PONE-D-21-39116Interventions to improve linkage along the HIV-tuberculosis care cascades in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Daftary,

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.

==============================

Based on my own assessment and that of reviewers the manuscript have merit. However, it requires further revision before it can be considered for publication.Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 31 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,

Gabriel O Dida, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This study was funded by United States Agency for International Development through the World Health Organization. The funders had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and decision to publish the results. The corresponding author (AD) had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.”

Please note that funding information should not appear in other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study was funded by United States Agency for International Development through the World Health Organization. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The corresponding author (AD) had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was funded by United States Agency for International Development through the World Health Organization. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The corresponding author (AD) had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“This study was funded by United States Agency for International Development through the World Health Organization. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The corresponding author (AD) had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: Dear Authors,

Overall, the manuscript is interesting and have much contribution for educational and clinical field. However, I have some suggestions to consider by authors.

Abstract

- Line 2: as author mention on line 46. The study also performed meta-analysis. I suggest the title also mention “ A systematic review and metanalysis” .

- Line 40: Please add study aim.

- Line 43 to 45: move aiming …. Countries to introduction.

- In the methods, please add the keywords and or terms and Boolean operator used in the study.

- Line 44. Please add the databases used in the study.

- Line 59-60: “evidence….limited” please elaborate the sentence or give more explanation.

- Line 62: please provide the implication of the study.

- Please provide keywords after abstract.

Introduction

- The introduction is quietly concise. However, by adding some information related the prevalence of HIV-TB would be explaining to the readers about how important HIV-TB linkage is.

- AS you present the information in the paragraph 2, you stated the gaps. Please using firm statements and also provide the novelty of the study by compared by previous study. It would be presenting more information for readers.

- Anyway, do you used theoretical frameworks in this study? if so, please state it.

Methods

- Line 97: PRISMA and SWiM are stands from? Why do you use both PRIMS and SWiM? Please provide explanation. You may also state the study design properly.

- Line 114: Please add the information about Boolean operator used in the study. Besides, I have seen the supp file 2. Please make a separate information about searching strategy each database.

- Line 115: what do you mean “/” is it stands for “OR”? please clarify.

- On the PRISMA figure, please refer to PRISMA 2020 templates.

- For the quality assessment, how many authors contributed for it?

Results & Discussion

- Overall, the result & discussion are well explained.

Reviewer #2: 1- Do the authors have any particular reasons to use only Medline (OVID), Embase, Embase Classic? It is well known that PubMed is also a resourceful database including all the citations from MEDLINE plus NIH projects and PMC which also could be a good choice if one intends to search for literature related to TB and HIV.

2- An important keyword could be AIDS, which is missing. However, I believe the authors have covered that in their search strategy.

3- The objective is the linkage between TB and HIV care in LMICs countries; however, it seems that it has not been considered in search strategies and the authors search for all the available records. Moreover, how did the authors define the LMICs? Based which definition?

4- Line 134: The authors mentioned that the “discrepancies were resolved with a third reviewer (AD, VS)”. However, there are two names in the parenthesis. Please correct.

5- Why did the authors choose to use fixed-effect meta-analysis and not a random-effect model?

Reviewer #3: This systematic review is the first to assess the full spectrum of interventions to improve identification of HIV or TB disease among people with one known infection, and initiation of co-treatment in people with both. Based on the enormous individual and social burden of HIV, TB and HIV-TB co-infection, information of this nature is critically important.

The problem/ research question is well motivated and the argument for the study has been developed in a clear manner. The introduction highlights why the study is important and defines the purpose of the work and its significance. The methodology that has been applied, provides an evidence base for the themes that have been identified. Themes are discussed with insight into possible reasons for findings - in this regard, the paper makes a meaningful contribution to evaluating interventions that can address identification and initiation of co-treatment for HIV, TB and HIV-TB co-infection. Based on statistical heterogeneity (I squared), the finding that joint services at the same facility are likely to result in the best HIV and TB outcomes provide direction for future interventions. The narrative synthesis of facilitators and barriers adds additional value

The paper is well-written and comprehensive, but the abstract does not do justice to the full paper (e.g. indicate how homogeneity was defined; and refer to findings of meta-analysis). The abstract could benefit from language editing.

Reviewer #4: This is a well written manuscript. There are a few issues to revise if possible. Please justify why LMICs were reviewed and whether there were gold standards to compare with for each grouping (PICO1 and PICO2) eg from higher income countries etc. For Table 1, can the authors be described fully or indicate in the key below that you are only listing the first author. Additionally, please link the papers in Table 1 to the reference list to make it easier to read.

Reviewer #5: The authors have aggregated studies looking at HIV and TB co-morbidities and interventions to treat both diseases, and the nuances that come along with it, with the ultimate goal of improving patient care and treatment.

They approach the literature analysis very thoroughly, and clearly held their analyses of articles to a high standard for inclusion. Their workflow was very clear, and the supplemental data was very helpful for anyone wishing to replicate their workflow.

I detected essentially no grammatical errors, and the text was well organized and easy to read.

Honestly, a great paper, and a breath of fresh air after slogging through a bunch of terrible article reviews.

*My only issue is that your figure legends are missing. They just need a little extra info/description, especially Figure 2, which will set the precedence for each other figure's stats.

**********

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: Omid Dadras

Reviewer #3: Yes: Corinna May Walsh

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Jonathan LeCureux

[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.

Interventions to improve linkage along the HIV-tuberculosis care cascades in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-39116R1

Dear Dr. Daftary,

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,

Gabriel O Dida, PhD

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

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #5: (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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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: Dear Author,

Thank you for addressing my suggestion very well. However, I have very minor revision about "PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and SWiM (SynthesisWithout Meta-Analysis)" --> Should be Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and SynthesisWithout Meta-Analysis (SWiM). Please make sure all abbreviation is well spelled on galley proof.

Thank you

Reviewer #2: The authors fully addressed all the comments and I'd glad to recommend publication of this manuscript.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes: Omid Dadras

Reviewer #5: Yes: Jonathan LeCureux