Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of PPV23 vaccination for the Malaysian Hajj pilgrims

Farhana Aminuddin; Nur Amalina Zaimi; Mohd Shaiful Jefri Mohd Nor Sham Kunusagaran; Mohd Shahri Bahari; Nor Zam Azihan Mohd Hassan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262949

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 26, 2021
8 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - M. Mahmud Khan, Editor PONE-D-21-27712Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of PPV23 vaccination for the Malaysian Hajj pilgrimsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aminuddin, 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 Jan 22 2022 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: https://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, M. Mahmud Khan 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 include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 3. 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. 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: 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 work results will be helpful not just to the Malaysian Hajj visitors , but to all Hajj visitors from other counties. The only thing that I need you to review please is the vaccination required by the Saudi government which change every year , and different from country to a country based on the public health status of the visitor country , Reviewer #2: he manuscript has been prepared in accordance with the results of the study and can be concluded well. For the writing of the words Hajj and Pilgrims should be consistent, some are written Hajj Pilgrims, some are written Hajj only or Pilgrims only. For the figure, the decision tree model doesn't appear, I don't know if there's a difference between the script I received and the original. In my opinion, the description on probabilistic sensitivity analysis is incomplete and unclear, so it needs to be described properly and can be added with reference materials related to this topic. ****** 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:** Setya Haksama [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-27712_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262949.r001
Revision 1
4 Jan 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear Professor Mahmud Khan, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of PPV23 vaccination for the Malaysian Hajj pilgrims”. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly (incorporate all suggestions) and provided specific answers below, written in red font. All changes made in the main document are marked using track changes. Academic editor: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including those for file naming. We have thoroughly checked the manuscript and prepared it following PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. We have added a full ethics statement in the Methods section line 251. In this statement, the ethics committee is mentioned together with informed consent which is not necessary for this study. 3. 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. All included references were checked for completeness and correctness. There are no retracted papers cited in this study. Reviewers: Reviewer#1 Comment: This work results will be helpful not just to the Malaysian Hajj Visitors, but to all Hajj visitors from other countries. The only thing that I need you to review please is the vaccination required by the Saudi government which change every year, and different from country to a country based on the public health status of the visitor country. Answer: We have reviewed and added several health requirements that must be met by Hajj pilgrims from different countries, where the health regulations are set by the Saudi Ministry of Health (Refer to introduction section, lines 108-117). This information can be obtained from the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Reviewer#2 Comment: The manuscript has been prepared in accordance with the results of the study and can be concluded well. For the writing of the words, Hajj and Pilgrims should be consistent, some are written Hajj Pilgrims, some are written Hajj only or Pilgrims only. Answer: We go through the manuscript and the word ‘pilgrims’ won’t appear alone instead, written as Hajj pilgrims. And wherever relevant, the word hajj could be appeared alone according to the context of the sentences. (Hajj pilgrims are referred to as the Muslim population while hajj is the rituals performed by these groups). Comment: For the figure, the decision tree model doesn’t appear, I don’t know if there’s a difference between the script I received and the original. Answer: We apologise for the inconvenience caused. However, I guarantee the decision tree figure that you received is similar to the original one. The tree model was created based on a prior study conducted by Aljunid et al., 2014. A slight modification of the model was made based on data availability which was confined to the Hajj pilgrims population. Comment: In my opinion, the description on probabilistic sensitivity analysis is incomplete and unclear, so it needs to be described properly and can be added with reference materials related to this topic. Answer: Changes were made to the description of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (refer lines 234-241) to make it clear and understandable. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262949.r002
10 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - M. Mahmud Khan, Editor Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis of PPV23 Vaccination for the Malaysian Hajj Pilgrims PONE-D-21-27712R1 Dear Dr. Aminuddin, 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, M. Mahmud Khan Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262949.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - M. Mahmud Khan, Editor PONE-D-21-27712R1 Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis of PPV23 Vaccination for the Malaysian Hajj Pilgrims Dear Dr. Aminuddin: 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. M. Mahmud Khan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262949.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 .