Effect of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yan Chen; Xiang Zhou; Jie Liu; Rui Li; Zihan Jiang; Lina Wang; Shuya Wang; Bo Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269882

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 28, 2021
3 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor PONE-D-21-40745Effect of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE 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 Mar 31 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Luigi Lavorgna Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. 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. 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”. 5. 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: Partly ******** 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? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. 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: No ****** 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 article by Chen et al. presented the study design of a metanalysis and systematic research to evaluate the effects of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in COVID-19 patients in convalescence. Methods are sounds, however there are some minor concerns: In the abstract section: 1) “In addition. I2 and Cochrane will be used for heterogeneity assessment.” I don’ understand the full stop just after “In addition”. AMEND In the introduction section: 2) “and despair [9, 10], Even” comma or full stop? AMEND 3) “Insomnia is defined as the subjective perception of difficulties in falling asleep, maintaining asleep, and early morning awakening at least three times per week for at least 3 months[13].” Imsonnia not is a subjective perception and the article that is cited does not define it as a subjective perception. Please correct 4) “Till now, Previous studie” comma or full stop? AMEND 5) “But a recent study found that Internet cognitive”. Use “However” instead of “But” 6) There are many examples of internet-delivered therapy for neurological diseases and a recent review of the literature thoroughly presented them. I suggest to briefly discuss it in the introduction section (PMID: 34018047). The article could improve with a revision by an english native speaker. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r001
Revision 1
24 Mar 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to resubmit the revised manuscript entitled “Effect of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis (PONE-D-21-40745)” for consideration by PLOS ONE. We would like to thank the reviewers for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and making many thoughtful comments. We were very pleased to see that reviewers recognized the novelty and potential significance of our work. We have added significant new contents, described in detail below, and revised the manuscript to address reviewers’ comments. In the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes, the contents we added are marked in green and the contents we deleted are marked in red. Here are our point-by-point responses: Yan Chen Institute of Chronic Disease Risks Assessment, School of nursing and health, Henan University Kaifeng, Henan, China E-mail address: chenyan8251@126.com March 23, 2022 Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 Answer: We have revised our manuscript to meet meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Answer: All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. 3. 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. Answer: Thank you for your comments. We have moved the ethics statement to the Methods section of the manuscript as required. Please review it again. 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”. Answer: We have used PRISMA guidelines to help improve the reporting quality of this study. At the same time, we have uploaded a copy of the completed PRISMA checklist as supporting information. 5. 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. Answer: We have carefully examined the reference list to ensure its completeness and correctness. Comments to the Author Number 1: 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: Partly Answer: Thank you for your comments. Number 2: 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 Answer: Thank you for your comments. Number 3: 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes Answer: Thank you for your comments. Number 4: 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 Answer: Thank you for your comments. Number 5: 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: No Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have carefully polished the language of the manuscript to make it readable and standard. Number 6: 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) Answer: Thank you. Number 7: Reviewer #1: The article by Chen et al. presented the study design of a metanalysis and systematic research to evaluate the effects of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in COVID-19 patients in convalescence. Methods are sounds, however there are some minor concerns: In the abstract section: 1) “In addition. I2 and Cochrane will be used for heterogeneity assessment.” I don’ understand the full stop just after “In addition”. AMEND Answer: Thank you very much for your careful review. We have corrected the writing errors caused by our carelessness. In the introduction section: 2) “and despair [9, 10], Even” comma or full stop? AMEND. Answer: We have changed "comma" to "full stop" here. 3) “Insomnia is defined as the subjective perception of difficulties in falling asleep, maintaining asleep, and early morning awakening at least three times per week for at least 3 months[13].” Imsonnia not is a subjective perception and the article that is cited does not define it as a subjective perception. Please correct. Answer: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully checked the quoted articles and made the following changes to the definition of insomnia: Insomnia is defined as difficulties in falling asleep, maintaining asleep, or waking up too early at least three times per week for at least 3 months [13] and is one of the most common problems experienced by convalescent patients with COVID-19 [14]. 4) “Till now, Previous studie” comma or full stop? AMEND. Answer: Thank you for your careful review. It is correct to use comma here, and we have changed the description of this sentence. Please review it again. 5) “But a recent study found that Internet cognitive”. Use “However” instead of “But”. Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced "But" with "However". 6) There are many examples of internet-delivered therapy for neurological diseases and a recent review of the literature thoroughly presented them. I suggest to briefly discuss it in the introduction section (PMID: 34018047). Answer: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We refer to a recent review and add the following contents to make the manuscript more comprehensive: As a kind of digital therapy, Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy provides patients with evidence-based treatment interventions, which are driven by software to prevent, manage, or treat medical disorders or diseases [31]. It can be used independently or in concert with medications, devices, or other therapies [31]. Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy, as a promising method to solve psychotherapy obstacles [32], can overcome several limits related to traditional clinical practice [33]. The article could improve with a revision by an english native speaker. Answer: We have carefully polished the language of the manuscript to make it more professional and more suitable for publication. 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 Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. Yours sincerely, Yan Chen Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r002
4 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor PONE-D-21-40745R1Effect of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. chen, 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. The manuscript has been revised by one reviewer. Few inconsistency were found, in particular: (1) the date of the search run was the 30th of July in the manuscript, while the the PROPSERO entry was the 11th of December. Please, can you clarify when the search was run? (2) Please, in the Methods section, can you clarify whether the data have already been collected and analyzed? (3) Ideally, Study Protocols should be written in the present tense. We noted that the tense used in the manuscript is the past tense. Could you please correct accordingly? (4) We noted significant overlap between your work and the article titled ". Efficacy and safety evaluation of bright light therapy in patients with post-stroke insomnia: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis" (Lei H et al. Medicine. 2021;100:50(e27937)). Please, can you comment on this? Please, revise the manuscript to carefully address all the concerns raised. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19 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, Luigi Lavorgna 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r003
Revision 2
6 Apr 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to resubmit the revised manuscript entitled “Effect of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis (PONE-D-21-40745R1)” for consideration by PLOS ONE. We would like to thank the reviewers for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and making many thoughtful comments. We were very pleased to see that reviewers recognized the novelty and potential significance of our work. We have added significant new contents, described in detail below, and revised the manuscript to address reviewers’ comments. In the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes, the contents we added are marked in green and the contents we deleted are marked in red. Here are our point-by-point responses: Yan Chen Institute of Chronic Disease Risks Assessment, School of nursing and health, Henan University Kaifeng, Henan, China E-mail address: chenyan8251@126.com April 6, 2022 Journal Requirements: (1) The date of the search run was the 30th of July in the manuscript, while the PROPSERO entry was the 11th of December. Please, can you clarify when the search was run? Answer: Thank you very much for your careful review. The search run in the registration protocol is the 30th of July. However, given the prevalence of COVID-19 epidemic, we consider that there may be more published articles that meet the criteria of the study. To expand the search scope, the search run in the manuscript is the 11th of December. Combined with the your comments, we have changed the retrieval time to the 30th of July in the manuscript to make it consistent with the research protocol. (2) Please, in the Methods section, can you clarify whether the data have already been collected and analyzed? Answer: Thank you for your valuable comments. Till now, the data have already been collected and analyzed. We have clarified it in the Methods section. (3) Ideally, Study Protocols should be written in the present tense. We noted that the tense used in the manuscript is the past tense. Could you please correct accordingly? Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have carefully modified the tense used in the manuscript. (4) We noted significant overlap between your work and the article titled ". Efficacy and safety evaluation of bright light therapy in patients with post-stroke insomnia: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis" (Lei H et al. Medicine. 2021;100:50(e27937)). Please, can you comment on this? Answer: Thanks for your careful review. As you pointed out, the study entitled "Efficacy and safety evaluation of bright light therapy in patients with post-stroke insomnia: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis (PMID: 34918641) has some similarities in the selection of outcome indicators with our study. However, after careful reading, we find great differences in the design of the two studies. Firstly, the research objects are different. The research objects of our study are COVID-19 patients in rehabilitation, while the above study (PMID:34918641) focuses on the insomnia population with stroke. Although the two studies all use insomnia as an outcome indicator, insomnia in stroke patients may be caused by nervous system damage, and our study is aimed at insomnia in COVID-19 rehabilitation patients. Secondly, the intervention methods are different. Our study uses Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy, as an evidence-based option, has been found to effectively improve sleep outcomes [1, 2] and its therapeutic effect is equivalent to or better than that of drug therapy [3]. However, the above study (PMID:34918641) selects bright light therapy (Typically, patients are instructed to be exposed to bright light at a constant distance every day[4]). References [1] Trauer JM, Qian MY, Doyle JS, Rajaratnam SM, Cunnington D. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 4; 163(3):191-204. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2841 PMID: 26054060 [2] Irwin MR, Cole JC, Nicassio PM. Comparative meta-analysis of behavioral interventions for insomnia and their efficacy in middle-aged adults and in older adults 55+ years of age. Health Psychol. 2006; 25(1):3-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.1.3 PMID: 16448292 [3] Smith MT, Perlis ML, Park A, Smith MS, Pennington J, Giles DE, Buysse DJ. Comparative meta-analysis of pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy for persistent insomnia. Am J Psychiatry. 2002; 159(1):5-11. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.159.1.5 PMID: 11772681 [4] van Maanen A, Meijer AM, van der Heijden KB, Oort FJ. The effects of light therapy on sleep problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2016; 29:52-62. http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.smrv. PMID: 26606319 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r004
11 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor PONE-D-21-40745R2Effect of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE 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 May 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, Luigi Lavorgna 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): "From an evaluation of your revision, we noted that there still are concerning issues that need to be resolved. In particular: 1) we noted that the data analysis for this study in now completed, as you reported in the Methods section. Study Protocol are articles type for which data collection and analysis cannot be completed at the moment of submission. Please, remove the sentence from the Methods. 2) Please, edit your manuscript with the present or future tense in order to make it conform to the Study Protocol criteria. Study protocol present the proposal of a study, and the manuscript should read as something you are proposing to do. 3) The search date between the manuscript and the PROSPERO entry are still inconsistent. As you extended the search strategy to the 11th of December, please report this into the main text of the manuscript. 4) We appreciate your response on the differences between your study and Lei H et al. Medicine. 2021;100:50(e27937). However, we feel you did not provide sufficient explanation on why the search strategies are similar. Please, clarify this point." [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r005
Revision 3
16 Apr 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to resubmit the revised manuscript entitled “Effect of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis (PONE-D-21-40745R1)” for consideration by PLOS ONE. We would like to thank the reviewers for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and making many thoughtful comments. We were very pleased to see that reviewers recognized the novelty and potential significance of our work. We have added significant new contents, described in detail below, and revised the manuscript to address reviewers’ comments. In the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes, the contents we added are marked in green and the contents we deleted are marked in red. Here are our point-by-point responses: Yan Chen Institute of Chronic Disease Risks Assessment, School of nursing and health, Henan University Kaifeng, Henan, China E-mail address: chenyan8251@126.com April 17, 2022 Journal Requirements: 1) we noted that the data analysis for this study in now completed, as you reported in the Methods section. Study Protocol are articles type for which data collection and analysis cannot be completed at the moment of submission. Please, remove the sentence from the Methods. Answer: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have deleted the sentence "Till now, the data have already been collected and analyzed." and further clarified it in the Methods. 2) Please, edit your manuscript with the present or future tense in order to make it conform to the Study Protocol criteria. Study protocol present the proposal of a study, and the manuscript should read as something you are proposing to do. Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have carefully modified the tense used in the manuscript. 3) The search date between the manuscript and the PROSPERO entry are still inconsistent. As you extended the search strategy to the 11th of December, please report this into the main text of the manuscript. Answer: Thank you very much for your careful review. The search run in the registration protocol is the 30th of July. However, given the prevalence of COVID-19 epidemic, we consider that there may be more published articles that meet the criteria of the study. Hence, the search run in the manuscript is the 11th of December so as to expand the search scope. In consideration of your comments, we have clarified it in the main text of the manuscript. 4) We appreciate your response on the differences between your study and Lei H et al. Medicine. 2021;100:50(e27937). However, we feel you did not provide sufficient explanation on why the search strategies are similar. Please, clarify this point." Answer: Thanks for your careful review. As you pointed out, the study entitled "Efficacy and safety evaluation of bright light therapy in patients with post-stroke insomnia: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis (PMID: 34918641) has some similarities with our study in search strategies. After careful review, we found that the similarity is mainly due to two reasons. Firstly, this study (PMID: 34918641) is different from our study in the research object, but it is the same in the analysis of the outcome index, namely insomnia. Secondly, both the study (PMID:34918641) and our study use subject words [Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders[Mesh]] combined with entry terms [(Disorders of Initiating and Maintaining Sleep) OR (Disorders of Initiating and Maintaining Sleep) OR (Early Awakening) OR (Awakening, Early) OR (Nonorganic Insomnia) OR (Insomnia, Nonorganic) OR (Primary Insomnia) OR (Insomnia, Primary) OR (Transient Insomnia) OR(Insomnia, Transient) OR (Rebound Insomnia) OR (Insomnia, Rebound) OR (Secondary Insomnia) OR (Insomnia, Secondary) OR (Sleep Initiation Dysfunction) OR (Dysfunction, Sleep Initiation) OR (Dysfunctions, Sleep Initiation) OR (Sleep Initiation Dysfunctions) OR (Sleeplessness) OR (Insomnia Disorder) OR (Insomnia Disorders) OR (Insomnia) OR (Insomnias) OR (Chronic Insomnia) OR (Insomnia, Chronic) OR (Psychophysiological Insomnia) OR (Insomnia, Psychophysiological)] to retrieve the PubMed. This scientific approach can help to obtain more comprehensive search results. Therefore, due to the same outcome index and search method, the two studies are similar in search strategies. Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript. Yours sincerely, Yan Chen Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r006
30 May 2022 Decision Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor Effect of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-21-40745R3 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, Luigi Lavorgna Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r007
Formally Accepted
2 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor PONE-D-21-40745R3 Effect of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy on insomnia in convalescent patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Chen: 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. Luigi Lavorgna Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269882.r008

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 .