The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on waiting times for elective surgery patients: A multicenter study

Mikko Uimonen; Ilari Kuitunen; Juha Paloneva; Antti P. Launonen; Ville Ponkilainen; Ville M. Mattila

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253875

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 20, 2021
7 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Corstiaan den Uil, Editor PONE-D-21-12922 The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Waiting Times for Elective Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Uimonen, 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 Jul 22 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, Corstiaan den Uil 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 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. 3. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the data used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 4.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. [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: The findings reported in this extensive data base/registry analysis are logical and have in a similar way been presented elsewhere (and in other societies and health care systems); thus findings are not revolutionary or new, but still important to portrait the reaction of the system in Finland. The manuscript would certainly benefit from inclusion of cardiovascular or at least cardiac surgeries and interventions which may have had a bigger impact onto morbidity/mortality than operations to the gastrointestinal or urogenital system. Another peculiar observation is obviously a "summer brake phenomenon" clearly seen regardless of the pandemic in all the years analysed. This phenomenon should also be discussed as it deserves comments and could raise speculations. Finally, it is a pity that the observations of the impact of Covid-19 in Finland could not be compared directly with mortality figures (that should by now be available at the National Office of Statistics). Again, the information will probably not be really new but important for the country. In their conclusion the authors should be more daring and suggest how to better react to a lockdown in a future pandemic, and how resources and capacity in the health care system should be allocated better, ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Christoph A. Nienaber [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.0253875.r001
Revision 1
13 Jun 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: The findings reported in this extensive data base/registry analysis are logical and have in a similar way been presented elsewhere (and in other societies and health care systems); thus findings are not revolutionary or new, but still important to portrait the reaction of the system in Finland. The authors’ response: Thank you. The manuscript would certainly benefit from inclusion of cardiovascular or at least cardiac surgeries and interventions which may have had a bigger impact onto morbidity/mortality than operations to the gastrointestinal or urogenital system. The authors’ response: Thank you for this suggestion. We expanded the analysis to cover the surgeries performed due to cardiovascular diseases. Please see the corresponding revisions in Methods (line 70), Results (lines 92-96) and Discussion (lines 124-126) sections as well as in Figure 3. Another peculiar observation is obviously a "summer brake phenomenon" clearly seen regardless of the pandemic in all the years analysed. This phenomenon should also be discussed as it deserves comments and could raise speculations. The authors’ response: Thank you. Discussion on the summer brake phenomenon has been added (lines 114-122). Finally, it is a pity that the observations of the impact of Covid-19 in Finland could not be compared directly with mortality figures (that should by now be available at the National Office of Statistics). Again, the information will probably not be really new but important for the country. The authors’ response: Thank you for this suggestion. We added discussion on the mortality rates in Finland during the pandemic (lines 136-142) and Figure 4. However, since Statistics Finland database does not provide monthly mortality rates for the catchment areas of the study hospitals, we had to use monthly mortality data for the entire country. Nonetheless, we considered the data obtained from the study hospitals representative of the Finnish population. Therefore, the data of the study hospitals may be considered comparable to the national mortality rates. In their conclusion the authors should be more daring and suggest how to better react to a lockdown in a future pandemic, and how resources and capacity in the health care system should be allocated better. The authors’ response: Suggestions for preparation for future pandemics have been added to Discussion section (lines 132-152). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253875.r002
15 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Corstiaan den Uil, Editor The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Waiting Times for Elective Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Study PONE-D-21-12922R1 Dear Dr. Uimonen, 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, Corstiaan den Uil Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253875.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Jun 2021 Acceptance Letter - Corstiaan den Uil, Editor PONE-D-21-12922R1 The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Waiting Times for Elective Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Study Dear Dr. Uimonen: 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. Corstiaan den Uil Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253875.r004

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 .