Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 4, 2020
Decision Letter - Eleni Magira, Editor

PONE-D-20-34750

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Among ICU patients in WHO Southeast Asian Region: A systematic review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Sanjeev Kharel 

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 02/20/2021. 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,

Eleni Magira

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. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

(1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

(2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

**********

Reviewer #1: In this systematic review of the literature on ventilator associated pneumonia in the South East Asian Region the Authors aimed to describe incidence, mortality and pathogens in order to implement strategies to prevent and control this disease. Twenty-four papers were selected following Prisma recommendations. VAP incidence range between 2.13 and 116 per thousand days. Mortality range from 16.2% and 74.1%. Acinetobacter spp, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus species are frequently involved. The Authors suggest different strategies to prevent VAP. This topic is relevant and interesting especially in this part of the world but several shortcomings need to be addressed:

Introduction:

- Include a specific reference line 41-42

Methods:

- Specify whether a registration has been made to PROSPERO or to another international registry for systematic reviews. Is essential

- Outcome are very essentials and maybe a proper research and description of risk factors should be included to increase the relevant of the study

Result

- Do not begin the sentence with an Arabic number line 128 and 130

- Results about possible risk factors included

Discussion

- The first paragraph of the discussion should sum the main results of the study: incidence, mortality etiological agents

- Please include something about the methods of the systematic review: for example, why these outcomes were chosen and not others?

- Clarify strengths and limitations of this research!

- Interventions to prevent and control VAP are speculative only and not systematically included in the results, however they are stated in the scope.

**********

[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

February 11, 2021.

Dr. Joerg Heber

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS ONE journal (open access)

We thank you for the time, effort and consideration you have put into our manuscript (PONE-D-20-34750) entitled " Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Among ICU patients in WHO Southeast Asian Region: A systematic review ".

We would also like to express our utmost gratitude to the reviewer for his/her time and their valuable suggestions. Please find our response to the comments below:

Editors comments:

We thank the editor for the time and valuable feedback.

1.Comment: 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.

Response: We have checked our revised manuscript as per PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including those for file naming and edited if needed.

2.Comment: We note that Figure 2 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines:

Response: Since, we are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures; have decided to remove the figure.

Reviewer

We thank the reviewer for the time and for the valuable feedback.

Reviewer response to answers:

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: Partly

Response: We have tried to address this comment by adding points in our revised manuscript in the conclusion section in Page no 33.

2.Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

Response: Our review article only qualitatively assessed the incidence, mortality and causative organisms of Ventilator Associated Pneumonia with no need of any statistical analysis.

3.Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Response: Thank you for your positive response.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copy edit 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

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback.

Reviewer 1 comments:

1.Comment: In this systematic review of the literature on ventilator associated pneumonia in the South East Asian Region the Authors aimed to describe incidence, mortality and pathogens in order to implement strategies to prevent and control this disease. Twenty-four papers were selected following Prisma recommendations. VAP incidence range between 2.13 and 116 per thousand days. Mortality range from 16.2% and 74.1%. Acinetobacter spp, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus species are frequently involved. The Authors suggest different strategies to prevent VAP. This topic is relevant and interesting especially in this part of the world but several shortcomings need to be addressed:

Response: Thank you for your encouraging comments.

2.Comment: Introduction: - Include a specific reference line 41-42

Response: A specific reference line in 41-42 is added as highlighted in the introduction section Page no 3 of revised manuscript.

3.Comment:Methods:

a. Specify whether a registration has been made to PROSPERO or to another international registry for systematic reviews. Is essential

Response: We have mentioned our registration details under search strategy subsection of materials and methods section as highlighted in page no.6

b. Outcome are very essentials and maybe a proper research and description of risk factors should be included to increase the relevant of the study

Response: Yes indeed, outcomes related to description of risk factor is important but according to our inclusion criteria only studies reporting incidence, mortality and micro-organisms were included (page no. while most of the studies included in our review have no or limited information on risk factors. So, a brief description of risk factors was avoided but common risk factors from different studies conducted in Asian regions were assessed in discussion (Page no.29).

4.Comment: Result:

a. Do not begin the sentence with an Arabic number line 128 and 130

Response: The changes were made and highlighted in page no 8 and 9.

b. Results about possible risk factors included.

Response: Risk factors were not the outcomes chosen as per in our eligibility criteria. But further risk factors were reviewed briefly in discussion on page no.29(added information is highlighted).

5.Comment: Discussion:

a. The first paragraph of the discussion should sum the main results of the study: incidence, mortality etiological agents

Response: The first paragraph of discussion was changed as highlighted in page no.28

b. Please include something about the methods of the systematic review: for example, why these outcomes were chosen and not others?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have included information on the methods used in our systematic review highlighted in the last paragraph of the discussion section in page no. 32.

c. Clarify strengths and limitations of this research!

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The strengths and limitations of this research was addressed under strengths and limitations section above conclusion highlighted in page no. 32-33

d. Interventions to prevent and control VAP are speculative only and not systematically included in the results, however they are stated in the scope.

Response: Indeed, interventions to prevent and control VAP are speculative only but not included in results because of little or no information in our included articles. So, various intervention programs are mentioned as per the previous literature done in similar settings in the discussion section of page no. 31.

We would once again like to thank the reviewers and editors for their generous and insightful comments to improve the paper.

Sincerely,

Mr. Sanjeev Kharel

Corresponding Author.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Eleni Magira, Editor

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Among ICU patients in WHO Southeast Asian Region: A systematic review

PONE-D-20-34750R1

Dear Dr. Sanjeev Kharel

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,

Eleni Magira

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6Review Comments to the Author

​Reviewer #: Thanks for your corrections. All the points have been addressed and the text now is more complete.

Best regards

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Eleni Magira, Editor

PONE-D-20-34750R1

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Among ICU patients in WHO Southeast Asian Region: A systematic review

Dear Dr. Kharel:

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. Eleni Magira

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 .