical (height (<150 and ≥150 cm), years of schooling <12 and ≥12 years), early pregnancy (gestational age ≤20 weeks), BMI, religion (Hindu and others), type of family (extended or joint, and nuclear), family with a below-poverty-line card, and family covered by health insurance scheme.

5. Table 3 - Under Hemoglobin at pregnancy confirmation, "per 1 percentage" should read "for each d/dL"?

Response: Thank you for raising this point. Yes, we agree the correct unit for hemoglobin should be “for each gm/dL”. We have revised accordingly in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewer Comments_PLOS One.docx

Decision Letter 1

Surangi Jayakody

16 Aug 2023

Burden, risk factors and outcomes associated with adequately treated hypothyroidism in a population-based cohort of pregnant women from North India

PONE-D-23-04138R1

Dear Dr. Ranadip,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Surangi Jayakody, MBBS, MSc, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your exceptional dedication and hard work throughout this project. Your efforts have been commendable. I would also like to extend my gratitude for promptly addressing the previous comments raised by the reviewers. Your revisions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the paper.

To ensure the paper's comprehensibility for readers, I kindly request that you address the following queries:

1- The title: Could you kindly provide an explanation for choosing the term "Adequately Treated Hypothyroidism" instead of "Inadequately Treated Hypothyroidism"? This clarification would help readers better understand the rationale behind your choice of terminology.

2- Were there any other associated risk factors observed in the recruited patients during pregnancy? It would be beneficial to include information about any additional factors that may have influenced the outcomes for these patients.

3- It would be valuable to include the gestational ages at which the patients were diagnosed with hypothyroidism and whether there were any variations in outcomes based on the gestational age. For instance, did the timing of hypothyroidism detection, particularly in cases of late treatment, have any impact on the outcomes?

4- In Table 4, you compare the euthyroid group to the hypothyroid group who received treatment. However, no statistical significance is highlighted for adverse outcomes in the hypothyroid group without treatment. Could you please clarify the reasons for not indicating any statistical significance in this particular comparison?

5- Since the focus is on comparing adverse pregnancy outcomes between the euthyroid group and the hypothyroid group receiving treatment, it would be beneficial to address the limitations that prevented tracking the outcomes of the untreated hypothyroid group. Additionally, please clarify whether the hypothyroid group receiving treatment underwent controlled thyroid function tests.

6- Regarding the clinical trial registration, the provided registration (Clinical Trial Registry – India, #CTRI/2017/06/008908; Registered on: 23/06/2017) appears to be the same registration for a different study published by some of the same authors (PMID: 35031013). Could you please provide an explanation or clarification for this similarity in registration details?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mena Abdalla

**********

Acceptance letter

Surangi Jayakody

4 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-04138R1

Burden, risk factors and outcomes associated with adequately treated hypothyroidism in a population-based cohort of pregnant women from North India

Dear Dr. Chowdhury:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Surangi Jayakody

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES