Long-term outcomes of prismatic correction in partially accommodative esotropia

Hye Rim Choe; Hee Kyung Yang; Jeong-Min Hwang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225654

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 6, 2019
29 Aug 2019 Decision Letter - Ahmed Awadein, Editor PONE-D-19-21942 Long-Term Outcomes of Prismatic Correction in Partially Accommodative Esotropia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hwang, 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 Oct 13 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, Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS 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. 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [No]. Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares all the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: [No]. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 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: Yes 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: Yes 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: The authors presented a well-written manuscript entitled "Long-Term Outcomes of Prismatic Correction in Partially Accommodative Esotropia". My comments to the authors: 1- the study was a retrospective study performed on children less than 10 years with partially accommodative esoropia seen from 2003-2012. The total number of children was 124, which is relatively small in a nine-year duration. 2- In the methodology section, the authors didnt mention measuring the AC/A ratio to any child. 3-In the results section the authors mentioned "Of the 86 patients in the Failure group, 21 patients (24.4%) received surgery. What were the other alternatives for surgery for the failure group then? Reviewer #2: Patient and methods: Prescription of prism glasses is not clear, please rewrite it with more simplicity. Amblyopia cases must be discussed in more details (Degrees of amblyopia, duration of occlusion,…..) Please mention the meaning of all abbreviations throughout the manuscript (DCCPAT NCCPAT),(DCCinitial and NCCinitial) ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225654.r001
Revision 1
3 Nov 2019 Author Response Reviewer #1: The authors presented a well-written manuscript entitled "Long-Term Outcomes of Prismatic Correction in Partially Accommodative Esotropia". My comments to the authors: 1- the study was a retrospective study performed on children less than 10 years with partially accommodative esotropia seen from 2003-2012. The total number of children was 124, which is relatively small in a nine-year duration. → Thank you for your comment. The majority of partially accommodative esotropia patients received operation within one year of follow-up. In South Korea, the treatment strategy is also influenced by the insurance system, as strabismus operation is covered by the national insurance only for patients under 10 years old, and many parents want to have surgery at a younger age given the possibility of reoperation. Therefore, the number of patients satisfying our inclusion criteria, “who were fitted with prism glasses for 3 years or more to correct their residual esodeviation”, is relatively small considering the long study duration. 2- In the methodology section, the authors didnt mention measuring the AC/A ratio to any child. → We measured the AC/A ratio at the initial examination by the clinical method evaluating distance-near relationship. High AC/A ratio was defined when the near esodeviation was ≥ 10PD larger than the distant esodeviation. A total of 17 patients (13.7%) showed a high AC/A ratio at the initial examination. We added this in the methods and results section. 3-In the results section the authors mentioned "Of the 86 patients in the Failure group, 21 patients (24.4%) received surgery. What were the other alternatives for surgery for the failure group then? → While 21 patients received surgery after more than 1 year of wearing prism glasses, the other patients who did not meet the surgical criteria maintained their glasses with prisms ranging from 12 PD to 30 PD (including fresnel prisms). These patients showed a relatively stable angle of esodeviation with prism glasses, because patients who presented with a rapid increase of esodeviation received surgery. On the other hand, among the success group who were still wearing small angles of prisms, patients who wanted to take off prism glasses selected to receive surgery after more than 3 years of prism wear. We added this in the methods section. We deeply appreciate your precious time and effort for the review. Reviewer #2: Patient and methods: Prescription of prism glasses is not clear, please rewrite it with more simplicity. → Prism gasses were initially prescribed according to the residual angle of esodeviation during distant fixation (DCCinitial) and cycloplegic refractive errors. The amount of prisms were changed whenever the angle of esotropia was changed. For example, if a patient’s cycloplegic refractive errors were +3.00 Dsph in both eyes, and the esodeviation measured with glasses (+3.00 Dsph OU) was 12 prism diopters during distant fixation, then prism glasses of +3.00 Dsph with 6 base-out prisms were prescribed for each eye. At the next follow up, if the patient revealed an esotropia of 4 prism diopters wearing those glasses with the simultaneous cover test, the amount of prisms were increased to 8 base-out prisms for each eye. We clarified this in the methods section. Amblyopia cases must be discussed in more details (Degrees of amblyopia, duration of occlusion,…..) → At the initial exam, 27 patients (21.8%) had amblyopia and full-time occlusion except one day in a week was prescribed in 21 patients (16.9%) initially. For 6 patients (4.8%) who were under 4 years old, part time occlusion therapy was prescribed for 2 to 6 hours a day. Occlusion was tapered according to their visual response, and 8 of patients (6.5%) continued part time occlusion therapy at the last follow-up. We added this in the results section. Please mention the meaning of all abbreviations throughout the manuscript (DCCPAT and NCCPAT),(DCCinitial and NCCinitial) → For the residual angle of esodeviation after full hypermetropic correction at initial exam, we used abbreviations “DCCinitial and NCCinitial”. The first prism glasses were prescribed according to “DCCinitial”. → The maximum angle of baseline esodeviation in the first 3 months after prism wear was defined as “DCCPAT or NCCPAT”, which indicate the stabilized angles of esodeviation by prism adaptation. These values were usually greater than “DCCinitial and NCCinitial” due to manifestation of latent strabismus. We used these values as baseline angles for evaluating the effect of prism wear. We deeply appreciate your precious time and effort for the review. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225654.r002
11 Nov 2019 Decision Letter - Ahmed Awadein, Editor Long-Term Outcomes of Prismatic Correction in Partially Accommodative Esotropia PONE-D-19-21942R1 Dear Dr. Hwang, 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, Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225654.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Nov 2019 Acceptance Letter - Ahmed Awadein, Editor PONE-D-19-21942R1 Long-Term Outcomes of Prismatic Correction in Partially Accommodative Esotropia Dear Dr. Hwang: 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 Dr. Ahmed Awadein Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225654.r004

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 .