Soil-transmitted helminth infections among pre-school aged children in Gamo Gofa zone, Southern Ethiopia: Prevalence, intensity and intervention status

Mekuria Asnakew Asfaw; Tigist Gezmu; Teklu Wegayehu; Alemayehu Bekele; Zeleke Hailemariam; Nebiyu Masresha; Teshome Gebre

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243946

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 13, 2020
2 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Marcello Otake Sato, Editor PONE-D-20-25387 Soil-transmitted helminth infections among pre-school aged children in Gamo Gofa zone, Southern Ethiopia: Prevalence, intensity and intervention status PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Asfaw, 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. The MS by Asfaw and cols. add information on the situation of STH in preschool children with important description of the consequences of the gaps in the intervention for STH. Despite this study had not a Countrywide coverage it show us the situation of STH is similar in different endemic areas, perhaps the authors could improve it in the discussion. Also, the authors should amend the MS according to the comments made by Reviewer 2. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 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, Marcello Otake Sato, Ph.D., D.V.M. 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 your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment,b) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was informed. If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. 4. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The MS by Asfaw and cols. add information on the situation of STH in preschool children with important description of the consequences of the gaps in the intervention for STH. Despite this study had not a Countrywide coverage it show us the situation of STH is similar in different endemic areas, perhaps the authors could improve it in the discussion. Also, the authors should amend the MS according to the comments made by Reviewer 2. [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: 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: The present study aimed to determine prevalence, intensity, and intervention status of STH infections among preschool children (PSAC) in Gamo Gofa zone and to inform decision-making. It is a community-based cross-sectional study in which was included a total of 2462 PSAC. The manuscript is professionally written with well-defined objectives that has been achieved. The methodology is well described with all statistical analyses well done. The conclusions reached by the authors are not different than expected and do not contribute to the improvement of the WHO STH control program, which would be a positive aspect of the work. Although the analyzes are well done, it is a descriptive work with local epidemiological importance It is better placed in a national journal. Reviewer #2: By and large, the manuscript is written well and achieves the goal of filling in the data gap for STH among the PSAC. There are however typographical errors and grammatical lapses that can be very distracting. The results showed that the high prevalences among the PSAC can come from the gaps in the intervention for STH. The authors should state clearly what these gaps are particularly those that lead to low coverage targets that do not meet recommended targets of the program and of the WHO. The authors could also offer reasons of why such targets are not met maybe using the data that they got from the questionnaires. To strengthen the paper even more, the authors can offer concrete recommendations on how the gaps in the program can be addressed. Their suggestion for what operational research can be done would be very important. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: LRLPONE-D-20-25387_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243946.r001
Revision 1
25 Oct 2020 Author Response Authors’ Responses In all, authors highly valued and appreciate the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. The manuscript has been amended accordingly. Response to editor’s comments Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: The manuscript has been amended to satisfy all the journal requirements. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants Response: We thank the editor for the comments. The manuscript has been modified to address the points raised by the reviewer, lines 134-144. 3. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment) Response: Agreed, the manuscript has been amended to address the points raised by the reviewer, lines 121-125. 4. A statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place. Response: Authors are grateful for the comments. The manuscript has been revised to address all points raised by the reviewer, lines 129-130 and 109-116. 5. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified whether consent was informed. If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. Response: We appreciate the editor’s comments, and now correction has been made, lines 195-200. 6. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Response: The survey questionnaire and laboratory procedure have been included as additional information in the revised manuscript. 7. The MS by Asfaw and cols. add information on the situation of STH in preschool children with important description of the consequences of the gaps in the intervention for STH. Despite this study had not a Countrywide coverage it show us the situation of STH is similar in different endemic areas, perhaps the authors could improve it in the discussion. Also, the authors should amend the MS according to the comments made by Reviewer 2. Response: Amendment has been made to improve the manuscript in the discussion section. And now we have made amendment based on the comments made by Reviewer 2. Response to Reviewers' comments Reviewer #1 1. is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?-Partly. Response: The manuscript has been improved to be technically sound and data support the conclusions. 2. The present study aimed to determine prevalence, intensity, and intervention status of STH infections among preschool children (PSAC) in Gamo Gofa zone and to inform decision-making. It is a community-based cross-sectional study in which was included a total of 2462 PSAC. The manuscript is professionally written with well-defined objectives that have been achieved. The methodology is well described with all statistical analyses well done. The conclusions reached by the authors are not different than expected and do not contribute to the improvement of the WHO STH control program, which would be a positive aspect of the work. Although the analyses are well done, it is a descriptive work with local epidemiological importance It is better placed in a national journal. Response: Authors are grateful for the feedback and appreciate the reviewer’s view. However, we feel that the findings of this study will be of interest to the wider public health community since STH infections are a global public health problem. Also, studies focusing on STH among PSAC are limited from big African countries like Ethiopia, and we are of the opinion that evidences of our study will certainly add modest value to the existing body of knowledge in STH prevention and control. In addition, we believe that the findings of the study could contribute to improvement of the WHO’s and national STH control programs by providing evidence on STH infection and their intervention status. Moreover, the manuscript has been improved in the discussion section to address some issues raised by the reviewer. Reviewer #2 1. By and large, the manuscript is written well and achieves the goal of filling in the data gap for STH among the PSAC. There are however typographical errors and grammatical lapses that can be very distracting. The results showed that the high prevalence among the PSAC can come from the gaps in the intervention for STH. The authors should state clearly what these gaps are particularly those that lead to low coverage targets that do not meet recommended targets of the program and of the WHO. The authors could also offer reasons of why such targets are not met maybe using the data that they got from the questionnaires. To strengthen the paper even more, the authors can offer concrete recommendations on how the gaps in the program can be addressed. Their suggestion for what operational research can be done would be very important. Response: Agreed, all typographical errors and grammatical lapses corrected and amendments have been made in the revised version. In addition, authors highly valued the reviewer’s comments that are raised within the attachment file, and other concerns have been addressed. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243946.r002
1 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Marcello Otake Sato, Editor Soil-transmitted helminth infections among pre-school aged children in Gamo Gofa zone, Southern Ethiopia: Prevalence, intensity and intervention status PONE-D-20-25387R1 Dear Dr. Asfaw, 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, Marcello Otake Sato, Ph.D., D.V.M. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have addressed satisfactorily all the comments raised, and now the MS is ready to be accepted. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243946.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Marcello Otake Sato, Editor PONE-D-20-25387R1 Soil-transmitted helminth infections among pre-school aged children in Gamo Gofa zone, Southern Ethiopia: Prevalence, intensity and intervention status Dear Dr. Asfaw: 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. Marcello Otake Sato Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243946.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 .