Effect of periodontal treatment on the glomerular filtration rate, reduction of inflammatory markers and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review

Théo Delbove; François Gueyffier; Laurent Juillard; Emilie Kalbacher; Delphine Maucort-Boulch; Patrice Nony; Brigitte Grosgogeat; Kerstin Gritsch

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245619

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 7, 2020
30 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Bhagwan Dass, Editor PONE-D-20-20992 Effect of periodontal treatment on the glomerular filtration rate, reduction of inflammatory markers and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review PLOS ONE Dear Dr.Kerstin, 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 address the minor revision as requested by the reviewers.,Your submission highlights a very good topic in the field of dentistry and Nephrology . Please submit your revised manuscript by due date , 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, Bhagwan Dass, MD 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. Please ensure that the risk of bias for all the included studies (not just the RCTs) is assessed using a validated tool. For example, by using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomised studies. 3. Please ensure that references are cited in order. For example, reference 12 doesn’t appear to be cited until the discussion. 4. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 manuscript is a well-written review that summarize well the knowledge on CKD and periodontal treatment. It is an up to date work. I have only minor comments. Minor: - l40: into consideration - l48: bacterial - l63: through thus?? Reviewer #2: The manuscript is good and the data support the conclusions. The right protocol was used The statistical analysis was performed appropriately Article will contribute to knowledge Minor revision are required Reviewer #3: This is very interesting article. Really well written and I could not find fault in the approach taken and written to an excellent standard. The link between chronic kidney disease and periodontal disease is one that needs to be investigated further. This article rightly draws attention to the lack of carefully designed randomised clinical trials. Something that my research group are well aware of. Conclusions were valid, this is certainly an approach that should be adopted in the future when treating renal patients that periodontal treatment is provided. ****** 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.] 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: PLOS ONE REVIEW.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245619.r001
Revision 1
30 Dec 2020 Author Response Response to Reviewers Journal Requirements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The style of the manuscript has been checked and modified as requested. 2. Please ensure that the risk of bias for all the included studies (not just the RCTs) is assessed using a validated tool. For example, by using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomised studies The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale has been used (Table 5) to assess the quality of the other included studies (with control groups). Line 91 (Material and methods section), the following sentence has been added " The quality of each non-randomized study (including at least one control group) was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [22]. This scale includes 3 categorical criteria with a maximum score of 9 points: the selection of the study groups; the comparability of the groups; and the ascertainment of the outcome of interest. The quality of each study was rated using the following scoring algorithms: ≥7 points was considered as “high”, 4 to 6 points was considered as “moderate”, and ≤3 point was considered as “poor” quality study." Line 199 (Results section), the following paragraph " Among the 14 prospective studies, 7 had no control group [24,27,30-32,34,37] and only 3 were RCTs [26,28,33] and could be used for the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Two studies showed high risk of bias concerned blinding conditions (Table 4) [26,33]. " has been replaced by " Among the 14 prospective studies, 3 were RCTs [27,29,34], 4 included at least one control group [26,30,36,37] and 7 had no control group [25,28,31-33,35,38]. The 3 RCTs could be used for the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Two studies showed high risk of bias concerned blinding conditions (Table 4) [27,34]. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the quality of the 4 prospective studies including at least one control group and of the 4 retrospective studies were considered as moderate quality [26,30,37] and the others as high quality [36, 39-42] (Table 5). The 7 prospective studies having no control group were considered at high risk of bias." This modification has led to the addition of a new reference; the numbers of the other references have been modified accordingly. 3. Please ensure that references are cited in order. For example, reference 12 doesn’t appear to be cited until the discussion. The references have been checked. Reference 12 had been erroneously removed from the introduction section. This has been corrected. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. The caption for our Supporting Information file (S1 Checklist. Prisma 2009 checklist) has been included at the end of our manuscript. The Prisma Checklist has been modified (column "Reported on page #") in accordance with the present changes of the manuscript (revised version). Reviewer's Comments Reviewer #1 This manuscript is a well-written review that summarize well the knowledge on CKD and periodontal treatment. It is an up to date work. I have only minor comments. Minor: - l40: into consideration - l48: bacterial - l63: through thus?? Thank you. As suggested, modifications have been done. Reviewer #2 The manuscript is good and the data support the conclusions. The right protocol was used The statistical analysis was performed appropriately Article will contribute to knowledge Minor revision are required Reviewer #3 This is very interesting article. Really well written and I could not find fault in the approach taken and written to an excellent standard. The link between chronic kidney disease and periodontal disease is one that needs to be investigated further. This article rightly draws attention to the lack of carefully designed randomised clinical trials. Something that my research group are well aware of. Conclusions were valid, this is certainly an approach that should be adopted in the future when treating renal patients that periodontal treatment is provided. Reviewer Comments submitted as an attachment file Introduction Line 52: kindly change i.e. to for example (Because there are other associations between periodontitis and systemic diseases) Line 58: prevention of what? (Suggestion: prevention of periodontal disease Line 63: kindly remove ‘Through thus’(Suggestion using clinical parameters) Thank you for the suggestions. Modifications have been made accordingly. Materials and methods Study selection Line 68-72: Any article where participants had other systemic diseases already associated with periodontitis like D/M, CVD, etc should have been excluded from this study We agree that these other systemic diseases need to be taken into account. As indicated in our discussion, further methodologically robust RCTs are needed. Nevertheless, CKD patients often suffer from co-morbidities, especially ESRD patients. We have chosen, in this review, to keep all the studies in order to take into account this clinical aspect, and to help practitioners in the management of their CKD patients. Search Strategy LINES 80-83: What did you do with the articles that were duplicated since there was a likelihood of that as 2 different search engines were used (PUBMED and Web of Science)? This should be reported here as well as under study selection The duplicates are mentioned in the results section (in the paragraph Study selection) and in the flow diagram (Fig 1) as advised by following the PRISMA guidelines. Data collection Line 88 /89: kindly delete risk of, if, found, involved. Kindly replace with ‘only each risk of bias……………………….in the first instance; where consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted’ The sentence has been modified as suggested. Results Study design Line 126: How sure were the authors of study 25 that the result they got was not due to the periodontal effect of diabetes since a 2-way relationship had been established between periodontitis and diabetes mellitus? Shouldn’t this article have been discarded in order to avoid bias? Kindly state this as a limitation to the study In the study 25 (study 25 has become study 26 after the addition of a reference), the experimental group (Chronic Kidney Disease + Diabetes + Periodontitis) was compared to 2 control groups, one including patients with Diabetes + Periodontitis and one including patients with Periodontitis only, taking into consideration the relationship between periodontitis and diabetes mellitus. Following the Journal requirements, the quality of this study has now been assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Line 142: Assessment on renal disease and systemic inflammation: Kindly replace with ‘assessment of …………. Periodontal assessment criteria and periodontal treatment efficacy evaluation Line 171: kindly delete ‘for’ 172: kindly replace ‘has been’ with ‘was’ 267: priori………………priority Thank you for the suggestions. Modifications have been made accordingly. Line 267 (line 282 in the revised version), "a priori" has been written in italics to avoid confusion Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245619.r002
5 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Bhagwan Dass, Editor Effect of periodontal treatment on the glomerular filtration rate, reduction of inflammatory markers and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review PONE-D-20-20992R1 Dear Dr. Gritsch, 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, Bhagwan Dass, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245619.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Jan 2021 Acceptance Letter - Bhagwan Dass, Editor PONE-D-20-20992R1 Effect of periodontal treatment on the glomerular filtration rate, reduction of inflammatory markers and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review Dear Dr. Gritsch: 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. Bhagwan Dass Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245619.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 .