Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 8, 2023
Decision Letter - Balew Arega Negatie, Editor

PONE-D-23-36410Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Rifampicin Resistance at the Ho Teaching Hospital of GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deku,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 12 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'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Balew Arega Negatie, Msc,MD

Academic 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 will be uploaded as a supporting file if the manuscript is accepted for publication

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. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

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: No

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: All comments have been incorporated in the marked manuscript. For example, the introduction is silent on the subject matter which was supposed to have been studied. For example, there are several studies on Rifampicin resistance in Ghana but the authors rarely mentioned any of these.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors

1. Title

The title should be revised as “Trends of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance……”

2. Abstract section

a. Lacks research gaps

b. Its results were not support with statistical values and mix-up with recommendations

c. Its conclusion is not well stated

3. Introduction

a. Need a through language edition

b. Lack coherence

c. Inconsistence citation (line 96)

4. Method section

a. Study area description lacks coherence

b. No criteria for inclusion/exclusion of data type/participants

c. Data collection not well described; what variables were collected

d. Variables (outcome and independents variables) are missing

5. Results

a. This section should be reanalysis; the way you wrote AOR? Not to the standard

6. Discussion

a. You reviewed very few literature for the discussion. Look at line number 253 to 306, you didn’t use any literature.

b. Overall you use 15 paper to prepare this manuscript

7. Conclusion

a. Your conclusion should be based on major findings; which is missed in this case

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is well written and method used appropriate to generate the data presented and analyzed. Although there is a concern on the results presenting data on rifampicin susceptibility testing (table as sensitive-Intermediate-Resistant) in table 2 (Table 2 Prevalence and risk factors of newly diagnosed rifampicin resistant tuberculosis among suspected

174 cases at the Ho Teaching Hospital between 2016 and 2021). The method used talked of results of Gene Xpert method and not the cultural method.

There is also a limitation using this retrospective method which did not enable the authors to correlate the laboratory findings to the clinical presentations.

In conclusion the study site was appropriate to determine the epidemiological trends given its high turn around and the number of suspicious of cases of M. tuberculosis per year. The data generated well appropriately analyzed and the conclusions are adequate to the study design.

**********

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:

**********

[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: PONE-D-23-36410_reviewer_Reviewed.pdf
Revision 1

University of Health and Allied Sciences

PMB 31

Ho

January 25, 2024

The Editor

Plos One

Dear Editor,

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS COMMENT

The authors of the manuscript “Trends of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance at the Ho Teaching Hospital in Ghana.”, with manuscript ID. PONE-D-23-36410 are grateful for your mail. We are equally thankful for the time you spent on the manuscript to enrich it for possible publication in your esteemed journal.

We write to respond to your comments as follows:

Reviewer #1:

Comment: “All comments have been incorporated in the marked manuscript.

For example, the introduction is silent on the subject matter which was supposed to have been studied. For example, there are several studies on Rifampicin resistance in Ghana but the authors rarely mentioned any of these”.

Authors’ response: All corrections have been made as suggested in the manuscript. However, the authors wish to clarify that, the months under the result section are cumulative over the six-year period. (lines 574-580)

Reviewer#2:

1. Title

Reviewer comment: “The title should be revised as “Trends of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance……”

Authors’ response: The title has been revised to “Trends of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance at the Ho Teaching Hospital in Ghana”. See lines 1 and 2.

2. Abstract section

Reviewer comment: “a. Lacks research gaps”

Authors’ response: The abstract has been revised to include the research gap. See lines 36-37.

Reviewer comment: “b. Its results were not support with statistical values and mix-up with recommendations”

Authors’ response: Authors have added statistical values (Lines 51 and 78) and removed recommendations.

Reviewer comment: “c. Its conclusion is not well stated”

Authors’ response: The conclusion has been restated. See lines 82-84.

Reviewer comment 3. Introduction

Reviewer comment: “a. Need a through language edition”

Authors response: Language editing was done as suggested.

Reviewer comment b “Inconsistence citation (line 96)”

Authors’ response: “All comments have been addressed.

4. Method section

Reviewer comment: “a. Study area description lacks coherence”

Authors’ response: This section has been rephrased to improve coherence.

Reviewer comment: “b. No criteria for inclusion/exclusion of data type/participants”

Authors’ response: The inclusion and exclusion criteria section for data type/participants have been added. See 239-242

Reviewer comment: “c. Data collection not well described; what variables were collected”

Authors’ response: Variables obtained for the study have been added to the data collection section. See line 361-367.

Reviewer comment: “d. Variables (outcome and independents variables) are missing”

Authors response: Variables (outcome and independents variables) session have been added. See line 361-367.

5. Results

Reviewer comment a. “This section should be reanalysis; the way you wrote AOR? Not to the standard”

Authors response: Authors are unable to work on this comment due to a lack of clarity on what is expected from us. However, the meaning of the abbreviations used in the table has been added as a footnote. See Table 1

6. Discussion

Reviewer comment: “a. You reviewed very few literatures for the discussion. Look at line number 253 to 306, you didn’t use any literature”.

“b. Overall you use 15 paper to prepare this manuscript”

Authors response: Comparative analysis has been done and more literatures cited.

7. Conclusion

Reviewer comment: “a. Your conclusion should be based on major findings; which is missed in this case”.

Authors’ response: Authors have revised study conclusions. See line 1010-1015

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer comment: “The manuscript is well written and method used appropriate to generate the data presented and analyzed. Although there is a concern on the results presenting data on rifampicin susceptibility testing (table as sensitive-Intermediate-Resistant) in table 2 (Table 2 Prevalence and risk factors of newly diagnosed rifampicin resistant tuberculosis among suspected 174 cases at the Ho Teaching Hospital between 2016 and 2021). The method used talked of results of Gene Xpert method and not the cultural method”.

Authors response: The Gene Xpert machine used reports rifampicin susceptibility results as “Susceptible”, “Indeterminate”, or “Resistant” where Indeterminate means neither “Susceptible” nor “Resistant” which could be due to insufficient bacterial load.

Reviewer comment: “There is also a limitation using this retrospective method which did not enable the authors to correlate the laboratory findings to the clinical presentations.”

Authors response: Suggested limitation of study has been added. See lines 1031- 1033

Reviewer comment: “In conclusion the study site was appropriate to determine the epidemiological trends given its high turn around and the number of suspicious of cases of M. tuberculosis per year. The data generated well appropriately analyzed and the conclusions are adequate to the study design”.

Authors’ response: Thank you.

Thank you.

…Signed……..

John Gameli Deku

(Lead and corresponding author)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Balew Arega Negatie, Editor

PONE-D-23-36410R1Trends of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance at the Ho Teaching Hospital in Ghana.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deku,

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 17 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,

Balew Arega Negatie, Msc,MD

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: (No Response)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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 see a massive improvement in the manuscript. It needs further revisions though. Well done to the authors.

**********

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.

Revision 2

University of Health and Allied Sciences

PMB 31

Ho

May 09, 2024

The Editor-in-Chief

Plos One

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

The authors of the manuscript “Trends of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance at the Ho Teaching Hospital in Ghana.”, with manuscript ID. PONE-D-23-36410R1 are grateful for your mail.

We wish to state that there were no comments from the Editor or the Reviewers for us to address.

However, on the request from the editorial office titled “Journal Requirements”, we wish to respond as follows:

1. The reference list has been reviewed. However, no change was made.

2. No cited paper was retracted.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, the previous version of the manuscript has been maintained.

Please, do not hesitate to contact us with any other concern(s).

Thank you.

…Signed……..

John Gameli Deku

(Lead and corresponding author)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_17052024.docx
Decision Letter - Balew Arega Negatie, Editor

Trends of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance at the Ho Teaching Hospital in Ghana .

PONE-D-23-36410R2

Dear Dr. John Gameli

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.

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,

Balew Arega Negatie, Msc,MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Balew Arega Negatie, Editor

PONE-D-23-36410R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deku,

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. Balew Arega Negatie

Academic 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 .