Feasibility of an online antigen self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 addressed to health care and education professionals in Catalonia (Spain). The TESTA’T- COVID Project

Cristina Agustí; Héctor Martínez-Riveros; Victoria González; Gema Fernández-Rivas; Yesika Díaz; Marcos Montoro-Fernandez; Sergio Moreno-Fornés; Pol Romano-deGea; Esteve Muntada; Beatriz Calvo; Jordi Casabona

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275006

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 27, 2022
26 May 2022 Decision Letter - Omnia Samir El Seifi, Editor PONE-D-22-12378Feasibility of an online antigen self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 addressed to health care and education professionals in Catalonia (Spain). The TESTA’T- COVID Project PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Agustí, 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: Respected authors your manuscript is good. However; your research manuscript needs great attention from your side to reach to required level for publishing specially regarding; the objectives for this study which need to be clear and specific. The method section which needs to be rigorously organized in a proper scientific way. The results ; be sure that your table is inserted within the manuscript and not in the attached other files. <g-bubble data-du="200" data-tp="5" jsaction="R9S7w:VqIRre;" jscontroller="QVaUhf" jsshadow=""> <g-img aria-label="رمز "تم التحقق منها بواسطة المنتدى"" class="XrZwB" role="img" style="display: inline-block; height: 26px; padding-right: 5px; vertical-align: middle;"></g-img></g-bubble> Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 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, Omnia Samir El Seifi, Professor 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Abbot Laboratories provided the tests for the study for free" Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. 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. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: 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: 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 respected authors presented a good idea that would add to the available methods of screening. But it is poorly presented , many changes are needed to be suitable for publication. abstract: the aim is not properly formulated. changes will be needed based on the next points. introduction: what is the knowledge gap that you are trying to cross-over. the rationale is missed. the aim of the study is vague and not fulfilled in the manuscript. you may change it to be:"to assess the feasibility of the TESTATE COVID screening strategy among.......". Methods: Add a figure to illustrate the flow of recruitment process. move the illustration/definition of the framework components to the methods section. what are your study outcomes? The discussion is very confusing, the term "screening" is not properly used. the authors need to clarify what is their target. you may recommend using the kit based on your findings, but in the current status I can't get what is your target. you need to discuss the main findings, the difference between your 2 groups, and so on ... The conclusion and recommendation are deficient. Reviewer #2: The authors have done a good job/ Here are my comments: Introduction: - More data from the literature should be mentioned to show the complexity of detecting COVID cases, the use of the antigen tests, and their limitations. - The references used are very limited, more evidence should be added to support the study's claim. Methodology: - The interpretation of test results by the professional team is not clear. - Nothing was mentioned regarding the statistical analysis of data. - More data regarding inclusion criteria and procedures for collecting the survey data are needed. - The used framework for evaluation is not well explained. Results: - Adding one or two figures illustrating the data mentioned, especially those from the survey would benefit the presentation of data - The results should be statistically analyzed and presented in the results section Discussion: - The discussion section should include more previous studies that are comparable or related to the current study. - The part of the evaluation should be explained more with relevance to the above-mentioned framework to be able to give a conclusion on the overall feasibility. Conclusion: More conclusions of the study should be added at the end ****** 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:** rehab Hosny El-Sokkary 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275006.r001
Revision 1
28 Jul 2022 Author Response PONE-D-22-12378 Feasibility of an online antigen self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 addressed to health care and education professionals in Catalonia (Spain). The TESTA’T- COVID Project COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS ACADEMIC EDITOR: Respected authors your manuscript is good. However; your research manuscript needs great attention from your side to reach to required level for publishing specially regarding; the objectives for this study which need to be clear and specific. Answer: Following the recommendations of the Editor and the reviewers, the objectives have been re-written. The method section has been completed and re-organized in a proper scientific way. Answer: The results; be sure that your table is inserted within the manuscript and not in the attached other files. Answer: The tables have been inserted within the manuscript. 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 Answer: 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. Answer: Additional details regarding the informed consent have been included in the new version of the manuscript. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Abbot Laboratories provided the tests for the study for free" Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Answer: The updated Competing Interests statement has been included in the Competing Interests section and in the cover letter. 4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Answer: In the informed consent approved by the Ethical Committee of the Germans Trias i Pujol Hospital (PI-20-368) it was included the following statement: No sharing data with third party is planned. For this reason, we understand we are not able to share data of the included participants. 5. 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. Answer: Done. 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 Answer: We re-wrote the manuscript to solve this issue. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Answer: We further explained the statistical data analysis performed in the new version of the manuscript. ________________________________________ 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: No Answer: In the informed consent approved by the Ethical Committee of the Germans Trias i Pujol Hospital (PI-20-368) it was included the following statement: No sharing data with third party is planned. For this reason, we understand we are not able to share data of the included participants. ________________________________________ 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 Answer: We re-wrote the manuscript to solve this issue. ________________________________________ 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: the respected authors presented a good idea that would add to the available methods of screening. But it is poorly presented, many changes are needed to be suitable for publication. Abstract: the aim is not properly formulated. Changes will be needed based on the next points. Answer: Following the recommendation of the reviewer, the aim has been reformulated in the abstract and in the introduction section. Introduction: what is the knowledge gap that you are trying to cross-over. Answer: The introduction section has been extended. The rationale is missed. Answer: The rationale has been included in the introduction section. The aim of the study is vague and not fulfilled in the manuscript. You may change it to be:"to assess the feasibility of the TESTATE COVID screening strategy among.......". Answer: Following the recommendation of the reviewer, the aim has been reformulated in the abstract and in the introduction section. Methods: Add a figure to illustrate the flow of recruitment process. Answer: Done. See Figure 2. Move the illustration/definition of the framework components to the methods section. Answer: Done. A figure of the framework components has been included in the methods section and the definition of each component has been added in the text. What are your study outcomes? Answer: An explanation of what are the study outcomes has been included in the methods section. The discussion is very confusing, the term "screening" is not properly used. the authors need to clarify what is their target. you may recommend using the kit based on your findings, but in the current status I can't get what is your target. you need to discuss the main findings, the difference between your 2 groups, and so on ... Answer: We clarified and extended the Discussion section. We agreed with the reviewer that it was not clear enough. We also agreed that the term screening was not properly used and we correct this issue. The conclusion and recommendation are deficient. Answer: We included more conclusions and recommendations in the Discussion section. Reviewer #2: The authors have done a good job/ Here are my comments: Introduction: - More data from the literature should be mentioned to show the complexity of detecting COVID cases, the use of the antigen tests, and their limitations. Answer: The introduction section has been extended to add more information from the literature to show the complexity of detecting COVID cases, the use of the antigen tests, and their limitations. - The references used are very limited, more evidence should be added to support the study's claim. Answer: The introduction section has been extended to add more evidence. Methodology: - The interpretation of test results by the professional team is not clear. Answer: We added an explanation about the procedure in the Methods section. - Nothing was mentioned regarding the statistical analysis of data. Answer: An explanation of the statistical analysis of data has been added in the Methodology section of the new version of the manuscript. - More data regarding inclusion criteria and procedures for collecting the survey data are needed. Answer: An explanation of the inclusion criteria has been added in the Methodology section of the new version of the manuscript - The used framework for evaluation is not well explained. Answer: An explanation of the framework used for the evaluation has been added in the Methodology section of the new version of the manuscript Results: - Adding one or two figures illustrating the data mentioned, especially those from the survey would benefit the presentation of data Answer: An extra table and two figures have been included in the new version of the manuscript. - The results should be statistically analyzed and presented in the results section Answer: The results section has been modified. We added the p value and the interval of confidence of data presented. Discussion: - The discussion section should include more previous studies that are comparable or related to the current study. Answer: Little information is available on pilot intervention that offer self-tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. Some studies have been included in the introduction and the discussion. - The part of the evaluation should be explained more with relevance to the above-mentioned framework to be able to give a conclusion on the overall feasibility. Answer: The part of the evaluation has been explained more and we included an overall conclusion of the feasibility. Conclusion: More conclusions of the study should be added at the end. Answer: More conclusions have been included in the Discussion section. ________________________________________ 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: rehab Hosny El-Sokkary 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: Response_to_reviewers_29062022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275006.r002
29 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Omnia Samir El Seifi, Editor PONE-D-22-12378R1Feasibility of an online antigen self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 addressed to health care and education professionals in Catalonia (Spain). The TESTA’T- COVID ProjectPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Agustí, 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:Dear authors you did a great job, only few changes need to bee done- the objective in the abstract must be as at the end of the introduction- in the method section ; it needs to be organized under subheadings to make your work more clear and please write them in order as; study design, study sitting and timing, study population, sampling and sample size, tools of data collection, study outcomes data mangement, ethical consideration. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 13 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, Omnia Samir El Seifi, Professor 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 #1: (No Response) ******** 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (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: Thanks for addressing all raised concern only one is left: write the aim in the abstract section like that mentioned in the text. ****** 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: rehab Hosny El-Sokkary ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275006.r003
Revision 2
8 Sep 2022 Author Response PONE-D-22-12378R1 Feasibility of an online antigen self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 addressed to health care and education professionals in Catalonia (Spain). The TESTA’T- COVID Project PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Agustí, 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: Dear authors you did a great job, only few changes need to bee done - the objective in the abstract must be as at the end of the introduction - in the method section ; it needs to be organized under subheadings to make your work more clear and please write them in order as; study design, study sitting and timing, study population, sampling and sample size, tools of data collection, study outcomes data mangement, ethical consideration. Answer: The authors have included the suggested changes in the reviewed version of the manuscript. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 13 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'. Done. • 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'. Done • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. Done 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. Not necessary. 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, Omnia Samir El Seifi, Professor 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. Done [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (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: Thanks for addressing all raised concern only one is left: write the aim in the abstract section like that mentioned in the text. Answer: We have included the aim in the abstract section like that mentioned in the text. 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: rehab Hosny El-Sokkary Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_29082022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275006.r004
9 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Omnia Samir El Seifi, Editor Feasibility of an online antigen self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 addressed to health care and education professionals in Catalonia (Spain). The TESTA’T- COVID Project PONE-D-22-12378R2 Dear Dr. Agustí, 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, Omnia Samir El Seifi, Professor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275006.r005
Formally Accepted
14 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Omnia Samir El Seifi, Editor PONE-D-22-12378R2 Feasibility of an online antigen self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 addressed to health care and education professionals in Catalonia (Spain). The TESTA’T- COVID Project. Dear Dr. Agustí: 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 Omnia Samir El Seifi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275006.r006

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 .