Effect of quitting immediately vs progressively on smoking cessation for smokers at emergency department in Hong Kong: A posteriori analysis of a randomized controlled trial

William Ho Cheung Li; Wei Xia; Man Ping Wang; Derek Yee Tak Cheung; Kai Yeung Cheung; Carlos King Ho Wong; Tai Hing Lam

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280925

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 9, 2021
26 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Hao Xue, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-21-03778 Effect of Quitting Immediately vs Progressively on Smoking Cessation for Smokers at Emergency Department in Hong Kong: A Posteriori Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, 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 Jun 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, Hao Xue 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: A two-arm randomized controlled study aimed to determine which method of quitting smoking is more effective: suddenly or progressively. In a propensity score matched analysis, the 6-month abstinence rate was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group who chose to quit smoking immediately compared to controls. At 6-months, the cessation of smoking rate was also higher in the intervention group who chose to quit smoking progressively compared to controls. The smoking cessation rates were not statistically significantly different in the two intervention groups. Minor revisions: 1- Tables 1 to 3: For each baseline characteristic, provide only one p-value for comparing all three groups. If the p-value is significant, perform step-down tests to determine pairwise differences. 2-Page 9: Explain the rationale for using a GEE model when adjusting for baseline characteristics rather than applying multivariate logistic regression models. 3- Page 10, Line 1: The figure number had been omitted. 4- Provide a post-hoc power calculation. 5- Explain the graphical results in figure 2. ****** 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 [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.0280925.r001
Revision 1
19 May 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, Re: "Effect of Quitting Immediately vs Progressively on Smoking Cessation for Smokers at Emergency Department in Hong Kong: A Posteriori Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial" (PONE-D-21-03778) We sincerely thank the editor and reviewer’s very useful and constructive comments. We have made changes accordingly. Please also refer to the following point-by-point responses to the comments from the reviewer and editor. Please kindly let me know in case any responses are not clear or the information is not adequate to clarify concerns. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to revise the manuscript. Please also note that all data are belong to the funder (Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region). The data can be accessed only with the permission by the Bureau (https://rfs2.fhb.gov.hk/english/welcome/welcome.html.) Sincerely, Authors Response to the Journal requirements Comment 1 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 Response 1 We have changed the format of the manuscript and ensured that the manuscript meets the requirement of PLOS ONE. Comment 2 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Response 2 Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent information. We have corrected the Funding information in the manuscript (Page 23, line 13). Comment 3 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Response 3 Thanks for the comment. We have contacted with the Funder and then update our Data Availability statement as below: All data are belong to the funder (Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region). The data can be accessed only with the permission by the Bureau (https://rfs2.fhb.gov.hk/english/welcome/welcome.html.) Comment 4 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response 4 We have checked the reference list and ensure that it is complete and correct. Response to comments from Reviewer Comment 1 1- Tables 1 to 3: For each baseline characteristic, provide only one p-value for comparing all three groups. If the p-value is significant, perform step-down tests to determine pairwise differences. Response 1 Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the one-way ANOVA analysis was used to compare the differences of baseline variables among the three groups, and then a Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test was performed to specific groups difference for the variables showing significant difference in the one-way ANOVA analysis. Please find the results in the table 1 to 3. The description of the statistical analysis method was revised accordingly as below (Page 9, line 8): “For the variables showing significant difference in ANOVA, the Tukey's honestly significant difference post-hoc test the Games -Howell post-hoc test and were performed when the assumption of equal variances was met and not met, respectively.” In addition, we will keep the standardized differences in table 1 and table 2 as they may allow the readers to well understand that demographic and smoking profiles among the three groups were well balanced after the PSM. Comment 2 2-Page 9: Explain the rationale for using a GEE model when adjusting for baseline characteristics rather than applying multivariate logistic regression models. Response 2 We are apologized for the mistake of the description. Actually we used a Generalized Logistic Mixed Model (GLMM) to calculate the odds ratios as the data in this study were collected in multiple research center and the GLMM allowed us to adjust the random effect of the hospitals in the model. We have corrected the description in the manuscript as below (Page 9, line 20) and the notes under the table 4 accordingly: “A Generalized Logistic Mixed Model (GLMM) was then used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for primary and secondary outcomes after adjusting for characteristics at baseline and the random effect of hospitals using the matched sample.” Comment 3 3- Page 10, Line 1: The figure number had been omitted. Response 3 Thank you for pointing out the mistake, we have revised it as “Figure 1” in Page 10, line 1. Comment 4 4- Provide a post-hoc power calculation. Response 4 Thank you for your suggestion, the results of power calculations have been added in the manuscript, please find it in table 5 and page 18, lines 1-4 as below: “The observed power (1-β) of quitting immediately and quitting progressively on the biochemically validated quit rate, the self-reported quit rate, and self-reported reduction of cigarette consumption were then calculated using Gpower.” Comment 5 5- Explain the graphical results in figure 2. Response 5 The explanation of the results in figure 2 has been added in the results section as below (Page 19, line 1-5): “The scatterplot and ﬁtted line analysis showed that the values of both the absolute and percent cigarette reduction at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups were associated with the biochemically validated abstinence as assessed at the 12-month follow-up (Fig 2). The R2 showed that the percent cigarette reduction (a-2, b-2, c-2) could better predict the 12-month abstinence than the absolute cigarette reduction (a-1, b-1, c-1).” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to the comments-2.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280925.r002
4 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Hao Xue, Editor PONE-D-21-03778R1Effect of Quitting Immediately vs Progressively on Smoking Cessation for Smokers at Emergency Department in Hong Kong: A Posteriori Analysis of a Randomized Controlled TrialPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, 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 Aug 18 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, Hao Xue 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Minor Revision: Include the full details of the power calculation. The power calculation should include: sample size, alpha level (indicating one or two-sided), minimal detectable difference (plus the standard deviation when appropriate) and statistical testing method. ****** 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 ******** [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.0280925.r003
Revision 2
5 Jul 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, Re: "Effect of Quitting Immediately vs Progressively on Smoking Cessation for Smokers at Emergency Department in Hong Kong: A Posteriori Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial" (PONE-D-21-03778R1) We sincerely thank the editor and reviewer’s very useful and constructive comments. We have made changes accordingly. Please also refer to the following point-by-point responses to the comments from the reviewer and editor. Please kindly let me know in case any responses are not clear or the information is not adequate to clarify concerns. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to revise the manuscript. Please also note that all data are belong to the funder (Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region). The data can be accessed only with the permission by the Bureau (https://rfs2.fhb.gov.hk/english/welcome/welcome.html.) Sincerely, Authors Response to comments from Reviewer Comment 1 Minor Revision required: Include the full details of the power calculation. The power calculation should include: sample size, alpha level (indicating one or two-sided), minimal detectable difference (plus the standard deviation when appropriate) and statistical testing method. Response 1 Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added the following information related to sample size calculation in the text: “The sample size was calculated according to a previous trial [3] of a smoking reduction plus nicotine replacement therapy intervention involving 1154 Chinese adult smokers unwilling to quit smoking (biochemically validated quit rate of 4.4% [10 of 226] in the control group and 8.0% [74 of 928] in the intervention group at 6months). To detect a two-sided significant difference between groups with a power of 80% and significance level of 5%, the required sample size was estimated to be 1088 participants (544 in each group). Given an expected attrition rate of approximately 30% at the 6-month follow-up, the target was at least 1554 individuals (777 in each group). Between July 4, 2015 and March 17, 2017, 1571 smokers who presented at 4 major emergency departments consented to participate in this randomized controlled trial and were randomized into an intervention group (n = 787) and a control group (n = 784).” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280925.r004
15 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Katrien Janin, Editor PONE-D-21-03778R2Effect of Quitting Immediately vs Progressively on Smoking Cessation for Smokers at Emergency Department in Hong Kong: A Posteriori Analysis of a Randomized Controlled TrialPLOS ONE Dear Dr. LI, 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. Your manuscript has been reassessed by two reviewers, whose reports can be found below. As you will see from the comments, there remain some minor additions to your sample size/power justification which should be addressed before your manuscript is suitable for publication. 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, Katrien Janin Staff 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) 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: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #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: Minor revision: Sample Size/Power justification: State the statistical testing method which attains 80% power. Perhaps the method is a chi-square test for comparing proportions. Reviewer #2: This is a well written articles and novel approach to smoking cessation, building on the authors previous works. Findings are clearly described and presented. ****** 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: 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.0280925.r005
Revision 3
18 Nov 2022 Author Response Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the following information to justify the sample size calculation in the text: “The sample size was calculated according to a previous trial [3] of a smoking reduction plus nicotine replacement therapy intervention involving 1154 Chinese adult smokers unwilling to quit smoking (biochemically validated quit rate of 4.4% [10 of 226] in the control group and 8.0% [74 of 928] in the intervention group at 6months). To detect a two-sided significant difference between groups by a chi-square test for comparing proportions with a power of 80% and significance level of 5%, the required sample size was estimated to be 1088 participants (544 in each group). Given an expected attrition rate of approximately 30% at the 6-month follow-up, the target was at least 1554 individuals (777 in each group). Between July 4, 2015 and March 17, 2017, 1571 smokers who presented at 4 major emergency departments consented to participate in this randomized controlled trial and were randomized into an intervention group (n = 787) and a control group (n = 784).” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280925.r006
12 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Yann Benetreau, Editor Effect of Quitting Immediately vs Progressively on Smoking Cessation for Smokers at Emergency Department in Hong Kong: A Posteriori Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial PONE-D-21-03778R3 Dear Dr. Li, 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, Yann Benetreau Staff Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (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) Reviewer #2: (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) Reviewer #2: (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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280925.r007
Formally Accepted
17 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Yann Benetreau, Editor PONE-D-21-03778R3 Effect of Quitting Immediately vs Progressively on Smoking Cessation for Smokers at Emergency Department in Hong Kong: A Posteriori Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial Dear Dr. Li: 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 Katrien Janin Staff Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280925.r008

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 .