Factors that mediate the relationships between household socio-economic status and childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Wolfgang A. Markham; Nicholas Spencer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262988

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 29, 2021
12 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-03193 Factors that mediate the relationships between household socio-economic status and childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents: A systematic review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Markham, 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 reviewers identified some major issues those need to be fixed before taking final decision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 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, Enamul Kabir 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 3. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/". [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: No ****** 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: Comments Overall 1. Follow PLOS author’s guideline strictly 2. Content wise, authors studied novel title and did synthesis as per available literatures Specific 1. Authors are advised to keep reference after full stop eg. Instead of “case ascertainment remains unclear [3] [4].” write like “case ascertainment remains unclear. [3][4]”. For authors ease, I suggest authors to use referencing with Mendeley plugin of PLOS One format, which cut down the referencing errors! Additionally, authors kept NLM abbreviations of some journals but not in all cases, so please check and keep them as per guideline or Plugin for uniformity! 2. Though common abbreviation are understandable to readers, but in writing it is advised to keep full form of any abbreviation in body of manuscript upon their first use. Eg. “ADHD”, “USA”, elaborate them upon first use in section Introduction! 3. In result and discussion, some write up came as redundant and repeated, so advised to proof read to avoid unnecessary repetition of same Reviewer #2: Comments: Minor issue is: 1. Introduction: starting from line 58, you have wrote about the prevalence of ADHD in USA since 2011, your study time is 2020, why not discus (look) after 2011. 2. Results: starting line 166, you have screened n = 626 titles and abstracts for eligibility and n = 82 are assessed and 72 are exclude, what about the rest or the remaining titles and abstracts. 3. Line 168, you have assessed n = 82 titles and abstracts, and line 180 you have categorized by study type: Five studies were cohort studies, two were cross-sectional studies and one was a case-control study. When we add the type it is 8, how you categorized? 4. The figures are not visible. 5. Your article is a very lengthy (51 pages). It should be revised and shortened substantially. 6. Check your manuscript carefully with PLOS One author guidelines. ****** 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: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262988.r001
Revision 1
21 Nov 2021 Author Response Response to reviewers Comment by Reviewer Reviewer 1 1. Follow PLOS author’s guideline strictly We have now checked the manuscript carefully with PLOS One author guidelines. Thank you for pointing this out. 2. Content wise, authors studied novel title and did synthesis as per available literatures Thank you for your positive comments. 1. Authors are advised to keep reference after full stop eg. Instead of “case ascertainment remains unclear [3] [4].” write like “case ascertainment remains unclear. [3][4]”. For authors ease, I suggest authors to use referencing with Mendeley plugin of PLOS One format, which cut down the referencing errors! We have changed this according to the PLOS One author guidelines. Thank you for pointing this out. Additionally, authors kept NLM abbreviations of some journals but not in all cases, so please check and keep them as per guideline or Plugin for uniformity! We have amended this. Thank you for pointing this out. 2. Though common abbreviation are understandable to readers, but in writing it is advised to keep full form of any abbreviation in body of manuscript upon their first use. Eg. “ADHD”, “USA”, elaborate them upon first use in section Introduction! We have made the changes and kept the full form of any abbreviation in the body of the manuscript upon its first use. Thank you for pointing this out. 3. In result and discussion, some write up came as redundant and repeated, so advised to proof read to avoid unnecessary repetition of same We have shortened the paper and reduced the repetition. The revised Results section covers the narrative synthesis according to the SWiM guidelines. We think following the SWiM guidelines is important but in order to do this requires additional text and is therefore relatively wordy. However, we have removed most of the reiteration of results that was in the Discussion section in our originally submitted paper. We have also shortened the section entitled “Direct effects of Household SES on child/adolescent ADHD or hyperactivity/inattention”. We have consequently shortened the paper and the resubmitted version has 769 fewer words. We hope that the shorter version is an improvement. Thank you for the suggestion. Reviewer 2 Minor issue is: 1. Introduction: starting from line 58, you have wrote about the prevalence of ADHD in USA since 2011, your study time is 2020, why not discus (look) after 2011. We have included the date of the meta-regression which is 2017 and is therefore much more recent than 2011 . This meta-regression included studies from a wide variety of countries. A meta-regression, conducted in 2017, of over 100 studies spanning the globe identified that prevalence rates hover around 5%. 2. Results: starting line 166, you have screened n = 626 titles and abstracts for eligibility and n = 82 are assessed and 72 are exclude, what about the rest or the remaining titles and abstracts. The reviewer is incorrect in that we stated that we excluded 74 articles rather than 72 as stated by the reviewer. We hope that this is clearer in the new Prisma flow chart that we have uploaded. We have also amended this section and hopefully made it clearer After removing duplicates we screened n=626 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Reasons for excluding articles at the titles and abstract stage included: not ADHD SES; non-general population/clinical sample; not ADHD; adult sample; review/opinion. We then assessed n=82 full text articles and excluded n=74 articles (Fig. 2). Reasons for excluding full text articles included: no mediation analysis; SES was a co-variate not an exposure; the outcome was not ADHD or hyperactivity/inattention using standard psychometric tests; outcome was externalising behaviour including conduct problems or conduct disorder alone; the investigation was based upon a non-general population based sample; review article; the investigated mediator was biochemical or physiological. 3. Line 168, you have assessed n = 82 titles and abstracts, and line 180 you have categorized by study type: Five studies were cohort studies, two were cross-sectional studies and one was a case-control study. When we add the type it is 8, how you categorized? We think that it is possible that as a consequence of reading that we excluded 72 full text articles rather than 74 full text articles the reviewer potentially makes the assumption that we included 10 articles rather than 8. We have made this sentence clearer by stating Of the eight articles we included, five studies were cohort studies, two were cross-sectional studies and one was a case-control study. 4. The figures are not visible. We are not sure why the Figures are not visible. However, as recommended we have uploaded a different Fig 2 which we hope is visible. 5. Your article is a very lengthy (51 pages). It should be revised and shortened substantially. The revised Results section covers the narrative synthesis according to the SWiM guidelines. We think following the SWiM guidelines is important but in order to do this requires additional text and is therefore relatively wordy. However, we have removed most of the reiteration of results that was in the Discussion section in our originally submitted paper. We have also shortened the section entitled “Direct effects of Household SES on child/adolescent ADHD or hyperactivity/inattention”. We have consequently shortened the paper and the resubmitted version has 769 fewer words. We hope that the shorter version is an improvement. Thank you for the suggestion. 6. Check your manuscript carefully with PLOS One author guidelines. We have now checked the manuscript carefully with PLOS One author guidelines. Thank you for pointing this out. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Plos One Response to reviewers November .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262988.r002
11 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor Factors that mediate the relationships between household socio-economic status and childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents: A systematic review PONE-D-21-03193R1 Dear Dr. Markham, 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, Enamul Kabir Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No ****** 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: Yes ****** 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: Authors have responded on the comments in appropriate ways. Based on the methods provided, research is conducted appropriately. Reviewer #2: I have checked your revised manuscript and your response to my comments. All of my comments are addressed by the author. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262988.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Enamul Kabir, Editor PONE-D-21-03193R1 Factors that mediate the relationships between household socio-economic status and childhood Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents: A systematic review Dear Dr. Markham: 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. Enamul Kabir Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262988.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 .