Dear Dr. Wichit,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Global seroprevalence of Zika virus in asymptomatic individuals: 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. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an interesting 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,

Kebede Deribe, BSc, MPH, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Andrea Marzi

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 well- defined and attainable objectives set for the study provided a solid foundation for a purposeful and successful research. The study design was appropriate and meticulous, defining every step in a very clear way. This study aimed to determine seroprevalence of Zika virus in a symptomatic patients globally, and included 84 studies which in theory seems to be a small number but this shows the need for more studies in this field. the statistical and ethical aspects of this study were satisfactory for the requirements.

Reviewer #2: The study’s objectives are clearly articulated, and the authors have meticulously designed their research to address the objectives. Their well-structured hypothesis allows for rigorous testing, ensuring that the study’s findings contribute meaningfully to the field. Overall, the research design aligns with the intended goals, fostering robust conclusions and advancing scientific understanding. The authors of the study have meticulously described the targeted population, ensuring that it aligns with the research hypothesis. Additionally, the sample size appears to be adequate for drawing meaningful conclusions. The statistical analyses employed by the authors are appropriate and contribute to supporting the study’s findings. Importantly, there are no ethical concerns raised by this research.

Reviewer #3: The methods are well 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 study is well-regarded for its well-defined objectives, meticulous design, global relevance, robust statistical analysis, and a commitment to thorough reporting. The acknowledgement of the need for further research adds to the study's overall significance.

Reviewer #2: The analysis in the study closely aligns with the planned analysis, and the findings are effectively communicated. The tables and figures are also well-constructed, enhancing the clarity of the research.

Reviewer #3: The study are results are well 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 study's conclusion is strongly supported by the detailed data in the results section, aligning well with the study's goals. Additionally, the study is noteworthy for openly discussing its limitations, providing readers with a clear understanding of potential constraints and biases. This commitment to both strong evidence and transparent acknowledgment of limitations enhances the credibility and integrity of the research.

Reviewer #2: The authors have attempted to enhance our understanding of the global spread of the Zika virus and its associated public health concerns. However, the conclusion needs further expansion and is not well-written.

Reviewer #3: The study conclusions are well stated and supported by data

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

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: Minor comments

Abstract

In the abstract part, no need any citation, the authors cited Hoy et al., 2012, better to remove it.

Introduction

Line 70: “The Eastern Mediterranean Region is the only exception”, this statement is not clear, Certainly! The author should elaborate further to provide clarity and ensure that their statement is easily understandable. Clear explanations are essential for effective communication.

Methods

The authors of the MS did not mention the Web of Science Core Collection or the Cochrane Library as databases for searching articles. Instead, they focused on other sources. However, it’s worth noting that these databases are widely used for academic research and could provide valuable information for future studies.

Why the authors excluded research involving travelers, migrants? As you know travelers and migrants play a crucial role in the transmission of Zika disease due to their mobility. When people move across borders or travel between regions, they can inadvertently carry the virus with them, potentially introducing it to new areas. This movement facilitates the spread of Zika and other infectious diseases globally. It’s essential to consider these population dynamics when addressing public health measures and disease prevention strategies.

Results

Line 226 ZIKV strains used for methodology, 36 out of 48 employed the Asian lineage, while 11 studies

used the African lineage, and 1 Asian and African lineages. The authors did not include phylogeny data in their analysis. However, they need to address how they compare the Asian lineage and African lineages of the Zika virus.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

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

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: In summary, the study is well-regarded for its clear and achievable goals, careful design, and global relevance in examining Zika virus seroprevalence. The inclusion of 84 studies suggests a need for more research. The commitment to thorough reporting and acknowledgment of limitations contributes to the overall trustworthiness of the research. The study's conclusion is supported by detailed results, emphasizing the importance of the findings.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is commendable. Its organization is logical and coherent from section to section. The document is written and formatted to a professional level. However, there are minor revisions needed in the body of the text to address typographical errors and grammar issues.

Reviewer #3: The comments are given in a separate word file and within the manuscript pdf file.

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

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: Yes: Rowa Hassan

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Collins Okoyo

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-23-01541_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-23-01541.pdf

Dear Dr. Wichit,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Global seroprevalence of Zika virus in asymptomatic individuals: A systematic review' 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,

Kebede Deribe, BSc, MPH, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Andrea Marzi

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: The authors have adequately addressed my earrlier comments. I have no further comments.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Collins Okoyo