Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 16, 2021
Decision Letter - Robert Jeenchen Chen, Editor

PONE-D-21-08635

Is Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Baboudjian,

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 specify "surgery" upfront in the Title and also in Methods.  Did it include open heart surgery, TAVR, TEVAR, aortic dissection, brain surgery, dental surgery, Whipple operation, Bentall operation, .VATS,...too vague and confusing!

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 10 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,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

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 you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for providing the date(s) when patient medical information was initially recorded. Please also include the date(s) on which your research team accessed the databases/records to obtain the retrospective data used in your study.

4. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "Verbal informed consent was obtained from all patients before preoperative routine SARSCoV-2 screening, and patients were aware that these data would be used anonymously for research purposes". please describe how verbal consent was documented and witnessed, and why written consent was not obtained. Please also also add all of this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form.

5. Please provide the full name of Institutional Review Board that approved your study.

6. 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

7. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

8.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

'The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The scope of "surgery" is ill-defined. Did it include open heart surgery, brain surgery, and some other major surgery? Or just urology surgery? Please specify upfront in the Title. in the Methods, the IR

B is only approved in urology, not other surgical specialty. Was it legal to include non-urology surgery cases? Please specify the scope of "surgery" in the Methods. Open heart surgery? TAVR? TEVAR? EVAR? Brain surgery, Whipple surgery, Bentall surgery, type-A aortic dissection, lung cancer surgery, eye surgery, dental surgery,...? "Surgery" needs to be defined and specified in this manuscript!

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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 Robert Jeenchen Chen,

We are truly honored of the interest that the Editorial team of PLOS One has paid to our work.

We would like to thank the editor their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of this report. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript and the rebuttal letter that specifically addresses every point they raised.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Michael Baboudjian

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR

Editor:

The scope of "surgery" is ill-defined. Did it include open heart surgery, brain surgery, and some other major surgery? Or just urology surgery? Please specify upfront in the Title.

We thank the editor for this justified comment. This part has been completed in the Methods Section as follow:

“The patients were operated on in one of the hospital's seven surgical departments: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. »

Thus, cardiovascular, thoracic, orthopedic and brain surgeries were not included in this study.

In the Methods, the IRB is only approved in urology, not other surgical specialty. Was it legal to include non-urology surgery cases?

The institutional review board approval from our hospital (Ap-Hm: Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille) was provided for all surgical departments, not only for urology. In addition to the IRB, we have requested additional approval from the ethics committee of the French urology association. This is an ethics committee like any other, which can give its approval for a study that does not include only urology patients.

Please specify the scope of "surgery" in the Methods. Open heart surgery? TAVR? TEVAR? EVAR? Brain surgery, Whipple surgery, Bentall surgery, type-A aortic dissection, lung cancer surgery, eye surgery, dental surgery,...? "Surgery" needs to be defined and specified in this manuscript!

As previously described, this part has been completed in the Methods Section as follow:

“The patients were operated on in one of the hospital's seven surgical departments: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. »

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Robert Jeenchen Chen, Editor

PONE-D-21-08635R1

Is Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Baboudjian,

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 do not only reply but also revise the title, abstract, and main text accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 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,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Not only in "reply", please also define and specify the specialties/scopes of "surgery" in "Title", "Abstract", and "Methods" in the main text. The revision fails to show it. For example, please add "minor elective surgery" or modify otherwise because it does not include cardiac, neuro-, emergent, or other major surgical cases.

2. In the revised Methods, you specified "all seven surgical departments...." What are these seven surgical departments are unknown to readers.

3. Your results and conclusion clearly do not apply to cardiac, vascular, orthopedic, or other major surgical cases (I myself is a cardiac surgeon so I care if your research applies to my specialty or not.). Please specify minor surgery upfront in Title and Abstract.

4. Did your cases include emergent or trauma cases?

5. Please revise well and do specify/define/limit your "surgery" which is different from the perception of "surgery" of many readers.

6. After clarification of "surgery", further review can be proceeded.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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 2

Dear Robert Jeenchen Chen,

We are truly honored of the interest that the Editorial team of PLOS One has paid to our work.

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript and the rebuttal letter that specifically addresses every point they raised.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Michael Baboudjian

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR

1. Not only in "reply", please also define and specify the specialties/scopes of "surgery" in "Title", "Abstract", and "Methods" in the main text. The revision fails to show it. For example, please add "minor elective surgery" or modify otherwise because it does not include cardiac, neuro-, emergent, or other major surgical cases.

This comment is relevant. In fact, in our hospital there is no cardiac, vascular or neurological surgery. However, some of the patients included underwent major surgery such as cancer surgery (eg laryngectomy, cystectomy, gastrectomy) or kidney transplantation (n=15). In addition, as shown in Table 1, 28 included patients were acute surgical emergencies. Thus, all types of surgery were included: minor and major, elective and urgent surgery.

However, due to the lack of available resuscitation bed during the pandemic period, all surgeries were scheduled to not use postoperative resuscitation care and therefore, were mainly minor surgeries. As suggested by the editor, some changes have been added in the Title, the Abstract and The Manuscript:

Title: Is Minor Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

Abstract: Our study included all adult patients who underwent minor surgery in one of the seven surgical departments of our hospital: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery.

Methods: The patients were operated on in one of the hospital's seven surgical departments: urology, digestive, plastic, gynecological, otolaryngology (two departments), gynecology or maxillofacial surgery. In our hospital, there was no cardiac, vascular, neurological or orthopedic surgery.

Discussion (Limitations): Finally, the present study reports on a very heterogeneous surgical population and covers a wide range of planned elective surgeries and a variety of emergency surgical presentations. However, our study population consisted mainly of patients who underwent minor elective surgery. This observation should be related to a significant decrease in acute surgical emergencies as observed in previous studies found in the literature [26]. In addition, major surgeries such as cardiac, vascular or neurological surgeries requiring postoperative resuscitation care were not included in our series.

2. In the revised Methods, you specified "all seven surgical departments...." What are these seven surgical departments are unknown to readers.

This comment is justified. As suggested by the reviewer, this data has been added in the Methods section:

“All of the seven surgical departments in our hospital were involved in our study: urology, digestive, plastic, otolaryngology, gynecology or maxillofacial surgery.”

3. Your results and conclusion clearly do not apply to cardiac, vascular, orthopedic, or other major surgical cases (I myself is a cardiac surgeon so I care if your research applies to my specialty or not.). Please specify minor surgery upfront in Title and Abstract.

This is a justified comment. As suggested, we specified in the title and the abstract that the surgeries were mainly minor.

4. Did your cases include emergent or trauma cases?

Yes, some cases were acute surgical emergencies (n=28, 5.1% of all cases, Table 1). These patients therefore represent a very small part of our included population. This limitation is notified in the Discussion section:

“However, our study population consisted mainly of patients who underwent minor elective surgery. This observation should be related to a significant decrease in acute surgical emergencies as observed in previous studies found in the literature [26]. »

5. Please revise well and do specify/define/limit your "surgery" which is different from the perception of "surgery" of many readers.

As suggested by the reviewer, we have specified the type of surgery included throughout the manuscript: mainly minor and elective. In addition, we specified in the Methods part and in the Limits part that neither cardiac, vascular or neurological surgery was included in our study.

6. After clarification of "surgery", further review can be proceeded.

Dear editor, thank you for your comments which greatly improve the relevance and applicability of this manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Robert Jeenchen Chen, Editor

Is Minor Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

PONE-D-21-08635R2

Dear Dr. Baboudjian,

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,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: This is an interesting study, and I approve of its publication.This study is a pioneer and I believe it will help in the future with COVID-19.

Reviewer #3: The authors' revised manuscript had specifically addressed every point raised by the reviewers with appropriate response.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Chao-Yang Chen

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Robert Jeenchen Chen, Editor

PONE-D-21-08635R2

Is Minor Surgery Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Multi-Disciplinary Study

Dear Dr. Baboudjian:

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. Robert Jeenchen Chen

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 .