Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 20, 2020
Decision Letter - Vanessa Carels, Editor

PONE-D-20-14972

Online survey on healthcare skin reactions and urinary symptoms for wearing medical protective equipment in Hubei Province, China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Meng,

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 manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. They request additional information on methodological aspects of the study, revisions and additions to the statistical analyses, and they have raised concerns regarding the potential for response bias.

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 20 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,

Vanessa Carels

Staff 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. 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.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[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: No

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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: Important text regarding the occurrence of adverse skin and urinary events due to the use of PPE.

The authors describe the problem with theoretical support.

I make considerations about the method:

1) Cross-sectional studies suggest prevalence information.

2) It´s interesting to carry out descriptive statistical tests (simple and absolute frequencies, mean, standard deviation) and to calculate the point prevalence.

3) It´s important calculating the association between explanatory variables.

4) Describe the Delph technique in detail and the number of rounds to validate the instrument.

5) The strategy for recruiting participants must be detailed in the text. How was the invitation forwarded?

6) Is it possible to describe which dressings were used for prevention? What types of moisturizing creams?

7) I suggest reading this article that deals with the same subject with similar methodology: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-71672020001400159&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=en&ORIGINALLANG=en

Reviewer #2: The paper reports data on skin symptoms due to use of personal protective equipment in a small number of health care workers. In general, the paper reports high percentage of irritant symptoms with a very limited statistical analysis. Moreover, also the discussion is quite poor on skin symptoms due to PPE that are reported in many papers, not in relation to COVID-19 diseases.

I suggest some improvement

1. Title: Urinary symptoms. I think that put together skin symptoms with urinary symptoms can lead to misunderstanding of the reactions to personal protective equipment. I suggest to describe only skin symptoms

2. Abstract

Please delete urinary symptoms: there are not reason to put all together

3. Text The number of subjects investigated is low and positive answers for skin symptoms (more than 70%) suggests that there were a selection bias (only workers with symptoms answered the questionnaire?. Please specify the response rate of the population investigated)

4. Line 56 and urinary tract symptoms (UTS) like frequent urination due to consistent heat or prolonged voiding

Please delete

Line 134 The A. reports incidence of skin symptoms, please note that incidence are new cases on considered time, while the table reported data on prevalence of symptoms

5. Consider to do a better statistical analysis to verify factors related to skin symptoms

6. Improve discussion with data on skin symptoms in relation to masks and gloves

**********

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: Yes: JULIANO TEIXEIRA MORAES

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

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your advice, and it really helps!

I tried my best to revise the manuscript to meet the requirements of the journal with your suggestion, and I hoped this time the manuscript would be better.

Following was my response to reviews.

Reviewer #1: Important text regarding the occurrence of adverse skin and urinary events due to the use of PPE.

The authors describe the problem with theoretical support.

I make considerations about the method:

1) Cross-sectional studies suggest prevalence information.

I amended a sentence of the overall prevalence of skin reactions in medical staff in the Results Part.

2) It´s interesting to carry out descriptive statistical tests (simple and absolute frequencies, mean, standard deviation) and to calculate the point prevalence.

I revised my statistic methods and hoped this time it would be better.

3) It´s important calculating the association between explanatory variables.

Thanks for your advice and I used the multivariate analysis to explore the association between explanatory variables.

4) Describe the Delph technique in detail and the number of rounds to validate the instrument.

I described the Delphi technique more clearly in the Method part. And I validated the instrument with two-round consultants.

5) The strategy for recruiting participants must be detailed in the text. How was the invitation forwarded?

I described more in detail with the app to recruit the patients in the Method part.

6) Is it possible to describe which dressings were used for prevention? What types of moisturizing creams?

I described the types of dressings, and the components of the moisturizing creams.

7) I suggest reading this article that deals with the same subject with similar methodology: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-71672020001400159&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=en&ORIGINALLANG=en

I read this article, and it really inspired me. Thank you so much.

Reviewer #2: The paper reports data on skin symptoms due to use of personal protective equipment in a small number of health care workers. In general, the paper reports high percentage of irritant symptoms with a very limited statistical analysis. Moreover, also the discussion is quite poor on skin symptoms due to PPE that are reported in many papers, not in relation to COVID-19 diseases.

I suggest some improvement

1. Title: Urinary symptoms. I think that put together skin symptoms with urinary symptoms can lead to misunderstanding of the reactions to personal protective equipment. I suggest to describe only skin symptoms

This would be a huge change so I thought it for a long time, and I agreed you were right. I deleted all the parts that related to urinary symptoms.

2. Abstract

Please delete urinary symptoms: there are not reason to put all together

I deleted all the contents about urinary symptoms

3. Text The number of subjects investigated is low and positive answers for skin symptoms (more than 70%) suggests that there were a selection bias (only workers with symptoms answered the questionnaire?. Please specify the response rate of the population investigated)

I failed to express clearly in the Method part, and I revised it to avoid misunderstanding.

4. Line 56 and urinary tract symptoms (UTS) like frequent urination due to consistent heat or prolonged voiding

Please delete

Line 134 The A. reports incidence of skin symptoms, please note that incidence are new cases on considered time, while the table reported data on prevalence of symptoms

I deleted the contents about UTS, and I changed the incidence with prevalence.

5. Consider to do a better statistical analysis to verify factors related to skin symptoms

I asked the statistical expert for help with data analysis. And tried my best to perfect the statistical analysis.

6. Improve discussion with data on skin symptoms in relation to masks and gloves

I revised my discussion part a lot and analyzed more about the reason of skin reactions due to masks and gloves.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Juliano Teixeira Moraes, Editor

Online survey on healthcare skin reactions for wearing medical-grade protective equipment against COVID-19 in Hubei Province, China

PONE-D-20-14972R1

Dear Dr. Meng,

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,

Juliano Teixeira Moraes

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Juliano Teixeira Moraes, Editor

PONE-D-20-14972R1

Online survey on healthcare skin reactions for wearing medical-grade protective equipment against COVID-19 in Hubei Province, China

Dear Dr. Meng:

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. Juliano Teixeira Moraes

Guest 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 .