PONE-D-23-02792Finger fractures: Epidemiology and treatment based on 21341 fractures from the Swedish Fracture RegisterPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alfort,

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 19 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,

Dario Piombino-Mascali, 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

​

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear all, please address the concerns raised by the reviewers, and I will be happy to consider a revised version of this article. Please note that it would be appropriate to have the manuscript read by a native English speaker prior to submission.

Best wishes,

[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: Partly

**********

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: PONE-D-23-02792 - Finger fractures: Epidemiology and treatment based on 21341 fractures from the Swedish Fracture Register

The submitted manuscript describes epidemiology and treatment of finger fractures from the Swedish Fracture Register (SFR) in the years 2015-2019. While it may potentially represent an interesting contribution to epidemiological studies on fractures as a specific medical condition, the main issue of this study in its current form is that there is no clear research questions/hypothesis. With regards to, how should this study contribute to the understanding of finger fractures more broadly? What is the importance of epidemiological fracture data? As a research article, it needs more contextualization.

Below, I offer a number of comments and questions about the meaning of some content.

Keywords. Please remove ‘finger fracture’. Keywords and title should not include the same words.

Introduction

Lines 58-60. The aim and objectives should be placed in the framework of a research paper that offer novel information to fill a knowledge gap. As it stands, the work is declared as descriptive and it is unclear how scholars may benefit from epidemiology of SFR. Why is important having epidemiological studies on finger fractures? Which is the problem the authors may want to contribute with their research? How epidemiology from SFR contribute to the understanding of finger fractures more broadly?

Some of these arguments are marginally reported in Lines 42-44.

Materials and Methods

Line 93. Please specify the program used for statistics.

Line 94. Is the term ‘gender’ used as synonym of ‘sex’?

Line 97. The statistical test reads ‘Kruskal-Wallis’. Please check throughout the manuscript.

Results

Line 103. Caption to Figure 1 should include more details.

Lines 107-108. ‘The age distribution according to gender is presented in figure 2.’ Please add a comment within the text.

Line 117. Table 1 ‘joint engagement’ odd word choice.

Line 141. Table 4. Please pay attention to issues of spacing (either side of the = sign)

Discussion

Line 160. Which are these ‘previous epidemiological studies’? Please add references.

Line 174. ‘ankle’ and not ‘ancle’.

Lines 187-191. Why are additional parameters (e.g. sex, age of the patients) not taken into account when comparing with other studies? More contextualization of SFR data is necessary. Finally, consideration of potential limits in comparability of results should be included.

Line 198. Juto et al. (2017) is not included within the final references.

Figure 1. 20337+1007 = 21334 and not 21341. Please revise.

Figure 2. Age range 0-99 years but Results section reports 0-101 years. Please revise.

Reviewer #2: The paper is well written and the data clearly presented.

It would be needed a better review of the state of the art in the introduction, whereas similar studies are only briefly mentioned in lines 186-189.

A better comparison between the current study and previous studies could also benefit and improve data readability for future studies.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PONE-D-23-02792R1Finger fractures: Epidemiology and treatment based on 21341 fractures from the Swedish Fracture RegisterPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alfort,

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 Jun 23 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,

Filippo Migliorini MD, PhD, MBA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewer #2: The Authors successfully incorporated the suggested revision. However, a few grammatical (e.g., ‘data’ takes the plural form of a verb or pronoun as ‘datum’ is the singular form) errors still persist in the revised manuscript.

Comments: Figure 2. As per my earlier comment, x-axis values and age range as reported in the main text should match, therefore I suggest the Authors to add the number 102 as an extra mark.

Academic Editor Notes: Dear authors, thank you for your contribution. There are some points which should be further addressed before formal acceptance:

1. upgrade your manuscript to the STROBE guidelines. Readapt carefully the subheadings. State the use of the STROBE guidelines and cite them. Attach the STROBE checklist as supplementary material

2. abbreviation should be clarified at once, then use only the mentioned abbreviation (e.g. PROMs)

3. Divide methods and results into subheadings.

4. PROMs not PROM!

5. PROMs not PROM scores!

6. when you give percentages, you need also to clarify the number of events/observations. For example 20% (20 of 100)

7. Use ALWAYS third person and passive voice

8. ABSTRACT:

8.1. Add the conclusion!

9. METHODS:

9.1. Declare in DETAIL that you follow the principles expressed in the Helsinki declarations AND later amendments, the signed consent of patients must be declared.

9.2. How you evaluated the fracture classification? This is one of the most important information that must be explained IN DETAIL, and potential limitations must also be acknowledged.

9.3. Report a figure with the classification system you used. Cite the classification system.

9.4. Report the therapeutic framework in DETAIL and add a figure of it in the methods

10. RESULTS:

10.1. Describe in DETAIL the identification process, with the exact excluded and included patients. Add these also to the flowchart.

10.2. If you can add some Figures describing your results will be appreciated. These results are a lot of numbers and figures that could help to summarise your findings

11. DISCUSSIONS:

11.1. Limitations have not been identified. Please create a paragraph of 250-500 words identifying all possible limitations

12. CONCLUSIONS:

12.1. There are no conclusions in support of your findings. Please elaborate a strong evidence-based conclusion

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

[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.

PONE-D-23-02792R2Finger fractures: Epidemiology and treatment based on 21341 fractures from the Swedish Fracture RegisterPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alfort,

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 Jul 31 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,

Filippo Migliorini

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:

Dear Authors,

Just want to ask you for some minimal revisions:

Remove the subheading "objectives" in the introduction section

divide the methods section into subheadings: Study protocol (add all your declarations: Helsinki, STROBE, ethics etc), Eligibility criteria, Outcome assessment, Statistical analysis

divide also the Results into subheadings according to your findings

Remove subheadings in the discussion section

Limitations: discuss the lack of children until 2015 and its possible effect

Improve the scientific language level and use the third person. There are still several points which could be improved

Thank you,

Filippo Migliorini

Editor

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

[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.

Finger fractures: Epidemiology and treatment based on 21341 fractures from the Swedish Fracture Register

PONE-D-23-02792R3

Dear Dr. Alfort,

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,

Filippo Migliorini MD, PhD, MBA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

well done

Reviewers' comments: