Prevalence of infantile wheezing and eczema in a metropolitan city in Japan: A complete census survey

Masaki Futamura; Yoshimichi Hiramitsu; Naomi Kamioka; Chikae Yamaguchi; Harue Umemura; Rieko Nakanishi; Shiro Sugiura; Yasuto Kondo; Komei Ito

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268092

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 13, 2022
24 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor PONE-D-22-01155Prevalence of infantile wheezing and eczema in a metropolitan city in Japan: a complete census surveyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Futamura, 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 04/10/22. 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, Linglin Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. 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. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: Short Title: Infantile wheezing and eczema in Japan In this manuscript, Futamura et al. presented a good study based on large-scale survey data that could serve as a basis for generalization. The results are large population-based, therefore providing enough confidence level for predicting the infantile allergic symptoms (wheeze and eczema) in Nagoya, Japan. The statistical methods are proper, and the results are pretty solid. There are some parts that still need to be clarified, listed in the comment section point-by-point. Major --The prevalence of both eczema and wheeze is well put in Table 1. It might be interesting to analyze the group with both eczema and wheeze symptoms (if the data are available from the questionnaire). Infants with both symptoms would have a higher probability of developing asthma than those groups that show eczema alone or wheeze alone. Would this combined prevalence be associated with age, sex/gender, birth order, birth season, and parental allergy history? --In addition to my first comment, I would like to see the prevalence of the combined group since Figure 2 shows some interesting results and differences between the two symptoms, depending on the birth season as well as among the three age groups. --On Page 14, “Each correlation with parental allergy history was larger in the older group of infants than in the younger groups.” While a monotonically increasing trend is generally observed in Table 2 (Wheeze, 1.45-1.75-2.40, 1.75-2.16-2.79, 1.36-1.50-1.83), Table 3 does not necessarily show this trend across all age groups (1.83-2.33-2.31, 1.70-2.10-2.34, 1.70-2.00-1.83). For instance, comparing 18-month group and 36-month group, it shows a slight decrease in the correlation between eczema and parental allergic disease. Please justify this. Also note that this does not affect the general conclusion of “a strong association with parental allergic diseases in children in the older age group”. --If the ISAAC survey data is only validated for age 6-7 and 13-14 years, how did the authors scale or normalize the age for younger children? In the last section, the explanation is vague and seems unclear to me. --In your conclusion, gender seems to be missing. But Tables 2-5 showed significant differences between male and female participants. Minor --et al should be “et al.” This should be corrected throughout the manuscript (e.g., Pages 18-20). ****** 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 [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.0268092.r001
Revision 1
16 Mar 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: Major comments: The prevalence of both eczema and wheeze is well put in Table 1. It might be interesting to analyze the group with both eczema and wheeze symptoms (if the data are available from the questionnaire). Infants with both symptoms would have a higher probability of developing asthma than those groups that show eczema alone or wheeze alone. Would this combined prevalence be associated with age, sex/gender, birth order, birth season, and parental allergy history? RESPONSE: We appreciate your suggestion. We have analyzed the data and added and amended the sentences as follows: (Line 152) “In infants, the prevalence rates of wheezing were 8%, 17%, and 13%, and those of eczema were 24%, 30%, and 31%, and those of both symptoms were 2%, 7%, and 6% at 3, 18, and 36 months, respectively.” (Line 166) “The tendency in eczema was also observed in both symptoms.” (Line 184) “The significant difference in the first-born children disappeared for both symptoms (Table 4).” (Line 195) “Parental allergic disease was a general risk factor for both wheezing, and eczema, and both in all age groups.” However, we cannot predict the future asthma prevalence in infants with wheezing and eczema because this is a cross-sectional population survey. According to the analysis, we have shown the prevalence of both wheezing and eczema in revised Table 1 and added two tables – new Tables 4 and 7. --In addition to my first comment, I would like to see the prevalence of the combined group since Figure 2 shows some interesting results and differences between the two symptoms, depending on the birth season as well as among the three age groups. RESPONSE: We have shown the difference in the prevalence of birth seasons in Figure 2. --On Page 14, “Each correlation with parental allergy history was larger in the older group of infants than in the younger groups.” While a monotonically increasing trend is generally observed in Table 2 (Wheeze, 1.45-1.75-2.40, 1.75-2.16-2.79, 1.36-1.50-1.83), Table 3 does not necessarily show this trend across all age groups (1.83-2.33-2.31, 1.70-2.10-2.34, 1.70-2.00-1.83). For instance, comparing 18-month group and 36-month group, it shows a slight decrease in the correlation between eczema and parental allergic disease. Please justify this. Also note that this does not affect the general conclusion of “a strong association with parental allergic diseases in children in the older age group”. RESPONSE: We agree that odds ratios of eczema in the 36-month group were not higher than those in the 18-month group. We have amended the sentences as follows: (Line 200) “Each correlation on wheezing with a parental allergy history was larger in the older group of infants than in the younger group of infants. In terms of eczema, the correlation only with maternal atopic dermatitis was larger in the older group.” (Line 280) “and the correlation on wheezing was stronger in older children.” (Line 325) “The data also showed a strong association of wheezing with parental allergic diseases in children in the older age group.” --If the ISAAC survey data is only validated for age 6-7 and 13-14 years, how did the authors scale or normalize the age for younger children? In the last section, the explanation is vague and seems unclear to me. RESPONSE: We did not validate the modified questionnaire for infants. However, it was already used in other surveys. We have amended the sentences in the Discussion as follows: (Line 233) “The original ISAAC survey revealed that asthma and atopic dermatitis are more common diseases in the younger age group of schoolchildren” (Line 241) “respectively, using modified ISAAC questionnaire data” (Line 313) “We did not have access to any validation study of validated questionnaires for infants. Therefore However, we used the same modified the ISAAC scale for younger children that was also used in as other studies conducted in Japan have also done.” --In your conclusion, gender seems to be missing. But Tables 2-5 showed significant differences between male and female participants. RESPONSE: We appreciate you for pointing out the gender difference. We have changed the sentence in the conclusion as follows: (Line 323) “The prevalence of both symptoms in males was significantly higher than that in females.” Minor --et al should be “et al.” This should be corrected throughout the manuscript (e.g., Pages 18-20). RESPONSE: Thank you for notifying this issue. We have corrected the grammatical expression in the text. In addition, we found the word was used incorrectly. Therefore, we have now revised it – from “multivariate” to “multivariable.” Ref. Hidalgo B, Goodman M. Multivariate or multivariable regression? Am J Public Health. 2013 Jan;103(1):39-40. PMID: 23153131 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268092.r002
22 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Linglin Xie, Editor Prevalence of infantile wheezing and eczema in a metropolitan city in Japan: a complete census survey PONE-D-22-01155R1 Dear Dr. Futamura, 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, Linglin Xie 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: All my comments are properly addressed. The manuscript is technically sound, and analyses are well-put. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268092.r003

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 .