PONE-D-23-34697​​Physical compatibility of Xuebijing injection with 53 intravenous drugs during simulated Y-site administrationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

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 02 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,

Adeel Sattar, 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that "The datasets generated or analysed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request." 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate ""supporting information"" files.

Additional Editor Comments:

According to reviewers comments and my personal view, authors need to present their data in a more attractive way for readers. Please consider reviewers suggestions and interpret your data in proper way.

[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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: This compatibility research is important to provide practical recommendations in hospitals. As the best of our knowledge, the drugs used in the study have never been tested for compatibility, so they provide novelty value. In addition, this study perhaps will provide positive enthusiasm for research in the herbal field, because herbal medicines can be made in injection preparations that are stable and compatible with other injection preparations.

This research has used an excellent method to test the compatibility of injectable drugs. The manuscript also shows the method in detail. Improvement may be required regarding this

1. How is the final justification for incompatibility taking into account all tests. So that in the results section, readers can understand where the number 27 incompatible drugs comes from?

It is necessary to state that "the incompatibility results of one of the tests conclude that there is incompatibility". Or it would be clearer if the justification were shown in the picture. As an illustration, perhaps you can see figure 1 from this publication Compatibility of acetaminophen with central nervous system medications during simulated Y-site injection. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2020;52(1):23-27. doi:10.5114/ait.2020.92684.

2. The results section will be easier to read if it is displayed in a table with columns of results per test.

3. In the discussion section it may be necessary to briefly discuss how to manage incompatible drugs for practical purposes. Please refer to the results of this publication "Management of Y-Site Incompatibility of Intravenous Medication: A Scoping Review." Indonesian Journal of Pharmacy/Indonesian Pharmacy Magazine 33.3 (2022).

Reviewer #2: Overall, the manuscript presents interesting findings, but the data is challenging to interpret. The data needs to be in a reader-friendly format. Easy to review, compare, and reference.

Page 4-5. 2.4 . Tyndall Beam Assessment Lines 76-78

Grammatical errors – Please revise - the sentence is confusing as written.

Page 5. 2.5. Turbidity Line 82

Grammatical errors – Please revise - the sentence is confusing as written.

Page 5. 2.6. Particle Line 89

Grammatical errors – Please revise - the sentence is confusing as written. When you say “three times” it is unclear what you are describing. It is an incomplete thought, are you saying you tested the same sample three times or you tested three samples?

Grammar – mixing present and past tense

Page 10 - Lines 181-182. A confusing explanation for the change in pH.

A 10% change in the pH of a solution of 4.0 is 0.4 and for 10.0 is 1.0. The authors need to clarify their statements regarding pH measurements and the 10% cut-off.

“When the pH of a solution change is 0.4 to 1.0 it is not 10% unless you are specifically referencing a change in pH of 4.0 to 4.4.

Tables are needed to understand the results for the different admixtures. Readers appreciate tables conveying the key findings.

**********

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: Suci Hanifah

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.

​​Physical compatibility of Xuebijing injection with 53 intravenous drugs during simulated Y-site administration

PONE-D-23-34697R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

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,

Adeel Sattar, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I think authors improved this article according to the suggestions raised by reviewers. I would like to accept this manuscript for publication

Reviewers' comments: