Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 7, 2022
Decision Letter - Muhammad Abdel-Gawad, Editor

PONE-D-22-00603Diseases detected with sonography in patients with abdominal symptoms or trauma presenting to an emergency room in rural TanzaniaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rohacek,

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 28 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,

Muhammad Abdel-Gawad, MD

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

3. 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:

Title

The word disease is not suitable as it excludes individuals with normal findings. Also, some findings are not unique diseases but a reflection for an existing disease.

Abstract

Please write the aim of the study included in background subsection

Introduction (not mentioned)

Please change the subtitle Background (that is next to abstract) to introduction.

Ethics consideration

All studies conducted on human have to be conducted in accordance with Helsinki standards (please state this in ethics statement)

Table 1

The definition of adults to be less than 14 years is not correct (less than 18 years), please correct

Table 3

How did you diagnose pneumothorax by ultrasound

The footnotes mentioned below table 3 are not related to it, they are belonging to table 2, so please put them below table 2.

Table 4

You mentioned footnotes below it, however, no such notes in the table itself, correct.

In references

For websites, please write the links and accessed date.

Also revise other references to add page range and complete details of cited books, if any.

[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.

Revision 1

Point by Point Reply

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

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The manuscript was changed to meet the stated style requirements as shown in the links above.

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

- We thank the reviewer for this comment. The ethics statement at the end of the manuscript was deleted.

3. 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.

- The references were revised. We added Ref 29 on page 7 in the methods section.

Additional Editor Comments:

Title

The word disease is not suitable as it excludes individuals with normal findings. Also, some findings are not unique diseases but a reflection for an existing disease.

-We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. “Diseases detected with sonography in patients with abdominal symptoms or trauma presenting to an emergency room in rural Tanzania”

was changed to “Ultrasonographic findings in patients with abdominal symptoms or trauma presenting to an emergency room in rural Tanzania”

Abstract

Please write the aim of the study included in background subsection Introduction (not mentioned)

- We thank the reviewer for this comment. The aim of the study was included in the Background section of the abstract: “Frequencies of ultrasonographic findings and diagnoses in emergency departments in sub-Saharan Africa are unknown. This study aimed to describe the frequencies of different sonographic findings and diagnosis found in patients with abdominal symptoms or trauma presenting to a rural referral hospital in Tanzania.”

- The sentence “All ultrasound examinations were done by board-certified clinicians in emergency point of care ultrasound.” Was deleted to reduce the wordcount below 300 words.

Please change the subtitle Background (that is next to abstract) to introduction.

- Background was changed to introduction in the text.

Ethics consideration

All studies conducted on human have to be conducted in accordance with Helsinki standards (please state this in ethics statement)

- “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki” was included in the ethic statement.

Table 1

The definition of adults to be less than 14 years is not correct (less than 18 years), please correct

- We thank the reviewer for this comment. Since <14 years is the cut off at St. Francis Referral Hospital for being a child, we devided the patients into ≥14 years (adolescents and adults) and <14 years.

Table 3

How did you diagnose pneumothorax by ultrasound

- We thank the reviewer for this comment. A description and reference defining the diagnosis of pneumothorax was added to the study procedures within the methods section: “Diagnostic criteria for pneumothorax was absence of lung sliding, comet tail artefacts, and sea-shore sign in M-mode, or demonstration of lung point.” On page 7. We added also Ref 29.

- A description of the diagnosis of pneumothorax was also added to the footnotes of Table 3.

The footnotes mentioned below table 3 are not related to it, they are belonging to table 2, so please put them below table 2.

- -We checked and revised the footnotes of all tables, which are correct now.

Table 4

You mentioned footnotes below it, however, no such notes in the table itself, correct.

- We apologize for this mistake. We removed tzhe old footnotes, but added new footnotes a and b to define pneumonia and lung edema

In references

For websites, please write the links and accessed date.

Also revise other references to add page range and complete details of cited books, if any.

- The reference 2 “WHO. Injuries and violence: the facts 2014. World Health Organization Geneva; 2014.»

was replaced by «World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2009: time for action. Geneva:World Health Organization; 2009. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/78256. »

- The reference 3 “Clark M, Spry E, Daoh K, Baion D, Skordis-Worrall J. Reductions in inpatient mortality following interventions to improve emergency hospital care in Freetown, Sierra Leone. 2012.»

was corrected with the journal and page numbers: «Clark M, Spry E, Daoh K, Baion D, Skordis-Worrall J. Reductions in inpatient mortality following interventions to improve emergency hospital care in Freetown, Sierra Leone. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e41458.»

- Page numbers were added to the reference 25 «Ngome O, Rohacek M. Point-of-Care Ultrasound: A Useful Diagnostic Tool in Africa. Praxis. 2020;109(8):608-14»

- Page numbers wree added to the reference 27 «Rohacek M, Hatz C, Weisser M. Emergency Department in the St. Francis Referral Hospital, Ifakara, Tanzania. Praxis. 2017;106(12):651-5.»

- Reference 32 was corrected to «WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group, UN Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2015. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/194254/1/9789241565141_eng.pdf?ua=1.»

Reference 48 was changed to the book: «American College of Surgeons. 10th Edition of the Advanced Trauma Life Support® (ATLS®) Student Course Manual. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2018.»

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Muhammad Abdel-Gawad, Editor

Ultrasonographic findings in patients with abdominal symptoms or trauma presenting to an emergency room in rural Tanzania

PONE-D-22-00603R1

Dear Authors,

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,

Muhammad Abdel-Gawad, MD

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: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: Yes

**********

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: The manuscript was good and interesting

Introduction was good and included the aim of the study

Materials and methods were good described

Results were good described

Discussion was good written

Reviewer #2: (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: Dr. Sunil Adhikari

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Abdel-Gawad, Editor

PONE-D-22-00603R1

Ultrasonographic findings in patients with abdominal symptoms or trauma presenting to an emergency room in rural Tanzania

Dear Dr. Rohacek:

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

Prof. Muhammad Abdel-Gawad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .