PONE-D-22-19273Interaction Effects between Insomnia and Depression on Incidence of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Multi-center studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ho Ryu,

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 13 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,

Billy Morara Tsima, MD MSc

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 in your Funding Statement:

“This work was supported by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (Grant No: 2017NE3300600, 2017E3300601, 2019P330800).”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Sung Wan Kim, Jung Ho, Lee, sang do shin.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Using the word 'incidence" in the context of this case-control study is confusing as it can imply the estimation of relative risk in epidemiological studies...which can not be calculated in a case-control study when the disease is not rare. However, I think the authors are not referring to incidence in this sense but rather "having an OHCA" or the incident of OHCA. It would be clearer if this is captured as "the risk of OHCA" only. Line 219-221, discusses incidence, which was not evaluated in this study.

There are a couple of grammatical errors; Line 135 (included IN this project), line 215 (those not taking vs those taking not).

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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: No

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: 1. Introduction:

-The introduction seems well written. However, the definition of insomnia should be the one internationally accepted like from International Classification of Sleep Disorders, 3rd Edition.

2. Methods

-This section looks like it is a self-plagiarism, authors need to avoid that.

-The study design of this paper is a prospective multicenter case control study built from "The CAPTURES-II project was a prospective hospital-based patient cohort study conducted at 17 university hospitals from September 2017 to December 2020."Unfortunately there is no reference of this study to find out if it was an open or a close cohort.

-As this study calculate the OHCA incidence, it looks like it is a "density type case control study" (Incidence density or risk set sampling). So the cohort study from with it is coming from must be an open cohort.

-The matching technique used for the control group is appropriate as it always difficult to define the source population.

-Variables and measurements: the questions to elicit "insomnia" and "depression" are not scientifically acceptable. For instance, a participant may answer yes to a question “Have you ever suffered from insomnia or depression?" but this was not an insomnia or a depression. For instance, if one has poor sleep with no impact on daily activity, this is not an insomnia disorder. So there is a need to well define those concepts. Also, the authors did not define sleep apnea, heavy drinking vs. moderate drinking, vigorous vs. moderate physical activity...

3. Results

-The result section needs more flesh. There are a lot of information in table 1 and 2 that are not highlighted in the section.

4. Discussion:

-Chronic insomnia and depression are associated, this can be a confounder. I understand authors used regression model probably to control that. The anatomy of a discussion section should include major findings from the paper, similarities, and dissimilarities with previous studies, limitations, and recommendations. There is a need to expand more the discussion section.

5. Conclusion:

-The conclusion is just one paragraph.

Reviewer #2: The definition of insomnia and depression were not provided. Was difficulty sleeping for a day insomnia? was being sad for a week for example, depression? The cases and controls could understand it differently leading to misclassification. This will make controls also have the exposure of interest. Informed consent was waived. Was there any informed consent during collection of the primary data?

**********

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: Goabaone Rankgoane-Pono

**********

[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.

Interaction Effects between Insomnia and Depression on Incidence of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Multi-center study

PONE-D-22-19273R1

Dear Dr. Hyun Ho Ryu,

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,

Billy Morara Tsima, MD MSc

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

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: 1. Abstract: Authors should review the abstract as it looks like they did not make any change after reviewing their manuscript.

2. Introduction: Well done introduction. However, it could be better to add a sentence or paragraph on findings from previous study on the association of insomnia +/-depression AND OHCA. Or state whether such studies are scarce. Also Shift the "purpose" sentence should come before the hypothesis sentence (lines 135- 136 to come before 133-134).

3. Methods: I suggest moving lines 161-164 to ethical considerations section.

4. General comments: Proofread the English, use past tense in methods section. For instance: line 143 "The CAPTURES project is a prospective, multi-center, case-control study, which aims to identify risk..."

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the comments well. The manuscript is scientifically sound. The research methods have been clearly described.

**********

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: Stephane Tshitenge

Reviewer #2: Yes: Goabaone Rankgoane-Pono

**********