Reviewer’s report
Title: Blood Pressure after PREeclampsia/HELLP by SELF monitoring (BP-PRESELF): rationale
and design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Leila Katz
Reviewer's report:
After the work and clarifying carried out after the revisions, the manuscript is even more interesting.
Another minor point although, came to my attention, and will be pointed out to be evaluated by the
authors.
First, I think that ECLAMPSIA is a more important a diagnosis, to be added to the population, than
HELLP syndrome. Patients with Preeclampsia and Eclampsia may have HELLP syndrome, which is a
part of the spectrum or a complication, but when it occurs, automatically, the diagnosis of preeclampsia
is made. Eclampsia patients were not mentioned anywhere. In fact, I believe that the right way to
outline the population would be: PE/Eclampsia patients.  Of course, HELLP syndrome is a variable that
must be studied too.
Most studies include all forms of hypertension in pregnancy together, not separating HELLP syndrome
and include Eclampsia patients. 
The study conducted by Behrens et al, included Eclampsia patients.
The explanation about the sample size and the observation period is satisfactory. Although I will still be
it would be even more impacting, if the sample was larger and the observation period longer, in order to
give answers about the secondary outcomes.
Budget and time is totally understandable!
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal