Mycetoma epidemiology, diagnosis management, and outcome in three hospital centres in Senegal from 2008 to 2018

Doudou Sow; Maodo Ndiaye; Lamine Sarr; Mamadou D. Kanté; Fatoumata Ly; Pauline Dioussé; Babacar T. Faye; Abdou Magip Gaye; Cheikh Sokhna; Stéphane Ranque; Babacar Faye

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231871

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 5, 2020
5 Mar 2020 Author Response Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers comments PNTD-sr.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231871.r001
18 Mar 2020 Decision Letter - Abdallah M. Samy, Editor PONE-D-20-06483 Mycetoma epidemiology, diagnosis management, and outcome in three hospital centres in Senegal from 2008 to 2018 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. SOW, 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 April 1 2020 11:59 PM. 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, Abdallah M. Samy, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The authors didn't address the previous comments by Reviewer #2. Please check the decision letter for your revised manuscript sent by PLOS NTDs and address all comments raised by reviewer #2 (i.e. I added a copy of these comments in this email below). This step is necessary before considering your manuscript for further processing in PLOS ONE. Thanks too much! AMS 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. We note that Figures 1-2 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: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1-2 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].” 2. 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/ Reviewers' comments: As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following: Methods -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? -Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? -Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? -Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? -Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? -Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript was not there. Only in the marked-up version I saw changes made. This made it difficult to review. I assume that the marked-up version is the revised version. Line 126: add the following: at the time of this study, molecular diagnosis was not available at any of the centers. Therefore species identification could not be confirmed molecularly. Line 127: Add: medical treatment consisted of ... or ... for actinomycetoma and ... or ... for eumycetoma. In case it was not known if the lesion was an actino- or an eumycetoma, patients were treated with ... Eumycetoma were also treated surgically. -------------------- Results -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? -Are the results clearly and completely presented? -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Reviewer #2: Results:the paragraph on the treatment outcome is great but not complete. Could you also tell something on the other treatments and calculate a cure rate. Readers would like to know especially for terbinafine if this is comparable to itraconazole. I know you treated itracanazole in combination with antibiotics, however there is a study from Sudan where this was compared to the classical treatment with itraconazole alone. You could use this in your discussion to speculate what in your patient population was the best terbinafine or itraconazole. E.g. Out of the x red-grain actinomycetoma cases treated with Bactrim only, … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. Outcome was similar/better/worse if these red-grain actinomycetoma cases were treated with Bactrim + … as … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. Out of the white or yellow grain actinomycetoma cases …. Out of the … black grain eumycetoma cases treated with terbinafin and surgery, … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. Outcome was similar/better/worse if these black-grain actinomycetoma cases were treated with Itraconazole, Bactrim and Clavulanique+ Streptomycine and suergy. For those patients … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. -------------------- Conclusions -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? -Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? -Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? -Is public health relevance addressed? Reviewer #2: Yes. However in the discussion paragraph 284-288 a little bit more discussion is needed on the treatment. -------------------- Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications? Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #2: Line 91: actinomycete Line 95: the surgical treatments range from broad surgical ... Line 97: this recognition has brought .. Line 166: In 102 cases (52.8%) the patients experienced pain. In ... of these patients a painkiller was added to their treatment. Line 183: add to the sentence: At interview, 156 (80.8%) patients have reported history of phytotherapy including 60 cases 186 who have used oral plus local medicinal plants, however the nature of the plants used was not mentioned. Mycetoma, clinical cases were treated … Line 189: what is the 100 referring to? I did not see it in the table. Please remove this and say … most cases with surgical treatment as shown in table 3. Line 248. You mention that most of the patients presented local pain. Did you give them something to ease the pain? E.g. diclofenac? In the study of Dupont et al. they used diclofenac to ease the pain in an advanced eumycetoma case. They added it to the posaconazole treatment. Unexpectedly, the lesion started healing and the mycetoma disappeared. Did you ever experience this in your patients? -------------------- Summary and General Comments Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed. Reviewer #2: I think it is an important study and needs to be published. However the language still needs polishing up and some adjustments are still needed, especially on the treatment outocome. [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.0231871.r002
Revision 1
24 Mar 2020 Author Response METHODS Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript was not there. Only in the marked-up version I saw changes made. This made it difficult to review. I assume that the marked-up version is the revised version. Line 126: add the following: at the time of this study, molecular diagnosis was not available at any of the centers. Therefore, species identification could not be confirmed molecularly. Line 127: Add: medical treatment consisted of ... or ... for actinomycetoma and ... or ... for eumycetoma. In case it was not known if the lesion was an actino- or an eumycetoma, patients were treated with ... Eumycetoma were also treated surgically. 1. Response: These clarifications have been added in the manuscript as recommended. Line 139 to 148 in the clean revised version RESULTS Reviewer #2: Results: the paragraph on the treatment outcome is great but not complete. Could you also tell something on the other treatments and calculate a cure rate. Readers would like to know especially for terbinafine if this is comparable to itraconazole. I know you treated itracanazole in combination with antibiotics, however there is a study from Sudan where this was compared to the classical treatment with itraconazole alone. You could use this in your discussion to speculate what in your patient population was the best terbinafine or itraconazole. E.g. Out of the x red-grain actinomycetoma cases treated with Bactrim only, … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. Outcome was similar/better/worse if these red-grain actinomycetoma cases were treated with Bactrim + … as … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. Out of the white or yellow grain actinomycetoma cases …. Out of the … black grain eumycetoma cases treated with terbinafin and surgery, … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. Outcome was similar/better/worse if these black-grain actinomycetoma cases were treated with Itraconazole, Bactrim and Clavulanique+ Streptomycine and suergy. For those patients … recovered, … had a recurrence and .. are still on treatment. 2. Response: This paragraph including the details of treatment and cure rates has been added in the result section as recommended. Line 214 to 231 in the clean revised version About the discussion to speculate on the best treatment, see response 3. CONCLUSIONS Reviewer #2: Yes. However, in the discussion paragraph 284-288 a little bit more discussion is needed on the treatment. 3. Response: A paragraph discussing the treatment has been added in the discussion paragraph as recommended, line 324 to 338 in the clean revised version. Three more references have been added in the reference list. EDITORIAL AND DATA PRESENTATION MODIFICATIONS? Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #2: Line 91: actinomycete Line 95: the surgical treatments range from broad surgical ... Line 97: this recognition has brought .. Line 166: In 102 cases (52.8%) the patients experienced pain. In ... of these patients a painkiller was added to their treatment. Line 183: add to the sentence: At interview, 156 (80.8%) patients have reported history of phytotherapy including 60 cases 186 who have used oral plus local medicinal plants, however the nature of the plants used was not mentioned. Mycetoma, clinical cases were treated … Line 189: what is the 100 referring to? I did not see it in the table. Please remove this and say … most cases with surgical treatment as shown in table 3. Line 248. You mention that most of the patients presented local pain. Did you give them something to ease the pain? E.g. diclofenac? In the study of Dupont et al. they used diclofenac to ease the pain in an advanced eumycetoma case. They added it to the posaconazole treatment. Unexpectedly, the lesion started healing and the mycetoma disappeared. Did you ever experience this in your patients? 4. Response: The above corrections have been made in the manuscript as recommended. Line 91 (Old version) <-> Line 104 (revised version) Line 95: (Old version) <-> Line 107 (revised version) Line 97: (Old version) <-> Line 110 (revised version) Line 166: (Old version) <-> Line 187 (revised version) Line 183: (Old version) <-> Line 205 (revised version) Line 189: (Old version) <-> Line 211 (revised version) Line 248: About the pain, the patients did not receive diclofenac, they have just used paracetamol. SUMMARY AND GENERAL COMMENTS Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed. Reviewer #2: I think it is an important study and needs to be published. However, the language still needs polishing up and some adjustments are still needed, especially on the treatment outcome. 5. Response: The adjustments on the treatment requested by the reviewer have been done in the results (See response 2). Corrections JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS: 2. We note that Figures 1-2 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: 6. Response: Figures 1-2 have been removed. Data in Fig 1 are presented in table 1. The map (Fig2) showing the distribution of mycetoma types has been replaced by a histogram of the cases in the northern, central and southern of Senegal (New figure 1). Figures 3 and 4 have been renamed Fig 2 and 3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231871.r003
3 Apr 2020 Decision Letter - Abdallah M. Samy, Editor Mycetoma epidemiology, diagnosis management, and outcome in three hospital centres in Senegal from 2008 to 2018 PONE-D-20-06483R1 Dear Dr. SOW, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, "Mycetoma epidemiology, diagnosis management, and outcome in three hospital centres in Senegal from 2008 to 2018" (PONE-D-20-06483R1), 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, Abdallah M. Samy, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Please consider the final version attached with this decision letter for production; there are some corrections in the tables. Thanks! AMS Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript_For_Authors_Production.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231871.r004
Formally Accepted
10 Apr 2020 Acceptance Letter - Abdallah M. Samy, Editor PONE-D-20-06483R1 Mycetoma epidemiology, diagnosis management, and outcome in three hospital centres in Senegal from 2008 to 2018 Dear Dr. Sow: 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. Abdallah M. Samy Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231871.r005

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 .