Bipolar disorder among married women in Bangladesh: Survey in Rajshahi city

Md. Abdul Wadood; Md. Rezaul Karim; Abdullah Al Mamun Hussain; Md. Masud Rana; Md. Golam Hossain

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229539

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 19, 2019
3 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Nagendra P. Luitel, Editor PONE-D-19-24745 Bipolar disorder among married women in Bangladesh: Survey in Rajshahi city PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Hossain, 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 Jan 17 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, Nagendra P. Luitel, MA 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 'No fund was received from any individual or organization for 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: 'The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript' 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): 1) Please explain in detail how the randomization (in each step) was done. Who did the randomization i.e. the field workers or the senior researchers? 2) Please explain translation and adaptation process of the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS) in detail. Was any guideline or checklists used for translation and adaptation of the BSDS in local language? Who were involved in translation and adaptation process? 3) Please include more references in the methods section (under outcome measure sub-section) on the use of BSDS in community survey 4) Please provide some background information (i.e. if they are different than the study sample) of the 59 cases which were discarded from the analysis 5) Finally, as a significant number of participants are below the age of 18, it would be helpful for the readers if you could also provide information about minimum legal age of marriage in Bangladesh [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: 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: This article examines the prevalence of bipolar disorder in married Bangladeshi women in a particular geographical area. The manuscript suffers from several flaws that limit its scientific validity and applicability. 1. First, the authors have used a screening instrument that is, by definition, meant to pick up "spectrum disorders" rather than rigorously defined bipolar disorder. Hence, the "prevalence" estimate that they provide is of limited use. All "screen positive" cases should have been confirmed using standard diagnostic criteria. 2. Secondly, the authors have not confirmed if this instrument is valid in non-Western cultures. A perusal of the scale shows that it can easily be misunderstood and that some of the terms in it are hard to translate. 3. It is tautological (and more than a little foolish) to claim that "mental illness" increases the risk for bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder is, itself, a mental illness! If the authors mean "comorbid mental illness" (such as an anxiety disorder) then this must be mentioned using appropriate terms. Otherwise, it is a serious error which reflects badly on the credibility of the researchers. 4. Similarly, the authors have used simplistic, non-standard terminology ("rich" vs "poor" for income, "good" vs "poor" for quality of the marital relationship) that makes the data analyses difficult to interpret. 5. The writing style and grammar are poor, and the article would benefit from the assistance of a writer skilled in scientific writing in English. 6. Finally, there are serious ethical concerns about the inclusion of victims of child marriage (age 15) in a study of this sort. By including such subjects and accepting such a situation as normal, the researchers are tacitly endorsing the aberrant situation that exists in their country (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-child-marriage-law-minimum-age-zero-reduce-baby-marital-unicef-un-a7619051.html) rather than advocating for the rights of vulnerable populations, as any ethical researcher would. For these reasons, it is my opinion that this article does not merit publication. Reviewer #2: Minor corrections: Abstract: 1. Better to use the term “mental disorder” rather than using “mental disease” Introduction: 2. In place of the term “victim” use “patient” Methodology 3. Authors have mentioned randomization was done at all three stages. It would be appreciated if they mention what method of randomization was used. A brief description of the process would help readers as well as future researchers. 4. What does “mental position” mean in line 122 5. Regarding the questionnaire, it is not clear whether the 66 items semi structured questionnaire had 20 items of BSDS or it was separately administered. Please clarify 6. For data collection you have mentioned “literate adults” were used as data collectors. I think they should have some level of education to collect data. 7. For female less than 18 years please mention if assent was taken. 8. Grammatical error “All the information of the answered questionnaires entered in computer and coded” Major comments: 9. In the methodology result and discussion section the authors have looks into different factors (mainly social) and have concluded the precipitating factors, vulnerability. However the factors may have just association rather than direct precipitation. The authors have completely missed the biological and psychological factors. If not studied these could be the domains for discussion. 10. Table 1: the factors like family members’ chronic illness have shown significant difference in BPD and normal groups. Similarly variable “sick treated immediately” makes no sense. This might be misleading as there is no any rational pathway for this. Hence I would recommend to take literature review in consideration before doing statistical tests and making an inference. 11. How were the reference factor selected ? (table 2) 12. My main concern is how were the study variables selected to make inferences? ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Pawan Sharma [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.0229539.r001
Revision 1
7 Jan 2020 Author Response Response to Editor and Reviewers Journal Name: PLOS ONE Tracking No. (Manuscript ID): PONE-D-19-24745 Manuscript Title: “Bipolar disorder among married women in Bangladesh: Survey in Rajshahi city" Dear Editor, Thank you very much for providing your and reviewers’ comments on our manuscript. We have modified and revised the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections point-by-point is given below: Editor Comments: 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. Author’s response: Thank you very much for your useful comments on our manuscript. We have provided our data. Our data in SPSS file, we have provided data as supplementary file (data.sav). 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 'No fund was received from any individual or organization for 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: 'The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript' Author’s response: We have revised accordingly. 4. 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. Author’s response: The ethical statement has been written in the materials and methods section [Page 6, Line: 125-130], and deleted from other place. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): 1) Please explain in detail how the randomization (in each step) was done. Who did the randomization i.e. the field workers or the senior researchers? Author’s response: We have mentioned in detail about the randomization of our subject [Page 6, Line 115-124] 2) Please and explain translation adaptation process of the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS) in detail. Was any guideline or checklists used for translation and adaptation of the BSDS in local language? Who were involved in translation and adaptation process? Author’s response: The translation adaptation process has been described in the manuscript [Page 6-7, Line 131-135] 3) Please include more references in the methods section (under outcome measure sub-section) on the use of BSDS in community survey Author’s response: As per your suggestion, some relevant and necessary references have been included regarding use of BSDS [Page 7-8, Line 153-162]. 4) Please provide some background information (i.e. if they are different than the study sample) of the 59 cases which were discarded from the analysis Author’s response: This issue has been explained [Page 7, Line 140-152]. 5) Finally, as a significant number of participants are below the age of 18, it would be helpful for the readers if you could also provide information about minimum legal age of marriage in Bangladesh Author’s response: As per your advice, minimum legal age of marriage and real situation was described with reference [Page 7, Line 142-149]. Reviewers' comments: 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: Partly 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No 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: 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: This article examines the prevalence of bipolar disorder in married Bangladeshi women in a particular geographical area. The manuscript suffers from several flaws that limit its scientific validity and applicability. 1. First, the authors have used a screening instrument that is, by definition, meant to pick up "spectrum disorders" rather than rigorously defined bipolar disorder. Hence, the "prevalence" estimate that they provide is of limited use. All "screen positive" cases should have been confirmed using standard diagnostic criteria. Author’s response: Thank you for your comments. The scientific validity and specificity of BSDS in screening bipolar disorder have been discussed with references [Page 7-8, Line 153-171]. 2. Secondly, the authors have not confirmed if this instrument is valid in non-Western cultures. A perusal of the scale shows that it can easily be misunderstood and that some of the terms in it are hard to translate. Author’s response: The validity of BSDS in non-Western community was added in Page 7-8, Line 153-171. The translation adaptation process has been described in the manuscript [Page 6-7 Line 131-137]. 3. It is tautological (and more than a little foolish) to claim that "mental illness" increases the risk for bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder is, itself, a mental illness! If the authors mean "comorbid mental illness" (such as an anxiety disorder) then this must be mentioned using appropriate terms. Otherwise, it is a serious error which reflects badly on the credibility of the researchers. Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable observation. You are correct; it would be ‘comorbid’. We have corrected these accordingly throughout the manuscript. 4. Similarly, the authors have used simplistic, non-standard terminology ("rich" vs "poor" for income, "good" vs "poor" for quality of the marital relationship) that makes the data analyses difficult to interpret. Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. The term rich and poor are very well known for socio-economic class measured by family income, and it has been used in different publications. Some researchers used the term good and poor for measuring status of marital relationship, and most of the researchers used the term healthy and unhealthy for marital relationship. We have revised and put healthy and unhealthy instead of good and poor respectively for marital relationship throughout the manuscript. 5. The writing style and grammar are poor, and the article would benefit from the assistance of a writer skilled in scientific writing in English. Author’s response: As we are not English-speaking people, we have tried our best to make our language clear, correct and unambiguous. 6. Finally, there are serious ethical concerns about the inclusion of victims of child marriage (age 15) in a study of this sort. By including such subjects and accepting such a situation as normal, the researchers are tacitly endorsing the aberrant situation that exists in their country (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-child-marriage-law-minimum-age-zero-reduce-baby-marital-unicef-un-a7619051.html) rather than advocating for the rights of vulnerable populations, as any ethical researcher would. Author’s response: For your kind information, though the legal age at marriage for girls is 18 years still the prevalence of child marriage among girls in Bangladesh is 16.3% at 15 years, reported by Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey. We have described with references about this issue [Page 7, Line 141-149]. Reviewer #2: Minor corrections: Abstract: 1. Better to use the term “mental disorder” rather than using “mental disease” Introduction: Author’s response: Thank you for your constructing advice. We have replaced “mental disease” by “mental disorder” throughout the manuscript. 2. In place of the term “victim” use “patient” Author’s response: As per your suggestion “victim” was replaced by “patient”. Methodology 3. Authors have mentioned randomization was done at all three stages. It would be appreciated if they mention what method of randomization was used. A brief description of the process would help readers as well as future researchers. Author’s response: Thank you for the advice. We have described the randomization process [Page 6, Line 115-124]. 4. What does “mental position” mean in line 122. Author’s response: It would be ‘mental state’. We have corrected it. 5. Regarding the questionnaire, it is not clear whether the 66 items semi structured questionnaire had 20 items of BSDS or it was separately administered. Please clarify. Author’s response: Yes, the 20 questions of BSDS were included in the questionnaire. The total questions, 46+ 20 (BSDS) =66. We have revised to make clear [Page 6-7, Line 131-137]. 6. For data collection you have mentioned “literate adults” were used as data collectors. I think they should have some level of education to collect data. Author’s response: We have revised and mentioned the educational qualifications of our data collectors [Page 7, Line 137-140]. 7. For female less than 18 years please mention if assent was taken. Author’s response: Especially for less than 18 years female, we have taken their and their guardians written consent. We have mentioned in page 7 line 141-149. 8. Grammatical error “All the information of the answered questionnaires entered in computer and coded” Author’s response: The grammatical error has been corrected. Major comments: 9. In the methodology result and discussion section the authors have looks into different factors (mainly social) and have concluded the precipitating factors, vulnerability. However, the factors may have just association rather than direct precipitation. The authors have completely missed the biological and psychological factors. If not studied these could be the domains for discussion. Author’s response: Thank you for the observation. We have looked into many factors but considered only the significant factors in our result and discussion sections. Our aim was to investigate the associated factors and we made corrections in this regard as per your advice. We did not focus on biological factors. Some psychological factors were considered. 10. Table 1: the factors like family members’ chronic illness have shown significant difference in BPD and normal groups. Similarly variable “sick treated immediately” makes no sense. This might be misleading as there is no any rational pathway for this. Hence I would recommend to take literature review in consideration before doing statistical tests and making an inference. Author’s response: The question of ‘chronic disease’ was to know medical comorbidity, but ‘if sick treated immediately’ was to know the attention and care of the family to the woman which might affect her psychological state. 11. How were the reference factor selected? (table 2) Author’s response: Most of the reference factors have been selected from previous published papers. 12. My main concern is how were the study variables selected to make inferences? Author’s response: Most of the variables have been selected following some published papers which were related to our present study. We think Figure 3 is not necessary, Fig.3 has been deleted from revised manuscript. We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for the valuable comments. We have revised the documents to the best of our ability, but we will definitely be happy to provide further improvement if there are further clarifications required. With best regards Dr. Md. Golam Hossain Professor of Health Research Group Department of Statistics, University of Rajshahi Rajshahi-6205, Bangladesh E-mail: hossain95@yahoo.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229539.r002
24 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - Nagendra P. Luitel, Editor PONE-D-19-24745R1 Bipolar disorder among married women in Bangladesh: Survey in Rajshahi city PLOS ONE Dear Prof. Hossain, 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. The authors have incorporated most of the comments in the revised manuscript; however, some of the writing is a bit imprecise, the manuscript be edited by a professional English language editor before publication. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 09 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, Nagendra P. Luitel, MA Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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.0229539.r003
Revision 2
5 Feb 2020 Author Response Response to Editor and Reviewers Journal Name: PLOS ONE Tracking No. (Manuscript ID): PONE-D-19-24745R1 Manuscript Title: “Bipolar disorder among married women in Bangladesh: Survey in Rajshahi city" Dear Editor, Thank you very much for providing your comments on our manuscript. We have modified and revised the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections point-by-point is given below: Comment: The authors have incorporated most of the comments in the revised manuscript; however, some of the writing is a bit imprecise, the manuscript be edited by a professional English language editor before publication. Author’s response: Thank you very much for your useful comments on our manuscript. (i) According to your suggestion, we have tried to precise our manuscript. (ii) As you suggested, we have sent our manuscript to Professor Jyoti Sarkar, Department of Mathematical Sciences, School of Science, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis for improvement of language in this manuscript. He has revised English throughout the manuscript. We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for the valuable comments. We have revised the documents to the best of our ability, but we will definitely be happy to provide further improvement if there are further clarifications required. With best regards Dr. Md. Golam Hossain Professor of Health Research Group Department of Statistics, University of Rajshahi Rajshahi-6205, Bangladesh E-mail: hossain95@yahoo.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229539.r004
10 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Nagendra P. Luitel, Editor Bipolar disorder among married women in Bangladesh: Survey in Rajshahi city PONE-D-19-24745R2 Dear Dr. Hossain, 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, Nagendra P. Luitel, MA Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): No any further comment. The authors have addressed all the comments and feedback from the reviewers and academic editor. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229539.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Feb 2020 Acceptance Letter - Nagendra P. Luitel, Editor PONE-D-19-24745R2 Bipolar disorder among married women in Bangladesh: Survey in Rajshahi city Dear Dr. Hossain: 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. Nagendra P. Luitel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229539.r006

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 .