Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 10, 2024
Decision Letter - Vanessa Carels, Editor

PONE-D-24-04651Systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and associated factors of depression among hypertensive patients in EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. tassew,

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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 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,

Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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 note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Dr. Getanew Kegnie Nigate, Dr. Getaw Wubie Assefa, Dr. Agerie Mengistie Zeleke and Dr. Yeshiwas Ayal Ferede.

5. 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: The manuscript "Systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and associated factors

of depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia" investigates the prevalence and factors associated with depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The researchers collected data from various databases and analyzed it using statistical methods. The findings showed that the pooled prevalence of depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia was 32.43%. Factors associated with depression included being female, having comorbid illnesses, poor blood pressure control, a family history of depression, being single, and poor social support. The study suggests that improving the linkage between psychobehavioral treatment and psychiatric units could lead to better clinical outcomes for depressed hypertensive patients.

Here is my feedback:

1. This systematic review demonstrates exemplary writing and methodological rigor. However, minor adjustments warrant attention.

2. “For those who are depressed, improving the psycho-behavioral treatment linkage with the psychiatric unit can result in improved clinical outcomes” Kindly append a period (.) to the conclusion of the abstract.

3. The authors have presented a thorough literature review. However, it is necessary to incorporate a paragraph discussing the bidirectional impact of depression and hypertension, particularly drawing from the findings of studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

4. Figure 1 requires revision and redesign as it is of poor quality. Additionally, adjusting the left margin of the figure will enhance its clarity and understanding.

5. In the discussion section, kindly conduct a comparative analysis of your findings with those obtained from other low-income countries (LICs) such as Afghanistan.

**********

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: 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.

Revision 1

April 24 /2024

PONE-D-24-04651

Dear; Editor and Reviewers

Please accept our revised manuscript and note our point-by point response to reviewers below for the manuscript entitled “Systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and associated factors of depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia”. Our revised manuscript continues to meet the journal’s formal requirements.

We look forward to your reply and revised decision on the manuscript.

Firstly, we wish to express our great appreciation to the Editorials and the reviewers for your invaluable inputs, commitment, timely manuscript decision and comments, we believe that we have now strengthened our paper based on your comments. Please inspect below a point by point response to the comments raised by reviewers.

N.B Authors’ responses are indicated in bold italics

Comments from the Editors:

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your great comments on the manuscript preparation requirements. We have tried to revise our manuscript and rewrite it again by using PLOS ONE style and improving it.

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your great concern. We have corrected our data availability statement to “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files,” and we have provided supplementary files for the study

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your reminder on ORCID ID. I have linked my ORCID ID to Editorial Manager.

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Dr. Getanew Kegnie Nigate, Dr. Getaw Wubie Assefa, Dr. Agerie Mengistie Zeleke and Dr. Yeshiwas Ayal Ferede

Authors’ response: Thank you for your consideration of author amendments. We have amended the authors during the submission process.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct

Authors’ response: Thank you for your great concern and comments. We have tried to revise our manuscript references, but there are no cited papers that have been retracted currently

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer 1:

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

Authors’ response: Thank you for your positive comments on the soundness of the manuscript

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Authors’ response: Thank you for your great feedback on the appropriateness of the statistical analysis

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Authors’ response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s efforts to carefully review the manuscript and provide this answer.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Authors’ response: Thank you very much. This takes into account the improvement of the English language for acceptability and understandability for readers. We tried to correct sentences that made others confused or needed language correction and grammatical errors as well in the revised manuscript

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The manuscript "Systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and associated factors of depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia" investigates the prevalence and factors associated with depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The researchers collected data from various databases and analyzed it using statistical methods. The findings showed that the pooled prevalence of depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia was 32.43%. Factors associated with depression included being female, having comorbid illnesses, poor blood pressure control, a family history of depression, being single, and poor social support. The study suggests that improving the linkage between psycho-behavioral treatment and psychiatric units could lead to better clinical outcomes for depressed hypertensive patients.

Here is my feedback:

1. This systematic review demonstrates exemplary writing and methodological rigor. However, minor adjustments warrant attention.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for these great comments. We, as authors, revise and improve our manuscripts based on your comments. Please see the track change manuscript for corrections and modifications.

2. “For those who are depressed, improving the psycho-behavioral treatment linkage with the psychiatric unit can result in improved clinical outcomes” Kindly append a period (.) to the conclusion of the abstract.

Authors’ response: We wish to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their constructive comments. We have correctly appended the period (.) based on your comments. Thank you again for your constructive and critical comments to improve our manuscript

3. The authors have presented a thorough literature review. However, it is necessary to incorporate a paragraph discussing the bidirectional impact of depression and hypertension, particularly drawing from the findings of studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your invaluable comments on this part. The discussion is revised again by adding your comments on the bidirectional impact of depression and hypertension and retrieving other study findings

4. Figure 1 requires revision and redesign as it is of poor quality. Additionally, adjusting the left margin of the figure will enhance its clarity and understanding.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your invaluable comments to improve figure quality. We have adjusted the margin of the figure and used the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool to improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript figures.

5. In the discussion section, kindly conduct a comparative analysis of your findings with those obtained from other low-income countries (LICs) such as Afghanistan.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your invaluable comments to improve the discussion part. We have performed a comparison or discussed the prevalence of depression in our study with Afghanistan by searching articles. Thank you again for your comments

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.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your invaluable comments to improve the discussion part. Sorry for this; we have corrected it based on your comments.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx
Decision Letter - Ahmad Neyazi, Editor

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and associated factors of depression among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia

PONE-D-24-04651R1

Dear Dr. tassew,

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,

Ahmad Neyazi

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ahmad Neyazi, Editor

PONE-D-24-04651R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. tassew,

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. Ahmad Neyazi

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .