Dear Dr Stroffolini,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Impact of preventive chemotherapy on Strongyloides stercoralis: a systematic review and meta-analysis." 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.

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,

De'Broski R Herbert

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Eva Clark

Section 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: The objective of the review and meta-analysis was clearly articulated, and the study design was appropriate to address this.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies included in the review and meta-analysis were clearly stated and were appropriate for the study.

The sample size, as shown by the small number of studies included in the review meta-analysis, was not sufficient. However, this limitation was beyond the authors, as data which accounted for the limitation, were not available in included studies. This limitation was stated by the authors in their conclusion.

The conclusions were backed up by correct statistical analyses

There are no concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met for the conduct of the study

Reviewer #2: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? The goal of the paper should be reviewed since there is not enough information in the literature to actually support the intention of the paper.

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Yes

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? Yes

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? No

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? Yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? No

Reviewer #3: Methods employed are adequate.

--------------------

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: The analysis presented match the analysis plan.

The results were clearly presented.

However,:

1. Year of publication should follow each of the author names for all studies listed under the column Study" in Table 1.

2. et al. should follow each of the author names listed under the column "Study" in Figures 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Reviewer #2: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? Yes

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? In part. There is a substantial amount of information in the papers that they use as a reference that could be explored to increase the relevance of the review.

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Yes

Reviewer #3: Results are adequately presented and dicussed.

--------------------

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: The conclusions are justified by the data presented in the manuscript.

The limitations of the analysis were described, although not in the conclusion, but rather in the "Discussion" section.

The authors did discuss how data from their study could be helpful to advance our understanding of the subject matter under study as well as the public health relevance of their study/analysis. These were captured in the "Discussion" section.

Reviewer #2: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Yes, but since the authors don't have enough information to support their main goal, the conclusion is scarce.

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? Yes

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? Yes

-Is public health relevance addressed? Yes

Additional comment: The paragraph were the authors discuss the use of a combination of anthelminthics is not helpful to prove their point, and makes the reader wonder why they don't did the review also based in other possible treatments.

Reviewer #3: Conclusions are adequately formulated and limitations in the analysis are clearly detailed. The public health implications of the findings are addressed.

--------------------

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: Minor Revision; mainly editorial.

Please see attached "Reviewed" manuscript for details.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Reference [3] is not the WHO road map for NTDs, although the text on lines 49-51 seems to imply this. You may wish to add the road map as appropriate.

Please spell "roadmap" as "road map" (two words).

--------------------

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: The conceptualization and execution of the study was adequate.

The "References" section needs to be adequately revised. Please see attached "Reviewed" manuscript.

Reviewer #2: As addressed by the authors in the discussion there is not enough data in the literature that support this review. With that, there is no clear conclusion and no addition of information to the knowledge that the scientific community already has.

Reviewer #3: An interesting review assessing the impact of preventive chemotherapy (PC) with ivermectin on prevalence of S. stercoralis infection in endemic areas, with the aim of generating evidence that can inform global health policy.

In spite of the limited number of studies included in the analysis and the heterogeneity of such studies in terms of target population, frequency of administration of IVM and follow-up delay, results are consistently supporting MDA with IVM as a key public health intervention against Strongyloides stercoralis.

I don't have any specific technical comment on the article.

--------------------

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: manuscriptfinalplos - REVIEWED.docx

Dear Dr. Stroffolini,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Impact of preventive chemotherapy on Strongyloides stercoralis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.' 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,

De'Broski R Herbert

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Eva Clark

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Nicely improved

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: The objective of the review and meta-analysis was clearly articulated, and the study design was appropriate to address this.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies included in the review and meta-analysis were clearly stated and were appropriate for the study.

The sample size, as shown by the small number of studies included in the review meta-analysis, was not sufficient. However, this limitation was beyond the authors, as data which accounted for the limitation, were not available in included studies. This limitation was stated by the authors in their conclusion.

The conclusions were backed up by correct statistical analyses

There are no concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met for the conduct of the study.

Reviewer #3: Methods are adequate and adequately described

**********

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: The analysis presented match the analysis plan.

The results were clearly presented.

However,:

1. All author names in Figures 2-5 should be followed by et al. which precedes the year of publication in parentheses, e.g., Anselmi et al. (2015), Le et al. (2023).

Reviewer #3: Results are adequately presented

**********

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: The conclusions are justified by the data presented in the manuscript.

The limitations of the analysis were described, although not in the conclusion, but rather in the "Discussion" section.

The authors did discuss how data from their study could be helpful to advance our understanding of the subject matter under study as well as the public health relevance of their study/analysis. These were captured in the "Discussion" section.

Reviewer #3: Conclusion are adequate

**********

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: Minor Revision; mainly editorial.

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: The conceptualization and execution of the study was adequate.

Most of the errors outlined in the original manuscript have now been corrected. However, the minor revision suggested should be corrected to make for a better article. Please see attached "Reviewed" manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The revised version of the manuscript can be published

**********

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 #3: No

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: manuscript.clean (Reviewed).docx