Contact lens procurement and usage habits among adults in Sudan

Yazan Gammoh; Mustafa Abdu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251987

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 30, 2021
2 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Binaya Sapkota, Editor PONE-D-21-03329 Contact lens procurement and usage habits among adults in Sudan PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gammoh, 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 March 22, 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, Binaya Sapkota, PharmD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Please assess the reporting of this observational study of clinical data using the STROBE checklist (http://www.strobe-statement.org). Also, address the inherent limitations of observational studies including whether there are unsupported statements of causation; and whether the analysis was affected by confounding variables, a lack of generalizability, selective reporting, post hoc analyses and other. 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 survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender). 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. [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: 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: It is a nicely written paper. The paper looks into the aspects of contact lens wear and care habits among wearers in Sudan. Results show a relatively high to moderate levels of compliance to contact lenses. In overall, the introduction reads well and sets the tone for the aim of the study. Methods are described in detail and results are appropriately summarised. Discussion is slightly long but discusses all the relevant points. There are few minor punctuation errors. My specific comments are attached below: Line 100, 107 and 119: Replace semicolon with a comma Line 122: delete one ‘in’ Methods: How were the participants selected, was it random or everyone attending the clinics and hospitals? There might be a selection bias, which needs to be clarified, especially because around 92% participants were female. Was it because of selection method or is it a true representative of the population? Line 222: Table 2- percent in CL power column doesn’t add to 100. Line 230: clean should be ‘cleaned’ Line 253: Please mention what statistical tests were used to derive these p values. Line 398: The statement ‘The majority of CL wearers in Sudan are females’ is not a correct statement. Authors did not collect the data to check this – this is not a population-based study but a cross-sectional study of a sample. Instead, they can write that a majority of CL wearers were female in the present study (not in Sudan). Reviewer #2: manuscript is not presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Deeper analysis can be done Please make sure that you have followed the authors guidelines properly. Please keep limitations and recommendation sections after conclusion section ****** 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:** Sunil Shrestha [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.0251987.r001
Revision 1
11 Mar 2021 Author Response Dear Binaya Sapkota, PharmD Academic Editor, PLOS ONE I would like to thank you and the esteemed reviewers for all the valuable comments and suggestions. Kindly find below a reply to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. I sincerely hope it meets your requirements. 1. Additional editor’s comments: Comment: Please assess the reporting of this observational study of clinical data using the STROBE checklist Response: Thank you for raising this important point. A sentence about STROBE statement has been included in the methods section Lines 165-167 Supplement S1 Table includes the STROBE checklist. Comment: Also, address the inherent limitations of observational studies including whether there are unsupported statements of causation; and whether the analysis was affected by confounding variables, a lack of generalizability, selective reporting, post hoc analyses and other. Response: I would like to thank you for binging my attention to this issue. The requested information has been included in the limitations section. Lines 431-442 2. Reviewer 1 comments: Comment: Line 100, 107 and 119: Replace semicolon with a comma Response: Thank you so much for raising my attention to this issue. The semicolon in each line has been changed to a comma. Comment: Line 122: delete one ‘in’ Response: One ‘in’ has been deleted. Comment: Methods: How were the participants selected, was it random or everyone attending the clinics and hospitals? There might be a selection bias, which needs to be clarified, especially because around 92% participants were female. Was it because of selection method or is it a true representative of the population? Response: The following paragraph was added to the methods section: ‘All patients attending the clinics during the data collection period were invited to participate in the study. To further minimize selection bias, and to ensure full participation of patients, volunteer optometrists administered the questionnaire rather than the patients’ contact lens practitioners.’ The following statement was added in the limitations section: ‘In addition, the majority of contact lens wearers in the study were women, though this was expected as the majority of patients reporting to contact lens clinics are women, based on the experience of the authors.’ Comment: Line 222: Table 2- percent in CL power column doesn’t add to 100. Response: The percent has been edited and now add to 100 Comment: Line 230: clean should be ‘cleaned’ Response: Clean has been changed to “cleaned” Comment: Line 253: Please mention what statistical tests were used to derive these p values. Response: Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were mentioned in table 4 title. Comment: Line 398: The statement ‘The majority of CL wearers in Sudan are females’ is not a correct statement. Authors did not collect the data to check this – this is not a population-based study but a cross-sectional study of a sample. Instead, they can write that a majority of CL wearers were female in the present study (not in Sudan). Response: The following statement was used instead in conclusion section line 412: ‘The majority of CL wearers in the current study were women’ 3. Reviewer's 2 comments: Comment: manuscript is not presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Response: Sections have been arranged as per the style requirement of the journal. Subsections in what was previously the discussion section were removed, as the results and discussion section were merged as per the Journal’s style requirements. Reporting of males and females as men and women when used as nouns have been corrected. Spelling and grammar has been checked throughout the manuscript. Comment: Deeper analysis can be done Response: STROBE statement checklist has been added. Inherent limitations to observational studies have been addressed. Type of statistical test used in table 4 was included. Comment: Please make sure that you have followed the authors guidelines properly. Response: Authors’ guidelines and PLOS ONE’s style requirements have been followed. Comment: Please keep limitations and recommendation sections after conclusion section Response: Limitations and recommendations section is placed after the conclusion section, Lines 430-451 4. Journal's requirements Comment: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Manuscript, tables, figures, and supplement files have been edited to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements. Comment: Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. Response: The questionnaire has been included as supplement S2 Table. Comment: Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun Response: All changes needed have been implemented Comment: Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. Response: The ethics statement has been only included in the methods section. I would like to inform you that the changes that have been made based on the reviewer’s comments have enriched the manuscript, thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, Yazan Gammoh, PhD Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251987.r002
24 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Binaya Sapkota, Editor PONE-D-21-03329R1 Contact lens procurement and usage habits among adults in Sudan PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gammoh, 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 May 08 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, Binaya Sapkota, PharmD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you very much for submitting your paper to PLOS ONE. While reviewing the 'Responses to the Editor and Reviewers', it seems that you have not addressed following key concerns: 1. Editor's concern: Comment related to the inherent limitations of observational studies; effect of the confounding variables, a lack of generalizability, selective reporting, post hoc analyses and other. 2. Reviewer 1 concern: Comments related to selection of the participants (random or non-random), selection bias, true representativeness of the population. These comments should be addressed before it can be further considered by the external reviewers. [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251987.r003
Revision 2
13 Apr 2021 Author Response Dear Binaya Sapkota, PharmD Academic Editor, PLOS ONE I would like to thank you and the esteemed reviewers for all the valuable comments and suggestions. Kindly find below a reply to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. I sincerely hope it meets your requirements. 1. Additional editor’s comments: Comment: Please assess the reporting of this observational study of clinical data using the STROBE checklist Response: Thank you for raising this important point. A sentence about STROBE statement has been included in the methods section. Lines 170-172 Supplement S2 Table includes the STROBE checklist. Comment: Also, address the inherent limitations of observational studies including whether there are unsupported statements of causation; and whether the analysis was affected by confounding variables, a lack of generalizability, selective reporting, post hoc analyses and other. Response: I would like to thank you for bringing my attention to this issue. The requested information has been included in the methods section (Lines 154-162) and limitations section (Lines 428-433, Lines 443-448). No post-hoc analyses have been done. No selective reporting has been practiced. 2. Reply to Reviewer 1’s comments: Comment: Line 100, 107 and 119: Replace semicolon with a comma Response: Thank you so much for raising my attention to this issue. The semicolon in each line has been changed to a comma. Lines 98, 105, 117 Comment: Line 122: delete one ‘in’ Response: One ‘in’ has been deleted. Line 120 Comment: Methods: How were the participants selected, was it random or everyone attending the clinics and hospitals? There might be a selection bias, which needs to be clarified, especially because around 92% participants were female. Was it because of selection method or is it a true representative of the population? Response: The following paragraph was added to the methods section, Lines 154-157: ‘All patients attending the clinics during the data collection period were invited to participate in the study. To further minimize selection bias, and to ensure full participation of patients, volunteer optometrists administered the questionnaire rather than the patients’ contact lens practitioners.’ To further clarify the patient’s selection process the following paragraph was added to the methods section, Lines 158-162 : ‘Clinics in Khartoum operate from 9 am to 7 pm, however, volunteer optometrists approached all the patients attending the contact lens clinics between 10 am and 4 pm to allow for safe and secure transportation of volunteers. The same convenient sampling hours were also adopted for optical stores which usually operate till 9 pm. Approximately 20% of the optical stores in Khartoum were not surveyed due to difficulty in securing transportation for the volunteers.’ The following statement was added in the limitations section, Lines 425-433: ‘In addition, the majority of contact lens wearers in the study were women, though this was expected as the majority of patients reporting to contact lens clinics are women, based on the experience of the authors. However, a selection bias and non-randomness of the sample would have been introduced as the data was collected between the hours of 9 am and 4 pm which would exclude men whose jobs require them work during these hours which would prevent them from accessing the clinics during these hours. Future studies should be conducted with random sampling of the whole population of Sudanese CL wearers to test the hypothesis that women indeed constitute the majority of CL wearers in Sudan.’ Comment: Line 222: Table 2- percent in CL power column doesn’t add to 100. Response: The percent has been edited and now add to 100 Comment: Line 230: clean should be ‘cleaned’ Response: Clean has been changed to “cleaned”, Line 246 Comment: Line 253: Please mention what statistical tests were used to derive these p values. Response: Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were mentioned in table 4 title. Comment: Line 398: The statement ‘The majority of CL wearers in Sudan are females’ is not a correct statement. Authors did not collect the data to check this – this is not a population-based study but a cross-sectional study of a sample. Instead, they can write that a majority of CL wearers were female in the present study (not in Sudan). Response: The following statement was used instead: ‘The majority of CL wearers in the current study were women’, Line 404 3. Reply to Reviewer 2’s comments: Comment: manuscript is not presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Response: Sections have been arranged as per the style requirement of the journal. Subsections in what was previously the discussion section were removed, as the results and discussion section were merged as per the Journal’s style requirements. Reporting of males and females as men and women when used as nouns have been corrected. Spelling and grammar have been checked throughout the manuscript. Comment: Deeper analysis can be done Response: STROBE statement checklist has been added. Inherent limitations to observational studies have been addressed. Type of statistical test used in table 4 was included. Comment: Please make sure that you have followed the authors guidelines properly. Response: Authors’ guidelines and PLOS ONE’s style requirements have been followed. All manuscript and files Comment: Please keep limitations and recommendation sections after conclusion section Response: Limitations and recommendations section is placed after the conclusion section. Lines 417-448 4. Journal requirements: Requirement 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Manuscript, tables, figures, and supplement files have been edited to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements. Requirement 2: Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. Response: The questionnaire has been included as supplement S1 Table. Requirement 3: Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun Response: All changes needed have been implemented Requirement 4: Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. Response: The ethics statement has been only included in the methods section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251987.r004
20 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Binaya Sapkota, Editor PONE-D-21-03329R2 Contact lens procurement and usage habits among adults in Sudan PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gammoh, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Thank you very much for submitting your paper to PLOS ONE. After careful editorial consideration and evaluation of the reviewers' reports, the authors are suggested to go through the English language editing before it can be accepted for publication. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 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, Binaya Sapkota, PharmD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #1: All comments have been addressed 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 #1: I congratulate the authors for their comprehensive work on this manuscript. I believe they have addressed all my comments. These types of studies are necessary to educate people because contact lens care behaviour can be different throughout the world. One of the major concerns with contact lens usage is the incidence of microbial keratitis, which is due to poor hygiene behaviour. While there may be tendency to report data from places where there is relatively an easy access to research funds, the literature needs data from low income settings as well, so that we can make valid comparisons. Authors have outlined their limitations and have addressed my concerns. There are few issues with the use of punctuation, especially the use of semicolon, which could be because of English as a second language. Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed most of the comments from the reviewers. However, an English editing is needed. ****** 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 #1: Yes: Sanjay Marasini Reviewer #2: Yes:** Sunil Shrestha [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.0251987.r005
Revision 3
30 Apr 2021 Author Response Re: PONE-D-21-03329 Contact lens procurement and usage habits among adults in Sudan 30 April 2021 Dear Binaya Sapkota, PharmD Academic Editor, PLOS ONE I would like to thank you and the esteemed reviewers for all the valuable comments and suggestions. Allow me to thank Reviewer 1 for their encouraging words and the support expressed to publish data from developing countries with low-income like Sudan. 1. As both reviewers highlighted the need for English language editing, all the necessary changes are shown in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” to allow the esteemed reviewers to track all the changes. All the tracked changes have been incorporated into the manuscript text in the file “Manuscript”. 2. As the reviewers had specific comments regarding the inappropriate use of commas and semicolons, kindly find below the changes made specifically for the use of semicolons: Line 47 original: lenscase; changes: lenscase, Line 56 original: appointments; changes: appointments, Line 83 original: worldwide; changes: worldwide, Line 98 original: beauty salons and over the internet changes: beauty salons, and over the internet Line 122 original: infrequent cleaning and discarding of the lens case; improper use of lens care products; use of tap changes: infrequent cleaning and discarding of the lens case, improper use of lens care products, use of tap Line 125 original: compliance to CL wear and care; age, gender and level of education are risk factors changes: compliance to CL wear and care, age, gender, and level of education are risk factors Line 132 original: CL wearers such as daily disposable (DD) CL wearers [21]; females [7]; or students changes: CL wearers such as daily disposable (DD) CL wearers [21], females [7], or students Line 233 original: Adult CL wearers; 18 years of age and above, changes: Adult CL wearers 18 years of age and above, Line 269 original: Participants’ demographics including, age; gender; occupation; level of education, type of changes: Participants’ demographics including age, gender, occupation, level of education, type of Line272 original: CL wear profile including CL power and type; CL modality and replacement schedule; source changes: CL wear profile including CL power and type, CL modality and replacement schedule, source Line 275 original: to participants when they were not able to recall the product in question; a strategy that has changes: to participants when they were not able to recall the product in question, a strategy that has Line 292 original: CL usage behavior including overnight wear; CL sharing; swimming and showering changes: CL usage behavior including overnight wear, CL sharing, swimming and showering Line 296 original: with scores 1 to 4 assigned to responses ranging from “Always” to “Rarely”; changes: with scores 1 to 4 assigned to responses ranging from “Always” to “Rarely”, Line 298 original: ranging from “Rarely” to “Always”; respectively. changes: ranging from “Rarely” to “Always”, respectively. Line 299 original: before insertion and removal of CL; and changes: before insertion and removal of CL, and Line 304 original: “Always” to “Rarely”; sharing lens case changes: “Always” to “Rarely”, sharing lens case Line 351-2 original: (range; 18 to 45 years). changes: (range: 18 to 45 years). Line 400 original: Based on the compliance rates observed in Fig1; contact lens behaviors changes: Based on the compliance rates observed in Fig1, CL behaviors Lines 405-7 original: showering with CL. Moderate compliance level observed for sharing solution bottle; handwashing before CL removal; topping up solution; checking the expiry date of the solution; lens case replacement and cleaning lens case. changes: showering with CL. Moderate compliance levels were observed for sharing solution bottle, handwashing before CL removal, topping up solution, checking the expiry date of the solution, lens case replacement, and cleaning lens case. Line 410 original: A group of factors; mainly gender, changes: A group of factors, mainly gender, Line 432 original: CL wear and care; including levels of changes: CL wear and care, including levels of Line 512 original: struggling with trachoma; a disease changes: struggling with trachoma. Trachoma is a disease Line 518 original: at the university hospital; where proper CL changes: at the university hospital, where proper CL Line 551 original: any of the study’s participants; due to the lack of access to changes: any of the study’s participants, due to the lack of access to Line 582 original: beauty salons [7]; thus, it is changes: beauty salons [7]. Thus, it is Line 646 original: of the level of compliance; due to the expected reluctance changes: of the level of compliance, due to the expected reluctance Yours sincerely, Yazan Gammoh, PhD Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251987.r006
7 May 2021 Decision Letter - Binaya Sapkota, Editor Contact lens procurement and usage habits among adults in Sudan PONE-D-21-03329R3 Dear Dr. Gammoh, 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, Binaya Sapkota, PharmD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251987.r007
Formally Accepted
11 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Binaya Sapkota, Editor PONE-D-21-03329R3 Contact lens procurement and usage habits among adults in Sudan Dear Dr. Gammoh: 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. Binaya Sapkota Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251987.r008

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 .