Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 17, 2019
Decision Letter - HASNAIN SEYED EHTESHAM, Editor

PONE-D-19-17086

Tuberculosis treatment outcome: The case of women in Ethiopia and China, Ten-Years Retrospective Cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Xiao Ma,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 14 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

HASNAIN SEYED EHTESHAM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The authors would like to thank Sichuan University and Mekelle University for funding this study."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 'NO'

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I recommend this manuscript for Major revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Retrospective analysis of cohorts in two countries were made and data was analyzed. Following points were highlighted during the review:

1. Significant number of tuberculosis cases and death were observed in Tigray than Zigong region. Highlighting the shortcomings in implementation of TB programme in northern part of ethiopia.

2. Why, No data is available for TB-HIV co-morbid condition in Zigong region.

3. Factors responsible to unsuccessful treatment outcome in Tigray needs to be highlighted at large.

4. Factors responsible for less treatment success in Re-treatment cases needs to be highlighted also.

5. In Line 75,76 stating the lacunae of the study outcomes; Thus, globally this time we lack specific proof which shows level of treatment outcomes and its factor affecting in these vulnerable group.

6. Why only these two regions of these two countries are chosen for comparison, as the population, and other demographic conditions of these two countries are totally different. Reason needs to be provided.

However, such studies needs to be planned to highlight the lacunae in implementation of the national TB control programme and to study successful treatment outcomes.

Reviewer #2: 1. Whether the study population was native to the said region or migrant population also there needs to be clarified

2. Since the occupation of people from Tigray is mentioned. Same needs to be highlighted about the study subjects from Zigong. Also of any corelation is deduced from the same.

3. Any positive family history of TB in study subjects should also been recorded.

4. It is mentioned that retreatment or MDR cases showed poor treatment success as compared to those with HIV coinfection needs to be elaborated upon.

**********

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

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. Registration is free. 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Retrospective analysis of cohorts in two countries were made and data was analyzed. Following points were highlighted during the review:

Author’s appreciation

We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in non-italic form).

1. Significant number of tuberculosis cases and death were observed in Tigray than Zigong region. Highlighting the shortcomings in implementation of TB program in northern part of Ethiopia

Dear reviewer: I add reasons to explain the short comings in implementation of TB program a Tigray region in each discussion.

2. Why, No data is available for TB-HIV co-morbid condition in Zigong region.

Dear reviewer: There was a separate registration form for TB-HIV co-morbid which was not allowed to access. I did many attempts with my professor to have the information but it was not possible.

3. Factors responsible to unsuccessful treatment outcome in Tigray need to be highlighted at large.

Dear reviewer: I highlighted many factors responsible to unsuccessful treatment outcome in the discussion part also

4. Factors responsible for less treatment success in Re-treatment cases needs to be highlighted also,

Dear reviewer: the reason I highlighted is “The less treatment successes seen in the retreatment cases in Tigray could be the presence of high number of multidrug resistance TB in retreatment cases and with late introduction of drug sensitivity test in the region made the cases to take anti TB drug without knowing there MDR status.

5. In Line 75,76 stating the lacunae of the study outcomes; Thus, globally this time we lack specific proof which shows level of treatment outcomes and its factor affecting in these vulnerable group:

Dear reviewer: Many of the study compare men treatment outcome with women. But, there are very few studies which try to compare the treatment outcome among women. Hence, based on this I considered as we luck specific proof which show the level of treatment outcome

6. Why only these two regions of these two countries are chosen for comparison, as the population, and other demographic conditions of these two countries are totally different. Reason needs to be provided. However, such study needs to be planned to highlight the lacunae in implementation of the national TB control programmer and to study successful treatment outcomes.

Dear reviewer: The main reason to chooses this regions were ,Tigray region which is located in northern part of Ethiopia has best performance in TB prevention and treatment program and Zigong has the least performance in TB prevention and treatment and little rural among Sichuan provinces. Therefore, select these regions will show as comparable level of treatment outcome of the country.

Reviewer #2: 1. Whether the study population was native to the said region or migrant population also there needs to be clarified

Dear reviewer: This study did not consider the cases weather it is migrant or non-migrant because this information was not found in the TB registration logbook of Tigray region where as in Zigong there is but the number of migrant cases is not as significant.

2. since the occupation of people from Tigray is mentioned. Same needs to be highlighted about the study subjects from Zigong. Also of any correlation is deduced from the same.

Dear reviewer: I did not mention any occupation in Tigray

3. Any positive family history of TB in study subjects should also been recorded.

Dear reviewer: Yes, it was good to record any positive family history. But, both registrations did not indicate any positive family history. Besides, there is column which indicates number of contacts person which used to trace contact weather they are infected or not.

4. It is mentioned that retreatment or MDR cases showed poor treatment success as compared to those with HIV confection needs to be elaborated upon.

Dear reviewer: Here is the sentence on line 257-259 which says , HIV co infected TB cases were 1.59 times more likely to have treatment success (95% CI: 2.47, 5.18) compared with Unknown HIV status. In the result part and the reason behind was while The TB/ HIV prevention and treatment guideline indicates that any TB case should be tested for HIV and linked to Pre-ART treatment. But, some TB patent reject the HIV testing offer and delay themselves to take correct treatment protocol as well some health facility forgot to offer the test and delay in linking to ART program this made them to show poor treatment outcome than those known HIV positives

________________________________________

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx
Decision Letter - HASNAIN SEYED EHTESHAM, Editor

Tuberculosis treatment outcome: The case of women in Ethiopia and China, Ten-Years Retrospective Cohort study

PONE-D-19-17086R1

Dear Dr. Xiao Ma,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

HASNAIN SEYED EHTESHAM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The Authors have modified the manuscript seeking in mind the comments of the Reviewers. Reviewer 1 have No major comments and others have been taken care of. Reviewer 2 has also asked some questions and sought clarifications and elaborations on some points and these have been provided by the Authors. I believe this manuscript attempts to address treatment outcome in high disease burden country.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - HASNAIN SEYED EHTESHAM, Editor

PONE-D-19-17086R1

Tuberculosis treatment outcome: The case of women in Ethiopia and China, Ten-Years Retrospective Cohort study

Dear Dr. Ma:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof HASNAIN SEYED EHTESHAM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .