Global burden of fall and associated factors among individual with low vision: A systematic-review and meta-analysis

Kingsley Ekemiri; Chioma Ekemiri; Ngozika Ezinne; Victor Virginia; Osaze Okoendo; Robin Seemongal-Dass; Diane Van Staden; Carl Abraham

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302428

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 5, 2024
7 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Yuan-Pang Wang, Editor PONE-D-23-44176Global Burden of Fall Among Individual with Low Vision: A Systematic-Review and Meta-AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ekemiri, 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 Mar 23 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, Yuan-Pang Wang, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJPCC-09-2015-0033/full/html https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24314403/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311932.2019.1642981 https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijcd/2021/6708865.pdf 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. 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: Both reviewers have provided comments and suggested corrections to this manuscript. Please point to point to address their concerns. [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: No 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: I have already commented it to rewrite it in standard English. I hope the authors will act accordingly. the manuscript technically sounded, the statistical analysis performed appropriately and rigorously. Reviewer #2: it is an important work but needs revision ****** 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: Mistire Teshome Guta 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: comments to low vision.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302428.r001
Revision 1
1 Mar 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, A rebuttal letter was sent and attached as "Response to Reviewers." A marked-up copy was sent and labelled as Revised Manuscript with Track Changes An unmarked version of revised paper was sent and labelled as "Manuscript" The overlap was revised especially the introduction and Method Response for reviewer 1 Dear reviewer thank you for your constructive comments and suggestion, we tried to incorporate all issues raised by you. Manuscript PONE-D-23-44176 Global Burden of Fall Among Individual with Low Vision: A Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis Comments The tittle “Global Burden of Fall among Individual with Low Vision: A Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis” is important because, the Vision loss and fall are interrelated, vision loss is high among those who fall, and vision loss may be a contributing factor to falls. Falling results poor health and well-being, decreased activity of daily living and social participation, lower life satisfaction, as well as it affects the quality of life of the individuals. I like to give minor comments and questions for this review. 1. I need to see the searching terms that you use for each data bases with their results? How do you get an access for each data bases other than PubMed? Response- as we mentioned in method part we used those search terms for all databases after we extracted MeSH for our study based on POCC. • We got all most all studies from PubMed, from other sites we only get 2 studies ( 1 Scopus indexed, so we accessed through institutional login.) the other from Google scholar. Regarding the access issue most of the health journals are indexed in PubMed in addition to that other sites, so we haven’t faced any challenges. But what we have done for those not indexed on those sited is we did manual searches. 2. The whole article has language and grammar problems. Response- modified 3. In line 129 it says “the keywords used were, Low vision OR visual impairment OR…..” are this key words or search terms? Response—corrected based on your suggestion 4. Check for the right citation: for example for citation 35……… Response—corrected 5. Make the PRISMA diagram aesthetic. Response---corrected 6. Since you are using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)….. use its correct format. Like 1. Introduction, 2. Material and methods, 2.1. Study design and search strategy, 2.2. Study selection and eligibility criteria, 2.3. Study selection and quality appraisa, 2.4. Data extraction, 2.5. Measure, 2 .6. Statistical analysis, 2. 7. Publication bias, 3. Results………….. 4. Discussion, 4.1. Implications, 5. Conclusions, Financial disclosures, Declaration of Competing Interest, Acknowledgements, Appendix A. Supplementary data, References. Response- we followed PRISMA 2020, so corrected based on your recommendation 7. In line 235 make it 88.4%, it says 884%. Response – corrected 8. If the Egger’s test is found to be significant, it indicates the presence of publication bias in the meta-analysis. To correct the final pooled prevalence, one can use the trim-and-fill method1. This method involves trimming the studies that are causing funnel plot asymmetry and then filling the funnel plot with hypothetical studies to make it symmetrical. The final pooled prevalence is then calculated using the filled funnel plot. Response – mentioned on line 183 and 184 Response for reviewer 2 Dear reviewer thank you for your comments, we response for all comments raised by you. Global Burden of fall and Associated factors among Individual with Low 2 Vision: A Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis; It is an important piece of work but needs minor revision Comments to author � The title on the system and word document is different , should be similar Global Burden of Fall Among Individual with Low Vision: A Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis and Global Burden of Fall and associated factors Among Individual with Low Vision: A Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis Response – corrected � On page 1 line number 5 , Kingsley Ekemiri 1* 3 ,Chioma Ekemiri², Ngozika Ezinne¹,Victor Virginia³,Osaze 4 Okoendo⁴ , Robin Seemongal-Dass⁵ , Diane Van Staden⁶ , Carl Halladay Abraham⁷ , Low Vision Study Group¹ “ Low Vision Study Group” should be removed because it not the name of author Response – removed � The Corresponding Author is already showed by astrix and the affiliation so don’t need to be restated in title page Dr Kingsley Ekemiri(OD,MPH) Department of Optometry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of West indies, St Augustine Campus, Trinidad and Tobago Response – removed � Under inclusion criteria- why authors only included reported fall injury within past two years? Response – the author included studies which reported within two years is in order to minimize recall bias. � All included studies are published studies, why author dealt with unpublished study? Response – corrected and we removed the word unpublished from main document, we don’t have unpublished studies � Under conclusion- author recommended …to give attention, do you think there is no attention for those groups? Response – the current facts says fall is not given attention for those with low vision rather most literature suggests attention for older age groups � The contents of declaration letter is not correct, it is cover letter , please amend it See plos one submission guideline at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines Response – corrected and removed from the manuscript � All supporting information is not available Response – we will make available/ attach as supporting information Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewers (1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302428.r002
4 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Yuan-Pang Wang, Editor Global Burden of Fall Among Individual with Low Vision: A Systematic-Review and Meta-Analysis PONE-D-23-44176R1 Dear Dr. Ekemiri, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Yuan-Pang Wang, M.D., Ph.D. 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 #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 manuscript technically sound, statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously and written in standard English. The authors well addressed the comments I send to them. So, I have no more comments. Reviewer #2: the authors corrected all my comments and worthy if it is published by journal. I don't have additional comments ****** 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: Mistire Teshome Guta Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302428.r003
Formally Accepted
16 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yuan-Pang Wang, Editor PONE-D-23-44176R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ekemiri, 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. Yuan-Pang Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302428.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 .