Association between prior tuberculosis disease and dysglycemia within an HIV-endemic, rural South African population

Alison C. Castle; Susanne S. Hoeppner; Itai M. Magodoro; Urisha Singh; Yumna Moosa; Ingrid V. Bassett; Emily B. Wong; Mark J. Siedner; on behalf of the Vukuzazi Study Team

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282371

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 21, 2022
1 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Elizabeth S. Mayne, Editor PONE-D-22-26235Association between prior tuberculosis disease and dysglycemia within an HIV-endemic, rural South African populationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Castle, 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. ============================== Both reviewers concurred that this was generally a well-written paper which added to the knowledge of the subject. There were a few minor comments: 1. Not all eligible residents participated - this should be explained 2. The age of the participants was low and they would be expected to have a low prevalence of Diabetes and this should be discussed as a limitation There is also a recommendation of certain references to consult ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 16 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, Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium the Vukuzazi Study Team. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Both reviewers concurred that this was generally a well-written paper which added to the knowledge of the subject. There were a few minor comments: 1. Not all eligible residents participated - this should be explained 2. The age of the participants was low and they would be expected to have a low prevalence of Diabetes and this should be discussed as a limitation There is also a recommendation of certain references to consult [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: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors report the relationship between prior tuberculosis infection and dysglycaemia in a population in rural South Africa. The paper is generally well written with sound methodology and contributes to the literature on tuberculosis and dysglycaemia. Minor comments 1. Approximately half of the eligible residents in the DHSS participated in the study. It would be useful to know the basic characteristics of those who did not take part, so the reader can make an assessment of the generalisability of the results 2. The mean age of the study population is rather low and the background prevalence of diabetes would also be expected to be fairly low. the authors should comment on this limitation. 3. Reference 1 is only cited after several other references-this should be corrected. 4. The word "comprise" is not followed by "of" 5. The references should be formatted in a standardised fashion Reviewer #2: There are a number of African studies that have shown that the association of TB and diabetes varies with the diagnostic test used. This may have relevance for your findings 1. Eur Respir J. 2017 Jul; 50(1): 1700004. 2.. J Infect Dis 2016; 213: 1163–1172 3.Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2017 Feb 1;21(2):208-213 ****** 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: Yes: Jaya A George ******** [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.0282371.r001
Revision 1
2 Dec 2022 Author Response Dr. Elizabeth S. Mayne Academic Editor PLOS ONE 2nd December 2022 Dear Dr. Mayne and editorial team, Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled "Association between prior tuberculosis disease and dysglycemia within an HIV-endemic, rural South African population" to PLOS ONE. We appreciate the time and effort you and each reviewer have dedicated to providing insightful feedback to strengthen our paper. We followed the reviewers’ suggestions and have outlined the revisions to the paper below. We hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted. JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. RESPONSE: The title page, abstract, and manuscript have been edited with tracked changes to meet all of the style requirements instructed above. 2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. RESPONSE: A section on Inclusivity in global research is now included in our methods section, and a complete questionnaire is attached as a supplement (S4 Checklist). 3. In your data availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. RESPONSE: Our current data statement is updated to include the following bolded words: “Data and the data dictionary defining each field can be accessed at https://data.ahri.org/index.php/catalog/1006 via the Africa Health Research Institute Data Repository. Please email RDMServiceDesk@ahri.org. Access can be granted after publication and upon approval of the proposed analyses by the Vukuzazi Scientific Steering Committee and completion of a data access agreement.” 4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium the Vukuzazi Study Team. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address. RESPONSE: The individual authors and their affiliations within the Vukuzazi Study Team are now listed within the Acknowledgments section. Emily Wong is the lead author for the Vukuzazi Study Team and may be contacted at Emily.wong@ahri.org. 5. 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: All references were reviewed, and no papers have been retracted. REVIEWER #1 COMMENTS: Thank you for your time and effort in giving us feedback. We address your comments one by one in the following. 1. Approximately half of the eligible residents in the DHSS participated in the study. It would be useful to know the basic characteristics of those who did not take part, so the reader can make an assessment of the generalisability of the results RESPONSE: Lines 198-200 now include the basic demographic information (sex and age) of the eligible participants who did not enroll in the Vukuzazi Study. We state, “Of the eligible participants within AHRI’s DHSS, women (OR 2.03 [95% CI 1.94-2.12]; p<0.001) and individuals over the age of 50 (OR 2.01 [95% CI 1.92-2.11]; p<0.001) were more likely to attend the Vukuzazi Study compared to men and younger participants.” 2. The mean age of the study population is rather low and the background prevalence of diabetes would also be expected to be fairly low. The authors should comment on this limitation. RESPONSE: Whereas the study population is representative of the rural region where our study was conducted, we acknowledge that the age distribution of this profile is younger than in high-income countries and therefore resulted in a relatively lower prevalence of diabetes. The following statement is now added to lines 271-273. “Reflecting the population of rural South Africa, the mean age of our cohort was relatively young (men 36.2 years; women 42.5 years) compared to high-income settings [44]. This also likely resulted in a comparatively lower prevalence of dysglycemia.” 3. Reference 1 is only cited after several other references-this should be corrected. RESPONSE: This was an error with EndNote that has now been resolved. 4. The word "comprise" is not followed by "of" RESPONSE: Line 202. The statement “was comprised of” was changed to “included”. 5. The references should be formatted in a standardised fashion. RESPONSE: References are organized using EndNote using the PLoS style format. REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS: 1. There are a number of African studies that have shown that the association of TB and diabetes varies with the diagnostic test used. This may have relevance for your finding 1. Eur Respir J. 2017 Jul; 50(1): 1700004. 2.. J Infect Dis 2016; 213: 1163–1172. 3.Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2017 Feb 1;21(2):208-213. RESPONSE: We appreciate the reviewer bringing these studies to our attention. The diagnostic tests used in all three of these studies were used to detect acute TB infection. By contrast, considered the effect of previously treated TB and dysglycemia. Nonetheless, these studies raise important questions about the validity of hemoglobin A1c testing for diagnosing diabetes in key populations and we have incorporated two of them into lines 305-307. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We’ve incorporated your feedback and hope the revised manuscript will be suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Sincerely, Alison Castle Corresponding Author Africa Health Research Institute 719 Umbilo Rd, Durban, Kwa-Zulu Natal, 4001 Alison.castle@ahri.org Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282371.r002
19 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Elizabeth S. Mayne, Editor PONE-D-22-26235R1Association between prior tuberculosis disease and dysglycemia within an HIV-endemic, rural South African populationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Castle, 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 Mar 05 2023 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, Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please just correct the minor editing errors in the references. [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: My only additional comment regards the formatting of references. The authors should be consistent in the use of upper case letters in the titles of their references. In some instances sentence case is used while in others, every word in the title begins with an upper case letter. 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: Yes: Alisha N Wade MBBS DPhil Reviewer #2: Yes: Professor J George ******** [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.0282371.r003
Revision 2
20 Jan 2023 Author Response Dr. Elizabeth S. Mayne Academic Editor PLOS ONE 20th January 2023 Dear Dr. Mayne and editorial team, Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled "Association between prior tuberculosis disease and dysglycemia within an HIV-endemic, rural South African population" to PLOS ONE. We followed the reviewer's suggestions and have outlined the revisions to the paper below. We hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted. REVIEWER #1 COMMENTS: My only additional comment regards the formatting of references. The authors should be consistent in the use of upper case letters in the titles of their references. In some instances sentence case is used while in others, every word in the title begins with an upper case letter. RESPONSE: We appreciate you highlighting the discrepancies in our reference titles. The following references have now been reformatted so that all are in sentence case only: 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments. We’ve incorporated your feedback in the revised manuscript and hope this will be suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Sincerely, Alison Castle Corresponding Author Africa Health Research Institute 719 Umbilo Rd, Durban, Kwa-Zulu Natal, 4001 Alison.castle@ahri.org Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter2_Jan2023.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282371.r004
14 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Elizabeth S. Mayne, Editor Association between prior tuberculosis disease and dysglycemia within an HIV-endemic, rural South African population PONE-D-22-26235R2 Dear Dr. Castle, 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, Elizabeth S. Mayne, M.D. Academic 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 ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282371.r005
Formally Accepted
6 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Elizabeth S. Mayne, Editor PONE-D-22-26235R2 Association between prior tuberculosis disease and dysglycemia within an HIV-endemic, rural South African population Dear Dr. Castle: 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. Elizabeth S. Mayne Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282371.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .