Rapid assessment of avoidable blindness and cataract surgery coverage among forcibly displaced Myanmar Nationals (Rohingya refugees) in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh

A. H. M. Enayet Hussain; Munir Ahmed; Jerry E. Vincent; Johurul Islam; Yuddha D. Sapkota; Taraprasad Das; Nathan Congdon; Lutful Husain; Gulam Khandaker; Mohammad Muhit; Mohammad Awlad Hossain; Danny Haddad

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243005

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 24, 2020
29 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Fakir M Amirul Islam, Editor PONE-D-20-26584 Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness and Cataract Surgery Coverage among Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (Rohingya Refugees) in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jerry E Vincent, 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 Dec 13 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, Fakir M Amirul Islam, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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 Additional Editor Comments (if provided): This is a very well written manuscript. Importantly, the study was needed to save sight among one of the most disadvantaged population. The study could lead to an impactful outcome. Some minor comments: There are some grammatical errors. Formatting of the Tables could be better. Please pay attention to formatting a bit. Another example, Camp Residents N (%) 21,115 (52.4%), just 52.4, please remove % throughout in Tables 1-4. Please do better formatting. Since the % is given on the title, it does not need to repeat in the Tables. Please remove the percentage from all the Tables while this is given on the title. Women were more likely to have SVI (2.89% vs.1.86%, p = 0.0229) and MVI compared to men (10.8% vs. 8.68%, p =0.0184) compared to men. The P value could be 2-3 decimals. [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: This paper presents very interesting and novel findings. I'm not aware of any studies reporting similar data in a disadvantaged population. These data are very important to some extents: 1. Showing that RAAB methods are universally applicable to many settings 2. Similar study should be performed in other disadvantaged populations. I have no further comments. The methods are sound, well-written and the flow of the paper is smooth. Some minor grammatical errors are noted, and perhaps demand further revision. Reviewer #2: 1. This is a useful study in which the authors make comparisons to other displaced / refugee populations. Given the younger age group, can the authors comment on the prevalence of other diseases such as diabetic retinopathy that may occur in younger populations. 2. What improvements could be made to a future study given the observations found in this study. For example, Should RAAB-DR model be considered? ****** 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: Yes:** Rahul Chakrabarti [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.0243005.r001
Revision 1
11 Nov 2020 Author Response Multiple authors have reviewed the manuscript for grammatical errors and additionally, the manuscript was reviewed with “Grammarly” a grammar checking application (available at www.grammarly.com). We have found no errors. Recognizing that grammar use, and grammar rules vary, if the editor or reviewers feel that specific grammar errors are present in our manuscript, we would be happy to address them as needed. We have gone through Tables 1-4 and have removed the percentage sign (%) as requested from the body of the tables. Tables 1- 4 are on page 9, 10, 11 and 13 respectively. We reviewed all p values and edited as needed. No p values are now longer than 3 decimal places. Edits were made for p values in Table 2 (footnotes) and Table 4 (pages 10 and 13 respectively). Edits for p values were made in the text at lines 211, 212, 543, 544 and 546 in the Track Change version which correspond to lines 211, 212, 247, 248 and 250 in the corrected final manuscript. Reviewer One does not provide specific examples or lines for grammatical errors. As noted earlier, multiple authors have reviewed the manuscript for grammatical errors and additionally, the manuscript was reviewed with “Grammarly” a grammar checking application (available at grammarly.com). We have found no errors. Recognizing that grammar use, and grammar rules vary, if the editor or reviewers feel that specific grammar errors are present in our manuscript, we would be happy to address them as needed. On the basis of these two comments we have added to the study limitations discussion. That the RAAB methodology does not collect prevalence data on those under age 50 is a standard limitation and we added emphasis to this in the study limitations discussion. We also noted availability of DR module for the RAAB and that this would address some of the limitations on posterior segment disease. Our original text is in italic and the additional text is in ALL CAPS. “This study is not without limitations. The RAAB methodology does not include participants <50 years old because a majority of blindness is found in older adults [19], THUS DETERMINING RATES AND CAUSES OF BVI AMONG THOSE UNDER AGE 50 WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SURVEYING BEYOND THIS RAAB. However, clinical experience with the Rohingya suggests that blinding and visually significant cataract is a burden among adults of all ages including those under age 50 [15]. Further, the RAAB approach does not provide a detailed diagnosis of posterior segment conditions [19], which may lead to misclassification of such diseases. Our use of non-ophthalmologists as examiners may have further limited ability to correctly diagnose posterior segment conditions. AN OPTIONAL DIABETIC RETINOPATHY (DR) MODULE FOR THE RAAB SURVEY IS AVAILABLE [20] AND WE COULD FURTHER IMPROVE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS UNIQUE POPULATION, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARDS TO DIABETIC EYE DISEASES, BY PLANNING A RAAB+DR IN THE FUTURE.” These changes are found on lines 726-727 and 732-735 in the Track Changes version, corresponding to lines 362-363 and 368-371 in the corrected final manuscript. In addition to the above responses, we have also located and corrected the following typographical errors: • Name spelling correction on line 51 from Baituch to Baitush • Symbol correction on line 172 (manuscript) / line 173 (track changes) from ≤6/60 to <6/60 • Name spelling on lines 431- 432 (manuscript) / lines 796 - 797 (track changes) from Lutful Hussain to Lutful Husain. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243005.r002
13 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Fakir M Amirul Islam, Editor Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness and Cataract Surgery Coverage among Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (Rohingya Refugees) in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh PONE-D-20-26584R1 Dear Dr. Vincent, 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, Fakir M Amirul Islam, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The minor comments are addressed. Congratulations for this !! Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243005.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Nov 2020 Acceptance Letter - Fakir M Amirul Islam, Editor PONE-D-20-26584R1 Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness and Cataract Surgery Coverage among Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (Rohingya Refugees) in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh Dear Dr. Vincent: 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 Fakir M Amirul Islam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243005.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 .