Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 26, 2019
Decision Letter - Adrienne Csutak, Editor

PONE-D-19-24060

The use of telemedicine to support Brazilian primary care physicians in managing eye conditions: the TeleOftalmo Project

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr MOREIRA,

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.

Please answer for both reviewers’ and take extensive care for the methodological contribution that

should be emphasized more with highlighting any clinical/technological (IT) considerations

that makes the system competitive or superior comparing with other solutions.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 06 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,

Adrienne Csutak, MD, PhD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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. Please state in your methods section whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB approved the lack of parent or guardian consent.

3. We note that  Figure(s) 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b)  If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

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: 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

**********

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: Dear Authors,

In my opinion, the paper is well written and contributes to the existing knowledge. I could not find any logical errors in the presentation and the approaches used.

I have provided my comments/questions for consideration:

1. The p-values should be linked to presented tables to visualize significance (e.g.: new column for p-value or 95%CI).

2. Were assumptions fulfilled in case of Chi-squared test for each strata? (at least 5 obs in 80% of all cells)

Regards,

Reviewer #2: This paper presents experimental results regarding a teleophthalmology system

implemented in the public health system of southern Brazil. The aim of the work

was to measure up the ability of the system to fully address patients’ eye complaints

in primary care with remote assistance from ophthalmologists.

The purpose of the action is clear and currently an important field; the manuscript

is well-written and easy to follow from these aspects. The study is well-prepared and

the evaluation has been performed convincingly with some positive outcome regarding

the benefits of applying the system in health care.

In general, I think that the results are reasonable and interesting for a wide

-- also scientific -- audience. My greatest concern that should be resolved to

propose the publication of the paper is a much deeper comparison with other

existing teleophthalmology systems; some such effort has been made in the manuscript,

but I definitely suggest widening this study. Especially, the methodological contribution

could be emphasized more with highlighting any clinical/technological (IT) considerations

that makes the system competitive or superior comparing with other solutions.

**********

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

Journal Requirements:

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

a. 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'.

b. 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'.

c. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Response: These files were provided.

2) Please state in your methods section whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB approved the lack of parent or guardian consent.

Response: We have now included the information in Methods.

3) We note that Figure(s) 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth).For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth).

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission.

Response: Figure 1 contains a map that was designed by our Department's designers, based on publicly available maps from Brazil. They did not use proprietary data or softwares, such as Google Maps. As such, we would keep the figure, but if the Editor recommends otherwise, we can remove it.

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, the paper is well written and contributes to the existing knowledge. I could not find any logical errors in the presentation and the approaches used.

I have provided my comments/questions for consideration:

1. The p-values should be linked to presented tables to visualize significance (e.g.: new column for p-value or 95%CI).

Response: We thank you for the opportunity to review this point. We added the p-values in table 2 and figure 3. Regarding the table 2, after reviewing the manuscript, we have changed its presentation to provide more information on resolution capacity of the teleophthalmology program.

The previous table 2 was intended to describe the prevalence of diagnoses across all age groups, but not to directly compare them. If the editors and/or reviewers still find informative to present this table, we can paste it as supplementary material.

2. Were assumptions fulfilled in case of Chi-squared test for each strata? (at least 5 obs in 80% of all cells).

Response: Yes, they were. As mentioned above, we changed the presentation of results and now Chi-square results (including p-values and adjusted residuals) are more explicit.

Reviewer #2: This paper presents experimental results regarding a teleophthalmology system implemented in the public health system of southern Brazil. The aim of the work was to measure up the ability of the system to fully address patients’ eye complaints in primary care with remote assistance from ophthalmologists.

The purpose of the action is clear and currently an important field; the manuscript is well-written and easy to follow from these aspects. The study is well-prepared and the evaluation has been performed convincingly with some positive outcome regarding the benefits of applying the system in health care.

In general, I think that the results are reasonable and interesting for a wide -- also scientific -- audience. My greatest concern that should be resolved to propose the publication of the paper is a much deeper comparison with other

existing teleophthalmology systems; some such effort has been made in the manuscript, but I definitely suggest widening this study. Especially, the methodological contribution could be emphasized more with highlighting any clinical/technological (IT) considerations that makes the system competitive or superior comparing with other solutions.

Response: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to increase the quality of our report. We included a detailed description of IT developments for this project in the Methods section, under The TeleOftalmo System subsection. In Discussion, we now have explored these developments and the associated clinical workflow in-depth. We also have compared our work to other primary-care based teleophthalmological programs - in summary, the differential of TeleOftalmo is that we offer a comprehensive eye exam, instead of screening only for specific diseases, and that we use real-time interactive telemedicine and remotely operated equipment.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-24060 Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Adrienne Csutak, Editor

PONE-D-19-24060R1

The use of telemedicine to support Brazilian primary care physicians in managing eye conditions: the TeleOftalmo Project

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr MOREIRA,

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.

Please make the requested minor modification and than we would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 26 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,

Adrienne Csutak, MD, PhD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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 #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #3: Yes

**********

6. 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 #3: The manuscript describes a study of a telemedicine application to ophthalmology. The purpose was to show the extent that tele-ophthalmology as practiced by the authors can distinguish between cases requiring referral to an ophthalmologist versus cases that can be managed at the primary care level, which potentially is of interest to communities with certain limited resources.

The authors have responded properly to the previous reviewers’ comments and questions. In the present form of the manuscript, the treatment of the data is appropriate, the amount of detail is sufficient, and the figures and tables are acceptable. However, in the originally submitted manuscript, there was a line item in Table 2 for ‘accommodation disorder’ that is absent in the revised Table 2. The authors should correct this omission before publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: David M Silver

[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 2

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: The manuscript describes a study of a telemedicine application to ophthalmology. The purpose was to show the extent that tele-ophthalmology as practiced by the authors can distinguish between cases requiring referral to an ophthalmologist versus cases that can be managed at the primary care level, which potentially is of interest to communities with certain limited resources.

The authors have responded properly to the previous reviewers’ comments and questions. In the present form of the manuscript, the treatment of the data is appropriate, the amount of detail is sufficient, and the figures and tables are acceptable. However, in the originally submitted manuscript, there was a line item in Table 2 for ‘accommodation disorder’ that is absent in the revised Table 2. The authors should correct this omission before publication.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for catching this missing condition. We have now added the missing condition to Table 2, under the name “Spasm of accommodation“. The term “spasm of accommodation” was used instead of “accommodation disorder” in order not to be confused with presbyopia.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-24060R1 Response to reviewers 2.docx
Decision Letter - Adrienne Csutak, Editor

The use of telemedicine to support Brazilian primary care physicians in managing eye conditions: the TeleOftalmo Project

PONE-D-19-24060R2

Dear Dr. MOREIRA,

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,

Adrienne Csutak, MD, PhD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Adrienne Csutak, Editor

PONE-D-19-24060R2

The use of telemedicine to support Brazilian primary care physicians in managing eye conditions: the TeleOftalmo Project

Dear Dr. MOREIRA:

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. Adrienne Csutak

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 .