Pooled prevalence and its determinants of stunting among children during their critical period in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Amare Kassaw; Yohannes Tesfahun Kassie; Demewoz Kefale; Molla Azmeraw; Getachew Arage; Worku Necho Asferi; Tigabu Munye; Solomon Demis; Amare simegn; Muluken Chanie Agimas; Shegaw Zeleke

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294689

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 3, 2023
23 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Ayele Mamo Abebe, Editor PONE-D-23-17150 Pooled prevalence and its determinants of stunting among children during their critical period in Ethiopia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kassaw, 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 07 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, Ayele Mamo Abebe, MSc in pediatric and child health nursing 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 noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/WP136/WP136.pdf https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/PROFILES-Brief-2-Stunting-Risk-Jun2018.pdf https://univmed.org/ejurnal/index.php/medicina/article/view/879 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359403221_PREVALENCE_OF_STUNTING_AND_ASSOCIATED_FACTORS_AMONG_EMPLOYED_AND_UNEMPLOYED_MOTHERS_OF_CHILDREN_AGED_6_TO_59_MONTHS_IN_DIRE_DAWA_ADMINISTRATION_EASTERN_ETHIOPIA_2021 file:///home/nkw-ld22-073/Downloads/SDG-briefing-note-3_nutritional-status.pdf https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.847274/full https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(21)00226-7 _returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2405844021002267%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-017-0848-2 In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. 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 ******** 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: 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: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-17150 Manuscript Title: Pooled prevalence and its determinants of stunting among children during their critical period in Ethiopia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Congratulations dear authors on your scholarly work based on a priori protocol registered in PROSPERO; you have brought an important study problem with good findings that have public health importance in optimizing children’s health. However, there few methodological issues that I want you to address before considering the manuscript for publication. General comment There are several typological and grammar usage errors that need extensive proof reading for revisions. Specific comments Methods I suggest the authors consider clear explanation of their PICO mnemonic to so that it will be easier for the readers. Just describe each component separately. How did the authors look for grey literature? Kindly append a table showing methodological quality of the appraised articles with the last column being ‘overall quality score’. Explain if data transformation was required or undertaken when data were reported differently. Results Please, use PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. https://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram 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). Good luck!! ****** 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: Yes: Wubet Alebachew Bayih ******** [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: Stunting.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Stunting_PONE-D-23-17150.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294689.r001
Revision 1
15 Oct 2023 Author Response # Editor Comment 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming Authors’ Response We are grateful to this comment of technical relevance. Thus, we have ensured that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed. Authors’ Response Thank you. The authors have checked carefully the overlapping texts and paraphrased the duplicating works on the revised document. 3. 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 reference list and also include a citation and full reference for retraction notice. Authors’ Response The authors are very grateful of these constructive comments. After read the reference lists carefully, we made a correction and addressed the incomplete one. The authors also have noticed the retracted articles on the reference list and removed these references and replace with relevant current references. But the authors did not removed the reference 39 and 40 since the source is book in which it has an updated version. Reviewer one 1. There are several typological and grammar usage errors that need extensive proof reading for revisions. Authors’ Response First of all, we thank you the reviewer for his constructive comments. After we have read carefully through the whole document, we properly addressed the concerned issues. Accepting the comment, the authors have read thoroughly and edited carefully the whole manuscript before submission. 2. I suggest the authors consider clear explanation of their PICO mnemonic so that it will be easier for the readers. Just describe each component separately. Authors’ Response Thank you for your insight; accepting the comment, we made a clear explanation of PICO mnemonic on the revised version of the manuscript (page 5). 3. How did the authors look for grey literature? Authors’ Response The authors have dealt on the issue of including grey literature. After deep discussion, we decided to include two articles based on the following reasons: � Based on the quality assessment, using critical appraisal checklists (JBI), these articles have low risk. � The authors consider that they had been assessed and evaluate since these articles were found from universities repositories. � Some evidences have recommended to consider these literatures if meeting certain criteria. 4. Kindly append a table showing methodological quality of the appraised articles with the last column being ‘overall quality score’. Authors’ Response We accepted the comment and correct on the revised manuscript. Moreover, the methodological quality of the appraised articles were presented in detail in supplementary checklist two (S2 checklist) as cited on page 6. 5. Explain if data transformation was required or undertaken when data were reported differently. Authors’ Response Thank you for your concern. The authors did not undertake data transformation since it was not required. The data of all the included studies were presented similarly (log odds). 6. Please, use PRISMA 2020 flow diagram Authors’ Response Accepting the comment, the authors made a revision on the revised document. 7. 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). Authors’ Response Accepting the comment, we made a correction on the revised version of the manuscript (page 7-9). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294689.r002
7 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Ayele Mamo Abebe, Editor Pooled prevalence and its determinants of stunting among children during their critical period in Ethiopia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. PONE-D-23-17150R1 Dear Dr. Kassaw, 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. Kind regards, Ayele Mamo Abebe, MSc in pediatric and child health nursing Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294689.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ayele Mamo Abebe, Editor PONE-D-23-17150R1 Pooled prevalence and its determinants of stunting among children during their critical period in Ethiopia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Dear Dr. Kassaw: 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 customercare@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 Assistant professor Ayele Mamo Abebe Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294689.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 .