Voluntary medical male circumcision in selected provinces in South Africa: Outcomes from a programmatic setting

Khumbulani Moyo; Nelson Igaba; Constance Wose Kinge; Charles Chasela; Motshana Phohole; Skye Grove; Caroline Makura; Latisani Mudau; Dirk Taljaard; Dino Rech; Arthi Ramkissoon; Catherine Searle; Pappie Majuba; Ian Sanne

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270545

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 10, 2021
20 May 2021 Decision Letter - Tendesayi Kufa, Editor PONE-D-21-05600 Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) in Selected Provinces in South Africa: Outcomes from a Programmatic Setting PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chasela, 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. Thank you for submitting this well written manuscript for consideration. The reviewer has come back with some comments for you to address. The reviewer has recommended that you strengthen the discussion and make recommendations for VMMC programmes going forward. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 2021 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: http://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, Tendesayi Kufa, MBChB, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: [The VMMC program was funded by USAID, award number AID-674-Q-13-00002] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [NO - The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: [no]. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting this well written manuscript for consideration. Apologies for the delays in getting back to you with the outcome of the peer review. This is because we battled to get peer reviewers. Now that we managed to get an excellent review, please see comments from the reviewer and some additional ones of my own. Data sharing= provide details of who and how to contact with data requests Abstract Introduction - the first sentence maybe missing the word "most" before effective Conclusion - the authors conclude that targeting young males before 25 will prevent HIV spread and achieve epidemic control. I thought that is what the programme is already doing. Although not intentionally doing so, it has ended up circumcising mostly young males Introduction Line 30 - what do the authors mean its exact role in HIV prevention is unknown? That the mechanism by which it prevents HIV is unknown? Line 45- these data are old. Why are these data still relevant and what additional lessons can they provide to the VMMC programme? Materials and Methods Line 54 - were there other partners providing VMMC services in these provinces besides the RTC VMMC programme. If so what was the % of circumcisions contributed by the RTC programme Line 62- should be USAID not USAIDs Line 107- why would there have been females in the VMMC database Line 110- define the different HIV testing outcomes eg Known status Results Line 123 - is it possible to compare the provincial number of circumcisions per 100 000 of the population aged 10-49 for each year? Gauteng may account for 46% of the circumcisions but this may not look so impressive after adjusting for the size of the population Line 127- should this be known HIV positive status Line 132- 137- is it possible to present AE rates by age? Table 1 HIV testing offered - should the Not tested (Known HIV+ status). Can this be defined in the methods Newly diagnosed HIV(%)- shouldn't the denominator for this be the HIV positives? Table 2 in the row >=40 and column positive , the percentage is listed as 740%. Please check Discussion Lines 162- 167- the authors should refer to positivity throughout and not prevalence [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: This is a very relevant manuscript with a large dataset, highlighting experiences from a routine program setting. The discussion section is relatively weak and needs to be strengthened before the manuscript is published. Further details as included in the attachment ****** 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: Yes:** Augustino Hellar [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: PLOS One VMMC Paper.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r001
Revision 1
15 Sep 2021 Author Response Specific comment to be addressed Line 29 – role undetermined – check literature – there is very clear evidence role of VMMC in HIV prevention even beyond the RCTs This has been corrected in the manuscript line 30-32 Line 84 – check sentence for correctness: was VMMC deferred if CD4 count was above or below 350? This has been corrected in the manuscript line 89 Line 93 – It would be ideal to add a reference for MOVE such as:-(https://www.malecircumcision.org/resource/considerations-implementing-models-optimizing-volume-and-efficiency-male-circumcision)- Reference on MOVE teams has been added in the manuscript line 98 and reference No. 9 Line 107 – why were clients under 10 years included in the database in the first place? Was this a data entry error or was it a violation of the PEPFAR policy for VMMC for HIV prevention which disallows circumcision for clients under 10years?This has been addressed in line 112-113 in the manuscript. Note: No clients below 10 years were circumcised in this program as they were no eligible. Line 118-123 – it will be more compelling to include number of clients circumcised by each method of circumcision – i.e. Forceps Guided, Dorsal Slit, sleeve or device methods. If data is available, adverse events should be compared by method of circumcision to be able to compare with WHO recommendations and other studies done elsewhere. This has been addressed in line 227-234 in the manuscript, under limitations Line 120 – explain what happened to those who consented but did not undergo VMMC. Were they offered services later? This is addressed in the manuscript in lines 139-144. Line 132 – show the overall AE rate from 2012-2017 in the results paragraph. It is indicated later in Table 3 but it is important to show it early as it is a critical outcome indicator for the paper. Why were the rates calculated out of all VMMCs rather than out of those who returned for follow-up? Please provide an explanation. This has been addressed in table 3 (Line 167) in the manuscript Table 1 – explain the meaning of “null” in the HIV status in Table 1 The “Null” category comprised clients with inconclusive results. This has been updated in the manuscript in table 1 and table 2 (Lines 137 and 151). Line 131-138: Consider adding further details on types of AEs in this section, rather than just the three broad categories (infection-related, bleeding-related or insufficient skin removal). Current focus by both WHO and PEPFAR is on notifiable adverse events (NAEs) such as glans injuries and urethral fistulae which have programmatic implications. With such a large database, it is a huge opportunity to describe these critical SAEs (if data is available), rather than just the broad categories and will strengthen this manuscript. This has been addressed in line 224-231 in the manuscript, under limitations Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: VMMC Paper- Responses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r002
9 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Webster Mavhu, Editor PONE-D-21-05600R1Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) in Selected Provinces in South Africa: Outcomes from a Programmatic SettingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chasela, 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 address all of the comments raised previously by the reviewer and by the Academic Editor (refer to attached documents). The conclusion (both abstract and main paper) needs reworking. Currently, manuscript states that reaching adolescents has implications for epidemic control yet VMMC programs need to reach 20-29 or even 20-35 year-olds. Implications of VMMC programs continuing to miss the population at greatest risk need to be discussed. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2021 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, Webster Mavhu 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: This manuscript presents findings from a large set of programmatic data. I have the following comments/suggestions (see also attached document). 1) Authors state that Targeting young men below the age of 25 years will help to prevent HIV spread and accelerate reaching epidemic control. This is incorrect. Actually, programs should reach adult men aged 20-35 years as they are the age group at greatest risk of HIV see for example: Mavhu W, et al. (2021). Innovative demand creation strategies to increase voluntary medical male circumcision uptake: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in Zimbabwe. BMJ Global Health, 6 (S4): e006141. 2) Related to 1 above, the implications of VMMC programs continuing to miss the age group at greatest risk of HIV needs to be discussed in Discussion. 3) Line 20. There was a reduction in infection-related AEs from 2448 (94.08%) in 2012 to 129 (46.9%) in 2017 of the total AEs reported each year over the five-year period. Please include denominators in both cases (and a p-value). 4) This issue was raised previously by a reviewer - In introduction, you need to cite newer sources e.g. By December 2019, nearly 27 million adolescent and adult men (≥10 years) had been circumcised and an estimated 340 000 new infections averted in 15 VMMC priority countries, including 260 000 infections among males and 75 000 among females (due to reduced secondary transmission from males) WHO. Preventing HIV through safe voluntary medical male circumcision for adolescent boys and men in generalized HIV epidemics: recommendations and key considerations. Geneva: WHO, 2020. UNAIDS/WHO. Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: Steady progress in the scaleup of VMMC as an HIV prevention intervention in 15 eastern and southern African countries before the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Geneva: UNAIDS and WHO, 2021. 5) Consent procedures (lines 70-77) describe consent procedures for everyone 11 and above but not 10 year-olds? 6) The conclusion needs strengthening - both in Abstract and Main paper. 7) Line 252 - While, most accepted HIV testing, the number of refusals is still high. If 99.6% took up VMMC then only 0.45 refused? 8) The manuscript needs thorough editing/proof reading (see attached edits). [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: VMMC Observational cohort_manuscript__Revised_clean wm.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r003
Revision 2
3 Dec 2021 Author Response Specific comment to be addressed Responses Include denominator for both cases This has been addressed in line 19 Programs should reach adult men aged 20-35 years as they are the age group at greatest risk of HIV This has been addressed in line 23-25 Agree with 1 reviewer that you need to cite newer sources in the introduction Newer sources have been cited in the introduction in line 31, 35, 38, 40 Consent procedures (lines 70-77) describe consent procedures for everyone 11 and above but not 10-year-olds? This has been addressed in line 79 Which program – the one under review or the referenced one? If the latter, include reference. If this one, see earlier comment. The age group most missed by VMMC programs (20-35) is the most at risk. This has been addressed in line 185-188 Include references This has been addressed in line 189 Line 252 - While, most accepted HIV testing, the number of refusals is still high. If 99.6% took up VMMC then only 0.45 refused? This has been addressed in Table 2. A total of 1,001,088 were offered an HIV test and 71.1% were tested, 15% declined to test Authors state that Targeting young men below the age of 25 years will help to prevent HIV spread and accelerate reaching epidemic control. This is incorrect. Actually, programs should reach adult men aged 20-35 years as they are the age group at greatest risk of HIV see for example: Mavhu W, et al. (2021). Innovative demand creation strategies to increase voluntary medical male circumcision uptake: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in Zimbabwe. BMJ Global Health, 6 (S4): e006141 This has been addressed in line 38-39, 187-188 Related to above, the implications of VMMC programs continuing to miss the age group at greatest risk of HIV needs to be discussed in Discussion. This has been addressed in line 185-198 The conclusion needs strengthening - both in Abstract and Main paper. This has been addressed in line 21-26 and 265-276 The manuscript needs thorough editing/proof reading (see attached edits). This has been addressed from line 1-352 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r004
23 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Webster Mavhu, Editor PONE-D-21-05600R2 Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Selected Provinces in South Africa: Outcomes from a Programmatic Setting PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chasela, 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. It is now 4 years since these data were collected. To what extent are the findings and conclusions still applicable/relevant? If still relevant, the paper could say in a couple of places, how the data compare to what is currently obtaining within the VMMC program. Authors mention a device (probably PrePex). Recommendations related to this device may no longer apply as the device has now been taken off the market and may never be reintroduced. Perhaps recommendations could focus on VMMC devices in general? Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 06 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, Webster Mavhu 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): It is now 4 years since these data were collected. To what extent are the findings and conclusions still applicable/relevant? If still relevant, the paper could say in a couple of places, how the data compare to what is currently obtaining within the VMMC program. Authors mention a device (probably PrePex). Recommendations related to this device may no longer apply as the device has now been taken off the market and may never be reintroduced. Perhaps recommendations could focus on VMMC devices in general? See additional suggestions in attached document. [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: VMMC Observational cohort_manuscript__Revised_clean wm Dec 2021.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r005
Revision 3
6 Feb 2022 Author Response We have addressed the relevance of the paper in the discussion section and provided the citation as requested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r006
1 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Webster Mavhu, Editor PONE-D-21-05600R3Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Selected Provinces in South Africa: Outcomes from a Programmatic SettingPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chasela, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. See a few suggestions in attached. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 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, Webster Mavhu 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): Find a few suggestions in the attached. [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: VMMC Observational cohort_manuscript__RevisedFeb22_Clean wm.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r007
Revision 4
20 May 2022 Author Response We have revised the references as well as changed all decimal points to 2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r008
14 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Webster Mavhu, Editor Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Selected Provinces in South Africa: Outcomes from a Programmatic Setting PONE-D-21-05600R4 Dear Dr. Chasela, 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, Webster Mavhu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r009
Formally Accepted
12 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Webster Mavhu, Editor PONE-D-21-05600R4 Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Selected Provinces in South Africa: Outcomes from a Programmatic Setting Dear Dr. Chasela: 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. Webster Mavhu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270545.r010

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 .