Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus InterTan nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chang-sheng Liao; Fang-zheng He; Xi-yong Li; Peng-fei Han

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304654

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 28, 2024
18 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Alessandra Aldieri, Editor PONE-D-24-03733Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation versus InterTan nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. han, 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 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, Alessandra Aldieri 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 ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. 3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 4. We notice that your supplementary table is included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. [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 Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: I Don't Know ****** 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: As a reviewer, I have thoroughly evaluated the manuscript titled "Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation versus InterTan Nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Here are my review comments:The manuscript presents a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) and InterTan Nail in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. The study aims to provide valuable insights into the selection of surgical methods based on patient-specific conditions.Areas for Improvement: Clarity of Findings: While the results are presented comprehensively, the authors could further clarify certain aspects of the findings, such as the implications of postoperative complications on clinical outcomes. Language and Grammar: Some sections of the manuscript require minor improvements in language and grammar to enhance readability and clarity. Data Availability Statement: Ensure that all data underlying the findings, including raw data points, are fully available as per PLOS ONE's data policy. Overall, the manuscript contributes valuable insights into the comparative efficacy and safety of PFNA and InterTan in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. With minor revisions to address the mentioned points, the manuscript will be well-suited for publication in PLOS ONE. Reviewer #2: Abstract Provide brief introduction then merge it with study objectives Methods Which reporting system the authors used to report this review is it PRISMA if yes please elaborate it, have the authors registered it on PROSPERO if yes please state that. For methods two main sections were missed please add with details: study selection and data extraction Reviewer #3: The study has several strengths, including a systematic approach to data extraction and analysis, and it addresses an important clinical question. However, there are areas where improvements are needed to enhance the quality and clarity of the manuscript. The authors should provide a clear rationale for excluding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the analysis. While retrospective studies can provide valuable insights, RCTs are considered the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy and should be included if available. The authors should provide a more systematic approach to subgroup analysis, based on clinically relevant factors such as patient demographics or fracture characteristics. This would enhance the relevance and applicability of the findings to different patient populations. ****** 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: ALANI MOHANAD KH. AHMED Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Syed Azfar ******** [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.0304654.r001
Revision 1
30 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation versus InterTan Nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis." We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our work, and we are grateful for your insightful comments. We have carefully considered your suggestions, and we would like to address them in our revised manuscript. Reviewer #1: 1. Clarity of Findings: We agree that further clarification of certain aspects of the findings would enhance the manuscript. In the revised version, we will expand on the implications of postoperative complications on clinical outcomes, providing a more detailed discussion of how these complications may affect patient recovery and long-term outcomes. 2. Language and Grammar: We apologize for any inconsistencies in language and grammar. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made necessary corrections to improve readability and clarity. 3. Data Availability Statement: We understand the importance of data availability and have ensured that all data underlying the findings of this meta-analysis, including raw data points, are fully available as per PLOS ONE's data policy. The data used in our study are sourced from published journal articles, and all cited articles have been thoroughly listed in the text as well as the reference list. Since these data are openly available secondary resources, no additional data access permissions or application processes are required. However, for further information or verification of the data, interested readers are encouraged to refer to the corresponding original literature. If there are any questions or need for further assistance, please feel free to contact us via email. Reviewer #2: 1. Abstract and Study Objectives: We have revised the abstract to provide a brief introduction and merged it with the study objectives, as suggested. 2. Reporting System and Registration: We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to guide the reporting of our review, and we have registered it on PROSPERO. We have added this information to the revised manuscript. 3. Study Selection and Data Extraction: We apologize for the missing information on study selection and data extraction. In the revised manuscript, we have added detailed descriptions of these processes, including the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the methods used for data extraction. Reviewer #3: 1. Exclusion of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): We acknowledge the crucial role of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in evaluating the efficacy of treatments. However, in our initial review, we did not identify any RCTs that satisfied our stringent inclusion criteria, possibly due to the limited availability of RCTs specifically addressing the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures with PFNA and InterTan, or because the designs of these studies did not align with our specific requirements.Despite this, we emphasize the significant value of RCTs in assessing treatment effects and have highlighted this in the discussion section of our manuscript. We remain vigilant in monitoring the latest research in this field and will strive to include RCTs in our future studies when available. 2. Subgroup Analysis: Regarding the issue of subgroup analysis, we are well aware of its significance in enhancing the relevance and applicability of research results to different patient populations. However, unfortunately, the detailed data on patient demographics or fracture characteristics in the existing literature are incomplete, which prevents us from conducting a systematic subgroup analysis. We have attempted to contact the authors of the original literature to obtain more data, but have been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, we have emphasized this limitation in our paper and will pay more attention to the collection and analysis of relevant data in future studies. Once again, we appreciate the time and effort spent by the reviewers in evaluating our manuscript. We believe that the revisions addressed in this response have significantly improved our work, and we hope that it is now suitable for publication. Sincerely, Changsheng-Liao Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304654.r002
16 May 2024 Decision Letter - Alessandra Aldieri, Editor Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation versus InterTan nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-24-03733R1 Dear Dr. han, 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, Alessandra Aldieri 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: (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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304654.r003
Formally Accepted
20 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Alessandra Aldieri, Editor PONE-D-24-03733R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. han, 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. Alessandra Aldieri Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304654.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 .