PONE-D-22-32067Validation and the associated factors of the systemic lupus erythematosus-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires (SLEQoL and LupusQoL) in MalaysiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shaharir,

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 kindly address all comments by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 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,

Shazlin Shaharudin

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 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.

3. 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.

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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 writing is unclear, has repetition, and is not consistent. It needs to be clarified which questionnaire the author wanted to validate since, in the title, the full name of the questionnaire refers to SLEQol. Still, two questionnaires were mentioned by the author: SLEQol and LupusQol. The author should focus on the validated questionnaire, and the whole paper should only be about the validation study. It is recommended to separate the validation study and relationship study.

In the validation study, the title of the questionnaire is significant. However, the questionnaire’s title in this manuscript is inconsistent (SLEQoL, LupusQoL, M-SLEQoL, and M-LupusQoL). The methodology was also unclear. The author did not mention when they used the SLEQol to gather information for the validation study. The author did not state the sampling method and the sample size calculation.

Validity: For content and face validity, the author should provide the results of I-CVI (Item-content validity index), S-CVI (Scale-Content validity Index), I-FVI (Item-face validity index), and S-FVI (Scale-face validity index). The author should report the Eigenvalues and the number of factors and items produced by the EFA. The author did not provide the analysis for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is the primary analysis for construct validity. Thus, the validation process of the questionnaire still needs to be fulfilled, and the questionnaire still needs to be validated. Since the questionnaire has not been validated, studies on associated factors using invalid SLEQoL are questionable.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The review may seem strict; however, if you can address the comment. I feel that it would significantly improve the quality and readability of your manuscript and place it in bedstead for publication and citing. Please note that there are no page or line numbers, and I find it difficult to mention my comments.

Abstract:

1. objectives

• “To assess the reliability and validity of SLE QoL questionnaires, SLEQoL and LupusQoL in Malay language, and to identify the factors associated with QoL among SLE patients in Malaysia.” The sentence is not complete and clear, please rewrite it. (Page 2)

• please spell words out in full and provide the abbreviation in parentheses. (Page 2)

2. Conclusion

• “Musculoskeletal and NPSLE were the independent predictors of poor QoL.” Please clarify it. (Page 2)

Introduction:

• put the clinical phenotype instead of clinical phenotype. (Page 3)

• put the United State instead of United State. (Page 3)

• “The most-widely used SLE disease-specific PRO tools is LupusQoL which were

developed in the UK” rewrite and correct it grammatically. (Page 3)

• Please correct the spell of randomised–controlled. (Page 4)

• “validated English language among Singaporean Chinese patients.” Put in before English language. (Page 4)

Materials and methods

Patients:

• Please add information about the number of your sample and patients. (Page 5)

Results

• Employment status in table 2, please write the other status information

• In table 3, please specify interquartile ranges

• Please complete table 4 with Descriptive statistics

Discussion

• Please add suitable articles to the words (such as a poor correlation, a cross-cultural)

Reviewer #3: The manuscript was well written.

Introduction is well written. Authors explain justified the problem statement well.

Methodology was explained in detail to allow replication. Proper flow of validation techniques was used.

Results were described phase by phase based on the analyses conducted.

Discussion was well written. Authors compared their findings with other studies beside explaining the discrepancies.

Conclusion was too short.

Based typing and grammar, there is a very minimum grammatical error and no need for proofreading.

There are also typing error :

page 9, last line, andhas for and has,

page 19: second line under the subtopic of Concurrent validity (SD-36 instead of SF-36).

Other than that, I would suggest the authors to use standardized method of writing money currency, MYR instead of RM.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

Validation and the associated factors of the Malay version of systemic lupus erythematosus-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires (SLEQoL and LupusQoL)

PONE-D-22-32067R1

Dear Dr. Shaharir,

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,

Shazlin Shaharudin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: