A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: The Sustainable Development Goal 15

Morẹ́nikẹ́ Oluwátóyìn Foláyan; Robert J. Schroth; Duangporn Duangthip; Ola B. Al-Batayneh; Jorma I. Virtanen; Ivy Guofang Sun; Arheiam Arheiam; Carlos A. Feldens; Maha El Tantawi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304523

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 6, 2024
17 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Hadi Ghasemi, Editor PONE-D-23-43962A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: the Sustainable Development Goal 15PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Foláyan, 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 May 01 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, Hadi Ghasemi 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. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: PONE-D-23-43962 A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: the Sustainable Development Goal 15 This manuscript describes a scoping review of the evidence linking Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG15) and early childhood caries. Is interesting and novel. INTRODUCTION 1. The description of Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG15) is appropriate, but a general description of the global prevalence and geographical distribution of ECC is lacking. Systematic reviews of the global distribution of ECC are currently available and could be used to link this data to SDG15. 2. However, one might think that the prevalence of ECC, if associated, should follow a geographical distribution, and the reviews of the global prevalence of ECC do not show this association. This should be discussed. 3. "Although there is suggestive evidence of a link between SDG 15 and ECC, there is little empirical evidence to support this possible relationship." This sentence needs a citation or reference to support who and why this association is suggested, and these references need to be explored in detail. 4. The literature review found is superficial and could be enriched by considering the key component of the research question: what is the relationship between the proposed risk factors and ECC? For this, I believe that the framework proposed by Hill around 1950 is still valid and should be considered: is there evidence of temporality? Strength? Consistency? Specificity? Biological gradient? Plausibility, Coherence? Analogy and experimental? This should be explored in detail in this exploratory study, so a table summarising whether we have evidence to check each of the Hill criteria and the reference could summarise the results 5. The sentence "High concentrations of natural fluoride in groundwater and soils may cause enamel defects, delayed tooth eruption and endemic skeletal and dental fluorosis [39-44]" needs to be balanced with the fact that caries prevalence is also lower in these areas. See Kut et al. 2016. A review of fluoride in African groundwater and local remediation methods. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 2-3, 190-212. 6. The raw data of potential papers should be included as supplementary material or in a dedicated data research repository. Reviewer #2: The research will contribute to the literature. It is a topic that remains current and has undergone a good literature review. Being a multicentric study increases its value. The sources could have been more up-to-date in terms of the year. It is important to highlight the need for more research related to ecological studies. Reviewer #3: The manuscript 'A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: the Sustainable Development Goal 15' is an excellent and need of the time study. PRISMA-ScR guidelines are followed well. Whole manuscript is written in standard English. Results are meticulously drawn and are well interpreted. Conclusion and need of further studies are nicely mentioned. ****** 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 Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Prof. Divya S Sharma ******** [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.0304523.r001
Revision 1
1 May 2024 Author Response A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: the Sustainable Development Goal 15 PONE-D-23-43962 Date of revision: 18th March 2024 We authors would like to thank the reviewers for their critical review of the manuscript. The points raised has helped strengthen the paper. The positive feedback is encouraging. Please find below, our point-by-point responses to the issues raised by the reviewers. Reviewer #1 This manuscript describes a scoping review of the evidence linking Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG15) and early childhood caries. Is interesting and novel. Response: Thanks for the positive feedback. INTRODUCTION 1. The description of Sustainable Development Goal 15 (SDG15) is appropriate, but a general description of the global prevalence and geographical distribution of ECC is lacking. Systematic reviews of the global distribution of ECC are currently available and could be used to link this data to SDG15. Response: Thanks for highlighting this gap in the introduction. We have revised the introduction and wrote in the last paragraph: These contributory pathways of the SDG 15 to the risk for ECC is of concern as the current global burden of ECC is high. Caries in the primary dentition affects 514 million children globally [26] with prevalence ranging from 82% in the Oceania to 52% in Asia, 48% in the Americans, 43% in Europe and 30% in Africa [27]. 2. However, one might think that the prevalence of ECC, if associated, should follow a geographical distribution, and the reviews of the global prevalence of ECC do not show this association. This should be discussed. Response: You are right. We noticed this and we wrote: The regions and countries worst affected by food insecurity [28], water insecurity [29], unemployment [30], gender inequality [31], conflict [32], and migration [33] – Asia and Africa - are regions with high but not the worst prevalence of ECC globally [27]. These regions needing extensive intensive interventions for SDG 15 may benefit from a reduction in the prevalence of ECC if strategic actions for ECC control is also linked and monitored alongside efforts to address the SDG 15. 3. "Although there is suggestive evidence of a link between SDG 15 and ECC, there is little empirical evidence to support this possible relationship." This sentence needs a citation or reference to support who and why this association is suggested, and these references need to be explored in detail. Response: Thanks for raising this. We have revised the statement and wrote: Though SDG 15 and ECC may be linked, the empirical evidence for this is needed to be able to make strategic plans for interventions. 4. The literature review found is superficial and could be enriched by considering the key component of the research question: what is the relationship between the proposed risk factors and ECC? For this, I believe that the framework proposed by Hill around 1950 is still valid and should be considered: is there evidence of temporality? Strength? Consistency? Specificity? Biological gradient? Plausibility, Coherence? Analogy and experimental? This should be explored in detail in this exploratory study, so a table summarising whether we have evidence to check each of the Hill criteria and the reference could summarise the results Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggested approach to evaluate the two studies included in this scoping review. As a prior study had highlighted (Munn et al. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2028; 18: 14), a scoping review focuses on mapping the literature and identifying gaps for studies. It also can help generate evidence for systematic reviews. Specifically, Claire Tope (https://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/erc/index.php/2022/01/04/scoping-review-systematic-review-or-review-of-the-literature-what-is-the-difference/#:~:text=A%20systematic%20review%20will%20typically,assess%20quality%20of%20the%20studies)_wrote - A systematic review will typically focus on providing a critically appraised and synthesised account and so may draw on a relatively narrow range of quality assessed studies. A scoping study is likely to draw on a broader range of studies but less likely to assess quality of the studies. The Bradford Hill criteria, first proposed in 1965 by Sir Austin Bradford Hill, provide a framework to determine if one can justifiably move from an observed association to a verdict of causation. A systematic review is best designed to discuss issues the reviewer points to: Strength, Consistency, Specificity, Temporality, Biological gradient, Plausibility, and Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy as criteria for causation. While an evaluation of these attributes is important, they are outside the scope of the current review. 5. The sentence "High concentrations of natural fluoride in groundwater and soils may cause enamel defects, delayed tooth eruption and endemic skeletal and dental fluorosis [39-44]" needs to be balanced with the fact that caries prevalence is also lower in these areas. See Kut et al. 2016. A review of fluoride in African groundwater and local remediation methods. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 2-3, 190-212. Response: Thanks for raising this. In lines 309-312, we wrote: Fluoride in water is effective at reducing caries levels in both primary and permanent dentition in children by providing a constant exposure to fluoride ions in the oral cavity [92]. Supra‐optimal levels have been linked to dental fluorosis, and severe dental fluorosis is a risk factor for caries [93]. 6. The raw data of potential papers should be included as supplementary material or in a dedicated data research repository. Response: We have included the search strings for the study which can enable access to the entire database that we searched. The details are included as Supplemental file 1. The details of the two studies included in this study are written up in the table 2. Reviewer #2: The research will contribute to the literature. It is a topic that remains current and has undergone a good literature review. Being a multicentric study increases its value. The sources could have been more up-to-date in terms of the year. It is important to highlight the need for more research related to ecological studies. Response: Thanks for the constructive feedback. We have improved the literature review as highlighted by the reviewer #1. We have also highlighted the need for more ecological studies. We wrote in lines 316-317: Ecological studies may provide preliminary evidence suggesting the plausibility of these links. Reviewer #3: The manuscript 'A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: the Sustainable Development Goal 15' is an excellent and need of the time study. PRISMA-ScR guidelines are followed well. Whole manuscript is written in standard English. Results are meticulously drawn and are well interpreted. Conclusion and need of further studies are nicely mentioned. Response: Thanks for the constructive feedback. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response SDG 15 and ECC.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304523.r002
7 May 2024 Decision Letter - Hadi Ghasemi, Editor PONE-D-23-43962R1A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: the Sustainable Development Goal 15PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Foláyan, 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 Jun 21 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, Hadi Ghasemi 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. [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 ******** 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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: I thank the authors for incorporating my previous comments into this manuscript. To further improve the quality of this document and to ensure that it has any impact, I recommend that the discussion section be expanded to explicitly detail how future research aimed at establishing or refuting** the association between early childhood caries (ECC) and life on land (Sustainable Development Goal 15) should be designed. It is essential that this section addresses the methodological issues (design? sample size? hypothesis? variables to measure? analysis?) and suggests specific details that such research should include to robustly test the hypothesis of this association. This would provide clear guidance for future studies and help advance this research area. This could be included as a detailed table. ******** 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: 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.0304523.r003
Revision 2
10 May 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for incorporating my previous comments into this manuscript. To further improve the quality of this document and to ensure that it has any impact, I recommend that the discussion section be expanded to explicitly detail how future research aimed at establishing or refuting the association between early childhood caries (ECC) and life on land (Sustainable Development Goal 15) should be designed. It is essential that this section addresses the methodological issues (design? sample size? hypothesis? variables to measure? analysis?) and suggests specific details that such research should include to robustly test the hypothesis of this association. This would provide clear guidance for future studies and help advance this research area. This could be included as a detailed table. RESPONSE: We thank the Reviewer for the insightful suggestion. At the end of Discussion, we added a new part where we recommended future research directions. We aimed to phrase them as generalized, non exhaustive recommendations to draw the attention of researchers to gaps and sum up the points we raised earlier throughout the paper. We believe that setting an actionable research agenda should follow a systematic approach that draws on the perspectives of multiple stakeholders including researchers, policy makers, practitioners, industry representatives, lay people and others. Thus, we refrained from providing a prescriptive narrative that would overstate our role and the scope of the paper and tried to move beyond specific aims, hypotheses, sample sizes, definition of variables, analytic strategies, and other related details. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response SDG 15 and ECC.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304523.r004
14 May 2024 Decision Letter - Hadi Ghasemi, Editor A scoping review on the association between early childhood caries and life on land: the Sustainable Development Goal 15 PONE-D-23-43962R2 Dear Dr. Morẹ́nikẹ́ Oluwátóyìn Foláyan, 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, Hadi Ghasemi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304523.r005
Formally Accepted
23 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Hadi Ghasemi, Editor PONE-D-23-43962R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Foláyan, 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. Hadi Ghasemi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304523.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 .