PONE-D-20-39479

Symptomatic fever management in children A systematic review of national and international guidelines

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martin,

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 Jun 04 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ferrán Catalá-López

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Academic Editor

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript entitled “Symptomatic fever management in children A systematic review of national and international guidelines”

The manuscript was evaluated by an Academic Editor and two independent reviewers whose comments are pasted below. While some comments are generally positive about the manuscript, they do raise a number of minor concerns that should be addressed.

Minor comments:

Abstract

Page 2. Methods. Line 26. Please, include coverage dates (e.g. “from January 1990 to September 2020).

Page 2. Systematic Review Registration. Line 40. Please, provide registration information for the review (e.g. review protocol), including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. Thank you.

Methods

Page 3. Line 60. Provide registration information for the review (e.g. review protocol), including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. Thank you.

Page 3. Line 30. Please, clarify if a reporting guideline (such as PRISMA statement) was used to report the methods and results, and include a populated checklist as a new Additional file. Thank you.

Page 4. Selection of guidelines. Line 78. Please, state the process was used for selecting studies (such as two independent reviewers) through each phase of the review (that is, screening, eligibility and inclusion in the completed review).

Page 4. Data extraction. Lines 89-93. Please, describe the method of extracting data from reports (such as piloting forms, done independently, in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from guideline developers. Thank you.

Discussion

Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence (see comment above) (example ref. 8)

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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 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

**********

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: Overall, really interesting article in an area relevant to many areas of medicine, and should prompt more primary studies in this area. I have minor comments only.

Minor comments:

1. Introduction section of abstract could be improved.

2. Line number 218 / 219: 'We share this opinion...' This should be re-worded; I feel that 'opinion' should not be mentioned here.

3. Line number 225-229: I'm not sure it is appropriate to advise on this as, again, not based on evidence.

4. Line number 236-238: 'The initial small reduction...rather than distress'. I would reword this to something like 'may not be worth...'

Reviewer #2: Dear authors;

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your work. You provide an excellent review of the current recommendations in relation to fever. The text is perfectly written with an understandable and useful presentation of results and discussion.

Two comments:

1. It should be made clear if the guidelines analysed are destined for professionals or for parents. For example, the bibliographic citation 69 is referenced to a non-professional information page. This influences the content of the guidelines and the complexity of the recommendations given. If the review is mixed (health professionals and non-professionals) this should be clarified.

2. I would like to point out that the bibliography should be revised. All of it should be presented in English and with the URLs for access.

Kind regards.

**********

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.

Symptomatic fever management in children A systematic review of national and international guidelines

PONE-D-20-39479R1

Dear Dr. Martin,

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,

Ferrán Catalá-López

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: