Dear Dr Oliver,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Cluster randomised controlled studies to investigate interrupting mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans without non-targeted insecticide A systematic review" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer #1: PLOS NTD

Title : Cluster randomised controlled studies to investigate interrupting mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans without non-targeted insecticide A systematic review

The authors have included 2 studies where non-targeted insecticide was applied in both arms.

It is not clear that the included studies that "interrupt" transmission - I suggest "reduce".

Also this review has been conducted to inform the use of a cRCT to reduce mosquito borne transmission of Mycobacterium ulcerans, the causal agent of Bureli ulcer. "A novel intervention study for Buruli ulcer targeting mosquito vectors was proposed for a Buruli ulcer-endemic area of Victoria, Australia"

Thus a more infomative title for this article:

Cluster randomised controlled studies to reduce mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans. A systematic review in the context of Bureli ulcer transmission.

Support for the evidence that mosquitoes transmit Bureli ulcer, appears to be weak. Page 3, second paragraph "Mycobacterium ulcerans is considered an environmental pathogen…., evidence implicates biting insects as having a key role in the transmission of M. ulcerans. [16, 17]." Thus in their proposed intervention it is important that the methods used to reduce mosquitoes density are highly efficacious.

Abstract:

State the date range applied to interrogate the listed medical research databases.

Needs more care with English, for example in the abstract, results section:

"Eight eligible cRCTs were conducted between 1994-2013 in variable settings in the Americas and Asia were identified." Suggestion "Eight eligible cRCTs conducted between 1994-2013 were identified in a variety of settings in the Americas and Asia."

The term "Source reduction" requires definition.

Page 6

Data abstraction: The full …….disease and vector; study setting and period;. Please change "period" to "date"

The aim was to review cRCT designs used to investigate interventions without non-targeted insecticide for reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans, and comment on the

strengths and weaknesses of these study designs. They have included articles with non-targeted insecticide when applied in control and intervention groups. This needs to be justified.

DISCUSSION - first sentence:

"This review is unique in that it considers the effects of mosquito control interventions on associated disease, rather than on entomological indicators only"

Please clarify. Many studies and reviews consider the effect of mosquito control interventions on associated disease - Anopheline studies and malaria and many others.

The novel nature of the proposed Buruli ulcer prevention strategy is, I believe, that mosquitoes have not previously been targeted as a means of reducing this disease.

Reviewer #2: Well written paper. Considering that the review include small number of eligible studies, it would be helpful to discuss advantages and disadvantages of other types of study design used for similar studies

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Elvina Viennet, PhD

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Elvina Viennet

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer #1: PLOS NTD

Title : Cluster randomised controlled studies to investigate interrupting mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans without non-targeted insecticide A systematic review

The authors have included 2 studies where non-targeted insecticide was applied in both arms.

It is not clear that the included studies that "interrupt" transmission - I suggest "reduce".

Also this review has been conducted to inform the use of a cRCT to reduce mosquito borne transmission of Mycobacterium ulcerans, the causal agent of Bureli ulcer. "A novel intervention study for Buruli ulcer targeting mosquito vectors was proposed for a Buruli ulcer-endemic area of Victoria, Australia"

Thus a more infomative title for this article:

Cluster randomised controlled studies to reduce mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans. A systematic review in the context of Bureli ulcer transmission.

Support for the evidence that mosquitoes transmit Bureli ulcer, appears to be weak. Page 3, second paragraph "Mycobacterium ulcerans is considered an environmental pathogen…., evidence implicates biting insects as having a key role in the transmission of M. ulcerans. [16, 17]." Thus in their proposed intervention it is important that the methods used to reduce mosquitoes density are highly efficacious.

Abstract:

State the date range applied to interrogate the listed medical research databases.

Needs more care with English, for example in the abstract, results section:

"Eight eligible cRCTs were conducted between 1994-2013 in variable settings in the Americas and Asia were identified." Suggestion "Eight eligible cRCTs conducted between 1994-2013 were identified in a variety of settings in the Americas and Asia."

The term "Source reduction" requires definition.

Page 6

Data abstraction: The full …….disease and vector; study setting and period;. Please change "period" to "date"

The aim was to review cRCT designs used to investigate interventions without non-targeted insecticide for reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans, and comment on the

strengths and weaknesses of these study designs. They have included articles with non-targeted insecticide when applied in control and intervention groups. This needs to be justified.

DISCUSSION - first sentence:

"This review is unique in that it considers the effects of mosquito control interventions on associated disease, rather than on entomological indicators only"

Please clarify. Many studies and reviews consider the effect of mosquito control interventions on associated disease - Anopheline studies and malaria and many others.

The novel nature of the proposed Buruli ulcer prevention strategy is, I believe, that mosquitoes have not previously been targeted as a means of reducing this disease.

Reviewer #2: Well written paper. Considering that the review include small number of eligible studies, it would be helpful to discuss advantages and disadvantages of other types of study design used for similar studies

Figure 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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Dear Dr Oliver,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions other than non-targeted insecticide" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer #1: Overall

This review presents a systematic review of published cluster randomised control studies (cRCT) of mosquito control interventions including breeding source reduction, using mosquito-borne disease as an outcome. A previous review has used entomological endpoints (Alvarado-Castro V, et al. ,2017, cited at the end of the article) but I believe that use of a clinical endpoint is both novel and useful.

The authors state the review was conducted to inform the design of a future cRCT for Buruli ulcer prevention in Victoria. Strictly limited details of the planned Buruli ulcer cRCT add interest to this article but should be succinct. Similar considerations apply to the Discussion.

The article thus requires major revision.

The English also needs revision.

In addition, given that only three articles have been identified by this systematic review, perhaps the article would be more suitable as a short communication.

An additional strength of this article is Table 2. These are real world results that can inform future studies.

The phrase "interventions with targeted insecticide" is considerably clearer than "interventions without nontargeted insecticide".

Specific comments

Author Summary

Point 2 This literature review identified three studies with an intervention which did not include non-targeted use of insecticide and was associated with statistically significant reductions in the disease of interest and in entomological indicators.

Rewrite: This literature review identified three intervention studies, without non-targeted use of insecticide, that were associated with statistically significant reductions.

Point 3 & 4 are repetitive and should be combined.

Point 3 High community engagement is vital for the success of a cluster randomised control study aiming to reduce mosquito-borne disease with a mosquito control intervention.

Point4 A mosquito breeding source reduction intervention for Aedes control may effectively reduce disease transmitted by this vector in endemic areas if local communities are supportive and very engaged.

Point 5 Is the final statement supported by the evidence reviewed? "Regular administration of larvicide to potential breeding sites that are unsuitable for source reduction may supplement this intervention strategy." If not, I think it should be removed.

Abstract

Well written

Title

Full Title: "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions other than non-targeted insecticide."

Suggest: "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions using targeted insecticide."

Short title: Intervention studies without non-targeted insecticide to reduce mosquito-borne disease.

Suggest: "cRCT using targeted insecticide to reduce mosquito-borne disease."

Introduction

Section on Buruli ulcer only need mention:

"This literature review was developed to inform the design of a future cluster randomised control study (cRCT) aiming to reduce Buruli ulcer transmission via a mosquito control intervention that does not include non-targeted insecticide spraying. The aim was to review cRCT designs used to investigate interventions without non-targeted insecticide for reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans, and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of these study designs."

Methods

The authors definition of studies eligible for this review Page is suitable. The identification and selection of articles is well described, follows standard procedures, and covers "from the earliest available sources" up to July 2019. There are 8 articles included in the review but in the final analysis only three met their criteria.

They quote a previous review of cRDT in this field (Alvarado-Castro V, et al. (2017), ref 41). It would be informative to include this in the introduction as an example of a review on entomological endpoints and highlight reasons for using disease endpoints.

The inclusion criteria for studies in the review needs clarification.

Page 6, top paragraph. This indicates that studies with non-targeted insecticide/s applied in both the control and intervention arms were included.

Page 6, last paragraph the Eligibility criteria states "Intervention targeted mosquitoes without non-targeted use of insecticide."

Page 13, Contamination between clusters probably occurred in several of the studies and are listed in Table 2. These are real world results that can inform future studies and this is a strength of this article.

Results

Page 8, top

Clarify the meaning of "title/abstract" as Title and abstract, Title or abstract etc

Page 8, top

Following searches of the five medical research databases, 1,471 article citations were identified of which 391 articles underwent title/abstract screening (with 1,080 citations identified as duplicates and discarded; Figure 1).

Rewrite: Following searches of the five medical research databases, 1,471 article citations were identified of which 1080 were duplicates and 391 articles underwent title/abstract screening (Figure 1).

Discussion

As mentioned previously, strictly limited / succinct details of the planned Buruli ulcer cRCT add interest to this article. The Discussion needs to discuss the results of the literature review with minor mention of the Buruli ulcer cRCT. It therefore needs rewritting.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Elvina Viennet, PhD

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer #1: Overall

This review presents a systematic review of published cluster randomised control studies (cRCT) of mosquito control interventions including breeding source reduction, using mosquito-borne disease as an outcome. A previous review has used entomological endpoints (Alvarado-Castro V, et al. ,2017, cited at the end of the article) but I believe that use of a clinical endpoint is both novel and useful.

The authors state the review was conducted to inform the design of a future cRCT for Buruli ulcer prevention in Victoria. Strictly limited details of the planned Buruli ulcer cRCT add interest to this article but should be succinct. Similar considerations apply to the Discussion.

The article thus requires major revision.

The English also needs revision.

In addition, given that only three articles have been identified by this systematic review, perhaps the article would be more suitable as a short communication.

An additional strength of this article is Table 2. These are real world results that can inform future studies.

The phrase "interventions with targeted insecticide" is considerably clearer than "interventions without nontargeted insecticide".

Specific comments

Author Summary

Point 2 This literature review identified three studies with an intervention which did not include non-targeted use of insecticide and was associated with statistically significant reductions in the disease of interest and in entomological indicators.

Rewrite: This literature review identified three intervention studies, without non-targeted use of insecticide, that were associated with statistically significant reductions.

Point 3 & 4 are repetitive and should be combined.

Point 3 High community engagement is vital for the success of a cluster randomised control study aiming to reduce mosquito-borne disease with a mosquito control intervention.

Point4 A mosquito breeding source reduction intervention for Aedes control may effectively reduce disease transmitted by this vector in endemic areas if local communities are supportive and very engaged.

Point 5 Is the final statement supported by the evidence reviewed? "Regular administration of larvicide to potential breeding sites that are unsuitable for source reduction may supplement this intervention strategy." If not, I think it should be removed.

Abstract

Well written

Title

Full Title: "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions other than non-targeted insecticide."

Suggest: "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions using targeted insecticide."

Short title: Intervention studies without non-targeted insecticide to reduce mosquito-borne disease.

Suggest: "cRCT using targeted insecticide to reduce mosquito-borne disease."

Introduction

Section on Buruli ulcer only need mention:

"This literature review was developed to inform the design of a future cluster randomised control study (cRCT) aiming to reduce Buruli ulcer transmission via a mosquito control intervention that does not include non-targeted insecticide spraying. The aim was to review cRCT designs used to investigate interventions without non-targeted insecticide for reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans, and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of these study designs."

Methods

The authors definition of studies eligible for this review Page is suitable. The identification and selection of articles is well described, follows standard procedures, and covers "from the earliest available sources" up to July 2019. There are 8 articles included in the review but in the final analysis only three met their criteria.

They quote a previous review of cRDT in this field (Alvarado-Castro V, et al. (2017), ref 41). It would be informative to include this in the introduction as an example of a review on entomological endpoints and highlight reasons for using disease endpoints.

The inclusion criteria for studies in the review needs clarification.

Page 6, top paragraph. This indicates that studies with non-targeted insecticide/s applied in both the control and intervention arms were included.

Page 6, last paragraph the Eligibility criteria states "Intervention targeted mosquitoes without non-targeted use of insecticide."

Page 13, Contamination between clusters probably occurred in several of the studies and are listed in Table 2. These are real world results that can inform future studies and this is a strength of this article.

Results

Page 8, top

Clarify the meaning of "title/abstract" as Title and abstract, Title or abstract etc

Page 8, top

Following searches of the five medical research databases, 1,471 article citations were identified of which 391 articles underwent title/abstract screening (with 1,080 citations identified as duplicates and discarded; Figure 1).

Rewrite: Following searches of the five medical research databases, 1,471 article citations were identified of which 1080 were duplicates and 391 articles underwent title/abstract screening (Figure 1).

Discussion

As mentioned previously, strictly limited / succint details of the planned Buruli ulcer cRCT add interest to this article. The Discussion needs to discuss the results of the literature review with minor mention of the Buruli ulcer cRCT. It therefore needs rewritting.

Figure 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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Dear Dr Oliver,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions other than non-targeted insecticide" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Dear Dr Jane Oliver,

I couldn't find anywhere your response to reviewer point by point.

Reviewer 1 had interesting comments within the title, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion.

If you disagree with the comments and suggestions, please justify.

At present, none of them have been addressed in your Response to reviewers (17 June 2021).

Could you, please, upload a revised response with detailed action?

Thank you in advance.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Elvina Viennet, PhD

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer 1 comments:

Overall

This review presents a systematic review of published cluster randomised control studies (cRCT) of mosquito control interventions including breeding source reduction, using mosquito-borne disease as an outcome. A previous review has used entomological endpoints (Alvarado-Castro V, et al. ,2017, cited at the end of the article) but I believe that use of a clinical endpoint is both novel and useful.

The authors state the review was conducted to inform the design of a future cRCT for Buruli ulcer prevention in Victoria. Strictly limited details of the planned Buruli ulcer cRCT add interest to this article but should be succinct. Similar considerations apply to the Discussion.

The article thus requires major revision.

The English also needs revision.

In addition, given that only three articles have been identified by this systematic review, perhaps the article would be more suitable as a short communication.

An additional strength of this article is Table 2. These are real world results that can inform future studies.

The phrase "interventions with targeted insecticide" is considerably clearer than "interventions without nontargeted insecticide".

Specific comments

Author Summary

Point 2 This literature review identified three studies with an intervention which did not include non-targeted use of insecticide and was associated with statistically significant reductions in the disease of interest and in entomological indicators.

Rewrite: This literature review identified three intervention studies, without non-targeted use of insecticide, that were associated with statistically significant reductions.

Point 3 & 4 are repetitive and should be combined.

Point 3 High community engagement is vital for the success of a cluster randomised control study aiming to reduce mosquito-borne disease with a mosquito control intervention.

Point4 A mosquito breeding source reduction intervention for Aedes control may effectively reduce disease transmitted by this vector in endemic areas if local communities are supportive and very engaged.

Point 5 Is the final statement supported by the evidence reviewed? "Regular administration of larvicide to potential breeding sites that are unsuitable for source reduction may supplement this intervention strategy." If not, I think it should be removed.

Abstract

Well written

Title

Full Title: "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions other than non-targeted insecticide."

Suggest: "Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions using targeted insecticide."

Short title: Intervention studies without non-targeted insecticide to reduce mosquito-borne disease.

Suggest: "cRCT using targeted insecticide to reduce mosquito-borne disease."

Introduction

Section on Buruli ulcer only need mention:

"This literature review was developed to inform the design of a future cluster randomised control study (cRCT) aiming to reduce Buruli ulcer transmission via a mosquito control intervention that does not include non-targeted insecticide spraying. The aim was to review cRCT designs used to investigate interventions without non-targeted insecticide for reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans, and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of these study designs."

Methods

The authors definition of studies eligible for this review Page is suitable. The identification and selection of articles is well described, follows standard procedures, and covers "from the earliest available sources" up to July 2019. There are 8 articles included in the review but in the final analysis only three met their criteria.

They quote a previous review of cRDT in this field (Alvarado-Castro V, et al. (2017), ref 41). It would be informative to include this in the introduction as an example of a review on entomological endpoints and highlight reasons for using disease endpoints.

The inclusion criteria for studies in the review needs clarification.

Page 6, top paragraph. This indicates that studies with non-targeted insecticide/s applied in both the control and intervention arms were included.

Page 6, last paragraph the Eligibility criteria states "Intervention targeted mosquitoes without non-targeted use of insecticide."

Page 13, Contamination between clusters probably occurred in several of the studies and are listed in Table 2. These are real world results that can inform future studies and this is a strength of this article.

Results

Page 8, top

Clarify the meaning of "title/abstract" as Title and abstract, Title or abstract etc

Page 8, top

Following searches of the five medical research databases, 1,471 article citations were identified of which 391 articles underwent title/abstract screening (with 1,080 citations identified as duplicates and discarded; Figure 1).

Rewrite: Following searches of the five medical research databases, 1,471 article citations were identified of which 1080 were duplicates and 391 articles underwent title/abstract screening (Figure 1).

Discussion

As mentioned previously, strictly limited / succint details of the planned Buruli ulcer cRCT add interest to this article. The Discussion needs to discuss the results of the literature review with minor mention of the Buruli ulcer cRCT. It therefore needs rewritting.

********************************************************

Figure 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. 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.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Dear Dr Oliver,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Reducing mosquito-borne disease transmission to humans: A systematic review of cluster randomised controlled studies that assess interventions other than non-targeted insecticide' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Elvina Viennet, PhD

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************