Handling paperwork with our extensive and intuitive PDF editor is straightforward. Adhere to the instructions below to fill out Revision notes for the mrcog part 1 pdf download online quickly and easily:
Essential Clinical Anatomy, Keith L. Moore. Third Edition. I used this book in Med school and found it extremely useful for all the anatomy required for the exam. The images are clear and really helped me to improve my 3-D understanding of the anatomy.
Revision Notes For The Mrcog Part 1 Pdf Free Download
Download Zip 🔥 https://urllie.com/2yGcpc 🔥
Revision Notes For The MRCOG Part 1, Arisudhan Anantharachagan. This is a pretty thick, black and white (and purple) book in the form of revision notes. I LOVE bullet points, checklists, numbered lists etc and so this book worked perfectly for me. I highlighted and anotated the crap out of this one and it was my main text for revision. Unfortunately it does not have all the detail you need in order to pass the exam, so you will need to partner it with an additional text.
Basic Sciences for Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tim Chard. Fifth Edition. I found this book very difficult to read, but once I managed to decrypt it, I found it to be an invaluable partner text for the revision notes book mentioned above. It covers cell biology, embryology, the placenta, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, endocrinology, pathology, microbiology and pharmacology. There is also a smaller section on stats and ultrasound. A friend of mine swore by this book and used it as her only text.
Do not underestimate the value of doing practice questions for this exam. I would say the majority of my time spent revising was doing questions. There are many resources for this. I used three. In my opinion the key is to start doing questions quite early on so that you get a feel for what you should be revising and in how much depth! Do a question, check your answer, then read around the topic.
Additionally, I used BMJ Onexamination online which was useful for practice but not as accurate as the RCOG bank in terms of question style. It helped me break up those boring periods of revision and the explanations were handy revision points. I also tried out aceonline and would not recommend it.
Andrew Sizers SBAs for the Part One MRCOG was very useful for practice. I found that the questions were much more simple than those in the actual exam but it was a good starting point for revision and definitely boosted my confidence!
Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 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 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: -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 _medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.
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.
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.
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: 1. This is like a secondary data analysis of study nested within an RCT with a different objective. However the author seems to suggest this is primary data collection for this particular study. This should be addressed clearly in the abstract and the rest of the paper.
Are there any known interventions during pregnancy that could modify anthropometric factors and therefore lead to improved neurodevelopmental outcomes? If any exist, please consider including them in your manuscript to demonstrate the potential clinical utility of your study findings.
[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, 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.
Response: Reference list has been reviewed and is complete and correct. One of the cited article had a published correction (Erratum) and the same has been added as a suffix to the original citation. Additional references have been added as per the suggestions of the reviewers.
1. This is like a secondary data analysis of study nested within an RCT with a different objective. However the author seems to suggest this is primary data collection for this particular study. This should be addressed clearly in the abstract and the rest of the paper.
Response: The interventions in the main study were broadly under the four domains i.e. health, nutrition, WASH (water, sanitation, hygiene) and psychosocial care and support ) summary of the interventions is in Tablle 1 ( in the response to reviewers document , as table is not getting inserted here) . This would affect the study outcome hence we have adjusted for the same- study group (intervention- women who received interventions in pregnancy, continued till child was 2 years of age/ control- women who did not receive any interventions in pregnancy and till child was 2 years of age) in the analysis.
The selection of mother-child dyad for this analysis was not selective but subject to availability of data as per the requirements of our analysis. We included only those dyads where data for both USG and neurodevelopment at 24 months of age was available. Further, this being a very large community based randomized controlled trial and random selection of children for neurodevelopment assessments, there is minimal possibility of bias.
Response: The anthropometric measures which were between +/- 3SD of the normal range for that gestational age (26-28 weeks) were considered. Also some anthropometric measurements were missing in the ultrasound report especially for the TCD. This could probably be due to the difficulty in the measurement of certain parameters due to the position of the fetus at the time of the ultrasonography. However, getting a significant association with TCD even with the comparatively smaller sizes indicates that the association observed may actually be true.
Response: Apart from targeted improved nutrition in pregnancy increasing fetal anthropometric parameters, There are other factors which have been studied. One of them is the maternal anxiety or depression causing cortisol dysregulation and reduced fetal head growth. Maternal hypothyroidism and obesity also effects the fetal anthropometric measurements. All these could be targeted using appropriate interventions in pregnancy to potentially improve the fetal anthropometric parameters. A description of the same and appropriate references have been added in the introduction section.
Response: There is no ideal gestation when anthropometric measurements are most predictive of neurodevelopmental outcome (at least the available data does not suggest so- mainly because the analysis of this kind has not been undertaken). However, since we were looking at early predictors, we chose 26- 28 weeks over 35- 36 weeks. We were interested in utilizing data at a time which is earlier in the gestation so that interventions to promote fetal anthropometric growth (through addressing maternal risk factors) could be instituted. The choice and the reason for the same has been added in the material and methods section. 152ee80cbc
reduce noise plugin premiere pro download
mario party island tour music download