Occupational exposure to dust and respiratory symptoms among Ethiopian factory workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Zemachu Ashuro; Habtamu Endashaw Hareru; Negasa Eshete Soboksa; Samson Wakuma Abaya; Yifokire Tefera Zele

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284551

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 3, 2022
14 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Ghulam Md Ashraf, Editor PONE-D-22-30181Occupational exposure to dust and Respiratory symptoms among Ethiopian factory workers: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ashuro, 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 31 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, Ghulam Md Ashraf, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: This manuscript performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate prevalence of respiratory symptoms associated with occupational exposure of dust among Ethiopian factory workers. This study is specifically important as it estimates the overall prevalence of respiratory symptoms among workers in different industries whereas the previous studies were confined to specific industries. However, the authors are requested to address the following comments: 1. Paragraph 6 in the introduction section “The prevalence of occupational…….to 69.8% wood factory workers” has some overlapping/repetitive information with paragraph 2 in the discussion section “According to the findings…………contributing factors to the discrepency.” Either paragraph can be rephrased to avoid it. 2. Paragraph 7 in the introdcution section starts with “However, the research findings are inconsitent.” Which research findings are inconsistent and why do the authors think so? 3. In the last paragraph of introduction section, the authors should focus and elaborate on the scope of this manuscript compared to previous studies i.e. pooled estimates of prevalence in different industries vs. industry specific prevalence in previous studies. 4. Research question should be within the text in the introduction section. 5. It is better to put table 1 in the supplementary information. 6. It is better to discuss the limitations in the discussion section rather than having a separate section. 7. Please revise the manuscript for grammatical/language corrections. For example, there should be no “and” in the first line in the result of the abstract “….studies that met inclusion criteria and were included….” Another example, there is no verb in the last line of fifth paragraph of introdcution section “…The reported rspiratory….magnitude…..to factory/industry”. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, I have concern with previous published works, which is more convenient than yours. Also, you need to finalize the statistical analysis in the way all the works presents and graph them accordingly. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284551.r001
Revision 1
24 Feb 2023 Author Response Responses Reviewer #1 1. Paragraph 6 in the introduction section “The prevalence of occupational…….to 69.8% wood factory workers” has some overlapping/repetitive information with paragraph 2 in the discussion section “According to the findings…………contributing factors to the discrepency.” Either paragraph can be rephrased to avoid it. Thank for your comment. we have revised our manuscript as per your comment 2. Paragraph 7 in the introdcution section starts with “However, the research findings are inconsitent.” Which research findings are inconsistent and why do the authors think so? Thank you a lot. We revised it. It is necessary to pool the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and associated factors at the factory level due to variations in findings across previously existing primary studies. 3. In the last paragraph of introduction section, the authors should focus and elaborate on the scope of this manuscript compared to previous studies i.e. pooled estimates of prevalence in different industries vs. industry specific prevalence in previous studies. Thank you very much for your advice. Previous systematic reviews and meta analyses pooled some of the studies conducted outside of industries or outdoor environments, for example, among street sweeping workers. As a result, it is not the correct method because the exposure status and working environment differ in the outdoor and indoor environments. Furthermore, dust control measures differ in the indoor and outdoor environments. Engineering control measures, for example, are inapplicable in an outdoor environment. As a result, estimating pooled prevalence specifically among factory workers was critical in order to implement appropriate prevention and control measures to improve worker and factory owner productivity. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta analysis of studies. 4. Research question should be within the text in the introduction section. Thank you. We replaced the research questions with the study's objective. 5. It is better to put table 1 in the supplementary information. Thank you for your constructive feedback. Table 1 was added as supplementary information. 6. It is better to discuss the limitations in the discussion section rather than having a separate section. Thank you. We revised accordingly. 7. Please revise the manuscript for grammatical/language corrections. For example, there should be no “and” in the first line in the result of the abstract “….studies that met inclusion criteria and were included….” Another example, there is no verb in the last line of fifth paragraph of introdcution section “…The reported rspiratory….magnitude…..to factory/industry”. Thank you a lot. We revised the the whole manuscript to correct grammatical and language errors. Reviewer #2 1. I have concern with previous published works, which is more convenient than yours. Also, you need to finalize the statistical analysis in the way all the works presents and graph them accordingly. Thank for your comment. We changed the entire document in the revised version. This study differs from previous ones in that it focuses primarily on factory workers. However, studies conducted among outdoor workers were included in previous systematic reviews and meta analyses. I believe that including studies conducted among street sweeping workers (outdoor environment) was not the correct approach because exposure status, type of dust generated, and control measures implemented were completely different in indoor and outdoor work environments. As a result, combining outdoor and indoor workplace prevalence is not the best approach. We performed various statistical analyses such as meta regression, sensitivity analysis, and Egger's test. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284551.r002
22 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Sebastien Kenmoe, Editor PONE-D-22-30181R1Occupational exposure to dust and Respiratory symptoms among Ethiopian factory workers: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ashuro, 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. While the article presents valuable insights, there are a few areas for improvement. The authors should provide a PRISMA Checklist to enhance the transparency and completeness of their systematic review. The article's methodology should include a clear definition of respiratory symptoms. The results of the selection process should be reported as usual for this type of study. Specifically, the study's selection process from L170 to 175 should be presented in the results section. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 06 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, Sebastien Kenmoe 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: 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 ****** 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: (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 ******** [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.0284551.r003
Revision 2
1 Apr 2023 Author Response Point by point response to reviewers 1. The authors should provide a PRISMA Checklist to enhance the transparency and completeness of their systematic review. response: Thank for your comment. We provided a PRISMA Checklist as supporting information as per your comment 2. The article's methodology should include a clear definition of respiratory symptoms. Response: Thank you very much. In the revised version of the manuscript, we defined respiratory symptoms 3. The results of the selection process should be reported as usual for this type of study. Specifically, the study's selection process from L170 to 175 should be presented in the results section Response: Thank for your comment. In the revised version, we presented the selection process in the results section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284551.r004
4 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Sebastien Kenmoe, Editor Occupational exposure to dust and Respiratory symptoms among Ethiopian factory workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-22-30181R2 Dear Dr. Ashuro, 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, Sebastien Kenmoe Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284551.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sebastien Kenmoe, Editor PONE-D-22-30181R2 Occupational exposure to dust and Respiratory symptoms among Ethiopian factory workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Ashuro: 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. Sebastien Kenmoe Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284551.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 .