Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 8, 2020
Decision Letter - Sahil Bajaj, Editor

PONE-D-20-28037

Blue-wavelength light therapy for post-traumatic brain injury sleepiness, sleep disturbance, depression, and fatigue: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Srisurapanont,

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.

Based on the comments of the reviewers, we feel a minor revision would be appropriate.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sahil Bajaj, 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 your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I do apologize for the delay in getting this review done. I know how frustrating it can be to sit and wait for reviewers to finish.

Developing and identify safe and efficacious TBI treatments is a growing public goal that is understandably burdened by generally small sample sizes in individual trials. To this end, systematic reviews/meta-analyses of this nature are essential to understanding the broader landscape of the literature.

Overall, I found this meta-analysis to be clearly written with clear methodology and interpretations that appropriately reflected the conducted analyses. However, I do have one concern that I did not find addressed anywhere in the manuscript. The four reviewed RCTs were conducted on very diverse populations. While all of the trials were on the TBI spectrum, Killgore and Raikes were exclusively on mTBI, while Sinclair was conducted on mixed severity and Quera Salva on severe. Additionally, treatment timings were very different across studies, with Killgore and Raikes being the most similar.

There is no indication that any of the analyses accounted for these very key differences. The longitudinal outcomes from severe TBI are very different from those for mild TBI/concussion. The recovery time curves are very different across these injury types as well. Particularly for a study like Quera Salva et al. where the average post-injury timing was 9 years compared to Raikes et al at 6 months, it's unclear how treatment timing and injury severity may play a role in these outcomes.

Please either clarify or revise this manuscript to address this concern. I recognize that there are only 4 studies to draw from and statistical methods are likely insufficient to tease apart these effects. The discussion should, at a minimum, present some interpretation/context for these issues.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. I look forward to the revised version.

Reviewer #2: I was delighted to review the manuscript. It addresses an interesting major topic (i.e. post-traumatic brain injury sleepiness, sleep disturbance, depression, and fatigue, and the efficacy of blue-wavelenght light therapy). The authors performed in a comprehensive methodologically way this systematic review and meta-analyses. The manuscript is nicely written and the results and discussion are coherent with the methodology. However, two minor issues need to be improved.

1. Introduction: First sentence ‘Post-TBI depression, fatigue, and sleepiness are…’ (page 3, line 66-67) and third sentence ‘These three symptoms are similar to…’ (page 3, line 68-69), could be rephrased to avoid repetition.

2. Information sources: ‘from their inceptions’ (page 6, line 133-134) it is better to include the date of the last search (e.g., from their inceptions to July 4th 2020).

Best wishes.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Thank you for the valued comments from reviewers and you. We have revised the manuscript accordingly as follows:

Reviewer 1:

1. The four reviewed RCTs were conducted on very diverse populations.

Our response:

- We totally agree with this point. We have added three sentences in the limitations.

- Page 25, lines 466-469: Third, the participants included in this systematic review had a diverse history of TBI. While the severity varied from mild to severe, the mean duration after TBI ranged from 6.75 months to 9.03 years. This limitation might also contribute to the high inconsistency of some outcomes.

Reviewer 2:

1. Introduction: Avoid repetition - First sentence ‘Post-TBI depression, fatigue, and sleepiness are…

Our response:

- We revised the first sentence of this paragraph to cover the paragraph contents but not repeat the third sentence.

- Page 3, line 66-67: depressive disorders (replacing winter depression).

2. Information sources: change ‘from their inceptions’ to ‘from their inceptions to July 4th 2020’

- We revised the term accordingly

- Page 6, line 134: “from their inception to July 4th, 2020”.

Decision Letter - Sahil Bajaj, Editor

Blue-wavelength light therapy for post-traumatic brain injury sleepiness, sleep disturbance, depression, and fatigue: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PONE-D-20-28037R1

Dear Dr. Srisurapanont,

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,

Sahil Bajaj, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sahil Bajaj, Editor

PONE-D-20-28037R1

Blue-wavelength light therapy for post-traumatic brain injury sleepiness, sleep disturbance, depression, and fatigue: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Srisurapanont:

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. Sahil Bajaj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .