https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8456-519X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionAugust 9, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-22361Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and associated risk factors among students in N'Djamena, ChadPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nalda, 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 February 28, 2023. 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:
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, Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene, Ph.D. 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 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear authors, I commend that the manuscript has some potentials; however, it requires much more work then it stands now. First, there are many typos and grammatical errors which makes the manuscript unpleasant to the readers. Second, the sampling design of the study is not well presented. For instance, p.5, lines 104-106, authors said that "random sampling technique was used". Thereafter, they stated that a 1st student was selected (how?) and then gradually, other volunteers were enrolled. This is far from "random sampling". When random sampling is used, selected participants are well known in advance even before the study starts. Third, prevalence of HBV is significantly higher in N'Djamena among students. However, the paper is unable to give a context-specific explanation of this interesting finding (un)willingly. Fourth, the analyses are less convincing and inappropriately presented. Fifth, the discussion is less engaging because the authors are not presenting their findings in a way helping the readers to get a clear sense of the message they are conveying. This section also contains lot of grammatical errors and false sentences. For instance, on page 12 &13, lines 228-232, there is no logic in the affirmation "This result corroborates the WHO study which highlighted that more than 124,000 Africans die each year from the consequences of undetected and untreated hepatitis" while the first 2 sentences were about the differences in HBV prevalence between lifetime tested and untested students. Sixth, another (unjustifiable) variable included in the study is "HBV of family members". Since HBV can only be detected via lab exams, authors should elaborate a bit more on how this variable was collected in the study. Seventh, how do the authors theoretically explain the inclusion of "housing style" and draw a number of conclusions regarding its association with HBV among students? 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ********** 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: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: The study covers a significant problem especially in Africa and other third world countries. comments Grammatical typo errors should not be overlooked Page 5 Samplng line 104-105: how are the students selected, are they self selected? Randomly selected, systematic random sampling? It is not clear. Data collection method: how did you prepare the structured tool? Was it standard? Did you refere some other works (cite). Who collected the data? How many data collectors, their profession… Biological analysis what is the sensitivity and specificity of the kit? Table 2: the table is long (more than one page), can break it down last row: history of HBV? It is not clear how the test turns negative from previous positive test? Are they cured? Line 198-201: it is not clear how the interpretation is made Table 3: please revise the interpretation by considering the confidence interval what do you mean by OR1 two times? How did you deal with variables which does not fulfill the chi square criteria? line 224: how does high prevalence imply improvement in awareness? Discussion: please revise following the correct result interpretation Reviewer #2: Dear Author, I am wishing to acknowledge author's work entitled: ‘Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and associated risk factors among students in N'Djamena, Chad’. The results illustrated the prevalence of hepatitis B virus among students. Therefore, this study will be useful for future prevention and control of hepatitis infection through the knowledge of prevalence HBV and risk factors among students. The manuscript is more or less in line with the vision, objectives and instructions of PLoS One. Despite its potential, however, this manuscript contains major errors in data presentation and interpretation, grammatical errors which need to be corrected (see the attached file). General Comments 1. Although what authors are reporting is not a novelty, they must however be commended for their efforts in reporting what is prevalence of HBV among students in their locality. But there are so many researches worldwide which were done by more advanced lab techniques like ELISA and molecular techniques (PCR). 2. Use of English language is poor in certain sections and would require a detailed revision. 3. Based on PLoS One authors’ guideline, figures must be uploaded separately in tif or other form. Title • The title was good. But why you removed the area name ‘Emi Koussi’ from the title? You talked more about this study area in the methods part. Abstract • The punctuation colon (:) in each subheading was not necessary. • Line 17; read as ‘Viral hepatitis B (HBV) is a major public health threat’. It is better written as ‘Viral hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a major public health problem’. Here the word ‘threat’ is not the appropriate word. • Line 20-21; ‘This study aims to determine the prevalence-------------’ It is better written as, ‘This study aimed to determine the prevalence--------------------’ • Line 23; ‘-------- conducted in July 2021 including 457 students randomly selected-------------’. Here a specific length of time should be mentioned. Similarly, which random sampling technique was used? Simple or systematic? • Which specimen type you have processed? It should be described before you talk about the method. • Line 26; ‘Descriptive analyzes and binary logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between dependent variables and sociodemographic including other risk factors’. It is better you say, ‘Descriptive analysis and binary logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between dependent variables and socio-demographic factors including other risk factors.’ • Among how many study participants the study conducted? • In the result part, it is better you include both the numerator and denominator together with percentage in presenting prevalence, for example A/B (14.87%). • Too short and shallow result presentation • Your result completely contrasts the fact. Are you interpreting the result inversely? See the data, ‘Students aged between 26-35 years (0.032), who were born from HBsAg positive mothers (0.027), who lived with a roommate (0.025) or had a history of hepatitis (p=0.015) were less likely to contract HBV infection’. For example, A participant who lived with a roommate has a probability of acquiring HBV 4.5 times than those living lonely (OR= 5.42, 95% CI: 1.55-25.6; p= 0.025). The author better go through the analysis and correct mistakes that appeared. • What is your baseline to say ‘high prevalence of HBV infection’? • Which type of conclusion is it? ‘This study highlights some solutions to improve the situation of hepatitis B in Chad and suggests policies to eliminate viral hepatitis’. • Additional key words:-HBsAg, risk factor • It should be re-written and make adjustments based on the comments in the methods and results part that follows. Introduction • The introduction seems like literature review, so it is better modified. • The word treat is not the appropriate word; please replace by other word. • The introduction described the burden among clinically ill participants, not apparently healthy individuals (e.g. students). Therefore, the author better show the burden of HBV in similar or related study populations. • There was no description about the microbiology of HBV. • I do not think the importance of writing values for P-value, 95%CI and OR. For example, ‘Infants infected during the perinatal period 62 have 3.74 times (OR=3.74, 95% CI: 0.97–14.39) risk of becoming chronic carriers [11]’. • Line 82-84 should be deleted. ‘Identifying these risk factors for HBsAg 83 carriage with appropriate management would reduce the disease burden. Knowledge of the HBV 84 infection risk factors would also guide policies aimed at reducing the HBV burden’. Materials and Methods • Line 93; the subheading should be ‘Sample size determination and sampling technique’ • About the sampling technique, please see the comment in the abstract • The ‘selection of variables’ subheading better be replaced by ‘Socio-demographic data collection’ • The ‘Biological analysis’ also should be replaced by ‘Laboratory data processing’ • In the ethical clearance part, were all participants above the age of 18 years old? If not, Why did not you took assent from participants below the age of 18 years old? • Your participants were apparently healthy individuals (students). There should be a mechanism in place to link those who need treatment with the healthcare system. How do you manage the psychological and potential social harm on HBV positives that do not need treatment? So ethical issues were not well described. • Specimen collection and processing needs to be well written. Results • Your subheading ‘Sample characteristics’ was not the appropriate one. It is better you replace by, ‘ Socio-demographic characteristics’ • Based on your sample size determination your sample size was 422. Why you included 457 in the result part? • You mix up the socio-demographic characteristics of participants with prevalence of HBV as well as risk factors. I recommend you to present, first the socio-demographic characteristics and then prevalence of HBV, finally risk factors for HBV. • What is your base to classify the age group? Have you associated with possible risks of interest? It is better again re-group and perform the analysis. • Is there any difference between the two subheadings? ‘Factors associated with HBV infection among students’ and ‘Prevalence and risk factors associated with HBsAg carriage’. For me it was not clear. • It was difficult to understand/catch up the concepts of the tables. They lacked OR and 95%CI. Yet you presented in the text. From where you get it (OR and 95%CI)? • Similarly, it is better you represent the crude odds ratio by COR and the adjusted odds ratio by AOR than simply by OR. • All table titles should be complete in description, area and period of study. Discussions • Since the necessity of doing this work was already described in the introduction part. So here writing about it was not necessary. Therefore, delete the following. Line 206 ‘To inform policies aiming to reduce the burden of HBV in Chad and to achieve the objectives of the 207 national health plan 2016-2030, this study was designed to determine the prevalence of HBV and to 208 identify the HBV infection risk factors, among students at the Universities of N'djamena and Emi Koussi’. • Authors tried to compare their findings with different reports from worldwide. They also better justify the reason for variation among results of different research findings with respect to theirs’ based on actual situation; most of the reason for variation mentioned in the discussion part were already intensively described by other authors. • Most of the literatures used for comparisons were researches on patients. In this case these literatures were incomparable to this study. Conclusions • Normally, conclusion emanates from your findings of the research. • Revise it and accommodate recommendation of community/government importance. Reviewer #3: In the submitted manuscript “Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and associated risk factors among students in N'Djamena, Chad” (Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-22361), the authors wrote an original research article describing the prevalence of HBsAg positivity and factors associated for being HBsAg-positivity among university students in N'Djamena, Chad. HBV infection is still a major health problem worldwide, especially in Africa including Chad. In Chad, HBV screening is not systematic. Most of infected people are unaware of their status. This study aims to determine the prevalence of HBsAg positivity and to identify factors associated with being HBsAg-positivity. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study among 457 university students in N'Djamena, Chad in July 2021. HBsAg seroprevalence determined by the Determine HBsAg rapid test was 15%. After logistic regression analyses, several factors associated with being HBsAg-positivity were identified. The study results indicate that there is an urgent need to test HBV and provide vaccination in student population in Chad. However, in my point-of-view, there are some major and minor points that need to be improved or clarified: 1. The “Title” and “Abstract” section, a. Please consider to use the word “Associated factors” rather than the word “Risk factors” for this cross-sectional study (REF: Antay-Bedregal D, Camargo-Revello E, Alvarado GF. Associated factors vs risk factors in cross-sectional studies. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Nov 13;9:1635-6. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S98023), and also for the entire article. b. Texts in the results part of the abstract is confused. • “Students aged between 26-35 years (0R=0.90, 95% CI: 0.42-1.80; p= 0.032), who were born from HBsAg positive mothers (OR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.08-3.84; p = 0.027), who lived with a roommate (OR= 5.42, 95% CI:1.55-25.6; p= 0.025) or with family (OR= 2.69, 95%CI: 0.90-11.7; p= 0.025) or had a history of hepatitis (OR= 0.46, 95% CI : 0.25-0.86, p=0.015) were less likely to contract HBV infection.” In general, if OR > 1 means “they were more likely to contract HBV infection, as compared to the reference”. In contrast, if OR < 1 means “they were less likely to contract HBV infection, as compared to the reference” 2. In the “Introduction” section, a. In line 56, the authors should to specify the population of each study, for example, Ref# 7 was conducted in general population, Ref# 8 was conducted in HIV population. b. Line 61-62, authors wrote “Infants infected during the perinatal period have 3.74 times (OR=3.74, 95% CI: 0.97–14.39) risk of becoming chronic carriers [11]”. This sentence may mislead the meaning of the origin article. Ref#11 indicated that “Children having intervals longer than 10 weeks between their first two HB vaccine doses were at greater risk of developing chronic HBV infection. Their risk was 3.74 times higher than that of those with intervals shorter than 10 weeks (95% CI = 0.97–14.39). c. Line 62-65, “Parenteral transmission occurs through blood transfusion, blood exposure accidents among health professionals and use of non-sterile equipment for tattooing, piercing, acupuncture, and intravenous drug injections. These risk factors are the main causes and most frequent routes of transmission [12].” Currently, this sentence may not be all correct. Please also update the reference. d. Line 68-71, “Indeed, students are generally young, in good apparent health and sexually active, which puts them at risk of HBV infection. In addition, they spend more time in a crowded environment (amphitheater, dwellings, etc.) and HBV transmission may occur via saliva and skin exudates [13]”. Ref #13 is not relevant to the sentence. e. Line 79-80, “Moreover, few studies have been performed on the burden of liver disease in at-risk populations such as students in Chad.” Please add the references. Or the authors would like to mention that “Study on the burden of HBV infection among student population in Chad is still limited.”, Please clarify. 3. In “Material and Methods” section, a. Line 95-96, “a prevalence of 50% (close to 42.12%, the incidence of HBV in N'djamena)” Please add the reference. b. In part “Biological analysis” (line 131-140), it is already a well-known information, the paragraph should be removed and be referred to the manufacturer’s recommendation. 4. In “Results” section, I would like to suggest the authors to re-analyze the data again with an advice from statisticians. a. In Table 1, superscripted number#1 does not make sense, as well as, the Table’s footnote (line 176-178) b. Indeed, Table 1 should demonstrate “Baseline sociodemographic, socioeconomic and other characteristics of the study population”. No HBsAg results needed. c. Table 2 should demonstrate “HBsAg seroprevalence among the study population, probably describe in detail according to the baseline characteristics” d. Table 3 should demonstrate “Univariate and multivariable analysis of factors associated for HBsAg positivity among the study population”. The authors did not indicate the reference group (OR=1) in the table. Table 3 Indeed, table 2 can probably be merged with table 3. e. Data with missing value should not be taken to bivariate analysis, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. f. Indeed, a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio also provides a test of the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is 1 at the 5% significance level. If the confidence interval does not include 1, we reject H0 and conclude that the odds for the two groups are different; if the interval does include 1, the data do not provide enough evidence to distinguish the groups in this way. The authors could not conclude that “Students aged between 26-35 years were 1.11 times less likely to be HBsAg positive (0R= 0.90, 95% CI: 0.42-1.80; p= 0.032)” (Line 196). Also, it is happened with other variables such as students with HBV-uninfected mothers and who lived with HBsAg+ family. g. There are many good samples available for this kind of analysis, for example: • Bancha B, Kinfe AA, Chanko KP, Workie SB, Tadese T (2020) Prevalence of hepatitis B viruses and associated factors among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in public hospitals of Wolaita Zone, South Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 15(5): e0232653. • Argaw, B., Mihret, A., Aseffa, A. et al. Sero-prevalence of hepatitis B virus markers and associated factors among children in Hawassa City, southern Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis 20, 528 (2020). • Kassaw B, Abera N, Legesse T, Workineh A, Ambaw G. Sero-prevalence and associated factors of hepatitis B virus among pregnant women in Hawassa city public hospitals, Southern Ethiopia: Cross-sectional study design. SAGE Open Med. 2022 Dec 6;10:20503121221140778. • Makuza, J.D., Rwema, J.O.T., Ntihabose, C.K. et al. Prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positivity and its associated factors in Rwanda. BMC Infect Dis 19, 381 (2019). • Etc. 5. In “Discussion” section, a. Need more improvement after re-analysis. b. The author compared their results with other studied which conducted in different population, likes in HIV-infected people, in hospitalized patients… c. How the authors ensure on data of HBsAg-positive family members? Questionnaires survey may provide a wrong result. Best regards, Reviewer #4: Methods 1) Kindly describe the randomisation procedure. Was it done at the faculty level? or was the random number generation for the whole population. Results 2) If the majority of students are less than 25, should your age categories be re-classified? If so, please consider it. 3) the only sexual history is single/many partners. Do you have any additional data? 4) The first table overall, HbsAg+ and HbsAg-; and second table HbsAg+, HbsAg-, and overall. Please be consistent in presentation of tables 5) How did you build univariate/multivariate models? You have only p value for each group. How come? Kindly explain. Hope these comments are useful ********** 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-22-22361R1Prévalence et facteurs associés de l'infection par le virus de l'hépatite B chez les étudiants à N'Djamena, TchadPLOS ONE Dear Dr. DEBSIKREO, 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 Sep 07 2023 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:
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, Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, I commend that the manuscript revision has substantively improved. However, there still is a long way to go before the paper reaches the PLOS One standards. First, the introduction is flawed since there unclear sentences and not very sound currently (see annotated manuscript). Second, Tables 1 and 2 for instance has small numbers and this poses major issues for multivariate analyses because this could yield to unstable models. Third, there are several mistakes regarding references and sentences without verbs. Fourth, it is unclear whether the sample contains ALL students from N'Djamena (that what I guess later on) however, this should be made clear in the sampling design. Also, it is unclear about the allocation of the sample among universities. Based on my own reading, I suggest the manuscript to be revised: MAJOR REVISION 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 #5: (No Response) Reviewer #6: 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 #5: No Reviewer #6: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #5: No Reviewer #6: 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 #5: No Reviewer #6: 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 #5: No Reviewer #6: 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 #5: This paper addressed an interesting topic which is a global public health issue, particularly in low income countries. So, I would like to acknowledge the authors for their effort to come up with this relevant topic. However this paper need a through edition and clarification to be an additional evidence for the scientific community and the general public health improvement. Reviewer #6: I congratulate the authors for painstakingly making very rigorous revisions to the paper! I will suggest a very minor edit: Background in abstract and introduction: The word “systematic” attached to HBV screening should better read “not routinely done”. Table 1: The class intervals for Age has some overlapping numbers, e.g., 20-30; 30-40. This should be corrected and “Ans” should be replaced with “years” ********** 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 #5: No Reviewer #6: Yes: Jonah Musa ********** [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.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
PONE-D-22-22361R2Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and its associated factors among students in N'Djamena, ChadPLOS ONE Dear Dr. DEBSIKREO, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The authors need to address/clarify the comments raised by reviewer #2 (see reviewers' comments) ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 08 2023 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:
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, Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. 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 #6: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #7: 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 #6: Yes Reviewer #7: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #6: Yes Reviewer #7: 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 #6: Yes Reviewer #7: 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 #6: Yes Reviewer #7: 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 #6: I congratulate the authors for doing a thorough revision, and the responses are satisfactory. I recommend this version be accepted for publication after editorial checks and formatting. Reviewer #7: In the submitted manuscript “Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and its associated factors among students in N’Djamena, Chad”, PONE-D-22-22361R2, this study addressed the high prevalence of HBV infection among university students in Chad. HBV prevention, especially HBV immunization, should be considered in low-income countries. However, there are some points that need to be clarified: 1. The authors should mention inclusion criteria in the method part (e.g., sex, age, health status, etc.). 2. The data was collected using a questionnaire, was it a self-administered questionnaire or face-to-face interview? Please specify in data collection method. 3. The prevalence of HBV infection was 14.87%, what’s about 95%CI? please specify. 4. I would suggest using median age instead of mean age. 5. Considering p<0.30 in bivariate analysis, why did the authors select only five variables for multivariable logistic regression? (What about age, marital status, knowledge of HBV, history of drug injection, density of residence? there were also p<0.30.) 6. The authors did not ask about the history of HB immunization in the study participants. Although most likely did not benefit from vaccination against HBV in childhood as part of EPI, some may receive the vaccine in adult. We therefore can distinguish between who has protective or susceptible for HBV infection. ********** 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 #6: Yes: Jonah Musa Reviewer #7: 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. |
| Revision 3 |
|
PONE-D-22-22361R3Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and its associated factors among students in N'Djamena, Chad.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. DEBSIKREO, 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. I commend the authors did a great job by incorporating reviewers' comments which substantively improved the paper. However, the paper doesn't until now rigorously align with Plos One's authors guidelines. Please note the following: 1. References: Plos One uses brackets; 2. In all Tables, add 1 decimal for percentages 3. When citing R, the date is unnecessaryAdditionally, reviewer #2 has raised some comments to be integrated. I suggest to put these questions in the discussion section or alternatively, add a study limitations section. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 2024 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:
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, Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. |
| Revision 4 |
|
PONE-D-22-22361R4Title: Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and its associated factors among students in N'Djamena, Chad.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. DEBSIKREO, 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 03 2024 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:
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, Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene, Ph.D. 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: Dear authors, One of the reviewers suggested that final version should incorporate the following changes based on the manuscript evaluation: "In the submitted manuscript “Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and its associated factors among students in N’Djamena, Chad”, PONE-D-22-22361R2, this study addressed the high prevalence of HBV infection among university students in Chad. HBV prevention, especially HBV immunization, should be considered in low-income countries. However, there are some points that need to be clarified: 1. The authors should mention inclusion criteria in the method part (e.g., sex, age, health status, etc.). 2. The data was collected using a questionnaire, was it a self-administered questionnaire or face-to-face interview? Please specify in data collection method. 3. The prevalence of HBV infection was 14.87%, what’s about 95%CI? please specify. 4. I would suggest using median age instead of mean age. 5. Considering p<0.30 in bivariate analysis, why did the authors select only five variables for multivariable logistic regression? (What about age, marital status, knowledge of HBV, history of drug injection, density of residence? there were also p<0.30.) 6. The authors did not ask about the history of HB immunization in the study participants. Although most likely did not benefit from vaccination against HBV in childhood as part of EPI, some may receive the vaccine in adult. We therefore can distinguish between who has protective or susceptible for HBV infection." Thank you [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. |
| Revision 5 |
|
PONE-D-22-22361R5Titre : Prévalence de l'infection par le virus de l'hépatite B et ses facteurs associés chez les étudiants de N'Djamena, Tchad.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. NALDA DEBSIKREO, 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. ============================== Dear authors, please note the following: 1. I have extensively edited the manuscripts. Kindly incorporate these changes 2. I am a bit concerned with Table 3. In this Table, some variables do not have confidence intervals in "multivariate analyses". I can understand that some variables were not included in multivariate analyses. However, doing this makes the Table a bit cumbersome to understand. I suggest that you separate bivariate Table and multivariate Table (in which ONLY variables retained in multivariate analyses are included. That way, each variable (or categories of variables) will have a confidence interval. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 21 2024 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:
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, Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.
|
| Revision 6 |
|
Title: Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and its associated factors among students in N'Djamena, Chad PONE-D-22-22361R6 Dear NALDA DEBSIKREO, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-22361R6 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Debsikréo, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Prof. Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .