Determinants of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome among hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients: A 2-year follow-up study

Tamrat Petros Elias; Tsegaye Wesenseged Gebreamlak; Tigist Tesfaye Gebremeskel; Binyam Lukas Adde; Abraham Sisay Abie; Bitaniya Petros Elias; Abel Mureja Argaw; Addis Aschenek Tenaw; Biruk Mulugeta Belay

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0298409

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 13, 2023
24 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Reaz Mahmud, Editor PONE-D-23-27462Assessment of the prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its associated risk factors among severe COVID-19 patients admitted to Millennium COVID-19 care center, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Elias, 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 Jan 07 2024 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, Reaz Mahmud, MBBS, FCPS (Medicine), MD (Neurology) 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. 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). 4. 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: Thank you for submitting your article to Plos One. Using the term 'frequency' instead of 'prevalence' for non-population-based studies is advised. Please brief the background section and add a conclusion to the abstract. The headings for the rationale and objective should be omitted, as they are part of the introduction. Please briefly discuss PACS's pathophysiology in the introduction and include the operational definitions of PACS and severe COVID-19 in the methods section. The telephone interview guide should be included in the supplement, and the categorization of fatigue and cough in the telephonic interview should be mentioned. Please describe how you identified the patients from the hospital records, briefly discuss the sampling technique used, and explain how you created the sampling frame and interval. A patient selection flow chart should be provided in the results section. For quantitative data, please use median (IQR) instead of mean and perform non-parametric tests. In the first paragraph of the discussion section, summarize the findings rather than presenting data. Please discuss the generalizability and limitations of the study and their implications in the discussion section. Lastly, please rewrite some references according to Plos guidelines and copyedit the manuscript for language correction. [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: 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: The manuscript offers a detailed insight into the prevalence and risk factors associated with PACS in severe COVID-19 patients. The discussion effectively contextualizes the findings with previous literature, which is commendable. Key points include: • Detailed exploration of the symptomatology, risk factors, and prevalence of PACS. • Highlighting gender-based disparity in PACS presentation. • Identifying significant associations like older age, prolonged hospital stay, and lifestyle factors. Recommendations: • Further elaborate on potential interventions or treatments for fatigue in PACS. • Consider discussing the clinical implications of these findings for healthcare providers. Minor grammatical errors were noticed in the manuscript. It would be beneficial for the authors to proofread the article for clarity. Reviewer #2: The paper is well-written, and the methodology is robust. However, including additional details and clarifications in certain sections could enhance the overall quality and clarity of the research. Here are some suggestions: Introduction Line 56, Consider adding a sentence or two explaining the potential impact of PACS on individuals, families, and society. Line 59, 60. and 227, There is a discrepancy in the reference to prevalence percentages. It states "46% in Bangladesh to 81% in Italy," but later it mentions 87.4% in Italy. Please clarify this inconsistency. Rationale Line 74, Clarify the specific measures or interventions considered "effective management measures. Methodology Line 100, Provide more details about the adaptation process of the WHO Global COVID-19 Clinical Platform Case Report Form for Post-COVID conditions. Results: Line 128, Provide a percentage or proportion for the patients who died after hospital discharge (5.8%). Lines 159-161, Consider providing more details on the health facility visits, such as the types of health facilities visited and the reasons for the visits. Discussion: Lines 200-210, The discussion is comprehensive and well-structured. Consider discussing potential limitations of the study, such as recall bias during telephone interviews. Conclusion: Lines 276-280, The conclusion summarizes the key findings well. Consider adding a brief statement about the implications of your findings for future research or public health interventions. General comment: Please review the manuscript for any potential grammatical errors to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the text before final submission. ****** 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: Dr Victor Abiola Adepoju 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298409.r001
Revision 1
16 Dec 2023 Author Response PONE-D-23-27462 Assessment of the prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its associated risk factors among severe COVID-19 patients admitted to Millennium COVID-19 care center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Dear Editor and Reviewers; I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my manuscript. Your constructive feedback and comments have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of my work. I would like to address the concerns and comments raised in your review. I have carefully considered each one of them and have made the necessary changes to the manuscript accordingly. So please find the following comments and responses. 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. - I have revised the manuscript according to PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). - Raw data is deposited on Dryad: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/X4rfM77vUc2yRwvIi0mI9FiyXbIla0CzHgJJdwJTv5g https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fbg79cp2k 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. - The manuscript is now edited for language usage, spelling, and grammar. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript. - The manuscript is edited by Dr. Henok Fisseha. A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) - The copy of the original manuscript with track changes is uploaded as supporting information. A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file). - A clean copy of the edited manuscript is uploaded. 4. 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. - A major revision is made to the reference section. One retracted reference is removed. Few new references are added. Finally, the reference list is reorganized based on order and formatted according to PLOS guidelines. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting your article to Plos One. Using the term 'frequency' instead of 'prevalence' for non-population-based studies is advised. - Thank you for the comment. We used prevalence to measure the percentage of patients with PACS among the COVID-19 affected population. Please brief the background section and add a conclusion to the abstract. - Background section is briefed and conclusion added to the abstract. The headings for the rationale and objective should be omitted, as they are part of the introduction. - Headings for rationale and objective are omitted. Please briefly discuss PACS's pathophysiology in the introduction and include the operational definitions of PACS and severe COVID-19 in the methods section. - PACS pathophysiology is added to the introduction section and operational definitions of PACS and severe COVID-19 are added in the methods section. The telephone interview guide should be included in the supplement, and the categorization of fatigue and cough in the telephonic interview should be mentioned. - Both the English and Amharic versions of the telephonic interview guide are now attached in the supporting information now. We only used the study participants’ subjective response of whether the fatigue or cough that started during the acute illness persisted until the time of interview or not. We didn’t further categorized fatigue and cough. Please describe how you identified the patients from the hospital records, briefly discuss the sampling technique used, and explain how you created the sampling frame and interval. - The procedures used to identify the patients from hospital records, the sampling technique used, how sampling frame and interval was created are now included in the methodology section. A patient selection flow chart should be provided in the results section. - Patient selection flow chat is included in the results section now. For quantitative data, please use median (IQR) instead of mean and perform non-parametric tests. - For quantitative data, except age, median (IQR) is used and Mann-Whitney U test is performed. In the first paragraph of the discussion section, summarize the findings rather than presenting data. - First paragraph of the discussion is now revised. Detailed data is removed a summary of the findings is included. Please discuss the generalizability and limitations of the study and their implications in the discussion section. - Limitations and generalizability of the study is included now in the discussion section. Lastly, please rewrite some references according to PLOS guidelines and copyedit the manuscript for language correction. - Manuscript is edited for language correction and reference list is updated according to PLOS guidelines. 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 - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 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 - Raw data is deposited on the Dryad repository now. ________________________________________ 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 - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The manuscript offers a detailed insight into the prevalence and risk factors associated with PACS in severe COVID-19 patients. The discussion effectively contextualizes the findings with previous literature, which is commendable. Key points include: • Detailed exploration of the symptomatology, risk factors, and prevalence of PACS. • Highlighting gender-based disparity in PACS presentation. • Identifying significant associations like older age, prolonged hospital stay, and lifestyle factors. - Thank you for the positive response. Recommendations: • Further elaborate on potential interventions or treatments for fatigue in PACS. - Effective interventions and treatments for fatigue in PACS is now included. • Consider discussing the clinical implications of these findings for healthcare providers. - The clinical implications of these findings for healthcare providers in now included in the conclusion section. Minor grammatical errors were noticed in the manuscript. It would be beneficial for the authors to proofread the article for clarity. - The article is now edited for clarity and grammatical errors. Reviewer #2: The paper is well-written, and the methodology is robust. - Thank you for the positive response. However, including additional details and clarifications in certain sections could enhance the overall quality and clarity of the research. Here are some suggestions: Introduction Line 56, Consider adding a sentence or two explaining the potential impact of PACS on individuals, families, and society. - The Economic impact of PACS is now included with a new reference. Line 59, 60, and 227, there is a discrepancy in the reference to prevalence percentages. It states "46% in Bangladesh to 81% in Italy," but later it mentions 87.4% in Italy. Please clarify this inconsistency. - Thank you for noticing the discrepancy. These are two separate studies conducted in Italy. Because the later one showed a higher prevalence, the first article is omitted. Rationale Line 74, Clarify the specific measures or interventions considered "effective management measures. - Specific measures or interventions are now briefly explained. Methodology Line 100, Provide more details about the adaptation process of the WHO Global COVID-19 Clinical Platform Case Report Form for Post-COVID conditions. - The adaptation process is now discussed in the data collection tools and procedures sub section of the methodology. Results: Line 128, Provide a percentage or proportion for the patients who died after hospital discharge (5.8%). - Percentage of patients who died after hospital discharge is now include in the results section. Lines 159-161, consider providing more details on the health facility visits, such as the types of health facilities visited and the reasons for the visits. - The health facilities are either clinic, health center, or hospital. The most common reason (59%) for the health facility visit was for follow-up of chronic disease like diabetes or hypertension, and 15.7% of the reasons for hospital visit after discharge were not feeling well. Discussion: Lines 200-210, the discussion is comprehensive and well-structured. Consider discussing potential limitations of the study, such as recall bias during telephone interviews. - Limitations of the study are now included at the end of the results section. Conclusion: Lines 276-280, The conclusion summarizes the key findings well. Consider adding a brief statement about the implications of your findings for future research or public health interventions. - The implications of the findings for future research and public health intervention are now included at the end of the discussion section and the conclusion part. General comment: Please review the manuscript for any potential grammatical errors to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the text before final submission. - The manuscript is now checked for grammatical errors. ________________________________________ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298409.r002
3 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Robert Jeenchen Chen, Editor PONE-D-23-27462R1Assessment of the prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its associated risk factors among severe COVID-19 patients admitted to Millennium COVID-19 care center, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Elias, 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 Feb 17 2024 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, Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH 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: Please revise and shorten the Title. There is no need to specify the city name in the Title unless necessary. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: The authors have addressed all the issues raised by the reviewers and current iteration merit publication after some editorial polishing of the paper. Good job Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298409.r003
Revision 2
4 Jan 2024 Author Response PONE-D-23-27462R1 Assessment of the prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its associated risk factors among severe COVID-19 patients admitted to Millennium COVID-19 Care Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Dear Editor and Reviewers; I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my manuscript. Your constructive feedback and comments have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of my work. I would like to address the concerns and comments raised in your review. I have carefully considered each one of them and have made the necessary changes to the manuscript accordingly. So please find the following comments and responses. Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. - I've re-checked the reference list and found it to be complete and correct. 2. 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. - No retracted papers are cited in the current submission. 3. 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. - No changes are made to the reference list. Additional Editor Comments: Please revise and shorten the Title. There is no need to specify the city name in the Title unless necessary. Thank you for the comment. The title is now revised to “Determinants of Post-acute COVID-19 Syndrome among hospitalized severe COVID-19 Patients: A 2-year follow-up study” 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 - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 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 - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 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 - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 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 - Thank you for the positive response. ________________________________________ 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: The authors have addressed all the issues raised by the reviewers and current iteration merit publication after some editorial polishing of the paper. Good job Reviewer #2: (No Response) - Thank you for the positive response. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298409.r004
25 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Robert Jeenchen Chen, Editor Determinants of Post-acute COVID-19 Syndrome among hospitalized severe COVID-19 Patients: A 2-year follow-up study PONE-D-23-27462R2 Dear Dr. Elias, 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, Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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. 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 #2: The authors have diligently addressed all concerns. They confirm the reference list's accuracy and no citation of retracted papers. Appreciate their thoroughness. ****** 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: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298409.r005
Formally Accepted
29 Apr 2024 Acceptance Letter - Robert Jeenchen Chen, Editor PONE-D-23-27462R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Elias, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 Dr. Robert Jeenchen Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298409.r006

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 .