Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 11, 2022
Decision Letter - Ray Borrow, Editor

PONE-D-22-04342Rubella virus IgM and IgG antibodies with avidity in pregnant women and outcomes at a tertiary facility in Ghana: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sagoe,

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 below during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 29 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,

Ray Borrow, Ph.D., FRCPath

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. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 overall quality of the work is good. The authors have provided sufficient information to understand the topic of interest, explain the steps of the research process clearly, and provided a good discussion of the study results. I do not have further comments to submit and I believe this work is ready for publishing.

Please accept my best regards,

Reviewer #2: Introduction (page 6): second line- specify 9-14 ? months or years

Study design and population : last sentence of first paragraph (page 7) : questionnaires were administered ‘to’ obtain … add ‘to’.

Why were pregnant women in the first trimester of pregnancy not included ?

Add a sub heading of ‘sample size’

Reference formula used for sample size determination and give the name if possible.

Why the age limit of 45 years ?

Data and blood sample collection (page 8): nothing was described on blood sample collection. Title should be revised

Testing for rubella virus specific antibodies and avidity (page 9 : on the first line, precise if plasma or serum was used for analyses.

Detection of Congenital Rubella Syndrome : Is the national Cardiothoracic center part of the Korle Bu Teaching hospital ? if not include under study area.

Results : define exposed and non-immune in the first sentence.

Socio-demographic characteristics : What does number of children represent ? are they children living in the house during the current pregnancy or the number of children the participants had?

Tables are named 5.1, 5.2, 5.3…. it should be corrected to be Table 1, 2, 3, …

Why was avidity test done on all participants ?

Show avidity results of participants that were IgM posisitve

Table 5.5 indicates IgM positivity. How many participants were IgM positive ?

Non-immune clients : specify if rubella vaccine given to participants during pregnancy.

Follow-up data for babies : define SARS-COV-2

Discussion : page 28, first sentence not clear.

**********

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

General responses:

We did not observe any statistical issues and all the ethical details have been provided.

Reviewer #2:

Comment: Introduction (page 6): second line- specify 9-14? months or years

Response: The word “years” has been inserted

Comment: Study design and population: last sentence of first paragraph (page 7): questionnaires were administered ‘to’ obtain … add ‘to’.

Response: The word “to” has been inserted

Comments: Why were pregnant women in the first trimester of pregnancy not included?

Response: There are no clear policies concerning termination of pregnancies in the event of indications that the foetus may have been infected with Rubella virus. This will lead to a dilemma for the Obstetricians and present challenges with patients in decision making.

Comment: Add a sub heading of ‘sample size’

Response: A sub-heading “Sample size and strategy” has been introduced above the formula for determining sample size.

Comment: Reference formula used for sample size determination and give the name if possible.

Response: The name of the formula has been given; Cochran formula is well known and no reference is required.

Comment: Why the age limit of 45 years?

Response: The study had a sampling strategy among pregnant women, and that was the maximum age sampled.

Comment: Data and blood sample collection (page 8): nothing was described on blood sample collection.

Response: Information on blood collection has been provided.

Comment: Title should be revised

Response: The phrase “a cross-sectional study” has been deleted

Comment: Testing for rubella virus specific antibodies and avidity (page 9: on the first line, precise if plasma or serum was used for analyses).

Response: The manuscript has already noted that plasma was used by obtaining blood using EDTA anticoagulant tubes.

Comment: Detection of Congenital Rubella Syndrome: Is the national Cardiothoracic center part of the Korle Bu Teaching hospital? if not include under study area.

Response: Yes, it is part of the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital (https://kbth.gov.gh/departments-centres/)

Comment: Results: define exposed and non-immune in the first sentence.

Response: This has been done.

Comment: Socio-demographic characteristics: What does number of children represent? are they children living in the house during the current pregnancy or the number of children the participants had?

Response: The phrase “each participant had (parity)” has been included. These were the number of children the woman had delivered.

Comment: Tables are named 5.1, 5.2, 5.3…. it should be corrected to be Table 1, 2, 3, …

Response: This has been done.

Comment: Why was avidity test done on all participants?

Response: To determine the recency of rubella virus IgG which was present in 92% of participants. This has been articulated in the introduction. Avidity testing is only done when IgG is detected.

Comment: Show avidity results of participants that were IgM posisitve

Response: This has been shown in Table 6.

Comment: Table 5.5 indicates IgM positivity. How many participants were IgM positive ?

Response: Five women as shown in Table 3

Comment: Non-immune clients: specify if rubella vaccine given to participants during pregnancy.

Response: It is unclear why this request is being made. None of the clients was vaccinated during pregnancy. Vaccination is contraindicated in pregnancy.

Comment: Follow-up data for babies: define SARS-COV-2

SARS-CoV-2 has been written in full, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Type 2”

Comment: Discussion: page 28, first sentence not clear.

Response: A slight modification has been made.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers..docx
Decision Letter - Ray Borrow, Editor

Rubella virus IgM and IgG antibodies with avidity in pregnant women and outcomes at a tertiary facility in Ghana

PONE-D-22-04342R1

Dear Dr. Sagoe,

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,

Ray Borrow, Ph.D., FRCPath

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ray Borrow, Editor

PONE-D-22-04342R1

Rubella virus IgM and IgG antibodies with avidity in pregnant women and outcomes at a tertiary facility in Ghana

Dear Dr. Sagoe:

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

Prof. Ray Borrow

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 .