PONE-D-22-31170Determinants of Diabetic Retinopathy in Ethiopia; A systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Azagew,

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 Feb 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,

Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, OD, MPH, PhD

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 ensure you include the full search strategy such that it could be repeated. 

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

5. Please upload a new copy of Figure 4 and 6 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I do concede the question raised need to be addressed. The manuscript needs to be reviewed and overhauled before it can be accepted for publication in the following areas:

1. The grammar needs to be reviewed. The generally acceptable tense for reporting research finding is the past tense. This was not the case in a substantial part of the manuscript.

2. I'm wondering why the author(s) only zero in on three determinants of DR in the manuscript. For a systematic review that seeks to provide evidence for evidence for practice, I think the net should have been cast more widely to consider variables such as age and sex of patient, HBA1C, family history of diabetes, weight/obesity, type of diabetes (T1 or T2), physical activity, occupation etc.

[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: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-31170

Manuscript Title: Determinants of Diabetic Retinopathy in Ethiopia; A systematic review and meta-analysis

Congratulations dear authors on your scholarly work; you have brought an important study problem with good findings that have public health importance in the area of practice. However, there are methodological and other concerns that I want you to address before considering the manuscript for publication.

General comment

There are multiple typological and grammar usage errors that need extensive proof reading for revisions.

Specific comments

Abstract

1. “Background” should state burden of diabetic retinopathy in Ethiopia. i.e about one fifth of the diabetic patients, 19.48%.

2. Statistics is ok and well described.

3. Conclusions are supported by the findings.

Introduction:

1. There are redundant ideas and hence the introduction needs further synthesis.

2. What were the unanswered questions, and what will you add to your research?

3. Finally, please include your rationale for doing this research paper.

Methods

1. Is the protocol of this review registered? If so, include its registration number. If not, state its current status.

2. I suggest the authors consider using a PICO (possibly with the T or S) format to make the review question explicit and assist with clear specification of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3. Provide the primary search string, including the truncation and synonyms as a supplementary file for at least one database.

4. Specify the type of searching strategy (e.g. was it line by line, by combined concepts, did the search include title (TI), abstract (Ab) or full text or all these categories) was used, specify if databases were searched independently and if any modifications were made to the search strategy (e.g. limiters) for different databases. The description of the method should include enough details for reproducibility. Explain the steps in screening (e.g. title, abstract, full text).

5. I suggest reporting the statistics for measurement of the level of agreement for the independent reviews (e.g. quality scores) of each article. Moreover, kindly append a table showing methodological quality of the appraised articles with the last column being ‘overall quality score’.

6. How did you pool the individual knowledge, attitude and practice scores because nearly all the primary studies used to consider their own operational definitions? Please be critical in this issue and support your measurement of these pooled outcomes with sound references.

7. Explain the data extracted from the studies, reliability and validity of data extraction tool. Explain how the variables extracted were determined and criteria for data to be suitable for extraction. Explain if data transformation was required or undertaken when data were reported differently.

Results

Please include two columns in Table 1: data collection technique (interview, observation, self administered questionnaire, etc) and funding source for each study (you can say not funded, not reported or name of funder if funded).

Discussion

1. The discussion needs to be re-thought as it provides certain explanations that may be inaccurate.

2. There has to be a separate subsection named as “implication of the study” showing beneficence of the findings to the clinicians, decision makers and policy makers.

3. Please include a detailed analysis of the limitations that users should be mindful of interpreting the findings.

**********

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: 

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Diabetic retinopathy (SR & MA).docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-31170_Sys_rev_DR.pdf

PONE-D-22-31170R1Determinants of Diabetic Retinopathy in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Azagew,

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.

==============================

Having gone through your reviewed manuscript vis-à-vis the reviewer's comments, I'm afraid there are a few issues that needs your attention.

1. State the research question using PICO format.

2. Address the issue whether a protocol for the systematic review was registered and if so report the registration details in the manuscript.

3. In line 246 of the revised manuscript, please replace "don't" with "do not".

4. Rework the implication of the study to indicate clearly what the implications of the results are for clinicians, patients and decision makers.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 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,

Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, OD, MPH, PhD

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:

Thank you for sending in your revised manuscript.

Having gone through your reviewed manuscript vis-à-vis the reviewer's comments, I'm afraid there are a few issues that needs your attention.

1. State the research question using PICO format.

2. Address the issue whether a protocol for the systematic review was registered and if so report the registration details in the manuscript.

3. In line 246 of the revised manuscript, please replace "don't" with "do not".

4. Rework the implication of the study to indicate clearly what the implications of the results are for clinicians, patients and decision makers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

Determinants of diabetic retinopathy in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-22-31170R2

Dear Dr. Azagew,

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,

Godwin Ovenseri-Ogbomo, OD, MPH, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript and for taking on board the reviewers' comments and suggestions.

Reviewers' comments: