Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review protocol

Larissa Karoline Dias da Silva Casemiro; Luís Carlos Lopes-Júnior; Fabrine Aguilar Jardim; Mariane Caetano Sulino; Regina Aparecida Garcia de Lima

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269821

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 9, 2021
15 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon, Editor PONE-D-21-25612Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocolPLOS ONE Dear Dr. REGINA APARECIDA GARCIA LIMA 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 Apr 29 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, Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon 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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 ******** 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The protocol titled Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol seems to be good study and authors will try to find out ways to follow up chronic cases through telehealth after searching published literatures . Hence in introduction I have come comments. Line 104: Spell check of highlighted word Line 110-112: Can be omitted ****** 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 [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-21-25612 Dated 25 Dec.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269821.r001
Revision 1
17 Mar 2022 Author Response Response letter to the Editor and reviewers Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, March 16th , 2022 Coments of Academic Editor, Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon PONE-D-21-25612 Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Regina Aparecida Garcia Lima 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. Response: Dear Dr. Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon, We would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript after the reviewers' suggestions and recommendations. All points were addressed and/or clarified in this new version. In addition, we responded item by item to the questions raised by the reviewers in this letter. -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. Response: It is not necessary. Thanks! 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. Response: We have carefully reviewed the reference list and we ensure that it is complete and correct. Also, we have no papers retracted cited in this manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Reviewer #1: Yes 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: The protocol titled Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditionsduring the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol seems to be good study and authors will try to find out ways to follow up chronic cases through telehealth after searching published literatures . Response: Thank you so much for you positive feedback. - Hence in introduction I have come comments. - Line 104: Spell check of highlighted word Response: Done! Thanks for your careful review. Line 110-112: Can be omitted Response: We have omitted the sentence as per suggested. Thanks. 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. Response: Not applicable The authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269821.r002
2 May 2022 Decision Letter - Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon, Editor PONE-D-21-25612R1Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocolPLOS ONE Dear Dr. REGINA APARECIDA GARCIA LIMA 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. There are some concern about methodological flaws in your study. Please make the revision based on reviewers suggestion and comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by 10 May 2022. 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, Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon 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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: 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 #2: Yes ******** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is certainly an interesting project and well targeted. The title is well aligned with the objectives. However, the methods need an extensive revision. A librarian support is needed in order to render the search strategy more robust. Introduction: P3 L110 What is clinical weaknesses? Details or more clarifications are needed. P3 L130 -P4 L131-133What this is an added value? Use in what context??? Methods P4, L151-155 The reference of Tricco et al 2018 suffices. P4 L163-4 what is the added value of this classification? In case it is worth, please elaborate. P5 L180-1 the definition of outpatient care is very simplistic and may limit the scope of your findings. P5 L194 certainly assumed. So, no need to mention this “using the Boolean terms AND/OR”. Table 1 based on the study title and the objectives; some essential key concepts are missing. They are outpatient care and chronic conditions. They are totally ignored. Table 1 Could authors explain why [All fields] is used. Because it is classical to capture references through titles and abstract. Otherwise, this will lead to incredible volume of « noise ». Please elaborate. Table 1 Do authors sought a support from librarians? This expertise is essential. #1 AND #2 AND #3 needs AND outpatient…..AND chronic…. The type of design to be included or excluded is not stated. P5 L222 is it a typo «2021». P5, L245-6 Please remove this as there is no added value. P8 L259 In what this is a limitation since you don’t what will be found. ****** 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.0269821.r003
Revision 2
7 May 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, May 5th, 2022 Minor revision PONE-D-21-25612R1 Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol Dear Dr. Regina Aparecida Garcia Lima 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. There are some concern about methodological flaws in your study. Please make the revision based on reviewers suggestion and comments. Response: Dear Dr. Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon, Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript after the reviewers' suggestions and recommendations. All points were addressed and/or clarified in this new version. In addition, we responded item by item to the questions raised by the reviewers in this letter. 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. Response: We have carefully reviewed the reference list and we ensure that it is complete and correct. Also, we have no papers retracted cited in this manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #2: Yes 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #2: Yes 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Reviewer #2: No 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: 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 #2: Yes 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #2: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is certainly an interesting project and well targeted. The title is well aligned with the objectives. Response: Thank you so much for your comments. However, the methods need an extensive revision. A librarian support is needed in order to render the search strategy more robust. Response: A librarian was consulted for checking the search strategy. We added in this version the complete strategy revised by the librarian of the Federal University of Espírito Santo, respecting the controlled descriptors (subject indexers in each database) and also combining with the synonyms and keywords in order to make the search strategy broad and robust. Introduction: P3 L110 What is clinical weaknesses? Details or more clarifications are needed. Response: We edited this sentence to make it clearer. “Children and adolescents with chronic conditions demand high hospital readmission rates,……” P3 L130 -P4 L131-133What this is an added value? Use in what context??? Response: We edited this sentence to make it clearer. “Telehealth is being used in several countries worldwide [15–21], especially in non-emergency/routine care and in cases where services do not require direct patient-provider interaction such as providing psychological services, mainly in the current scenario of COVID-19 pandemic in order to nullify the barriers imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, telehealth can become a basic need for the general population, health care providers, and patients with COVID-19, mainly when people are in quarantine, enabling patients in real time through contact with health care provider for advice on their health problems”. Methods P4, L151-155 The reference of Tricco et al 2018 suffices. Response: OK. Done. Thanks! P4 L163-4 what is the added value of this classification? In case it is worth, please elaborate. Response: OK. We removed the classification. P5 L180-1 the definition of outpatient care is very simplistic and may limit the scope of your findings. Response: OK. Rewriten. P5 L194 certainly assumed. So, no need to mention this “using the Boolean terms AND/OR”. Response: OK. Done. Table 1 based on the study title and the objectives; some essential key concepts are missing. They are outpatient care and chronic conditions. They are totally ignored. Response: OK. We have added to the search strategy. Many Thanks! Table 1 Could authors explain why [All fields] is used. Because it is classical to capture references through titles and abstract. Otherwise, this will lead to incredible volume of « noise ». Please elaborate. Response: OK. We reworded it with the help of the librarian. Table 1 Do authors sought a support from librarians? This expertise is essential. #1 AND #2 AND #3 needs AND outpatient…..AND chronic…. Response: OK. We reworded it with the help of the librarian. The type of design to be included or excluded is not stated. Response: We have added “study design”. Thanks. P5 L222 is it a typo «2021». Response: Sure. Thank you. Edited for “2022”. P5, L245-6 Please remove this as there is no added value. Response: Ok. Removed. P8 L259 In what this is a limitation since you don’t what will be found. Response: Ok. Removed. The authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269821.r004
31 May 2022 Decision Letter - Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon, Editor Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol PONE-D-21-25612R2 Dear Dr. Lima 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, Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269821.r005
Formally Accepted
2 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon, Editor PONE-D-21-25612R2 Telehealth in outpatient care for children and adolescents with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol Dear Dr. de Lima: 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. Rizaldy Taslim Pinzon Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269821.r006

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 .