Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 28, 2020
Decision Letter - Claudia Marotta, Editor

PONE-D-20-16100

Nearly one in every six children lost from ART follow-up at Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: A 14-year retrospective follow-up study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Animut Alebel

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 submit your revised manuscript by 20 August. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Marotta

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication, which needs to be addressed:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0195435

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

I appreciate a lot your manuscript.

Following reviewes suggestions the paper can be publish after minor revisions

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Authors written a very interesting article on a vunerable population (childeren) in a fragile setting .

Only some suggestion:

1. Introduction: well wrote, introduce the concept of children at risk (cite this article. The At Risk Child Clinic (ARCC): 3 Years of Health Activities in Support of the Most Vulnerable Children in Beira, Mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7):1350. Published 2018) that explain the role also of the research on this issue. Als see this article e Schacht C, Lucas C, Mboa C, et al. Access to HIV prevention and care for HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children: a qualitative study in rural and urban Mozambique. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1240. Published 2014 Dec 3.

2. Methods and Results: no comment.

3. Discussion: well. I f you can improve with a proposal. Why the children lost to follow up? discuss other experience as for example this in Mozambique (Pathways of care for HIV infected children in Beira, Mozambique: pre-post intervention study to assess impact of task shifting. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):703. Published 2018 Jun 7.)

I consider it as an excellent article.

Reviewer #2: This institution-based retrospective follow-up study conducted among 408 HIV-infected children on ART at Debre Markos Referral Hospital between 2005 and March 15, 2019, has provided very important information or indicators for lost to follow up among kids enrolled in HIV treatment programs that could be generalized or applied to other settings within Ethiopia and countries with similar status. Lost to follow up is current a serious problem in the management of HIV treatment among adults and kids, putting together data to identify potential reasons for this in this setting is highly rewarding as it will definitely lead t implementation of strategies to address gaps identified. It is interesting to identify in the study that starting ART immediately or sooner after diagnosis following WHO recommendation is also a factor that influence lost to follow. Addressing should also impact national policy on the country’s treatment program. This study is highly recommended. Potential limitations, including not being able to include that of VL which could provided information to virally suppression status of these kids is nothing; something that should be considered in future studies.

**********

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: Yes: Francesco Di Gennaro

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

1) Thank you for updating your data availability statement. You note that your data are available within the Supporting Information files, but no such files have been included with your submission. At this time we ask that you please upload your minimal data set as a Supporting Information file, or to a public repository such as Fig share or Dryad. Please also ensure that when you upload your file you include separate captions for your supplementary files at the end of your manuscript. As soon as you confirm the location of the data underlying your findings, we will be able to proceed with the review of your submission.

Response: Thank you for your concern. We have uploaded the Stata data set as S1 file.

2) 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.

Response: Thank you for your concern. We have moved the ethics statement to the method section. Please see line 184-193.

Reviewer #1:

Authors written a very interesting article on a vulnerable population (children) in a fragile setting.

Response: Thank you for your encouraging words.

Only some suggestion:

1. Introduction: well written, introduce the concept of children at risk (cite this article. The At Risk Child Clinic (ARCC): 3 Years of Health Activities in Support of the Most Vulnerable Children in Beira, Mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7):1350. Published 2018) that explain the role also of the research on this issue. Also see this article e Schacht C, Lucas C, Mboa C, et al. Access to HIV prevention and care for HIV-exposed and HIV-infected children: a qualitative study in rural and urban Mozambique. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1240. Published 2014 Dec 3.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have introduced the concept of “child at risk” in the first paragraph of our introduction. Please see line 52-54.

2. Methods and Results: no comment.

Response: Thank you for your precious time.

3. Discussion: well. I f you can improve with a proposal. Why the children lost to follow up? Discuss other experience as for example this in Mozambique (Pathways of care for HIV infected children in Beira, Mozambique: pre-post intervention study to assess impact of task shifting. BMC Public Health. 2018;18 (1):703. Published 2018 Jun

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The suggested article is not related to our title. Therefore, we did not cite it. The question “Why the children lost to follow up?” needs further studies. As this is beyond our objective, we haven’t any data on this issue. This has been acknowledged as a limitation part of our research. And further qualitative studies are recommended to address this issue. Please see line 335-36 and 351-52.

I consider it as an excellent article.

Reviewer #2:

This institution-based retrospective follow-up study conducted among 408 HIV-infected children on ART at Debre Markos Referral Hospital between 2005 and March 15, 2019, has provided very important information or indicators for lost to follow up among kids enrolled in HIV treatment programs that could be generalized or applied to other settings within Ethiopia and countries with similar status. Lost to follow up is current a serious problem in the management of HIV treatment among adults and kids, putting together data to identify potential reasons for this in this setting is highly rewarding as it will definitely lead to implementation of strategies to address gaps identified. It is interesting to identify in the study that starting ART immediately or sooner after diagnosis following WHO recommendation is also a factor that influence lost to follow. Addressing should also impact national policy on the country’s treatment program. This study is highly recommended. Potential limitations, including not being able to include that of VL which could provide information to virally suppression status of these kids is nothing; something that should be considered in future studies.

Response: Thank you for your concern. Future studies by considering VL are strongly recommended. Please see line 349-351.

Decision Letter - Claudia Marotta, Editor

Nearly one in every six children lost from ART follow-up at Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: A 14-year retrospective follow-up study

PONE-D-20-16100R1

Dear Dr. Alebel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Claudia Marotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

two different reviewers suggest to accept your manuscript.

I appreciate a lot element of your article: the long period-time of study (14ys), the setting (Ethiopia) and the idea research (child, HIV, lost to follw up)

Congratulations for your great job!

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: Congratulations I appreciate a lot your article. I appreciate the methods and the idea reasearch.

**********

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 #1: Yes: Di Gennaro Framcesco

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Claudia Marotta, Editor

PONE-D-20-16100R1

Nearly one in every six HIV-infected children lost from ART follow-up at Debre Markos Referral Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: A 14-year retrospective follow-up study 

Dear Dr. Alebel:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Claudia Marotta

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 .