The benefits of higher LMR for early threatened abortion: A retrospective cohort study.

PROBLEM: To investigate the relation of inflammation-related parameters and pregnancy outcome in women with the early threatened abortion. METHOD OF STUDY: 630 women with early threatened abortion were divided into two groups based on the pregnancy outcome. All of them had the blood routine examination before treating. The differences between two groups were analyzed by the Chi-squared test, Student T test, Mann-Whitney U test, Binary Logistic Regression, Marginal Structural Model and Threshold effect analysis.
RESULTS: We found that there is no significant difference in the pregnancy outcome for NLR (OR:0.92, CI95%:0.72, 1.17) and PLR (OR:1.00, CI%:0.99, 1.01). However, a difference had a statistical significance in the pregnancy outcome when LMR less than 2.19 (OR:0.39, CI95%:0.19,0.82).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that higher LMR was related to the lower risk of miscarriage in the women with early threatened abortion in a way.

Introduction

Threatened abortion, accounting for about 30–40% in the pregnancies, is diagnosed with the clinical symptoms of vaginal spotting or bleeding within 20 weeks of gestation [1]. Furthermore, approximately half of women with threatened abortion will suffer from a subsequent miscarriage, especially with higher incidence in the first trimester [2,3,4]. In China, the number of gravidas is largely increasing due to the Two Child Policy, it means the more women with threatened abortion, the more women who will suffer from pregnancy loss [5]. The negative effects of adverse pregnancy outcome cannot be ignored for individual and even society [6]. Therefore, the more advanced arithmetic skills are required to stratify the risk of miscarriage following early threatened abortion.

Up to date, the discovery of miscarriage-associated risk factors is still on the way. Current known risk factors include certain infections [7], endocrine disturbance [8], genital malformation [9], chromosome aberrations [10] and immune system disorder [11]. Recently, the relationship between inflammation and miscarriage has attracted more attention. The evidence obtained from experimental studies has suggested that inflammation is involved in the whole pregnancy evolution [12,13,14]. In addition, the clinical studies have found that inflammation-related parameters are strongly correlated with the pregnancy complications [15,16]. However, the evidence of the link between inflammation and miscarriage in women with early threatened abortion is limited. Given that the similar maternal-fetal pathological changes between threatened abortion and miscarriage [17,18], we speculated that inflammation might be associated with pregnancy outcome in the early threatened abortion.

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR) are a series of new parameters derived from complete blood counting reflecting inflammatory status. Because of its availability and extensive use, accumulating studies have been reported that these inflammation-related parameters are pretty relative with the prognosis and genesis of many diseases [19,20]. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the associations of aforementioned indexes and the early pregnancy outcome in women with early threatened abortion.

Materials and methods

Study population

We initially collected a total of 765 women who were diagnosed as early threatened abortion between June 2010 and December 2018 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine. All of them had received progesterone treatment according to the guidelines of European Progestin Club (EPC). Early threatened abortion is the clinical term for vaginal spotting or bleeding within 12 weeks of gestation4. Due to the small sample size and the missing information, we strictly screened the objects according the following exclusion criteria: (1) age is either less than 18 or greater than 40. (2) be exposed to chronic alcohol or nicotine. (3) suffer from chronic systemic diseases or acute infectious illness. (4) reproductive tract malformation. (5) multiple gestation. (6) loss of follow-up. After the screening, 630 women were selected for final analysis (Fig 1). All participants were followed up in 12 weeks of gestation by either a subsequent ultrasound scan or a telephone interview.

Fig 1

Flowchart of screening participants.

Because the detailed information is anonymously collected from hospital electronic medical record system, the written informed consents were not required. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine.

Variables

We obtained NLR, LMR and PLR at baseline, which were recorded as continuous variables. The detailed process was described as follows: (1) we pumped patient’s fresh peripheral venous blood into EDTA-anticongulation tube on the second day morning of the hospitalization. (2) samples were sent to central lab and tested by an automatic blood cell analysis instrument(UniCel DxH800).

According to the published guidelines and researches, we decided to obtain this outcome variable: the early pregnancy outcome (dichotomous variable). The detailed definition was described as follows: (1) the survival of embryo within 12 weeks of gestation, namely successful pregnancy. (2) conversely, miscarriage occurs within 12 weeks of gestation, namely failed pregnancy.

The covariates in this study can be classified as follows: (1) demographic data; (2) basing on our clinical experiences, variables that might affect exposure and outcome variables, were reported by previous literature. Therefore, the following variables (obtained at baseline) were used to construct the fully-adjusted model: (1) continuous variables: age(years), body mass index(BMI, kg/m2), gestational week(weeks); hemoglobin(HGB, g/L); β human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG, nmol/L); estradiol(E2, pmol/L); progesterone(P, nmol/L); (2) categorical variables: marital status(yes/no); childbearing history(yes/no); spontaneous abortion history(yes/no); artificial abortion history(yes/no).

Statistical analysis

In this study, our presentation of continuous variables was primarily based on whether they were normally distributed. If it was a normal distribution, we present the continuous variable as mean (SD), and vice versa as the medium (min, max). Categorical variables were expressed as a percentage. We used χ2 (categorical variables), Student T test (normal distribution), or Mann-Whitney U test (skewed distribution) to test for differences between two groups. The process of entire data analysis mainly can be divided into two steps. Step 1: Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were employed. We constructed two models: model 1, no covariates were adjusted; model 2, adjusted for sociodemographic data presented in Table 1. Step 2: To address for non linearity of exposure and outcome variables, a generalized additive model and smooth curve fitting (penalized spline method) were conducted. If nonlinearity was detected, we first calculated the inflection point using recursive algorithm, and then constructed a two-piecewise logistic regression on both sides of the inflection point. We determined the best fit model basing on the P values for log likelihood ratio test. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using marginal structural model because serum hormone and treatment are time-varied. All the analyses were performed with the statistical software packages R (http://www.R-project.org, The R Foundation) and EmpowerStats (http://www.empowerstats.com, X&Y Solutions, Inc, Boston, MA). P<0.05 (two-sided) was considered to be statistically significant.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of all participants.

Characteristics	All participants
Age, mean (SD), years	30.41±4.73
Gestational week, medium (IQR), weeks	6.00 (5.00–7.00)
HGB, medium (IQR), g/L	122.00 (115.00–130.00)
β-HCG, medium (IQR), nmol/L	15455.00 (2596.00–60113.50)
P, medium (IQR), nmol/L	81.65 (58.23–114.10)
E2, medium (IQR), pmol/L	1818.50 (835.80–3184.50)
BMI, mean (SD), kg/m2	21.03 (2.84)
WBC, medium (IQR), 109/L	7.98 (6.63–9.50)
Eosinophils, medium (IQR), 109/L	0.11 (0.07–0.17)
Neutrophil, medium (IQR), 109/L	5.25 (4.04–6.49)
Lymphocyte, medium (IQR), 109/L	1.98 (1.66–2.39)
Monocyte, medium (IQR), 109/L	0.47 (0.38–0.55)
Platelet, medium (IQR), 109/L	238.00 (206.00–270.00)
NLR, medium (IQR)	2.54 (1.99–3.30)
PLR, medium (IQR)	119.37 (97.27–142.07)
LMR, medium (IQR)	4.32 (3.56–5.41)
Marital status
unmarried	2.53%
married	97.47%
Childbearing history
no	69.32%
yes	30.68%
Artificial abortion history
no	70.34%
yes	29.66%
outcome
Successful pregnancy	75.40%
Failed pregnancy	24.6%

SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; HGB, hemoglobin; β-HCG, β human chorionic gonadotropin; P, progesterone; E2, estradiol; BMI, body mass index; WBC, white blood cells; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte-monocyte ratio.

Results

Population characteristics

After screening, a total of 630 selected participants(aged 30.41±4.73) with early threatened abortion were analyzed. 155 women (24.60%) lost pregnancy during the first trimester (medium:6.00; IQR:5.00–7.00). The exposed variables were described as following: NLR, medium (IQR): 2.54 (1.99–3.30); LMR, medium (IQR): 4.32 (3.56–5.41); PLR, medium (IQR): 119.37 (97.27–142.07). The detailed baseline characteristics of all participants were shown in the Table 1.

Relationships of three inflammation-related parameters and early pregnancy outcome

We analyzed the associations of three continuous exposure variables and outcome variable by using non/fully-adjusted model and MSM. These models showed no significant correlations of pregnancy outcome and parameters including NLR (0.89 (0.77, 1.03), 0.92 (0.72, 1.17), 0.74 (0.45, 1.21)), LMR (0.92 (0.75, 1.12), 0.95 (0.61, 1.47), 1.04 (0.89, 1.23)) and PLR (1.00 (1.00, 1.01), 1.00 (0.99, 1.01), 1.00 (0.98, 1.01)). Though there was a little difference in the ORs and 95%CIs of outcome for three inflammation-related parameters, the results were stable in all models. As tertiles, the counterpart for NLR, LMR and PLR were respectively 1.00(reference), 0.82 (0.45, 1.52), 0.63 (0.31, 1.26); 1.00(reference), 0.47 (0.24, 0.93), 0.44 (0.17, 1.11); 1.00(reference), 1.02 (0.55, 1.92, 0.86 (0.44, 1.67) in low, middle and high tertiles, which presenting a non-equidistant relation for three parameters in model 2. The detailed data were presented in the Table 2.

Table 2

Results of unvariate and multivariate analysis using binary logistic regression and marginal structural model.

Exposure	Non-adjusted model (OR, 95%CI, P value)	Fully-adjusted model (OR, 95%CI, P value)	Marginal Structural Model (OR, 95%CI, P value)
NLR	0.89 (0.77, 1.03) 0.1174	0.92 (0.72, 1.17) 0.4883	0.74 (0.45, 1.21) 0.231
Low	Ref	Ref
Middle	0.56 (0.36, 0.86) 0.0091	0.82 (0.45, 1.52) 0.5383
High	0.56 (0.36, 0.87) 0.0103	0.63 (0.31, 1.26) 0.1879
P for trend of NLR	0.0077	0.1882
LMR	0.92 (0.75, 1.12) 0.4115	0.95 (0.61, 1.47) 0.8075	1.04 (0.89, 1.23) 0.619
Low	Ref	Ref
Middle	0.52 (0.33, 0.82) 0.0047	0.47 (0.24, 0.93) 0.0310
High	0.58 (0.37, 0.90) 0.0151	0.44 (0.17, 1.11) 0.0830
P for trend of LMR	0.0176	0.0620
PLR	1.00 (1.00, 1.01) 0.2859	1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 0.9303	1.00 (0.98, 1.01) 0.884
Low	Ref	Ref
Middle	0.99 (0.63, 1.55) 0.9745	1.02 (0.55, 1.92) 0.9391
High	1.11 (0.71, 1.72) 0.6522	0.86 (0.44, 1.67) 0.6511
P for trend of PLR	0.6518	0.6615

NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte-monocyte ratio.

Analysis of non-linear relationship

We continued to explore the potential non-linear relationship of three parameters and early pregnancy outcome using GAM model and smooth fitting(penalty curve method), as presented in the Fig 2. Non-linear relationship of LMR and early pregnancy outcome was detected. We calculated an inflection point for LMR (2.19) by two-piecewise linear regression model and recursive algorithm. When LMR< 2.19, significant negative association was observed for early pregnancy outcome (OR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.51, 1.05, P: 0.0128). When LMR≧2.19, insignificant positive association was observed (OR: 1.22, 95%CI: 0.84, 1.77, P: 0.0518). There was a threshold effect between LMR and early pregnancy outcome, which presented in the Table 3.

Fig 2

The relationship between NLR/LMR/PLR and the risk of miscarriage in early women with early threatened abortion.

(A)The associatioin of NLR and the early pregnancy outcome is analyzed by GAM model and smooth fitting. (B)The associatioin of PLR and the early pregnancy outcome is analyzed by GAM model and smooth fitting. (C)The associatioin of LMR and the early pregnancy outcome is analyzed by GAM model and smooth fitting.

Table 3

Analysis of non-linear relationship between three parameters and outcome.

Exposure	NLR	LMR	PLR
Fitting model using standard binary l,ogistic regression model	0.92 (0.72, 1.17) 0.4883	0.95 (0.61, 1.47) 0.8075	1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 0.9303
Fitting model using two-piecewise regression model
Inflection point	3.93	2.19	72.35
< inflection point	0.73 (0.51, 1.05) 0.0925	0.39 (0.19, 0.82) 0.0128	1.08 (0.92, 1.26) 0.3324
≥ inflection point	1.22 (0.84, 1.77) 0.2872	1.75 (1.00, 3.06) 0.0518	1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 0.7360
P for log likelyhood ratio test	0.109	0.004	0.157

NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte-monocyte ratio.

Discussion

In this study, no linear relationship between NLR/PLR/LMR and early pregnancy outcome was confirmed by fully-adjusted model and MSM. However, as tertiles, we found that a significant negative association was only detected in the middle tertile of LMR (OR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.24, 0.93, P: 0.0310). Furthermore, non-linearity discovered by GAM, smooth curve fitting and two-piecewise model suggested that threshold effect can be observed in LMR, but not NLR and PLR after full adjustment. At the range of less than 2.19, increasing of one unit of LMR was significantly associated with the decreasing risk of miscarriage for 61%. There was no significant association between LMR and early pregnancy outcome at the range of more than 2.19.

The blood routine examination is a easily measurable and available method to reflect the general inflammatory status [21]. Their deuterogenic parameters, such as NLR, LMR and PLR, were considered as the inflammation-related indicators with respect to predict many diseases, including pregnancy complications [22,23]. Several studies, sample size ranging from 107–814, suggested that maternal NLR/PLR was positive associated with severe pre-eclampsia/gestational diabetes mellitus/acute appendicitis during pregnancy [24,25,26]. However, some considered that NLR/PLR has no significant association with gestational diabetes mellitus and HELLP syndrome [27,28]. In addition, the maternal NLR/PLR of the six gestational week was suggested as a predictor of miscarriage, but the results were inconsistent with our study [29]. Comparing with them, our results are reliable enough because they are based on a larger sample size and added covariates. But there is an increasing focus on the relevance of inflammatory parameters and miscarriage, we need a further study to verify the associations of NLR/PLR and miscarriage.

Furthermore, we found that the higher LMR was related to the lower risk of miscarriage in women with early threatened abortion at the range of less than 2.19, which was not reported yet in the study of pregnancy-related complications. It was the first study to evaluate the relationship of LMR and miscarriage in women with early threatened abortion. Nevertheless, the bulk of literature have described that the higher LMR was a negative factor for the prognosis of diseases, such as gastric cancer [30] and early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma [31]. But a meta analysis study has suggested that the low LMR was associated with the poor outcome for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma [32]. The results of the association of maternal LMR and pregnancy outcome is not exactly consistent with some studies. As an inflammatory factor, LMR might play an important role during the gestational period. Osmanağaoğlu, M.A [33] have described that the autophagy level of peripheral blood mononuclear cells is higher in nulliparous women with miscarriage, comparing with the normal pregnancy. In addition, accumulating researches have proved that immune system disorder and abnormal inflammation leads to miscarriagel [34,35]. Songcun Wang [36] etc. have reported that Tim-3, a regulator for inflammatory response, promotes the production of Th-2 type cytokines during the pregnancy, which might be a potential drug target for the treatment of miscarriage. In summary, both inflammation and immunology play an important role in maintenance of pregnancy.

Clinically, anti-inflammation is a way to prevent miscarriage. Because of its availability and low price, LMR can be widely used to evaluate the risk of miscarriage in women with early threatened abortion. However, there was some limitations in this study. For the retrospective cohort study, not all the confounders were included. And larger patient population is needed to verify the results of our study.

For the present study, we concluded that the higher maternal LMR is associated with the lower risk of miscarriage in women with early threatened abortion at the range of less than 2.19.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-27160

the Benefits of Higher LMR for Early Threatened Abortion: a Retrospective Cohort Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Gao,

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. There were major comments that arose during the review of your manuscript. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses ALL of the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Comments to PONE-D-19-27160 entitled the Benefits of Higher LMR for Early Threatened Abortion: a Retrospective Cohort Study

The authors retrospectively tested the inflammasome obtained from the routine whole blood cells test in the prediction of outcome of women with threatened abortion, and a total of 630 women were enrolled into the current study.

Among these, 155 women were finally complicated with early pregnancy loss compared to 475 women continued pregnancy. Some comments are shown below.

1. Although the authors clarified the meaning of abbreviation, some are not a good candidate for the abbreviation. For example, TA might not be well accepted in the clinical use. In the introduction, TA as an initial word might not be appropriate.

2. The use of simple hematological parameters to predict the various kinds of the diseases has been evaluated in the many studies. Nearly almost studies favored their clinical value. It is hard for me to believe it, although the aforementioned data have supported it. Therefore, some data had better be provided in the Table 1. Absolute number of white cells, absolute number of each subpopulation of white cells, such as neutrophil, lymphocyte, monocyte, eosinophils and/or others should be provided.

**********

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

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Mar 2020

All the responds to reviewers and editors were shown in the cover letter and supporting information. Thanks for your comments.

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 Mar 2020

The benefits of higher LMR for early threatened abortion: a retrospective cohort study

PONE-D-19-27160R1

Dear Dr. Gao,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #1: 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 #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: (No Response)

**********

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 #1: No

8 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-27160R1

The benefits of higher LMR for early threatened abortion: a retrospective cohort study

Dear Dr. Gao:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE