Chronic kidney disease and associated factors among adult population in Southwest Ethiopia

Kindie Mitiku Kebede; Dejene Derseh Abateneh; Melkamu Beyene Teferi; Abyot Asres

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264611

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 13, 2020
22 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Domingo Gonzalez-Lamuño, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-20-08526 Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated factors among adult population in Southwest Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abateneh, 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. We recommend to include the potential impact of the kebeles in the results of the survey. We requiere to supress these first lines and start the paper directly with the CKD. Authors are required to re-define what advanced age means or modify the age ranges. > 40 years cannot be considered advanced age The increased prevalence of CKD in the current study remains unexplained and scarcely discussed. Authors are requiered to recommend the use of CKD-EPI, MDRD or CG to estimate CKD prevalence in order to make recommendations. The paper is suitable for publication but needs to focus in the novelty and originality of the studied population. We do not identify any conflicts of interest. Please submit your revised manuscript by July 10th. 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, Domingo Gonzalez-Lamuño, Ph.D:, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: There are similar papers as Sumaili et al in 2009 about prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Although there is no significant new clinical data, the study is based in a survey and there are some socio demographic data that are of interest. The survey is based in an administrative Ethiopian distribution of kebeles, making it original. However these points are not discussed along the paper. It would be of interest to compare the urban and rural areas. Moreover, the introduction is initially focused in the global burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCD) but this not the main point along the paper. Hypertension and advanced age were significantly associated with the excess risk of CKD, however the advanced age criteria is > 40 years. Authors must re-define what advanced age means or modify the age ranges. The increased prevalence of CKD in the current study remains unexplained and scarcely discussed. Authors must recommend the use of CKD-EPI, MDRD or CG to estimate CKD prevalence in order to make recommendations. The paper is suitable for publication but needs to focus in the novelty and originality of the studied population. There are no conflicts of interest. I consider that after this corrections in the introduction (eliminate the initial lines related to NCD, and start with CKD prevalence and the collected data related with general and CKD populations 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. If you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.0264611.r001
Revision 1
27 Jul 2020 Author Response Ref No: PONE-D-20-08526 Title: Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Factors among Adult Population in Southwest Ethiopia Response to reviewers 1. We recommend to include the potential impact of the kebeles in the results of the survey. Response: Dear reviewer, all the kebeles included in this study were urban kebeles and assumed to be homogenous. Therefore, the prevalence of CKD is not expected to vary among the included kebeles. 2. We require to suppress these first lines and start the paper directly with the CKD. Response: We have deleted the first paragraph and started the paper directly with the CKD (Introduction section, page 2, line 38-44). 3. Authors are required to re-define what advanced age means or modify the age ranges. > 40 years cannot be considered advanced age Response: Dear reviewer thank you very much for this comment. We couldn’t find a standard definition for advanced age for sub-Saharan countries. For this reason, we have removed the term “advanced age” and simply we categorized age as ≥40 years old and <40 years old. The age category was decided for comparison (Compare with other studies) (Abstract section, page 2, line 30; Discussion section, page 25, line 316; Conclusions section, page 26, line 337and 341). 4. The increased prevalence of CKD in the current study remains unexplained and scarcely discussed. Authors are required to recommend the use of CKD-EPI, MDRD or CG to estimate CKD prevalence in order to make recommendations. Response: Even though the aim of this study is not to recommend the use of CKD-EPI, MDRD or CG, we have incorporated recommendations on the use of CKD-EPI, MDRD, or CG to estimate CKD prevalence in this study area (Abstract section, page 2, line 27-28). 5. The paper is suitable for publication but needs to focus in the novelty and originality of the studied population. Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for this comment. At this stage, we can’t change the study population. It is difficult to say that the study population is unique. This study was conducted among the urban population in the Sheka zone. Therefore, the population may share similar characteristics with other urban populations in Ethiopia. However, this study is the first community-based study in the study area and in Ethiopia at large. In fact, this study has certain limitations. We have included those limitations in the manuscript. Response to Editor 1. There are similar papers as Sumaili et al in 2009 about prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Although there is no significant new clinical data, the study is based in a survey and there are some socio-demographic data that are of interest. The survey is based in an administrative Ethiopian distribution of kebeles, making it original. However, these points are not discussed along the paper. Response: Dear editor, all the kebeles included in this study were urban kebeles and assumed to be homogenous. Therefore, the prevalence of CKD is not expected to vary among the included kebeles. 2. It would be of interest to compare the urban and rural areas. Response: Dear editor, this study was exclusively studied in urban areas. Therefore, it is difficult to compare urban and rural areas. 3. Moreover, the introduction is initially focused in the global burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCD) but this not the main point along the paper. Response: We have deleted the first paragraph and started the paper directly with the CKD (page 2, line 38-44). 4. Hypertension and advanced age were significantly associated with the excess risk of CKD, however the advanced age criteria is > 40 years. Authors must re-define what advanced age means or modify the age ranges. Response: Dear editor, thank you very much for this comment. We couldn’t find a standard definition for advanced age for sub-Saharan countries. For this reason, we removed the term “advanced age” and simply we categorized age as ≥ 40 years old and <40 years old. The age category was decided for comparison (Compare with other studies) (Abstract section, page 2, line 30; Discussion section, page 25, line 316; Conclusions section, page 26, line 337 and 341). 5. The increased prevalence of CKD in the current study remains unexplained and scarcely discussed. Authors must recommend the use of CKD-EPI, MDRD or CG to estimate CKD prevalence in order to make recommendations. Response: Even though the aim of this study is not to recommend the use of CKD-EPI, MDRD, or CG, we have incorporated recommendation on use of CKD-EPI, MDRD or CG to estimate CKD prevalence in this study area (page 2, line 27-28) 6. The paper is suitable for publication but needs to focus in the novelty and originality of the studied population. Response: Dear editor, thank you for this comment. At this stage, we can’t change the study population. It is difficult to say that the study population is unique. This study was conducted among the urban population in the Sheka zone. Therefore, the population may share similar characteristics with other urban populations in Ethiopia. However, this study is the first community-based study in the study area and in Ethiopia at large. In fact, this study has certain limitations. We have included those limitations in the manuscript. 7. I consider that after this correction in the introduction (eliminate the initial lines related to NCD, and start with CKD prevalence and the collected data related with general and CKD populations Response: Corrected based on your comment. 8. If you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Response: We have uploaded a questionnaire both in English and local language (Amharic) as supporting information. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264611.r002
30 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Jamie Males, Editor PONE-D-20-08526R1 Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Factors among Adult Population in Southwest Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Derseh, 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 have identified several aspects of your study design that require further clarification. Please ensure that you attend carefully to each of their queries when preparing a revised version of your manuscript. 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, Jamie Males Staff Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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): Authors respond to all the comments of both reviewers and editor. All significant points are corrected in the final version and the paper is suitable for being puiblished. Although the novelty of the resultas are scarce, the study is well designed and the methodology have some interest for the region. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: 1. The work is original and will contribute to body of knowledge 2. The author should pay attention and correction the minor edits in the manuscript 3. Figures should carry units 4. Presentation of tables should not be merged together like tables 6-8. Each should be presented separately, highlighting what is significant and relevant to the study. 5. Discussions should focus more on the findings based on the objectives of the study 6. The conclusion should be derived from the outcomes or findings of the study and should not be inferred or extrapolated. Reviewer #2: 1. On page 13, row 229, please clarify the sentence “As the outcome variable is dictums, we applied logistic regression model”. 2. Please indicate in the methods how was central obesity defined. The methods seem to define obesity only and waist circumference, which is not the same as central obesity. The latter is habitually defined as waist to height ratio. 3. There are a couple places in the results where the statement “developed chronic renal failure” is being used. Since this is a cross-sectional study, time-dependent terminology should be avoided. The authors may wish to use something on the line of “had chronic renal failure” instead. 4. The lack of associations with other risk factors than HT might be due to the low prevalence of these other factors, i.e. CVD, diabetes, in the studied population. The authors may wish to comment on this aspect. ****** 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: Yes:** Timothy Olusegun Olanrewaju 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: PONE-D-20-08526_R1_reviewer (1).pdf Attachment Submitted filename: The Editor PlosOne.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264611.r003
Revision 2
17 Aug 2021 Author Response Ref No: PONE-D-20-08526R1 Title: Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Factors among Adult Population in Southwest Ethiopia Response to reviewers Reviewer #1: 1. The work is original and will contribute to body of knowledge Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your remark. 2. The author should pay attention and correction the minor edits in the manuscript Response: Dear Reviewer, thanks for your comment and we have corrected the minor edits within the manuscript accordingly. 3. Figures should carry units Response: We have added the units with figures accordingly (Abstract section, page 2, line 26-27, Result section, page 13, line 217, 229 ). 4. Presentation of tables should not be merged together like tables 6-8. Each should be presented separately, highlighting what is significant and relevant to the study. Response: We have cited the tables separately (Result section, page 14, line 251). 5. Discussions should focus more on the findings based on the objectives of the study Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your comment. In the discussion section, we tried to be focused based on the two specific objectives of the study. i. the prevalence of CKD based on the GFR estimators and ii. associated factors of CKD. The discussion is based on the finding of the two objectives. 6. The conclusion should be derived from the outcomes or findings of the study and should not be inferred or extrapolated. Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your comment and we have corrected the conclusion section mainly on the conclusion on the prevalence of CKD and avoid extrapolation during the conclusion (Conclusions, page 26, line 339). Reviewer #2: 1. On page 13, row 229, please clarify the sentence “As the outcome variable is dictums, we applied logistic regression model”. Response: Thanks for your comment. The sentence “As the outcome variable is dictums, we applied logistic regression model” is to means “As the outcome variable is dichotomous, we applied logistic regression model.” We re-wrote the sentence. It’s to indicate the outcome variable CKD has one of two possible values and fulfills one of the logistic regression assumptions (Result section, page 14, line 232). 2. Please indicate in the methods how was central obesity defined. The methods seem to define obesity only and waist circumference, which is not the same as central obesity. The latter is habitually defined as waist to height ratio. Response: Thanks for your comment and keen observation. The waist circumference is used to assess central obesity and it’s indicated in previous studies [1, 2]. The waist circumference in the current study is used to define central obesity with the cut-point for male ≥102 cm and female ≥88cm. We have corrected the statement accordingly in the definition of variables section of the manuscript (Methods section, Variables’ definition, page 6, line 132-133). 1. Ahmad N, Adam SI, Nawi AM, Hassan MR, Ghazi HF. Abdominal Obesity Indicators: Waist Circumference or Waist-to-hip Ratio in Malaysian Adults Population. Int J Prev Med. 2016 Jun 8;7:82. doi: 10.4103/2008-7802.183654. PMID: 27330688; PMCID: PMC4910307. 2. Lean MEJ, Han TS & Morrison CE (1995): Waist circumference as a measure for indicating the need for weight management. Br. Med. J. 311, 158–161. 3. There are a couple of places in the results where the statement “developed chronic renal failure” is being used. Since this is a cross-sectional study, time-dependent terminology should be avoided. The authors may wish to use something on the line of “had chronic renal failure” instead. Response: We appreciate your comment and have used “had chronic renal failure” rather than “developed chronic renal failure” accordingly (Result section, page 12, 13, line 18,222, 225). 4. The lack of associations with other risk factors than HT might be due to the low prevalence of these other factors, i.e. CVD, diabetes, in the studied population. The authors may wish to comment on this aspect. Response: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your comment. We strongly believe that the lack of association between CKD and factors such as Diabetes and CVD in the current study might be the low prevalence or the low number of study participants with diabetes and CVD that result from no association during logistic regression analysis. Chronic diseases such as diabetes and CVD are known risk factors indicated in different studies. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264611.r004
9 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Amjad Khan, Editor PONE-D-20-08526R2Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Factors among Adult Population in Southwest EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Derseh, 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 article is much improved after addressing the reviewers comments. However, I think that it needs further improvement and incorporation of relevant literature. In this connection, I suggest to cite the following very relevant articles either in Introduction or Discussion section of the manuscript: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-018-1813-2 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-6796-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11255-018-1834-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40545-019-0169-y https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/9710965/ Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 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, Amjad Khan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #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 #2: Kindie Mitiku Kebede et al. studied the burden of CKD and associated risk factors among adults in Southwest Ethiopia for 2018. They found a prevalence of CKD that was comparable with other sub-Saharan African countries, with hypertension and age ≥40 years old being significant risk factors for CKD. The authors have responded satisfactorily to this reviewer's concerns. I have no further comments. ****** 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264611.r005
Revision 3
14 Feb 2022 Author Response RESPONSE TO EDITOR AND REVIEWER COMMENTS Dear Editor and Reviewers, The authors sincerely appreciate the time and resources invested in giving such a thorough review. Thank you for the previous comments, suggestions and corrections on the manuscript. We have made efforts to address them and revise the manuscript in line with the comments. The changes have been highlighted in red and tracked in the manuscript. We look forward to a favorable and kind re-consideration. Editor comment The article is much improved after addressing the reviewers comments. However, I think that it needs further improvement and incorporation of relevant literature. In this connection, I suggest to cite the following very relevant articles either in Introduction or Discussion section of the manuscript: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-018-1813-2 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-6796-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11255-018-1834-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40545-019-0169-y https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/9710965/ Response: Dear Editor, thank you for your insights and the suggested articles to be incorporated within the manuscript. The articles are very interesting. We have added a reference that supports a statement in the discussion section (Ref#30, Page 25, Line 29). However, the other articles are studies on hemodialysis patients (focuses on depression among hemodialysis patients, hypertension control among hemodialysis patients, management of patient care in hemodialysis, and on factors affecting to achieve dry weight in post-dialysis) and we couldn’t cite as our study mainly focuses on the prevalence of CKD through a community-based cross-sectional study. But we will use it for other studies in the future. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264611.r006
15 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Amjad Khan, Editor Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Factors among Adult Population in Southwest Ethiopia PONE-D-20-08526R3 Dear Dr. Derseh, 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, Amjad Khan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for considering and addressing my comments. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264611.r007
Formally Accepted
24 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Amjad Khan, Editor PONE-D-20-08526R3 Chronic Kidney Disease and Associated Factors among Adult Population in Southwest Ethiopia Dear Dr. Abateneh: 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. Amjad Khan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264611.r008

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 .