PONE-D-21-37340Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: a systematic integrative reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. O'Reilly,

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.

Editor - Thank you for submitting your paper to us for review.  I sent it to four distinguished referees for comment and decision of whom two agreed to review; you will see these below.  They thought that the paper has merit, but each have raised some substantial issues to be addressed in a revision.  Please carefully consider the comments below and reply directly to each in a cover letter with appropriate marked and linked changes to the manuscript.  I look forward to seeing the revision, which I will send back to the same referees for further comment and decision.  Please understand that this is not a guarantee of future publication, as the revision must stand on its own merit.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 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,

Steven Eric Wolf, 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thankyou for allowing me to review the manuscript entitled: Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: a systematic integrative review. This is an interesting review and how it was conducted. The question that comes to mind is does it add anything new to the body of knowledge as SJS/TEN patients are often cared for a burn intensive care unit as SJS/TEN mirrors the requirements of burn patients due to insensible losses through wounds, however fluid requirements are reduced in burn patients with similar TBSA involvement.

The authors use both PTS and PTSD. For consistency use one acronym.

The referencing formatting intext needs review as shown here: [39, 45, 47] [40, 41, 46, 48, 50] [42, 49].

There is a missing arrow on the SJS/TEN PRISMA.

Tables are difficult to read due to portrait presentation. Tables need to be formatted accordingly in Landscape. The author, year and country should be combined in one column. The first column with the numbers should be deleted.

Strongly suggest the authors review how other review tables are presented.

Some key literature has been missed and should be included for the currency of the review:

Schneider, J. A., & Cohen, P. R. (2017). Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Concise Review with a Comprehensive Summary of Therapeutic Interventions Emphasizing Supportive Measures. Advances in therapy, 34(6), 1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-017-0530-y

Shanbhag, S. S., Chodosh, J., Fathy, C., Goverman, J., Mitchell, C., & Saeed, H. N. (2020). Multidisciplinary care in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease. https://doi.org/10.1177/2040622319894469

Frantz, R., Huang, S., Are, A., & Motaparthi, K. (2021). Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Review of Diagnosis and Management. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 57(9), 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57090895

Reviewer #2: Review – Psychotherapeutic interventions for burn patients and the potential use with SJS/TENs patients: a systematic integrative review.

To the best of my understanding the criteria have been met:

1. The study presents the results of original research.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

This systematic integrative review assesses the published evidence of psychotherapeutic interventions to alleviate psychological distress following burn injury, in the absence of published evidence of psychotherapeutic interventions for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and TEN, on the basis that is it reasonable to suggest that the psychological sequelae of the condition are similar.

This is a well written and clearly presented manuscript, which I believe meets the journal criteria and can be accepted for publication with some minor changes. I like the fact that you were able to include papers from the French language as well as English.

Abstract Aims and objectives

Add in the word ‘adult’

The aim of this systematic integrative review was to synthesize the evidence relating to psychotherapeutic interventions used with adult burns patients and patients with SJS/TENs.

Abstract Results

Remove the word ‘dearth’ and clearly state that there was no evidence for psych interventions in SJS/TENs.

Introduction

Mostly throughout the manuscript the intext reference falls after the full stop at the end of a sentence or after a comma mid-sentence instead of before the punctuation; eg line 90, 98, 105, 115. Please correct.

Methods

The review question should state burn patient ‘either/or’ SJS-TENs patients not ‘both/and’:

‘What is the evidence on the psychotherapeutic 150 interventions which have been used with (either) both adult burns patients or and patients with 151 SJS/TEN, during the acute stage of the illness, to reduce symptoms aligned to PTS and 152 improve quality of life?’.

State how you completed the QA process as a group and list author initials.

Table 2: A lot of the information can be reduced without losing context. I would probably present the qualitative studies in separate table, purely because the information presented is wordier and therefore from a formatting point of view will look better separate. Perhaps reduce the font/line separation etc similar to table 3 to allow the columns to be read more easily, although this might be an editing task by the journal.

• Do you need paper number in column 1?

• Add the country under the authors names and add the reference

• Summarise the aim

• Add in outcome measures used - this column appears to be blank for all papers. Would bbe interesting to add the time post-burn at which the outcomes are measured.

• Summarise key findings (with stats if available).

• Reorder columns: Author/ country; aim; study design; study participants; outcome measures; analyses; key findings.

Line 253: Please change: ‘Burn Specific Health Scale – Brief’ not ‘Burning Specific Health Scale’

Discussion:

You are interested in long term psychological sequelae after SJS/TENs but not many of these studies assesses the long term effects of the interventions found, with some exceptions eg patients who receive the multimedia training are assessed at 3 and 6 months post intervention. In fact, theme 2 treatments seem to address the long term recovery more than the theme 1 treatments. This would be good to explore in the discussion, particularly with regards to the need for longitudinal research in the future.

I have no competing interests to declare.

Well done, this is looking good. Hopefully my suggestions will take it up a notch, too.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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: Psychotherapeutic interventions for burn patients and the potential use with SJSTENs patients.docx

PONE-D-21-37340R1Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: a systematic integrative reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. O'Reilly,

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 Jun 30 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,

Steven Eric Wolf, MD

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:

Editor - Thank you for resubmitting your paper. As promised, I sent it back to the original referees who are now almost completely satisfied save a few minor issues. Please carefully consider the comments below and reply directly to each in a cover letter with appropriate marked and linked changes to the manuscript. I look forward to receiving the next version which I will handle personally for timeliness.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Thank you for allowing me to re-review the manuscript entitled: Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: A systematic integrative review. Thank you for addressing the comments raised in the previous review.

PTSD and PTS are not presented or defined as per formatting requirements as all acronyms need to be formatted accordingly – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) when used for the first time then PTSD thereafter.

Line 134 there are 2 full stops in at the end of the sentence.

There is inconsistency with how et al is presented when the author is used first et al., & et al. is used throughout.

viz is throughout the manuscript no idea what it is referring to as could not find an explanation.

When using direct quotes from the included qualitative studies, I believe a page number may be required?

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: 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.

Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: a systematic integrative review

PONE-D-21-37340R2

Dear Dr. O'Reilly,

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,

Steven Eric Wolf, 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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Thank you for allowing me to re review this manuscript entitled Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: a systematic integrative review. No further comments.

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: No

**********