Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 17, 2022
Decision Letter - Kwasi Torpey, Editor

PONE-D-22-22802Prevalence, Pattern and Risk Factors for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Nigerian PlumbersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chidozie Mbada,

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 13th October 2022. 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,

Professor Kwasi Torpey, MD PhD MPH

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 a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. 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 more 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 sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) 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. 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.

4. 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. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors need to do more rigorous work with this research. It is an interesting topic but the rationale and the justification do not sound strong. Research has been done on Musculoskeletal disorders and the link to Disability. How does it tie together? Why Plumbers? why not other artisans? It doesn't present a rich literature search proving that it is a study worth committing to.

The sample size is too small and cannot be not representative of the population of interest. Are there biases? How have they handled this?

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting, well-written, well-organized and recommendable paper that examines the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems among plumbers in low- and middle-income countries.

This research primarily sought to assess the prevalence, pattern and associated risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders among plumbers. In particular, authors reported key scientific results including a 12-month and 7-day prevalence of WMSDs as 84.6% and 50.8% respectively. The authors suggested the most affected body part to be in the order of; low-back>neck> knee.

The findings are original and have not been reported elsewhere.

The choice of assessment questionnaires and study design used was appropriate in addressing the aim of this research. The analysis and presentation of results are clear and addresses the research objectives.

Authors’ conclusions clearly answered set objectives. However, it will be critical to recommend some practical, but cost-effective measures, given the high WMSD prevalences recorded among these plumbers, especially when most of them fall within the informal sector category.

The publication also followed the proper reporting requirements and community standards for data accessibility was written in clear, standard English, and complied with all applicable criteria for research ethics and integrity.

However the sentence “There is a moderate to good agreement for the job factor items and the stability of the instrument was evaluated to be 0.8 [28]” was miscited, given that paper referenced actually sought to “describe the identification and characterization of a novel human mitochondrial inner membrane protein homologous to the yeast Tim50”, hence the deviation.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review COMMENTS.docx.pdf
Revision 1

PONE-D-22-22802

Prevalence, Pattern and Risk Factors for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Nigerian Plumbers

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your careful consideration and review of our manuscript. Please find below the point-by-point responses to the comments.

Editor Comment Response

Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. This has been done

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 more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions Data will be made available. There is no legal restriction on sharing.

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. This has been done. Corrected references are presented in red. Replaced references are in bold format (red).

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. This has been done.

Reviewer 1

The authors need to do more rigorous work with this research. It is an interesting topic but the rationale and the justification do not sound strong. Research has been done on Musculoskeletal disorders and the link to Disability. How does it tie together? Why Plumbers? why not other artisans? It doesn't present a rich literature search proving that it is a study worth committing to. This has been done (last paragraph of the introduction section – for the rationale)

The sample size is too small and cannot be not representative of the population of interest. Are there biases? How have they handled this? Anecdotally, plumbers in Nigeria are relatively scarce. This information has been included in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2

This is an interesting, well-written, well-organized and recommendable paper that examines the prevalence of musculoskeletal problems among plumbers in low- and middle-income countries.

This research primarily sought to assess the prevalence, pattern and associated risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders among plumbers. In particular, authors reported key scientific results including a 12-month and 7-day prevalence of WMSDs as 84.6% and 50.8% respectively. The authors suggested the most affected body part to be in the order of; low-back>neck> knee.

The findings are original and have not been reported elsewhere.

The choice of assessment questionnaires and study design used was appropriate in addressing the aim of this research. The analysis and presentation of results are clear and addresses the research objectives.

Authors’ conclusions clearly answered set objectives. However, it will be critical to recommend some practical, but cost-effective measures, given the high WMSD prevalences recorded among these plumbers, especially when most of them fall within the informal sector category.

The publication also followed the proper reporting requirements and community standards for data accessibility was written in clear, standard English, and complied with all applicable criteria for research ethics and integrity.

However the sentence “There is a moderate to good agreement for the job factor items and the stability of the instrument was evaluated to be 0.8 [28]” was miscited, given that paper referenced actually sought to “describe the identification and characterization of a novel human mitochondrial inner membrane protein homologous to the yeast Tim50”, hence the deviation. The suggested recommendation has been included in the discussion section.

The reference [28] has been confirmed. It is presently reference [37] in this revision.

Editor

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.

All new inclusion are presented in bold format. References were reformatted to suit the journal style. The questionnaires and data have been uploaded as appendix.

Thank you.

Chidozie Mbada

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers - PLOSONE.docx
Decision Letter - Kwasi Torpey, Editor

Prevalence, Pattern and Risk Factors for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Nigerian Plumbers

PONE-D-22-22802R1

Dear Dr. Mbada,

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,

Professor Kwasi Torpey, MD PhD MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kwasi Torpey, Editor

PONE-D-22-22802R1

Prevalence, Pattern and Risk Factors for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Nigerian Plumbers

Dear Dr. Mbada:

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 Kwasi Torpey

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 .