Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 7, 2020
Decision Letter - Jorge Spratley, Editor

PONE-D-20-00508

Peritonsillar abscess may not always be a complication of acute tonsillitis: A prospective cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. Sanmark,

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 Apr 03 2020 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,

Jorge Spratley, MD, PhD

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.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Although a well written paper with a coherent statistical analysis of the data, it is not a new suggestion in the literature regarding the relationship of PTA and the minor salivary glands of Weber (this eponym should have been quoted ...). Other than that, for validation of microbial etiology swabs of the tonsilar surface in the PTA patients should also have been done as for individual comparison of microbial etiology and for comparison with the AT patients. As regarding the s-Amyl levels, the findings could possibly have other causes; in this way, the s-Amyl levels should also have been measured after disease resolution as to exclude false-positive results during PTA crisis.

Reviewer #2: This prospective cohort study of 112 patients nicely compares serum amylase and CRP levels in patients with tonsillitis and peritonsillar abscess, including 8 patients who did not have acute tonsillitis on physical exam. Those who did not have acute tonsillitis but had a PTA had lower CRP and were older. The paper is well-written.

Suggestions:

Would add to keywords; peritonsillar abscess, tonsillitis

Abstract line 11: suggest changing to: "These findings support that some cases of PTA may be caused by an

etiology other than AT. "

Page 11 line 25: Suggest not using the abbreviation TE (eg write out the words)

Page 12 line 4: It is a stretch to say that there is a group of patients who share features with parotitis. Suggest limiting the conclusion to what is known- i.e. the inverse relationship between CRP and S-amyl.

Reviewer #3: interesting topic with good study drawn, intereting number of patines and well designed study

some limitations recognized by the authors and interestingly discussed

good statistical analyses with consistency on results

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: maria helena raposo silveira

[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

Reviewer 2: Abstract line 11: suggest changing to: "These findings support that some cases of PTA may be caused by an etiology other than AT. "

Response: Abstract lines 11-12 changed.

Reviewer 2: Would add to keywords; peritonsillar abscess, tonsillitis

Response: peritonsillar abscess, tonsillitis added to keywords

Reviewer 1: Weber´s glands should be quoted

Response: Weber´s glands are added to introduction, page 4, line 9.

Reviewer 2: Page 11 line 25: Suggest not using the abbreviation TE (eg write out the words)

Response: Page 11 line 4 as suggested

Reviewer 2: It is a stretch to say that there is a group of patients who share features with parotitis. Suggest limiting the conclusion to what is known- i.e. the inverse relationship between CRP and S-amyl.

Response: Page 11, line 15 changed as suggested.

Reviewer 1: Although a well written paper with a coherent statistical analysis of the data, it is not a new suggestion in the literature regarding the relationship of PTA and the minor salivary glands of Weber (this eponym should have been quoted ...). Other than that, for validation of microbial etiology swabs of the tonsillar surface in the PTA patients should also have been done as for individual comparison of microbial etiology and for comparison with the AT patients. As regarding the s-Amyl levels, the findings could possibly have other causes; in this way, the s-Amyl levels should also have been measured after disease resolution as to exclude false-positive results during PTA crisis.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We are not suggesting that the relationship of PTA and minor salivary glands is our original idea. See the introduction Page 4, Lines 6-9: “Over the last three decades, PTA has been speculated to not necessarily arise from AT, but as a consequence of poor dental health, smoking, and salivary dysfunction. Minor salivary glands have been suggested to play a significant role in PTA. “

The idea about validation microbial etiology by comparing the superficial throat swabs between AT and PTA patients is good, and we are definitely considering that in our next study. B

Unfortunately, because we did not take the superficial throat swabs from PTA patients in the present study, the comparison at this stage is not possible .

Other causes that could elevate the S-Amyl levels are listed in discussion: page 9, lines 23-26. The follow up of S-Amyl levels after recovery would increase the reliability of our findings, but because of the nature of prospective study we have no possibility to get this information afterwards. However, by excluding the known causes of elevated S-Amyl levels we can quite reliably assume that the elevated S-Amyl levels are caused by PTA .

Decision Letter - Jorge Spratley, Editor

Peritonsillar abscess may not always be a complication of acute tonsillitis: A prospective cohort study

PONE-D-20-00508R1

Dear Dr. Sanmark,

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,

Jorge Spratley, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jorge Spratley, Editor

PONE-D-20-00508R1

Peritonsillar abscess may not always be a complication of acute tonsillitis: A prospective cohort study

Dear Dr. Sanmark:

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

Professor Jorge Spratley

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 .