Predicting factors that determine patients’ satisfaction with post-operative pain management following abdominal surgeries at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana

Priscilla Felicia Tano; Felix Apiribu; Emile Kouakou Tano; Adwoa Bemah Boamah Mensah; Veronica Millicent Dzomeku; Isaac Boateng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251979

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 14, 2020
11 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Emre Bozkurt, Editor PONE-D-20-32363 Predicting factors that determine patients’ satisfaction with post-operative pain management following abdominal surgeries at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana. PLOS ONE Dear Tano, 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 Dec 26 2020 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, Emre Bozkurt Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Congratulations for your well written manuscript. You need to make some revisions for your manuscript before it can be published. The reviewer suggestions were as follows; Reviewer 1; There are two major revisions I would like to emphasize.First, the first paragraph of Material and Methods is mainly disconnected and there is no integrity of meaning. To understand the method of this study, it is necessary to read the manuscript three or four times. Material method section should be revised. Secondly, the current results of the study were not mentioned in the discussion section. The literature was well searched, but no correlation was made with the results found in the study or the differences of the study from the literature were not mentioned in the section Reviewer2; The period when the patients were operated on is not mentioned in the article. The period when patients are operated on should be specified in Abstract (Methodology) and Main Text ( Materials and Methods) sections. The manuscript will be re-evaluated after these revisions. 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. Please include additional information regarding the validation of the modified International Pain Outcome (IPO-Q) questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. Furthermore, if questionnaire is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Furthermore in the Methods section, please provide additional details regarding how demographic information was collected. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. [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: I Don't Know 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: No 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: There are two major revisions I would like to emphasize. First, the first paragraph of Material and Methods is mainly disconnected and there is no integrity of meaning. To understand the method of this study, it is necessary to read the manuscript three or four times. Material method section should be revised. Secondly, the current results of the study were not mentioned in the discussion section. The literature was well searched, but no correlation was made with the results found in the study or the differences of the study from the literature were not mentioned in the section. Reviewer #2: The period when the patients were operated on is not mentioned in the article. The period when patients are operated on should be specified in Abstract (Methodology) and Main Text ( Materials and Methods) sections. ****** 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: Yes:** Uygar Demir [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251979.r001
Revision 1
24 Dec 2020 Author Response Department of Nursing College of Health Sciences Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Kumasi-Ghana 24th December, 2020 Editor-in-Chief PLOS ONE Dear Sir/Madam, RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ AND EDITORIAL COMMENTS: PONE-D-20-32363 We express our appreciation to the editors and reviewers for the comments and suggestions made in reference to the manuscript that we submitted titled: “Predicting factors that determine patients’ satisfaction with post-operative pain management following abdominal surgeries at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana”. Authors have revised the manuscript using the reviewers’ and the editorial comments. Accordingly, we have provided the response to the comment in the table of changes below, and where the addition has been effected. Thank you PRISCILLA FELICIA TANO CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Reviewer # Page Number Reviewers’ Comments Authors’ Responses REVIEWER 1 6-9 19-22 The first paragraph of materials and methods is mainly disconnected and there is no integrity of meaning. To understand the method of this study, it is necessary to read the manuscript three to four times. Materials and methods section should be revised. The current results of the study were not mentioned in the discussion section. The literature was well searched, but no correlation was made with the results found in the study or the differences of the study from the literature were not mentioned in the section. We thank the reviewer for this important comment to revise the Materials and methods section. This comment has been addressed. Materials and methods section has been revised from page 6-9, line 122-199 We are grateful to the reviewer for this significant comment to mention the current result of the study in the discussion section. This comment has been addressed in the discussion section in page 19-22, line 288-364. We appreciate this important comment to correlate or bring out the difference with the result found in the study and the literature. This comment has been addressed in the discussion section in page 19-22, line 288-364. Reviewer 2; 3,6 The period when the patients were operated on is not mentioned in the article. The period when patients are operated on should be specified in Abstract (Methodology) and Main Text (Materials and Methods) sections We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. The authors have included the periods when patients were operated on in the Abstract (Methodology) in page 3 line 57 and also in Materials and methods section in page 6, line 132. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251979.r002
19 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Emre Bozkurt, Editor PONE-D-20-32363R1 Predicting factors that determine patients’ satisfaction with post-operative pain management following abdominal surgeries at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tano, 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 01.02.2021. 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, Emre Bozkurt Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Congratulations for your well written manuscript. You need to make some revisions for your manuscript before it can be published. The reviewer suggestions were as follows; Reviewer 1; There are two major revisions I would like to emphasize.First, the first paragraph of Material and Methods is mainly disconnected and there is no integrity of meaning. To understand the method of this study, it is necessary to read the manuscript three or four times. Material method section should be revised. Secondly, the current results of the study were not mentioned in the discussion section. The literature was well searched, but no correlation was made with the results found in the study or the differences of the study from the literature were not mentioned in the section Reviewer2; The period when the patients were operated on is not mentioned in the article. The period when patients are operated on should be specified in Abstract (Methodology) and Main Text ( Materials and Methods) sections. The manuscript will be re-evaluated after these revisions. [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251979.r003
Revision 2
29 Mar 2021 Author Response Reviewer # Page Number Reviewers’ Comments Authors’ Responses REVIEWER 1 The first paragraph of materials and methods is mainly disconnected and there is no integrity of meaning. To understand the method of this study, it is necessary to read the manuscript three to four times. Materials and methods section should be revised. The current results of the study were not mentioned in the discussion section. The literature was well searched, but no correlation was made with the results found in the study or the differences of the study from the literature were not mentioned in the section. We thank the reviewer for this important comment to revise the Materials and methods section. This comment has been addressed. Materials and methods section have been revised from page 6-9, line 125-197 We are grateful to the reviewer for this significant comment to mention the current result of the study in the discussion section. This comment has been addressed in the discussion section in page 18-22, line 284-363. We appreciate this important comment to correlate or bring out the difference with the result found in the study and the literature. This comment has been addressed in the discussion section in page 18-22, line 294-295, 301-302, 324-316, 339-340, 345-346, 356-357. Reviewer 2; The period when the patients were operated on is not mentioned in the article. The period when patients are operated on should be specified in Abstract (Methodology) and Main Text (Materials and Methods) sections We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. The authors have included the periods when patients were operated on in the Abstract (Methodology) in page 3 line 58 and also in Materials and methods section in page 6, line 137. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251979.r004
7 May 2021 Decision Letter - Ehab Farag, Editor Predicting factors that determine patients’ satisfaction with post-operative pain management following abdominal surgeries at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana. PONE-D-20-32363R2 Dear Dr. Priscilla Felicia Tano 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, Ehab Farag, MD FRCA FASA Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251979.r005
Formally Accepted
14 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Ehab Farag, Editor PONE-D-20-32363R2 Predicting factors that determine patients’ satisfaction with post-operative pain management following abdominal surgeries at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana. Dear Dr. Tano: 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. Ehab Farag Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251979.r006

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 .