Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 16, 2022
Decision Letter - Deepak Dhamnetiya, Editor

PONE-D-22-07813A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of bladder cancer: the global burden of disease study 1990-2019PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Farshad Farzadfar,

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 June 16, 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,

Deepak Dhamnetiya, MD

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. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: 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: Comment: Thanks to the authors for their hard work on this study “A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of bladder cancer: the global burden of disease study 1990-2019”. Overall, the article is well-written and has a relevant emphasis. These recommendations and comments, however, may help to enhance this study enough to get it published.

Comment-1: The article has no page number and no line number making it difficult to reference texts for revision.

Comment-2: After reading the introduction, I think it would have been beneficial to have a little more information there.

Comment-3: Please elaborate more about PCA method.

Comment-4: Try to make the discussion more focused on key variable.

Reviewer #2: Congratulations for your effort to represent about such data of regionally and globally concerned. Analysis is worked well and you can discuss comprehensively according to you findings. In addition to these, the following comments are recommended.

1.Firstly, authors should prepare the manuscript according to the PLOS ONE guidelines that include to add number line by line. It is useful for reviewers to give comments to authors. So may I highlight my comments as subtitles or page number in spite of line number.

2. Author cited the Table 1 and Table 2 in the text for the findings but they were not found as neither main table nor supplementary table. The Table 1 you attached as supplementary information is for ICD-10Code.

3.For material and methods, mixed effect model for QCI validation is good to show as the supplementary table or figure.

4. In results section 3.1, findings on national level should be included to reflect the Title of manuscript.

Moreover, all indices of PCA are necessary to be described because the author showed incidence, mortality and DALYs and left over about prevalence, YLLs and YLDs.

5. For section 3.1, corresponding table or figures will make clear presentation about the findings.

6. For section 3.2 QCI, the reason of analysis for only 1990, 2005,2014 and 2019 should be mentioned (refers to the first line of the first paragraph)

7.For Age disparity, age interval are not equally described where they are (a) 3.4, first paragraph, third line , 50-75 and (b) 3.4, second paragraph, second line, 30-43

8. Age group should be included in text for high and high middle SDI countries in place of writing as "above mentioned age group and in the later part" for easy understanding of the readers. (3.4, second paragraph, third to fifth line)

9. The purpose of supplementary figure 1 should be mentioned and what its difference from figure 1 is wanted to know.

10. The year specification as 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2019 for these above figures should be explained for better presentation.

**********

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.

Revision 1

A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of bladder cancer: the global burden of disease study 1990-2019

Editor's Comments to Author:

Dear Prof. Farshad Farzadfar,

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 June 16, 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,

Deepak Dhamnetiya, MD

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. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

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.]

Answer: Thanks for your suggestions. We revised the article according to the journal style. Furthermore, we added the license statement for Figure 1.

We have revised the manuscript according to the journal instructions and thoughtful suggestions of the reviewers and all the issues were addressed in response to the reviewers.

*********************************

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

Thanks to the authors for their hard work on this study “A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of bladder cancer: the global burden of disease study 1990-2019”. Overall, the article is well-written and has a relevant emphasis. These recommendations and comments, however, may help to enhance this study enough to get it published.

Q1: The article has no page number and no line number making it difficult to reference texts for revision.

A1: Many thanks for the kind comments. We added the page and line numbers, and also edited the manuscript thoroughly to fit with the journal format accordingly.

*********************************

Q2: After reading the introduction, I think it would have been beneficial to have a little more information there.

A2: Many thanks. We added a complete paragraph to the introduction accordingly.

*********************************

Q3: Please elaborate more about PCA method.

A3: Many thanks. We added several more sentences to the methods describing this method and highlighted them accordingly.

*********************************

Q4: Try to make the discussion more focused on key variable.

A4: Many thanks for the instructive comment. We went through several important studies related to our manuscript and added their data to our study to strengthen our discussion accordingly.

Reviewer: 2

Congratulations for your effort to represent about such data of regionally and globally concerned. Analysis is worked well and you can discuss comprehensively according to your findings. In addition to these, the following comments are recommended.

Q1: Firstly, authors should prepare the manuscript according to the PLOS ONE guidelines that include to add number line by line. It is useful for reviewers to give comments to authors. So may I highlight my comments as subtitles or page number in spite of line number.

A1: Many thanks for your kind words. We added the page and line numbers and completely revised the manuscript according the Plos one guidelines.

*********************************

Q2: Author cited the Table 1 and Table 2 in the text for the findings but they were not found as neither main table nor supplementary table. The Table 1 you attached as supplementary information is for ICD-10Code.

A2: Many thanks. The tables were submitted as separate files, but we added them to the text in the revisions according the journal style, and can be visible now. Supplementary table 1 is about ICD-10 codes, but table 1 and table 2 present important data regarding our study.

*********************************

Q3: For material and methods, mixed effect model for QCI validation is good to show as the supplementary table or figure.

A3: Many thanks. We added the requested table as supplementary table 2 (S2 Table) accordingly.

*********************************

Q4: In results section 3.1, findings on national level should be included to reflect the Title of manuscript.

Moreover, all indices of PCA are necessary to be described because the author showed incidence, mortality and DALYs and left over about prevalence, YLLs and YLDs.

A4: Many thanks.

The main aim of this study is QCI that combines all those mentioned variables using PCA. Section 3.1 starts as an introduction to the results section that makes the readers familiar with the epidemiologic situation of BCa, the main novelty of the study is related to the QCI that contains more extensive results, including those of national level. Therefore, we tried not to make this section over-extended, and only tried to focus on the main indices of mortality, incidence, and DALY.

*********************************

Q5: For section 3.1, corresponding table or figures will make clear presentation about the findings.

A5: Many thanks. Table 1 is added to the text that extensively presents the findings accordingly.

*********************************

Q6: For section 3.2 QCI, the reason of analysis for only 1990, 2005,2014 and 2019 should be mentioned (refers to the first line of the first paragraph)

A6: Many thanks. The main years in the study were 1990 and 2019, and we also added the year between these values. We added the year 2014 to the analysis to find the 5-year differences. We added the reasoning to the Table 2 footnote (corresponding to section 3.2) accordingly.

*********************************

Q7: For Age disparity, age interval are not equally described where they are (a) 3.4, first paragraph, third line , 50-75 and (b) 3.4, second paragraph, second line, 30-43

A7: Many thanks for the precise comment. The 30-43 number was wrong, the right number was 30-34 and was corrected accordingly.

The first paragraph describes 3 overall age groups (Figure 3) (according to the age groups of GBD data), while the second paragraph describes ages by 5-year intervals (Figure 4).

*********************************

Q8: Age group should be included in text for high and high middle SDI countries in place of writing as "above mentioned age group and in the later part" for easy understanding of the readers. (3.4, second paragraph, third to fifth line)

A8: Many thanks. Revised accordingly.

*********************************

Q9: The purpose of supplementary figure 1 should be mentioned and what its difference from figure 1 is wanted to know.

A9: Many thanks. Supplementary figure 1 demonstrates all the countries in a manner that their region of origin is available. Furthermore, Supplementary Figure 1 also illustrates the situation in various years. Therefore, as we added to the text (highlighted accordingly), this figure facilitates the interpretation of the regions’ progress during the years. On the other hand, Figure 1 shows the situation of the QCI scores and GDR (gender disparity ratio) in specific countries using a word map.

The most similar figure to Supplementary figure 1 is figure 2 that we believe is what the respected reviewer meant. The difference is that figure 2 is related to 6 “WHO” regions, Supplementary figure 1 is related to “GBD” super-regions. We clarified this matter and highlighted accordingly.

*********************************

Q10: The year specification as 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2019 for these above figures should be explained for better presentation.

A10: Many thanks. Added to the text and highlighted accordingly.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_2022.08.24.docx
Decision Letter - Deepak Dhamnetiya, Editor

A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of bladder cancer: the global burden of disease study 1990-2019

PONE-D-22-07813R1

Dear Dr. Farshad Farzadfar,

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,

Deepak Dhamnetiya, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you so much for your detailed reply for my previous comments and congratulations for your great efforts. Your manuscript is acceptable for publication but I am still interested to the data for some QCI constitutes; Prevalence, YLLs and YLDs. If you are feasible, may I suggest to add these data as supporting information for your perfect publication.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. May Soe Aung, Associate Professor, University of Medicine (1), Yangon, Myanmar

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Deepak Dhamnetiya, Editor

PONE-D-22-07813R1

A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of bladder cancer: the global burden of disease study 1990-2019

Dear Dr. Farzadfar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Deepak Dhamnetiya

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 .