Perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil: A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

Leandro G. Braz; José R. C. Braz; Marilia P. Modolo; Jose E. Corrente; Rafael Sanchez; Mariana Pacchioni; Julia B. Cury; Iva B. Soares; Mariana G. Braz

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241751

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 27, 2020
19 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Omid Beiki, Editor PONE-D-20-08860 Perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Braz, 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 Aug 03 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, Omid Beiki, M.D., Ph.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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In the Methods, please specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). Please ensure that the specific method of assessment (funnel plot, Egger's test, Begg's test, etc) is mentioned. 3. In the Methods, please specify how study quality was assessed. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: R.S., M.P. and J.B.C. received a scholarship from The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and L.G.B. received a fellowship from CNPq (304466/2015-8). M.P.M. received a scholarship from Coordination of Improvement for Higher Academic Staff (CAPES). CNPq and CAPES are Brazilian governmental agency dedicated for promoting scientific research. 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: The authors received no specific funding for this work. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: No 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have a few comments and questions for the authors. Under methods; you've indicated you adhered to the MOOSE guidelines, but this is not a methodology, this is a guideline that serves as a checklist for reporting observational studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. What methodological framework, or handbook did you use to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis? The Cochrane Handbook? JBI? CRD York? You must always state the methods you followed to conduct this study, in addition to the relevant reporting guideline, which you must use to report your study, in this case it would be PRISMA. My recommendation would be that authors indicate the methods they used to conduct the study, and include the PRISMA checklist indicating where each of the items in the guideline was reported. Some of the diagrams are confusing, primarily due to labelling, e.g. the references workflow diagram is your PRISMA Diagram, but it's not labelled adequately. The manuscript could also benefit from copyediting, there are instances where the syntax is unclear. Reviewer #2: Review of 'Perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates...' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This paper is a review and meta-analysis whose goal is to summarize the evidence surrounding changes in perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil. I am not an expert on cardiac arrest and/or surgery in Brazil, so I can only comment on the statistical part of this paper. The writing is clear and I think it is possible from this text to evaluate what the statistical analysis that the authors have performed. My main concern is that the meta-analysis reveals quite large amounts of heterogeneity for several important quantities; Tables 3 and 4 suggest that I2 can be as high as 99 percent, and is higher than 80 percent for 4 out of 6 of the quantities. This is somewhat subjective, but I am not confident that a meta-analysis can be meaningfully performed if there is this much heterogeneity in the effects being aggregated. The authors might at least consider reporting additional statistics intended to help the reader understand how much heterogeneity there is in the estimated true effect sizes. Minor comments: * pg 5 - I believe this should read 'sample size' instead of 'simple size' ******** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] 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.0241751.r001
Revision 1
24 Jul 2020 Author Response Answers to the Editor Answer: First, we would like to thank the Editor for taking the time to review our manuscript and make important comments and suggestions. We tried our best to answer the questions and make the required changes in the manuscript after considering the suggestions, which certainly improved the revised manuscript. 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” Answer: We apologize. Our revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE´s style requirements. 2. “In the Methods, please specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). Please ensure that the specific method of assessment (funnel plot, Egger's test, Begg's test, etc) is mentioned.” Answer: We agree with the suggestion, but we would like to clarify that our review is limited by a paucity of studies. Thus, unfortunately, we were not able to analyze publication bias because there were fewer than ten eligible studies addressing each outcome in the meta-analysis; otherwise, the findings from the assessment of risk of bias would not be reliable. Despite the heterogeneity and small number of studies, the meta-analyses showed consistent results that strongly reinforce the relevance of our systematic review. Thus, we included the information as one of the limitations of our review in the discussion section. 3. “In the Methods, please specify how study quality was assessed.” Answer: We agree with the comment. We have added the topic “Assessment of methodological quality” to the methods, specifying the assessment of study quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) - Critical Appraisal Tool for Prevalence Studies. 4. “Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: R.S., M.P. and J.B.C. received a scholarship from The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and L.G.B. received a fellowship from CNPq (304466/2015-8). M.P.M. received a scholarship from Coordination of Improvement for Higher Academic Staff (CAPES). CNPq and CAPES are Brazilian governmental agency dedicated for promoting scientific research. 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: The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Answer: We apologize, and we have corrected the funding statement. 5. “Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.” Answer: The captions for the supporting information files are at the end of our revised manuscript. Answers to the Reviewers Reviewer #1 “Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.” Answer: We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and to make important suggestions. We tried our best to answer the questions and make the required changes in the manuscript after considering the suggestions, which certainly improved the revised manuscript. 1. “I have a few comments and questions for the authors. Under methods; you've indicated you adhered to the MOOSE guidelines, but this is not a methodology, this is a guideline that serves as a checklist for reporting observational studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. What methodological framework, or handbook did you use to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis? The Cochrane Handbook? JBI? CRD York? You must always state the methods you followed to conduct this study, in addition to the relevant reporting guideline, which you must use to report your study, in this case it would be PRISMA. My recommendation would be that authors indicate the methods they used to conduct the study, and include the PRISMA checklist indicating where each of the items in the guideline was reported. Some of the diagrams are confusing, primarily due to labelling, e.g. the references workflow diagram is your PRISMA Diagram, but it's not labelled adequatey.” Answer: As suggested by the reviewer, we described in the first paragraph of the methods section that The Cochrane Handbook for Intervention Reviews guided our choice of methods. Our reporting adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We followed the PRISMA diagram, as requested. 2. “The manuscript could also benefit from copyediting, there are instances where the syntax is unclear.” Answer: We apologize. The original version of the manuscript was copyedited by a native English speaker. The revised manuscript was copyedited again and improved. Reviewer #2 1. “This paper is a review and meta-analysis whose goal is to summarize the evidence surrounding changes in perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil.” Answer: We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and to make important comments. We tried our best to answer the comments and to clarify the revised manuscript. 2) “I am not an expert on cardiac arrest and/or surgery in Brazil, so I can only comment on the statistical part of this paper. The writing is clear and I think it is possible from this text to evaluate what the statistical analysis that the authors have performed. My main concern is that the meta-analysis reveals quite large amounts of heterogeneity for several important quantities; Tables 3 and 4 suggest that I2 can be as high as 99 percent, and is higher than 80 percent for 4 out of 6 of the quantities. This is somewhat subjective, but I am not confident that a meta-analysis can be meaningfully performed if there is this much heterogeneity in the effects being aggregated. The authors might at least consider reporting additional statistics intended to help the reader understand how much heterogeneity there is in the estimated true effect sizes.” Answer: We agree with the comment that most of the proportion meta-analyses are heterogeneous. As previously described in the original manuscript (limitation paragraph of the discussion section), a random-effects model with inverse Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation (Freeman-Tukey transformation) was applied to minimize this heterogeneity when assessing the trends between the two time periods. If we had used a fixed-effects model (please see the table below), the results of the event rates and the statistical analyses (P values) would be different and incorrect. Thus, we were aware of the high degree of heterogeneity, and we applied the best options to minimize it following Higgins JP al.’s (2003) instructions - “Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses”. Table. Proportion meta-analysis of mortality rates in Brazilian studies by time period Time period Studies n I2 % Events n Patients n Proportion meta-analysis per 10,000 anesthetics (95% CI) P value for subgroup Pre-1990 versus 1990-2020 Anesthesia-related mortality - Random-effects model (included in the manuscript) Pre-1990 1 NA 9 51,422 1.75 (0.76-3.11) 0.5404 1990-2020 6 81.0 20 287,402 0.67 (0.09-1.66) Anesthesia-related mortality - Fixed-effects model (incorrect presentation) Pre-1990 1 NA 9 51,422 1.75 (0.76-3.11) < 0.05 1990-2020 6 81.0 20 287,402 0.41 (0.18-0.71) 3) “Minor comments: * pg 5 - I believe this should read 'sample size' instead of 'simple size'” Answer: We apologize for our mistake. We corrected the word to “sample”. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241751.r002
16 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Omid Beiki, Editor PONE-D-20-08860R1 Perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Braz, 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 Nov 30 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, Omid Beiki, M.D., Ph.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 #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: Interesting paper with only some issues, mainly related to abstract. Abstract. methods>proportion meta-analysis is not clear methods>4 outcomes as primary outcome are too many. Authors should decide one primary outcome and other as co end points. methods>time periods are not defined anywhere. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: Yes:** Fabrizio D'Ascenzo [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.0241751.r003
Revision 2
16 Oct 2020 Author Response Answers to the Reviewer #3 “Interesting paper with only some issues, mainly related to abstract. Abstract: methods>proportion meta-analysis is not clear methods>4 outcomes as primary outcome are too many. Authors should decide one primary outcome and other as co end points. methods>time periods are not defined anywhere.” Answer: We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and the compliments on our study. We appreciated the suggestions and we incorporated them into the abstract, which we believe is now improved. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241751.r004
21 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Ehab Farag, Editor Perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis PONE-D-Leandro G. Braz 20-08860R2 Dear Dr. 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, Ehab Farag, MD FRCA FASA 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 #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 #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: Yes:** Fabrizio D'Ascenzo https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241751.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Oct 2020 Acceptance Letter - Ehab Farag, Editor PONE-D-20-08860R2 Perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis Dear Dr. Braz: 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. Ehab Farag Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241751.r006

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 .