Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 28, 2022
Decision Letter - Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis, Editor

PONE-D-22-35213Multifactorial assessment of leukocyte reduced platelet rich plasma injection in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: a retrospective studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aryazand

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 May 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,

Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis, 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. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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: The paper is very interesting and well written.

As a work on PRP, the authors may consider including data on the number of platelets in the blood of patients before surgery, which, with the centrifugation method used, would allow for the standardization of the PRP used.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript examined the effects of leukocyte reduced platelet rich plasma (lPRP) on surgical site infection (SSI), implant removal, bone healing, clinical signs, progression of OA in the dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO). As the results, lPRP treatment significantly improved bone healing, global OA scores, and lameness score. However, there were no significant differences in the results of SSI and implant removal rate. The content of this paper is worthy of publication in Plos One, because of its contribution to the clinical field of veterinary medicine. However, some revisions of manuscript are needed before it can be accepted for publication.

Introduction (line 79): “1PRP” is a first appearance. Please list the term that is not abbreviations (Ex. Leukoreduced platelet rich plasma?).

M&M (line 87-93, 136-137): How did you divide the subject dogs into two groups? What were the criteria of surgeon's preference?

M&M (line 101-103): Orthopedic (excluding CrCL rupture) and neurological disorders that may affect gait and mobility should be also added to the exclusion criteria.

M&M (line 139-142): This content is described below (lines 164-167), so delete the relevant text.

M&M (line 150): pet→dog

M&M (line 151): Please describe which type of antibiotic was administered orally.

Results (line 262-270): Did you compare post-op TPA between groups? These values might affecte the outcome of the surgery.

Results (line 277-281): Add the sentence about significant difference in the presence of synovitis between groups.

Table 2: Correct any misalignments in the Table 2 (Incision appearance at suture removal).

Discussion (line 415-425): In this paragraph, you need to add a discussion of the role of PRPs in infection protection and the results of this study.

Discussion (line 438-442): leukocyte reduced PRP→lPRP?

Discussion: In this study, lameness was significantly improved in the lPRP group. You should discuss whether the accelerated bone healing in the lPRP group was the result of improved loading on the tibial bone or the effect of PRP in the Discussion.

Reference: There are two No. 29 references. Please check again, including the citation in the text.

**********

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: Kazuya Edamura

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

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 is very interesting and well written.

Author response: Thank you. We appreciate your support and the time you have taken to review our manuscript.

As a work on PRP, the authors may consider including data on the number of platelets in the blood of patients before surgery, which, with the centrifugation method used, would allow for the standardization of the PRP used.

Author response: Thank you for bringing up this interesting point. We have added this information to the methods and results section for the lPRP group. We did not feel statistical analysis was necessary for the platelet count as there is no gold standard number to compare to and the data was normally distributed. Please let us know if you feel we need to add this in more detail.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript examined the effects of leukocyte reduced platelet rich plasma (lPRP) on surgical site infection (SSI), implant removal, bone healing, clinical signs, progression of OA in the dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO). As the results, lPRP treatment significantly improved bone healing, global OA scores, and lameness score. However, there were no significant differences in the results of SSI and implant removal rate. The content of this paper is worthy of publication in Plos One, because of its contribution to the clinical field of veterinary medicine. However, some revisions of manuscript are needed before it can be accepted for publication.

Author response: Thank you for your time and your suggestions. We have tried to address each of your concerns below.

Introduction (line 79): “1PRP” is a first appearance. Please list the term that is not abbreviations (Ex. Leukoreduced platelet rich plasma?).

Author response: The first appearance of the term lPRP is actually in line 15 where the full term (Leukoreduced Platelet rich Plasma) has been listed. We have added it to line 79 as well just to be safe.

M&M (line 87-93, 136-137): How did you divide the subject dogs into two groups? What were the criteria of surgeon's preference?

Author’s Response: The dogs were divided into groups based on surgeon’s preference. One surgeon (NJB) and one surgery resident (YA) preferred patients receive lPRP injection while other surgeons and residents did not. Not all cases of NJB or YA received lPRP though as sometimes the owners declined the cost of lPRP injection, thus those cases had routine TPLO without PRP injection. We have added this information into the methods section in both of the places you referenced.

M&M (line 101-103): Orthopedic (excluding CrCL rupture) and neurological disorders that may affect gait and mobility should be also added to the exclusion criteria.

Author response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added this to the exclusion criteria.

M&M (line 139-142): This content is described below (lines 164-167), so delete the relevant text.

Author Response: Thank you for your comment. We have deleted the redundant content (lines 139-142) per your suggestion.

M&M (line 150): pet→dog

Author response: Changed pet to patient.

M&M (line 151): Please describe which type of antibiotic was administered orally.

Author response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the antibiotic name and dose. Cefpodoxime (simplicef) 5-10 mg/kg PO once daily

Results (line 262-270): Did you compare post-op TPA between groups? These values might affect the outcome of the surgery.

Author response: Thank you for this suggestion. We did not originally compare postoperative TPAs but have done so as we agree this might affect some of the postoperative outcomes (possibly lameness score and osteoarthritis score) we looked at. When analyzed there was a statistically significant difference between lprp and control groups however this mean difference was only 1.5º which is within the published intraoberver difference for TPA (added reference 38). We have added this information and stated we do not feel such a small TPA difference would have an effect clinically.

Results (line 277-281): Add the sentence about significant difference in the presence of synovitis between groups.

Author Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added a line in the results as well as the discussion. We feel the subjectivity of this score limits its clinical value but feel like future works could evaluate outcomes based on more rigorous operative diagnostics such as biopsies.

Table 2: Correct any misalignments in the Table 2 (Incision appearance at suture removal).

Author response: Thank you for catching this. We have corrected the misalignment.

Discussion (line 415-425): In this paragraph, you need to add a discussion of the role of PRPs in infection protection and the results of this study.

Author response: We have added information in this section. Please let us know if you feel this needs continued supplementation.

Discussion (line 438-442): leukocyte reduced PRP→lPRP?

Author response: Changed

Discussion: In this study, lameness was significantly improved in the lPRP group. You should discuss whether the accelerated bone healing in the lPRP group was the result of improved loading on the tibial bone or the effect of PRP in the Discussion.

Author response: Thank you for this comment. We have added a few sentences to the discussion regarding the differences in lameness scores.

Reference: There are two No. 29 references. Please check again, including the citation in the text.

Author response: Changed and adjusted all the references in the text accordingly.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to PLoS One reviewers 5-20-23.docx
Decision Letter - Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis, Editor

Multifactorial assessment of leukocyte reduced platelet rich plasma injection in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: a retrospective study

PONE-D-22-35213R1

Dear Dr. Nicole Buote

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,

Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis, Editor

PONE-D-22-35213R1

Multifactorial assessment of leukocyte reduced platelet rich plasma injection in dogs undergoing tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: a retrospective study

Dear Dr. Buote:

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

Prof. Dr Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .