PONE-D-21-23464Human drone interaction in delivery of medical supplies: a scoping review of experimental studiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stephan,

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 Feb 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,

Rafael Santos Santana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf”

2. Thank you for stating the following in the funding Section of your manuscript:

“FKZ03 funding code: 03COV25E” We would like to thank the ADApp-Team for exchange and discussion of human drone in-teraction. A special thank goes to Nicole Reinsperger (NR) for their help during systematic literature research. We also would like to thank Jamie Smith for editing the manuscript.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or 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 research was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research Germany through the “TDG - Translational region of Digital Health Care” project [03COV25E]. PJ receives this funding. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

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

3. 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.

4. "We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”."

Additional Editor Comments:

The work is consistent with the editorial proposal of the journal, however it needs some important methodological adjustments and information that helps readers to better understand some of the study's issues should be inserted. The reviewers brought notes necessary for the adequacy of the work

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: The theme is exciting and has an interesting and current approach. I believe that some adjustments are needed to bring more fluidity to the work and the reader's attention. The introduction is well written, but it is worth reviewing/restructuring considering a macroscopic perspective from the use of drones to the key idea of ​​the study ("medical delivery processes"). In the methodology, clarify what the asterisks in table 1 refer to. Clarify what "Source types included reviews" is (line 115) given that "This review aims to assess only experimental studies because they provide evidence to support the use, acceptance and effectiveness of drones in medical delivery processes" (129-131). I suggest better describing "search update" (166) (would it be: "references of identified publications were searched" in lines 28/29 of the abstract?). In the results, the section "Human drone interaction in AED Delivery" could be structured in a more fluid and interesting way for the reader. It is a fundamental (and very interesting) part of the work, but it can be presented in a more objective way and even with the use of comparative tables. In the discussion I believe that there can be a greater approach on: 1. the articles were only developed countries (although, as presented in the article, there is use of drones in several countries); 2. equipment only (all four studies addressed an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; 3. three studies used drones from DJI), little variation; 4. focus on rural areas. Add limitations that could potentially influence the results obtained.

Reviewer #2: Review comments on “Human drone interaction in delivery of medical supplies: a scoping review of experimental studies”

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to read your manuscript and provide feedback on your work. I respectfully submit the comments to help improve your article.

1. Summary of the research and overall impression

The work addresses the use of drones with application in public health. This is a relatively new topic and about which, in the coming years, growth in the literature should be observed. The methodological choice of a scoping review is pertinent and adequate, although there is a need to add more information to improve the clarity of the work and allow better compression. I have pointed out some critical issues that I would like the authors to elucidate. I hope the comments can be useful to improve the quality of the work. Thank you again for allowing me to review your work.

2. Major issues

Introduction

2.1. Line 78: in a non-exhaustive search in Pubmed, I found a scoping review that analyzed the use of drones in humanitarian contexts (DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00327-4). Authors should review the phrase that refers to the non-existence of scoping review on the subject and analyze the relevance of including the referred work in the review.

2.2. Lines 86-99: authors are requested to include more details about population and context, in line with the mnemonic PCC (population, concept, and context) found in the JBI 2020 manual (https://doi.org/ 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12).

Methods

2.3. Line 103: the authors cite PRISMA 2020 as a method for systematic search. The text should be reviewed since PRISMA is a guideline for reporting systematic reviews and not a guide for their preparation. Due to my language limitation in German, I was unable to evaluate the full text of citation #13 which references a guide for conducting scope reviews, based on the methodology returned by JBI. It should be noted that the official JBI 2020 guidelines for conducting scoping reviews can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 and should preferably be used in references to the method for preparing a scoping review.

2.4. Line 105: the authors cite the preprint of the manuscript containing the PRISMA update for systematic reviews (DOI: 10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2). However, the article has already been published in several journals (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/). Considering the existence of the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850), it is requested that this instrument be used instead of PRISMA for systematic reviews.

2.5. Line 146-147: the manuscript reports that the final data extraction was performed by one of the authors. There is no mention of whether a second author reviewed the extraction and whether there was an assessment of consensus among the authors. Please submit more information.

2.6. The authors do not mention whether a search for gray literature was performed. Please justify if it has not been performed.

2.7. The authors did not report if a one priori protocol for the scoping review was created. Scoping review protocols can be registered on platforms such as “Open Science Framework” or “Figshare”, or even published in journals. If it has been created, it is requested that the code and a source be included to access it.

Results

2.8. According to the JBI 2020 manual, authors are requested to present, as supplementary material, a table with excluded works and the reasons for exclusion.

Discussion

2.9. Authors are asked to present a topic/paragraph to address the strengths and limitations of this scoping review.

3. Minor issues

Introduction

3.1. Lines 71-77: citation #9 appears to be missing.

3.2. I suggested that the authors justify/specify details about the originality of the review compared to the reviews already published.

Methods

3.3. Lines 139-154: if the authors have used a template tool for data extraction, please include it in the additional information section.

Discussion

3.4. Lines 345-346: authors must insert reference(s) to support the statement presented in the discussion.

3.5. Lines 348-357: authors must insert reference(s) to support the statement presented in the discussion.

3.6. Line 370: please inform which are the three studies.

3.7. It is suggested that the authors discuss the results further in the context of the previous reviews identified.

References

3.8. Some references are incomplete (eg, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29) and in disagreement with the journal's 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: Yes: Evandro de Oliveira Lupatini

[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.

Human drone interaction in delivery of medical supplies: a scoping review of experimental studies

PONE-D-21-23464R1

Dear Dr. Stephan,

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,

Rafael Santos Santana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors made the requested changes properly. The work is relevant and will contribute to the scientific knowledge of the area