Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 25, 2021
Decision Letter - Chiara Lazzeri, Editor

PONE-D-21-09805

Trends in stroke admissions before, during and post-peak of the COVID-19 pandemic: A one-year experience from the Qatar stroke database.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shuaib,

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 Aug 13 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,

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. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

- https://neurologyopen.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000084

The text that needs to be addressed involves the Results Section.

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and/or provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough."

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "Hamad Medical Corporation IRB approved the study 16016/16, a quality improvement study . This article is based on the data from this study".   

Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, 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.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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: 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: Important and straightforward observation of decline and rise of stroke admissions during and after the pandemic.

Some minor points to consider:

-was there an influence of vaccinations on the rise of cases?

-it is stated that 98% of all cases are admitted. This seems to be the number for all hospitalized cases? Please clarify.

-the overall young age and male preponderance needs special mentioning although the relative rates did not change over time. Also, why so few females seek hospital admission.

-no mention of minorities or non-Qataris is a clear weakness of this study and should be addressed. Where more severe strokes as seen during the pandemic due to higher admission rates of non-Qataris?

-the low mortality of around 1% needs explanation.

-Table 1 should denote that p values are for group comparisons between before and after and not other groups in the table. Or was it p for trend?

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting article examining trends in stroke admission 6 months before, 4 months during and 6 months after the COVID -19 pandemic. One question - the authors state that the numbers of Afib patients was likely fewer due to fewer holter monitors being placed during the pandemic, however can you expand this thought? How many stroke patients are routinely diagnosed as having afib as an outpatient with a Holter Monitor? Presumably most patients with Afib would still be diagnosed from their telemetry monitoring.

**********

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: Michael Brainin MD

Reviewer #2: 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

Some minor points to consider:

1. was there an influence of vaccinations on the rise of cases?

This is a good question but unfortunately we were unable to evaluate the effect of vaccinations on the rates of stroke in our study.

2. it is stated that 98% of all cases are admitted. This seems to be the number for all hospitalized cases? Please clarify.

The Hamad General Hospital (HGH is a tertiary care facility in the State of Qatar. The Stroke Program with the thrombolysis and thrombectomy facilities for the Stroke of Qatar are located at the HGH. Almost all acute strokes (98%) in Qatar are transferred to the hospital for treatment. We have made changes in the manuscript to make it clear for the readers.

3. the overall young age and male preponderance needs special mentioning although the relative rates did not change over time. Also, why so few females seek hospital admission.

We have made changes in the manuscript to explain that more than 70% of the population in Qatar comprises of young age (less than 55 years), with 5:1 expatriate males/female ratio. The younger age and higher percentage of male patients reflects these demographics.

4. no mention of minorities or non-Qataris is a clear weakness of this study and should be addressed. Where more severe strokes as seen during the pandemic due to higher admission rates of non-Qataris?

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have added a supplemental table to explain the “minorities and non-Qatari” demographics

5. the low mortality of around 1% needs explanation.

The low mortality is secondary to predominantly mild sub-cortical stroke in younger population. We have explained this in the results section

6. Table 1 should denote that p values are for group comparisons between before and after and not other groups in the table. Or was it p for trend?

We have made the correction in the legend of the table.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting article examining trends in stroke admission 6 months before, 4 months during and 6 months after the COVID -19 pandemic.

One question - the authors state that the numbers of Afib patients was likely fewer due to fewer holter monitors being placed during the pandemic, however can you expand this thought? How many stroke patients are routinely diagnosed as having afib as an outpatient with a Holter Monitor? Presumably most patients with Afib would still be diagnosed from their telemetry monitoring.

We thank the reviewer for the question. We have made changes to the results section to explain that the lower atrial fibrillation rates are likely because of the younger age of the patients. We have previously reported this and have included the reference in the manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PLOS one 2021 Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Chiara Lazzeri, Editor

Trends in stroke admissions before, during and post-peak of the COVID-19 pandemic: A one-year experience from the Qatar stroke database.

PONE-D-21-09805R1

Dear Dr. Shuaib,

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-21-09805R1

Trends in stroke admissions before, during and post-peak of the COVID-19 pandemic: A one-year experience from the Qatar stroke database.

Dear Dr. Shuaib:

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 .