Prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error among children and adolescents in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Daniel Atlaw; Zerihun Shiferaw; Biniyam Sahiledengele; Sisay Degno; Ayele Mamo; Demisu Zenbaba; Habtamu Gezahegn; Fikreab Desta; Wogene Negash; Tesfaye Assefa; Mujib Abdela; Abbul Hasano; Gashaw Walle; Chala Kene; Degefa Gomora; Vijay Kumar Chattu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271313

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 13, 2022
9 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Consolato M. Sergi, Editor PONE-D-22-10704Prevalence of Visual Impairment due to Refractive Error among children and adolescents in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Atlaw, 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 Jul 22 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, Consolato M. Sergi 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 include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for sending this manuscript to Plos One. After careful revision of the reviewers' concerns and criticisms, I would suggest that the authors need to address all issues from both reviewers in detail. I strongly suggest the authors revise the manuscript and replying point-by-point to the major and minor concerns. [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: Yes 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: No 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: Firstly, the data provided does indeed support the conclusion, however more precision is needed on some points. For example, the text mentioned a global refractive error of 12%, but did not note the year in the text. The year is important as the authors mentioned that the prevalence of refractive error can change with better healthcare. Few English mistakes have been highlighted in the attached review, with attached comments. Reviewer #2: Topic: Prevalence of Visual Impairment due to Refractive Error among children and adolescents in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The authors examined the pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error in Ethiopia. They found high value of the prevalence of visual impairment owing to refractive error. About one in twenty-five Ethiopian children and adolescents are affected by visual impairment due to refractive error. Below are few suggestions: Statistical methods and analysis section: Under this section, the authors need to cite the relevant sources guiding their choices. That is, the articles that motivated the methods they opted for should be acknowledged with respect to heterogeneity, random effects, and publication bias assessments. For example, for publication bias assessment, the following article could be cited: Egger, M.; Davey Smith, G.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. This study is more about the assessment of prevalence. The influence of other factors on prevalence involving a meta-regression analysis should be treated on a different occasion. It is most likely a different topic, as it goes beyond the specific objective of the review, i.e. summary of the pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error. Hence, kindly remove the highlighted statement about meta-regression. Further remarks: Beware of the consistency in the spelling of the random-effects model throughout the article. It is ‘random-effects’ and not ‘random-effect’. Table 2: Please add the sample size for each sub-group in this table. That is, you may mention the number of studies involved in each sub-group in a separate column. Please see the full text for all the minor suggestions. ****** 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: Youssef Mahfouz Reviewer #2: Yes: Joseph F. Feulefack ******** [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_PeerReviewWithComments.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271313.r001
Revision 1
14 Jun 2022 Author Response To: PLOS ONE editorial Response to reviewers Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for sending this manuscript to Plos One. After careful revision of the reviewers' concerns and criticisms, I would suggest that the authors need to address all issues from both reviewers in detail. I strongly suggest the authors revise the manuscript and replying point-by-point to the major and minor concerns. Authors response -Dear respected editorial members of Plos One thank very much for your detailed and constructive comments and suggestions. We have replayed reviewers concern point by point and We have amended all journal requirement requested. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: 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: Firstly, the data provided does indeed support the conclusion, however more precision is needed on some points. For example, the text mentioned a global refractive error of 12%, but did not note the year in the text. The year is important as the authors mentioned that the prevalence of refractive error can change with better healthcare. Author response -Dear respected reviewer #1; Thank you very much for your generous comment that has significantly improved our manuscript. We have added year of study for most of studies referenced in the introduction and discussion. For instance, see page 3 second paragraph line number 1,2 and 4 … page 10 discussion line number 5, 6. Few English mistakes have been highlighted in the attached review, with attached comments. Author response – Thank very much for detailed poofread we have corrected comments on the pdf as well as we have repeated proofread and the whole manuscript was amended once again. Any change made after proofreading was highlighted in red color on supplementary file. New acronym, what is the delineation? Refractive error (RE) This makes it a run-on sentence. The highlighted text should be a new sentence. Corrected please see page 3 last paragraph line number 2. Is there a more recent study for comparison? - more recent reference was used for comparison of result in addition to previous reference. See page 10. Reviewer #2: Topic: Prevalence of Visual Impairment due to Refractive Error among children and adolescents in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The authors examined the pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error in Ethiopia. They found high value of the prevalence of visual impairment owing to refractive error. About one in twenty-five Ethiopian children and adolescents are affected by visual impairment due to refractive error. Authors response – Dear respected reviewer #2 Thank you very much for your important comments and suggestions that advance our manuscript. Below are few suggestions: Statistical methods and analysis section: Under this section, the authors need to cite the relevant sources guiding their choices. That is, the articles that motivated the methods they opted for should be acknowledged with respect to heterogeneity, random effects, and publication bias assessments. For example, for publication bias assessment, the following article could be cited: Egger, M.; Davey Smith, G.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. Author response- Thank you very much we have cited four references in the method section including the suggested reference see page 6. 37. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Stephenson M, Aromataris E. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):196–207. 38. Borenstein M, Hedges L V., Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97–111. 39. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple , graphical test. BMJ. 1997;(May 2014):629–34. 40. Lin L, Chu H, Murad MH, Hong C, Qu Z, Cole SR, et al. Empirical Comparison of Publication Bias Tests in Meta-Analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(8):1260–7. This study is more about the assessment of prevalence. The influence of other factors on prevalence involving a meta-regression analysis should be treated on a different occasion. It is most likely a different topic, as it goes beyond the specific objective of the review, i.e. summary of the pooled prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error. Hence, kindly remove the highlighted statement about meta-regression. Author response – Thank you very much we have deleted statement about meta regression see page 6 Further remarks: Beware of the consistency in the spelling of the random-effects model throughout the article. It is ‘random-effects’ and not ‘random-effect’. Author response- Thank you very much We have corrected random-effect into random-effects Table 2: Please add the sample size for each sub-group in this table. That is, you may mention the number of studies involved in each sub-group in a separate column. Author response- Thank you very much we have added new column on table two indicating number of studies included. See page 10 table 2 Please see the full text for all the minor suggestions. Author response- Thank you very much we have revised the whole manuscript and any change made were highlighted in red color Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviwers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271313.r002
29 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Consolato M. Sergi, Editor Prevalence of Visual Impairment due to Refractive Error among Children and Adolescents in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PONE-D-22-10704R1 Dear Dr. Atlaw, 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, Consolato M. Sergi 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: Yes 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: In the second paragraph of the Abstract, the correct spelling is ‘random-effects’. ****** 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: Yes: Youssef Mahfouz Reviewer #2: Yes: Joseph Florent Feulefack ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271313.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Aug 2022 Acceptance Letter - Consolato M. Sergi, Editor PONE-D-22-10704R1 Prevalence of visual impairment due to refractive error among children and adolescents in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dear Dr. Atlaw: 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 Professor Consolato M. Sergi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271313.r004

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 .