Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 11, 2020
Decision Letter - Chiara Lazzeri, Editor

PONE-D-20-28716

Variation in outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation between different countries for patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Elsayed,

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 deals with quite a hot topic in everyday clinical practice. We suggest to discuss mortality rates (in respect to ventilatory strategy) of other disease states in respect to COVID disease. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 03 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,

Chiara Lazzeri

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. Please attach a Supplemental file of the results a the quality assessment for each individual study assessed, reporting the outcome for each individual criteria considered.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publications, which needs to be addressed:

- https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/anae.15201

- https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.202004-1385ED

- https://annalsofintensivecare.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13613-020-00692-6

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: This is a very important topic for which a systematic review provides information that is of vital importance for clinical work and healthcare policy.

I would suggest editing the introduction so to make it current: it should definitely be mentioned that vaccination has begun as a vaccine has been approved and more will follow. A reference to an extremely recent meta-analysis titled Case Fatality Rates for Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. A Meta-analysis by Zheng Jie Lim et al. as well as discussion of its implications is warranted in the introduction section; if you wish to elaborate and contrast your findings with it, you could do so in the discussion.

It would be helpful to mention mortality rates after the initiation of mechanical ventilation for other conditions treated in the ICU other than the previous coronavirus diseases (eg. sepsis, pancreatitis, bacterial pneumonia, other viral pneumonias, COPD exacerbations) in the discussion. It is important to know whether the mortality of COVID19 when treated with mechanical ventilation is similar to other diseases which may be treated similarly in the ICU.

I would also suggest doing a sensitivity analysis by including the 6 studies which included only patients with a definitive outcome. Another sensitivity analysis that could be attempted is the exclusion of studies with a small number (eg. less than 100) of patients with a definitive outcome. This may lead to a result with lower heterogeinty.

**********

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

[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

Response to reviewers

Associate editor:

Thank you for praising our manuscript and providing precise and constructive recommendations for revision

Comment 1 Please attach a Supplemental file of the results a the quality assessment for each individual study assessed, reporting the outcome for each individual criteria considered.

Answer: A supplemental file is attached

Comment 2: We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publications, which needs to be addressed:

- https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/anae.15201

- https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.202004-1385ED

- https://annalsofintensivecare.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13613-020-00692-6

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section.

Changes: All mentioned sources have been addressed

Reviewer 1

Thank you for your valuable and constructive comments

Comment 1: I would suggest editing the introduction so to make it current: it should definitely be mentioned that vaccination has begun as a vaccine has been approved and more will follow.

Answer: The introduction has been edited and a paragraph about vaccination added.

Comment 2: A reference to an extremely recent meta-analysis titled Case Fatality Rates for Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. A Meta-analysis by Zheng Jie Lim et al. as well as discussion of its implications is warranted in the introduction section;

Answer 2: The reference has been added in the introduction and the implications of the study mentioned

Comment 3: It would be helpful to mention mortality rates after the initiation of mechanical ventilation for other conditions treated in the ICU other than the previous coronavirus diseases (eg. sepsis, pancreatitis, bacterial pneumonia, other viral pneumonias, COPD exacerbations) in the discussion. It is important to know whether the mortality of COVID19 when treated with mechanical ventilation is similar to other diseases which may be treated similarly in the ICU

Changes 3: A paragraph added in the discussion quoting mortality from other diseases treated in the ICU

Comment 4: I would also suggest doing a sensitivity analysis by including the 6 studies which included only patients with a definitive outcome. Another sensitivity analysis that could be attempted is the exclusion of studies with a small number (eg. less than 100) of patients with a definitive outcome. This may lead to a result with lower heterogeinty.

Changes 4: 2 new analysis have been added as required

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: RRR Plos One.docx
Decision Letter - Chiara Lazzeri, Editor

Variation in outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation between different countries for patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-20-28716R1

Dear Dr. Elsayed,

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,

Chiara Lazzeri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Chiara Lazzeri, Editor

PONE-D-20-28716R1

Variation in outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation between different countries for patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Elsayed:

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. Chiara Lazzeri

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 .