What are the impacts of oral complications from cancer therapy on the quality of life of children? A protocol to update a scoping review

Nona Attaran; Apoorva Sharma; Martin Morris; Olawale Dudubo; Mary Ellen Macdonald

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290364

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 6, 2023
4 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Editor PONE-D-23-25040What are the impacts of oral complications from cancer therapy on the quality of life of children? A protocol to update a scoping review.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. attaran, 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 Oct 18 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, Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, BDS, MPH, MDent, 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Additional Editor Comments: The protocol is well received. It needs to meet certain criteria for it to be accepted for publication. See Reviewers comments. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Your proposed methods for updating a scoping review are also well explained and feasible, and the potential contribution of your research is well articulated. Reviewer #2: The author needs to address certain questios and provide a bit more detail on the following; Why the need to update the 2011 review? What makes your work different ? What gap are you closing? What was done to address the quality of life of the children after the findings of 2011??? Why are there reviews on reviews if no impactful solution has not been brought about?? ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Mpho Matlakale Molete ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290364.r001
Revision 1
19 Sep 2023 Author Response Response Letter September 10, 2023 Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Academic Editor PLOS ONE Dear Academic Editor Subject: Submission of revised paper (PONE-D-23-25040) Thank you for your email dated 4th September 2023 enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in red. We have addressed the editorial points as follows: 1. As the corresponding author, we reviewed PLOS ONE's style requirements and ensured that our manuscript met them thoroughly. We Changed the file names according to your guidelines. Resubmitted the figures and supportive files according to your standards and went through the manuscript file to make necessary changes according to your requirements. 2. As for the Data Availability Statement according to your response to our email dated 12th Sep we changed the Data Availability Statement in the revised manuscript attached. (Case Number:08181908 ref:00DU0Ifis._500PM1S7HT:ref) 3. As the corresponding author, I ensured that my ORCID iD is validated in Editorial Manager. We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course. Sincerely, Nona Attaran Corresponding author Response to Reviewer 1: Thank you for your review of our paper. We truly appreciate the time you have put into our manuscript! Response to Reviewer 2: Thank you for your review of our paper. We truly appreciate the time you have put into our manuscript and answered each of your points below. We also added some explanation to the revised manuscript to make it more clear in rational. Why the need to update the 2011 review? What makes your work different? What gap are you closing? The need to update the 2011 review stemmed from several key objectives; these objectives were built from the limitations stated by the original review, as well as limitations that have become apparent in the decade since that review was published. They are as follows: • The original review did not specifically search for the term ‘Oral Health-Related Quality of Life.’ This term was new a decade ago; it has gained prominence in recent years. We therefore aim to assess whether (and how) there has been attention to this construct. • Most studies in the original review relied on parents and caregivers providing information on behalf of the children. Given that Childhood Studies has grown in attention and urgency, we aim to assess if (and how) there has been a shift towards including children themselves directly in research. By directly incorporating their perspectives and experiences, we believe clinicians and policymakers will be better placed to understand the repercussions of cancer treatment on children’s oral health and consequently their overall QoL. • The original literature review reported few qualitative studies. Recognizing QoL as ultimately a subjective concept, we are especially interested to see if and how research approaches can acknowledge and incorporate the unique insights, experiences, and perspectives of children surviving cancer on QoL. • We have also expanded the scope of our study to include adult survivors of childhood cancer. By doing so, we aim to include the long-term impact of cancer treatment complications on QoL and oral health; this was not incorporated in the original review despite knowledge of long-term effects. • New treatments have been developed since the original review (e.g., regarding both cancer, and oral health sequalae). By updating the 2011 review, we seek to investigate if and how there has been growth in literature on treatments. What was done to address the quality of life of the children after the findings of 2011? • The original review was not well mobilized in terms of knowledge translation; we know of no specific dissemination interventions designed after that review and therefore do not believe that it had a measurable impact on the QOL of children. Our intention, through incorporating a stakeholder consultation, is to both gain insight through consulting with stakeholders (e.g.,  healthcare professionals, children with cancer, and parents), as well as to work with them to develop strategies for knowledge mobilization and uptake.   Why are there reviews on reviews if no impactful solution has not been brought about? • Some problems are inherently complex without a single, straightforward solution. In such cases, ongoing discussions and further reviews can help uncover nuances and adapt strategies over time. Further, the circumstances surrounding a problem can change, requiring a reevaluation of previous solutions. Finally, unique stakeholders, such as children, parents, healthcare professionals, and policymakers, may each have different perspectives on what constitutes an impactful solution. Reviews on reviews can help consolidate these perspectives and find common ground. • In essence, while it may seem frustrating that no impactful solution has yet been achieved, reviews on reviews can be part of a larger process of problem-solving. They can contribute to eventual change by helping refine research and dissemination approaches, and by fostering ongoing discussions and collaborations amongst stakeholders. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290364.r002
11 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Editor What are the impacts of oral complications from cancer therapy on the quality of life of children? A protocol to update a scoping review. PONE-D-23-25040R1 Dear Dr. Attaran, 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, Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, BDS, MPH, MDent, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Thank you for the clarification regarding the justification of your study. The protocol reads much better now. ****** 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 #2: Yes: Mpho Matlakale Molete ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290364.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Yolanda Malele-Kolisa, Editor PONE-D-23-25040R1 What are the impacts of oral complications from cancer therapy on the quality of life of children? A protocol to update a scoping review. Dear Dr. MacDonald: 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 Yolanda Malele-Kolisa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290364.r004

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 .