https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0707-0437
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 17, 2021 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Khan, Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Factors Associated with In-Hospital Mortality of Adult Tetanus Patients– A Multicenter Study from Bangladesh" 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. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following: [1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all 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. Thank you again for your submission to our journal. 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, Joseph M. Vinetz Deputy Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Joseph Vinetz Deputy Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases *********************** Reviewer's Responses to Questions Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance? As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following: Methods -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? -Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? -Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The objectives of the study are clearly articulated. The study did not require testing any hypothesis. The study design was appropriate to address the objectives stated. The population studied was clearly described and appropriate for the objectives The sample size is good for the study The Statistical analysis used were correct to support the conclusions The ethical requirement will require some modification as the authors claimed that patients with tetanus gave written informed consent. This calls for questioning as a patient with spasm may be unable to give written consent, however the patient may be able to give verbal consent with their caregiver going ahead to sign any document that needs to be signed. Reviewer #3: Objectives are clear; study design is relatively appropriate; description of the population needs some clarity- example who are excluded with reasons to be mentioned; No concern about ethical aspects. Who evaluated the patients in the two hospitals and how uniformity in assessment was maintained? -------------------- Results -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? -Are the results clearly and completely presented? -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The analysis presented matched the analysis plan The results were clearly presented except for the Kaplan Meier Survival Analysis that needs to be reviewed as presently presented by the authors. Table 1 requires some corrections which have been highlighted. The images and figures are clear to a good extent except for figure 3 which is not so clear. Reviewer #3: Table 1: need correction- widow; income per month Lines 195-196- not clear Definition of post exposure prophylaxis? What is meant by mode of injury and sub-types? Definition of 'localized' and generalized' tetanus may be given Time of onset- needs clarification Definition of 'severity score' and 'trismus severiity score' may be given in the method. Any photo of 'trismus' if available with consent may be provided -------------------- Conclusions -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? -Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? -Is public health relevance addressed? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The conclusions are supported by the data presented The limitations of the study were fairly well described The authors did discuss the relevance of the study viz-a-viz tetanus elimination. Tetanus is a disease of public Health relevance and this was highlighted in the manuscript. Reviewer #3: Limitations of the study: facilities of intensive care assisted respiration in hospitals managing the cases of tetanus may be made available in Bangladesh Some part of data needs clarity Public relevance addressed well -------------------- Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications? Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors have tried. However, the manuscript has lots of errors of syntax and semantics which requires a lot of work. Reviewer #3: Minor Revision -------------------- Summary and General Comments Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Thanks for asking me to review this manuscript. The topic is of public health relevance. It highlighted the need to focus on adult farmers who are high risk as far as tetanus is concerned. Some concerns have been highlighted as sticky notes in the manuscript and some suggestions made. Reviewer #3: (No Response) -------------------- 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 Reviewer #3: No 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 References 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Khan, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Factors Associated with In-Hospital Mortality of Adult Tetanus Patients– A Multicenter Study from Bangladesh' 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, Joseph M. Vinetz Deputy Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Joseph Vinetz Deputy Editor PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases *********************************************************** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
Dear Dr. Khan, We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Factors Associated with In-Hospital Mortality of Adult Tetanus Patients– A Multicenter Study from Bangladesh," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication. The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly. Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers. Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Best regards, Shaden Kamhawi co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Paul Brindley co-Editor-in-Chief PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .