Improved cookstoves to reduce household air pollution exposure in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of intervention studies

Eunice Phillip; Jessica Langevin; Megan Davis; Nitya Kumar; Aisling Walsh; Vincent Jumbe; Mike Clifford; Ronan Conroy; Debbi Stanistreet

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284908

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 26, 2022
6 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Srijan Lal Shrestha, Editor PONE-D-22-35350Improved cookstoves to reduce household air pollution exposure in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review of intervention studies.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Phillip, 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. Reviewer of your manuscript has suggested minor revision on your submission. 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 Apr 20 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, Srijan Lal Shrestha, 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. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 3. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”. 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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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 ****** 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: The paper based on systematic review is well written, and is attempted to identify which improved cookstoves would be the most suitable to promote among poor communities in Sub-Sahara Africa (sSA).The manuscript is technically sound, systematic review is done following the standard protocol, quality assessment of the included studies are also assessed by using standard tools. The conclusions are supported by the data. Data curation is done rigorously. However there are still some comments to improve the manuscript, which are as follows. 1. In Line 171 under 'Data Charting', it is mentioned that only the most comprehensive study data were included where multiple publications reported on the same data. What is the basis used for considering them the most comprehensive? It is suggested to explain point wise clearly. 2. In Line 225, it is reported that the total number of sSA countries is 46. Again in contrary with this, the total sSA countries is reported 42(in Line 507). Actually the total number of sSA countries is more than 46. Please make your reporting consistent, and report exact number of sSA countries what exactly is in existence. 3. Add percentage along with numbers in Figure 1 related to sparsity of reported relevant studies in Sub-Saharan Africa. It will help readers to understand quickly. 4. If possible, present the major review report according to some geographic distribution of Sub-Saharan Countries such as West Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa which suits for the analysis based on the studies incorporated. There may be considerable variations with respect to population distribution, socio-economic indicators and others. The analysis based on some appropriate geographical domain may be helpful for future policy point of view. 5. Figure numbers are not matching in text and in the provided figures, and they are not in sequential order. Some figures indicated in the text such as (S2 & S3 Figs) not found in the provided figure lists. It is strongly suggested to check all figure numbers indicated in the text and keep accordingly. 6. In each table, please add serial number creating a first column (if possible) so that it would be easy for the readers to go through it. 7. In Table 2, only 'Section B' is mentioned without mentioning 'Section A'. Please add Section A in appropriate place of the table. 8. Check all the symbols used in Table3, and match with Reference Key. There is mismatch in the notations such as 'NM= Not measured', 'NM=Not measured in the study'. What is the difference between them? In Table 5 also, A study namely LaFave 2021[57] RCT- 10th column, what is the meaning of "?". If it is symbol, please change by another one. I suggest you to go through them one by one. 9. Please add statistical method/statistical test/statistical model whichever was applied in each study incorporated in this review report in Table 3 and Table 5 where estimates and p-values are reported. In the manuscript, it is only reported different estimates, p-values, and confidence interval, etc. which are not comprehensive. 10. Figure 7 seems to be prepared through some step function using time to event data (having censored data) because in some costing points, there is constant probability and then increases. Generally such type of curves can be observed in hazard function. It is better to explain the curve for making it comprehensive. 11. Add the definition of quality assessment criteria ('strong', 'moderate', & 'weak)' in the text for clarity though it is indicated in the submitted supplementary document. ****** 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.0284908.r001
Revision 1
7 Apr 2023 Author Response Editor's comment 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Authors: Thank you. We have followed the provided guidelines throughout the manuscript, including formatting styles, authors’ names, addresses and tags. Editor's comment 2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have referenced the table in the manuscript text. Page 46. Editor's comment 3. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines, therefore, require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with the file name “PRISMA checklist”. Authors: We submitted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as part of the supplementary information with the prior submission. We have updated the form to correspond to the changes made in the manuscript. S1 Table…. We submitted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as part of the supplementary information with the prior submission (S1 Table). We have updated the supplementary information file to correspond to the changes made in the manuscript. We’ve submitted tracked and clean versions of the SI file. Editor's comment 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 include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Authors: We have reviewed and formatted the reference list to match the journal’s criteria. We changed the reference (United Nations Development Program. About Sub-Saharan Africa: United Nations; 2021) to The African Union Commission—member states to accurately address reviewer’s comment 2 below. Reviewer’s comments 1. In Line 171 under 'Data Charting', it is mentioned that only the most comprehensive study data were included where multiple publications reported on the same data. What is the basis used for considering them the most comprehensive? It is suggested to explain point-wise clearly. Authors: Thank you for the comment. We compared (1) the population studied to see if they were the same. (2) If not, we included both studies. If yes, we looked at what was measured, analysed, and reported. In the one study that we excluded, the same population was sampled for kitchen PM2.5 & CO, and a mother and one child’s personal CO over 48 hours using six cookstove interventions. This was the same as the authors' previous publication except that the study included in our review analysed and reported the same result but included confounders in the analysis such as fuel used for lighting, number of cooking episodes, and average number of people cooked for. We have rephrased and included a succinct description of this step in the manuscript (Page 7) 2. In Line 225, it is reported that the total number of sSA countries is 46. Again in contrary with this, the total sSA countries is reported 42 (in Line 507). Actually the total number of sSA countries is more than 46. Please make your reporting consistent, and report exact number of sSA countries what exactly is in existence. Authors: We thank you for your observation. We have updated this with the number of SSA countries (48) reported by the African Union and updated the reference source to reflect this. 3. Add percentage along with numbers in Figure 1 related to sparsity of reported relevant studies in Sub-Sahara Africa. It will help readers to understand quickly. Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have changed Figure 1 to show the high number of countries without relevant studies and the percentage of studies in the countries with relevant studies. 4. If possible, present the major review report according to some geographic distribution of Sub-Saharan Countries such as West Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa which suits for the analysis based on the studies incorporated. There may be considerable variations with respect to population distribution, socio-economic indicators and others. The analysis based on some appropriate geographical domain may be helpful for future policy point of view. Authors: Thank you for your comment. We agree that collating the evidence based on the geographical distribution would be relevant to policy and enhance the manuscript. However, the sparsity of description of information like socioeconomic factors, food cooked and exposure levels in almost all the studies makes synthesising the data using the SSA geographical distribution. In addition, there are too few studies in each SSA geographical distribution, and the diverse population studied would not allow comparison. This type of analysis would be best suited for systematic review, focusing on specific parameters across the 4 regions in SSA. 5. Figure numbers are not matching in text and in the provided figures, and they are not in sequential order. Some figures indicated in the text such as (S2 & S3 Figs) not found in the provided figure lists. It is strongly suggested to check all figure numbers indicated in the text and keep accordingly. Authors: Thank you for your comment. The indicated S2 and S3 (data extraction tools) you highlighted were included in our previous supplementary information (SI)file submission. We have ensured that the listed SI list at the end of the manuscript matches the named tables and figures. We have collated all the SI figs and tables sequentially. Authors: Thank you for your comment. The indicated S2 and S3 (data extraction tools) you highlighted were included in our previous supplementary information (SI)file submission. We have ensured that the listed SI list at the end of the manuscript matches the named tables and figures. We have collated all the SI figs and tables sequentially. 6. In each table, please add serial number creating a first column (if possible) so that it would be easy for the readers to go through it. Authors: We see the rationale in your comment. However, it was only possible to add an extra column to Table 2. We could not achieve this with Table 3 without it being out of margin. We have added the associated reference to the ICS names to make it easier for readers. 7. In Table 2, only 'Section B' is mentioned without mentioning 'Section A'. Please add Section A in appropriate place of the table. Authors: Thank you. We have included section A and its label in Table 2. (page 11) 8. Check all the symbols used in Table3, and match with Reference Key. There is mismatch in the notations such as 'NM= Not measured', 'NM=Not measured in the study'. What is the difference between them? In Table 5 also, A study namely LaFave 2021[57] RCT- 10th column, what is the meaning of "?". If it is symbol, please change by another one. I suggest you to go through them one by one. Authors: Many thanks for this observation. We have corrected and updated the key used in all the tables to reflect their intended meanings. NM now corresponds to ‘Not measured in the referenced study’. The "?" in Table 5, 10th column was an error. This has now been corrected, and the sentence, adjusted for clarification. All the symbols have been updated. 9. Please add statistical method/statistical test/statistical model whichever was applied in each study incorporated in this review report in Table 3 and Table 5 where estimates and p-values are reported. In the manuscript, it is only reported different estimates, p-values, and confidence interval, etc. which are not comprehensive. Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. We have included this information in Tables 3 and 5 under their respective sections. We denoted this with ^ = Statistical test (study #) in the ‘KEY’ sessions. We did not report in the tables as suggested due to table size challenges/limitations. 10. Figure 7 seems to be prepared through some step function using time to event data (having censored data) because in some costing points, there is constant probability and then increases. Generally, such type of curves can be observed in hazard function. It is better to explain the curve for making it comprehensive. Authors: Thank you for your comment. We have assumed that the figure in question is Fig 4 (per cent of available cookstove price). The figure is simply the cumulative distribution function. To avoid readers puzzling over this term, we have captioned it "Stoves costing this much or less". The reason why the graph looks like a hazard function is that this, too, is a cumulative distribution but, of event probabilities, not stove prices. The graph is stepped rather than continuous as the price rises because the number of stoves only rises when a further stove becomes available for that amount of money. The revised submission has minor improvements in the manuscript and captioning, as noted above. 11. Add the definition of quality assessment criteria ('strong', 'moderate', & 'weak)' in the text for clarity though it is indicated in the submitted supplementary document. Authors: Thank you for your comment. We have included the description of our rating under the method section under quality appraisal for clarity. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284908.r002
12 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Srijan Lal Shrestha, Editor Improved cookstoves to reduce household air pollution exposure in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of intervention studies. PONE-D-22-35350R1 Dear Dr. Phillip 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, Srijan Lal Shrestha, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284908.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Srijan Lal Shrestha, Editor PONE-D-22-35350R1 Improved cookstoves to reduce household air pollution exposure in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of intervention studies. Dear Dr. Phillip: 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. Srijan Lal Shrestha Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284908.r004

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 .