The assessment of the impact of glistening on visual performance in relation to tear film quality

Amanda Argay; Peter Vamosi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240440

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 27, 2020
22 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Editor PONE-D-20-06388 The assessment of the impact of glistening on visual performance in relation to tear film quality PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Argay, 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. Both reviewers have recommended minor changes, which can be done by incorporating changes in the manuscript during this revision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2020 11:59PM. 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, Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 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 [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: Although in general the manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion, there are some errors in the use and structure of the English language which make it hard to follow at some points. I advice the authors to improve the flow and readability of the text. Proofreading and better use of the english language should be highly considered. Some of them are highlighted in the comments: Page 4, Line 18: "clinically PCO", I suggest writing the full name of the disease. Page 4, Line 20: "influence final visual performance", I don't see "Final" necessary, you may consider adding "The" before it. Page 5, Line 18: "was recorded", should be: were recorded. Page 5, Line 22: "was performed", Should be: were performed. Page 5, Line 22,23: "tropicamide and phenylephrine hydrochloride drops" ,did not mentioned the dose/concentration? Page 6, Line 6,7: "also under non-glare and glare conditions" , I suggest adding the word "both" to the sentence. Page 6, Line 15: "25 pictures” instead of „25 pictures” Page 6, Line 26: "by omitting surface light scattering", I suggest using "The" after the word "omitting". Page 7, Line 22: "95% confidence intervals", I suggest the word "interval". Page 8, Line 10: "Fifty one eyes", I suggest sticking to one format: Whether writing numbers in words or numerals rather than randomly mixing the two formats. Page 8, Line 17: "Data" instead of "Datas". Page 11, Line 21,22: "authors "I suggest using alternative expression, "researchers" for example or "studies". Page 12, Line 12: "slit-lamp or slit lamp" instead of "slitlamp". Fig 2: A,B,C, : looks blurry. Reviewer #2: This is a very informative paper on the influence of glistening on overall optical quality after post-surgical cataract intervention. There are minor grammar suggestions for consideration in the attached document. ****** 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: NAYEF K ALSHAMMARI 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240440.r001
Revision 1
1 Sep 2020 Author Response Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS One Budapest, August 11 2020. Dear Sanjoy Bhattacharya, We would like to thank both reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled "The assessment of the impact of glistening on visual performance in relation to tear film quality”. Below you may find our rebuttal letter. We made all modifications and additions suggested by the Reviewers and are convinced that the suggested minor changes helped us to improve the flow and readability of the text. The modifications are highlighted with yellow color in the ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ file. We also uploaded a clean version of the manuscript. We hope that our revised manuscript will meet the high demands of PLOS One. Sincerely yours, Amanda Argay, MD Peterfy Hospital and Traumatology Center Department of Ophthalmology 8-20. Péterfy Sándor str. 1076 Budapest, Hungary Email: argay.amanda@gmail.com In the following, we answer in detail to the specific comments and additional requests of the Reviewers: Reviewer #1: Although in general the manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion, there are some errors in the use and structure of the English language which make it hard to follow at some points. I advice the authors to improve the flow and readability of the text. Proofreading and better use of the english language should be highly considered. Some of them are highlighted in the comments: We are very grateful to the Reviewer for his detailed correction of grammatical errors. We had the text proofread and corrected in order to improve its readability. Page 4, Line 18: "clinically PCO", I suggest writing the full name of the disease. Correction made. Page 4, Line 20: "influence final visual performance", I don't see "Final" necessary, you may consider adding "The" before it. We agree, correction made. Page 5, Line 18: "was recorded", should be: were recorded. Correction made. Page 5, Line 22: "was performed", Should be: were performed. Correction made. Page 5, Line 22,23: "tropicamide and phenylephrine hydrochloride drops" ,did not mentioned the dose/concentration? Correction made, we added the concentration data to the text. Page 6, Line 6,7: "also under non-glare and glare conditions" , I suggest adding the word "both" to the sentence. We agree, correction made. Page 6, Line 15: "25 pictures” instead of „25 pictures” Correction made. Page 6, Line 26: "by omitting surface light scattering", I suggest using "The" after the word "omitting". We agree, correction made. Page 7, Line 22: "95% confidence intervals", I suggest the word "interval". We agree, correction made. Page 8, Line 10: "Fifty one eyes", I suggest sticking to one format: Whether writing numbers in words or numerals rather than randomly mixing the two formats. We agree, and corrected the number formats. Page 8, Line 17: "Data" instead of "Datas". Correction made. Page 11, Line 21,22: "authors "I suggest using alternative expression, "researchers" for example or "studies". We agree, correction made. Page 12, Line 12: "slit-lamp or slit lamp" instead of "slitlamp". Correction made. Fig 2: A,B,C, : looks blurry. We thank the Reviewer for the observation. We resized the figure. Reviewer #2: This is a very informative paper on the influence of glistening on overall optical quality after post-surgical cataract intervention. We would like to thank the Reviewer for his positive comment. There are minor grammar suggestions for consideration in the attached document: Page 4, Section: Data Availability Edit: “Yes - all data are fully available without restriction.” add punctuation Correction made. Page 8, Background: “… after implantation of two different hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) from 200X until 2019.” Correction made. Page 8, “Materials and Methods” capitalize “Methods” section Correction made. Page 8, Materials and Methods Edit: “Best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and contrast sensitivity were monitored over a 6-year post-operative period. Glistening was evaluated semi-quantitatively with slit-lamp biomicroscopy and quantitatively using Pentacam HR (Oculus). break up into two sentences Correction made. Page 8, Materials and Methods Edit: “Both groups of patients provided similar results of BCDVA and contrast sensitivity. Correction made. Page 8, Conclusion Edit: “Glistening and tear film quality both contribute to visual performance outcomes after cataract surgery.” Correction made. Page 9, Background Edit: “Glistening describes the phenomena of light scatter that occurs within intraocular lens (IOL) material in the eyes. An increase in glistening density results in increased light scattering [1,2] and deterioration in the optical quality of IOL [3].” changed wording Correction made. Page 9, Background Edit: Glistening theory suggests that the IOL polymers absorb water when implanted into the wet medium of the eye, which leads to phase separation in the IOL material, leaving microvacuoles containing water behind [5,8]. Correction made. Page 9, Background Edit: The quantitative measurement of glistening is possible in slit-lamp photographs or by Scheimpflug image analyses through the use of dedicated software such as X, Y, Z [10-15]. Correction made. Page 9, Background Edit: Although several reports have been published on the phenomenon of glistening, it is still unclear whether glistening has a remarkable impact on visual function and the quality of vision [7,9-31]. Correction made. Page 9, Background Edit: Light scatter can be caused by tear film instability, lens opacities, microvacuoles or material defects of an implanted IOL, posterior capsule opacification (PCO), and by vitreous floaters [33]. Correction made. Page 9, Background Edit: An increased TF-OSI score may contribute to image aberration as a result of impaired tear film break-up [41,42]. Correction made. Page 9, Background Edit: To our knowledge, this is the first report in the literature to discuss the visual performance of patients with different degrees of glistening and tear film conditions. Correction made. Page 10, Materials and Methods>Subjects Edit: In this retrospective observational study, the cataract surgery post-operative visual outcomes of 51 pseudophakic eyes from 42 patients were evaluated. Correction made. Page 11, Tested parameters Edit: Pre-operative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were recorded, slit-lamp biomicroscopy and Goldmann applanation tonometry were performed. … At the follow-up control UCDVA, BCDVA, contrast sensitivity measurement and slit-lamp biomicroscopy were performed. Correction made. Page 12, Tested parameters Edit: Pre-operative UCDVA and BCDVA were evaluated with a standard ETDRS chart. Post-operative UCDVA, BCDVA and mesopic contrast sensitivity measurements were assessed with a CSV-1000 System (VectorVision, Greenville, Ohio, USA) Correction made. Page 12, The assessment of glistening Edit: Quantitative assessment of glistening was performed by Scheimpflug images of the IOL registered with the Pentacam HR device using the “25 pictures” program mode under mesopic conditions [10]. Correction made. Page 14, Patient demographics Edit: Fifty-one eyes were included in the evaluations. We solved the problem by slightly modifiying the text to „Altogether 51 eyes...” This way we could maintain the uniform layout of the manuscript. Page 14, Table 2 Edit: “Pre-operative data” Correction made. Page 19, Post-operative (hyphenate), diopter instead of diopter Correction made. Page 17, Instead of starting sentence with “because” replace with “Due to” Correction made. Page 17, when citing Hiraoka et al, please include date Correction made. Again, we thank the Reviewer for these grammar suggestions. We made all the suggested changes to the manuscript. Amanda Argay, MD Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240440.r002
28 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Editor The assessment of the impact of glistening on visual performance in relation to tear film quality PONE-D-20-06388R1 Dear Dr. Argay, 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, Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: In this research article which is named:"The assessment of the impact of glistening on visual performance in relation to tear film quality", I found the data are supportive, Statistical Analysis performed appropriately, All datas underlying the findings are available, The manuscript is written in standard English and all the corrections has been made. ****** 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:** Nayef K Alshammari https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240440.r003
Formally Accepted
1 Oct 2020 Acceptance Letter - Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Editor PONE-D-20-06388R1 The assessment of the impact of glistening on visual performance in relation to tear film quality Dear Dr. Argay: 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. Sanjoy Bhattacharya Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240440.r004

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 .