Peer Review History
Original SubmissionApril 17, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-11108 Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hayashi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we would like to 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 Jun 22 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:
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, Yu-Chi Liu, M.D 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 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 'The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This work was supported by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/web/home.html) and the Japan Eye Bank Association (http://www.j-eyebank.or.jp), but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.' We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "No."
Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript. 5. Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'This prospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (approval no. YKH_29_03_05) and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The study procedures followed all institutional guidelines, and all patients provided informed consent.' a. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study. b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ********** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 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: General Comments Concise manuscript that discusses the effects of DMEK on corneal curvature and HOAs. However, the methodology requires some clarification before this manuscript can be considered for publication. The main issue is the criteria and justification for the control group. Moreover, extensive editing for grammar and English is required throughout the manuscript. Specific Comments Methods: Please state the inclusion criteria for DMEK cases e.g. FED or PBK etc. and inclusion for criteria for ‘age-matched’ controls. Methods: Why was 31 controls chosen instead of 30? What was definition of ‘healthy’ and what were criteria e.g. pseudophakic or phakic, myopic or refraction status etc. as these affect the corneal curvature. Methods: For sample size, please explain what is ‘cataract controls’ Methods: Please describe how the aberrations were derived from ASOCT with matching figure of the output and how the machine derives the values. This is important as each system varies on how the values are derived. Methods: Were all DMEK patients psuedophakic? Were all the controls psuedophakic? If so, please include the HOA reading for the controls before and after cataract surgery. Reviewer #2: The authors provide excellent information about corneal characteristics throughout the first post-operative year after DMEK. Most of the suggestions below are minor. However, the entire Discussion section needs to be re-worked to provide a more cohesive analysis and discussion of limitations. Full comments have been uploaded as an attached document Reviewer #3: REVIEW FOR PONE-D-20-11108 1. Summary of the research and overall impression The main research question was to evaluate the corneal shape after DMEK over 12 months and compare it to a control group. Claims included that posterior keratometric values (KV) of DMEK eyes did not compare as favorable as anterior ones to the control, that higher order aberrations (HOAs) and peripheral corneal thickness stayed significantly higher for DMEK eyes at 12 months than the control. The conclusion of the study was that DMEK eyes showed higher HOAs and more corneal irregularity. The claims are considered significant for the specialty and previous important literature was referenced. The optical quality of the cornea after DMEK was evaluated in two previous studies (1. Optical quality of the cornea after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. van Dijk K, Droutsas K, Hou J, Sangsari S, Liarakos VS, Melles GR Am J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jul;158(1):71-79.; 2. Corneal higher-order aberrations after Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012 Mar;119(3):528-35. Rudolph M, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Epstein D, Kruse FE). The current study fits into the literature concerning changes in HOA. Backscatter was not a parameter of this study. The strengths of the manuscript are the postoperative follow-up over 12 months, the evaluation of relevant parameters (best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central corneal thickness, KV and HOA) and the number of eyes evaluated. In order for the manuscript to proceed the authors should define the eyes receiving DMEK more precisely. The following questions should be addressed: “Were Triple-DMEKs included or excluded?“, “Was DMEK performed on only phakic, only pseudo-phakic or a mixed group of eyes?“. Another essential point for this manuscript is data collection and data interpretation for the parameter peripheral corneal thickness (PPT). More technical details should be added and clarification given. Otherwise one might have the impression that the authors missed something crucial. Up to my knowledge the company CorneaGen, having supplied the study center with DMEK tissues, sells grafts with the following diameters: 7.5 mm, 7.75 mm and 8.0 mm. Unfortunately, the used graft diameter was not explicitly stated. The reader might assume that it is equal to the descemetorhexis diameter of 8.0 mm. The PCT was measured at 9.0 mm. The difference should clearly be mentioned and consolidation given on data interpretation in the discussion section. Pictorial data should be chosen to give the reader an impression of the aforementioned technical details (edge of graft, point of measurement of PCT, diameter of standard graft used). I consider this study to have sufficient potential and encourage the authors to re-submit a revised version. My overall recommendation is „Accept Manuscript after Revision“. 2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement Major issues The following essential points for this study should be addressed to let the manuscript proceed: 1. Define eyes receiving DMEK (as this might affect BCVA and/ or posterior corneal surface): Phakic, pseudo-phakic or mixed; 2. State the graft diameters used and discuss this in relation to the point of measurement of PCT. You might keep your data as it is but might want to explain that corneal edema is improving beyond the edge of the graft to some extent; 3. Depending on the used diameters data interpretation of PCT needs to be discussed; 4. Slit-lamp examination results might be addressed to mention corneal haze/ scarring (line 317-319) or other pathologies which may be present limiting BCVA; 5. The authors should clarify the discussion to avoid confusion (e.g. page 23, line 255-257: might this be caused by the difference between the edge of the graft and the 9-mm point of measurement of the PCT? ; page 23, line 258-259: the authors should specify the inconsistent findings; page 23, line 262-264: why inhomogeneous as this is a graft from a healthy donor cornea?; page 25, line 298-300: PCT affecting central BCVA?; page 25, line 306-308: explain “irregular distribution of the center-biased endothelium”); 6. Sample size and patient characteristics might be part of the Material and Methods section (page 9, line 146-162); 7. The authors state that cataract controls were used but report in their dataset for all 31 controls a logMAR-value between -0.08 to 0.0 (page 9, line 152 and dataset table [group “healthy control”; parameter BSCVA]). Clarification for this crucial point is needed. Minor issues Additional things to address to improve the overall manuscript whilst not affecting the conclusions: 1. Fix the uneven distribution of the tables over the word documents; 2. Please use the same abbreviations throughout the manuscript including tables. Keep in mind where to put the abbreviations in tables and avoid not abbreviating at all including supplemental material; 3. Use pictorial data which better matches the statements or simply improved illustrations (e.g.: Fig. 2b: the “inhomogeneous distribution” of endothelial cells is not clearly seen, Fig. 2c: peripheral edema is blurred or out-of-focus, Fig. 3a-d: irregular surfaces – whether anterior or posterior – cannot be seen clearly in either cross section). The authors might want to use a higher magnification, depict millimeter units to scale and identify the point of PCT measurement in relation to the edge of the graft; 4. Please avoid misplacing figure captions into main manuscript text sections. This is easy to avoid and makes a good impression for review; 5. Tables: Data seems to be missing for the control eyes at month 1, month 6 and month 12 while giving p-values for the respective follow-ups. The authors might adjust the layout to avoid confusion. N may be added for number of females/ males and number of eyes. 3. Any other points The authors made a great effort in data collection (number of parameters collected over 12 months of follow-up), although I am quite amazed that no data points are missing. Original data is made available and sufficient information is given to reproduce the study. Non-specialists are able to comprehend the idea behind this study. The conclusions do not overreach. Limitations of the study are discussed. Advance in the field is judged not applicable. I have no concerns about ethics or plagiarism but a professional statistician should evaluate the numbers/ data. I might be available for PLOSONE to look at a revised version of the manuscript. ********** 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 Reviewer #3: 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 |
Dear Dr. Hayashi, This is an automatic email. The PDF for your submission, "Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results" has been built. If you have not already done so, please review your manuscript and approve your PDF to complete your submission at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/. Thank you for your time and support. PLOS ONE Staff |
Revision 2 |
PONE-D-20-11108R2 Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hayashi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised by the reviewer. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 10 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:
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, Yu-Chi Liu, M.D 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ********** 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 #2: Yes 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 #2: Yes 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 #2: Thank you for all your thoughtful responses and changes. Please see my suggestions below. Abstract -Line 57: delete comma after "mean age" Introduction - Would recommend shortening introductory paragraphs. May consider something as below: "Corneal transplantation has evolved significantly since the first full-thickness keratoplasty was performed by Dr. Eduard Zirm in 1905. For patients with endothelial dysfunction, a partial-thickness endothelial keratoplasty has now become standard of care. In particular, Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), developed by Dr. Gerrit Melles, has resulted in the best visual outcomes for these patients. In this procedure, the diseased endothelium and Descemet's membrane are replaced in an anatomically precise fashion." Results - Line 229: need space between "(p<0.001)postoperatively" - Line 247: same as above - Line 250: same as above Discussion - Line 269: need space between "controls;this" - Lines 271 and beyond: I think this section still needs work to provide a clear explanation and narrative. The following paragraphs are suggestions only - please do not feel obligated to use. However I hope it demonstrates a clearer "flow" to this section. "During DMEK, the central endothelium is stripped and replaced with an under-sized graft containing healthy endothelial cells. Post-operatively, these transplanted cells may migrate into the periphery to fill the area between the edge of the graft and the area of stripping, and come to a halt at the native peripheral endothelium due to contact inhibition. This resultant discrepancy between high cell density in the center and lower cell density in the periphery may account for the persistent changes between the post-DMEK eye and a healthy control. As the central cornea deturgesces, the CCT normalizes but the PCT does not. Since the deturgescence occurs mostly via the posterior stroma, the posterior KV improves while the anterior KV remains unchanged. This center-to-periphery discrepancy in cell density may be especially highlighted in this patient population of largely pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Whereas Fuchs endothelial dystrophy preferentially affects central endothelium, PBK is thought to result in a more global loss of endothelial cells. The strength of this study lies in its prospective design and meticulous post-operative follow-up without any missing data. The limitations include an ethnically limited patient population (all Japanese) with high predominance of pseudophakic bullous keratopathy with epithelial changes, which may indicate more severe disease than a patient with Fuchs dystrophy. In addition, although many of our findings are statistically significant, the clinical significance of such small differences are unknown. Lastly, backscatter and corneal haze were not evaluated because AS-OCT is not equipped to measure backscatter or densitometry. This study provides valuable information regarding the long-term post-operative outcomes after DMEK. While the clinical results have been overall excellent, and certainly superiorly to full-thickness PKP and DSAEK, even after 1 year post-operatively these eyes are not comparable to healthy controls. We hypothesize these persistent changes may be a result of an irregular center-to-peripheral distribution of endothelial cells." Reviewer #3: Dear authors, Thank you for your responses and scientifically appropriate modifications. I hope that my review did significantly improve your manuscript. My overall recommendation to the Editor is "Accept". ********** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 3 |
PONE-D-20-11108R3 Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hayashi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The manuscript has been much improved. However, one of the reviewers has raised some comments. 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 Oct 02 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:
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, Yu-Chi Liu, M.D 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 #2: (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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Introduction - Line 71: not sure what you mean by "because of injury". I would delete this. The sentence works without it: "However, this technique is associated with..." - Line 73: replace "heavy" with "significant" - Line 74: replace "global rupture" with "risk of globe rupture with trauma" - Line 81: need to define DSAEK acronym - Line 85: need space between "withcorneal" Materials and Methods - Line 106: would change "ocular surface disease" to "ocular disease". I presume patients with glaucoma or retinal pathology were excluded due to effect on VA Results - Line 160: need to define FECD acronym Table 1 - Would use PBK acronym/definition instead of BK to keep consistent with text Table 2/3 - Would make text consistent between "Post-operative month 1" and "1 month after surgery" - Could also consider shortening to Post-op month 1 or POM #1 for ease of reading the table, and then defining the acronym in the table legend/description Discussion - Lines 268-327: these paragraphs have redundant/repeating elements - they all discuss discrepancy between central and peripheral endothelial cell density and how this may explain your results. The content of these paragraphs should be re-written so that each concept is discussed once and thoroughly. "During DMEK, the central endothelium is stripped and replaced with an under-sized graft containing healthy endothelial cells. Post-operatively, these transplanted cells may migrate into the periphery to fill the area between the edge of the graft and the area of stripping, and come to a halt at the native peripheral endothelium due to contact inhibition. <<discuss 2="" diagram="" dmek="" figure="" graft="" here="" of="">>. This resultant discrepancy between high cell density in the center and low cell density in the periphery may account for the persistent changes between the post-DMEK eyes and healthy controls. As the central cornea deturgesces, the CCT normalizes but the PCT does not. <<discuss 2="" bullae="" figure="" here="" of="" peripheral="" photos="">>. Since the deturgescence occurs mostly via the posterior stroma, the posterior KV improves while the anterior KV remains unchanged. <<discuss 3="" and="" anterior="" between="" difference="" figure="" here="" in="" parallelism="" posterior="" showing="" surface="">>. <<discuss difference="" hoa="" how="" in="" results="" this="">> <<discuss explain="" fecd="" findings="" help="" high="" how="" in="" may="" of="" paper="" pbk="" proportion="" these="" versus="" your="">>". Figure 2: - Would modify (b) to more accurately reflect size of descemetorhexis and what you discuss in your text. A 9 mm descemetorhexis on an 11 mm cornea still leaves a peripheral population of native endothelial cells. - Would maybe add an additional diagram showing how you hypothesize these centrally transplanted enothelial cells migrate to the periphery and result in a center-to-periphery discrepancy Figure 3: - To emphasize and quantify the change in parallelism, I would add measurement bars of the CCT and PCT and show how the ratio defers between normal and post-DMEK eyes</discuss></discuss></discuss></discuss></discuss> ********** 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 #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 4 |
Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results PONE-D-20-11108R4 Dear Dr. Hayashi, 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, Yu-Chi Liu, M.D 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 #2: 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 #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Thank you to the authors for addressing all of my comments and suggestions. I hope I did not try your patience too much through 4 cycles of revisions! The final manuscript is much more polished and cohesive. This is my last and final edit! Introduction - Line 81: DSAEK acronym expansion should go here (not line 83) ********** 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 #2: No |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-11108R4 Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results Dear Dr. Hayashi: 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. Yu-Chi Liu 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 .