PONE-D-24-02877Assessment of tuberculosis transmission probability in three Thai prisons based on five dynamic modelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jiamjarasrangsi,

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.

However, this is quite a relevant topic and so comprehensive study, well designed and written. It is also so detailed for analysis that has been undertaken in the prison setup regarding TB transmission in Thai.

However, the abstract section was not well summarized.  The discussion section should have summarized the study key finding and the comparator studies should also be briefly summarized, rather than listing out their study findings in number/percentage/CI as it is, e.g lines 336-339.  

Also revise the conclusion section for the study which should have summarized and interpreted the findings with future recommendation. The conclusion section looks like a discussion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 10 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,

Zewdu Gashu Dememew, M.D, PhD

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance.  We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

This is quite a relevant topic and so comprehensive study, well designed and written. It is also so detailed for analysis that has been undertaken in the prison setup regarding TB transmission in Thai.

However, the abstract section was not well summarized. The discussion section should have summarized the study key finding and the comparator studies should also be briefly summarized, rather than listing out their study findings in number/percentage/CI as it is, e.g lines 336-339.

Also revise the conclusion section for the study which should have summarized and interpreted the findings with future recommendation. The conclusion section looks like a discussion.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 study provides valuable insights into the assessment of tuberculosis transmission probability in Thai prisons using dynamic models.

The authors have appropriately discussed the impact of model parameters on TB transmission probability and identified key influential factors.

It is commendable that the study highlights the need for urgent attention to these influential parameters to reduce TB transmission in prisons.

The authors suggest further studies to determine the relative validity of these parameters in accurately predicting TB incidence in prison settings.

The financial disclosure and competing interests have been appropriately addressed and declared by the authors.

The ethics statement provides necessary information regarding the approval and review of the study.

The data availability statement explains the limitations on public data sharing due to security reasons and provides information on accessing confidential data through the Ethics Committee.

Reviewer #2: The estimation of TB transmission probabilities is a crucial component of the planning of TB programs. However, the manuscript has several limitations.

Major comments

Certain variables have be part of the data collection or at least obtained in similar settings. This includes for pulmonary ventilation rate, the relapse rate, partial acquired immunity after primary infection for treated persons, the rate of recovery under antituberculosis treatment, and TB-related death rate. Inferring those data from published study may not be a valid input data.

Define "susceptible inmates" and state where the information about their health was obtained and how it was done.

It is necessary to specify the TB case definition, including the diagnosis methods.

The incidence of TB at Zone and cell was inferred using data obtained from documents and computer databases. Does the influence of under diagnosed and under reporting is considered?

The time-to-TB diagnosis is determined using the time the individual diagnosed by x-ray to treatment initiated, but the required time is the time exposure prior to diagnosis. Please clarify.

Include the details of how the number of recovered patients and mortality rates is determined. Does this information utilized as input data? A summary of the input data used for each model is more informative.

The variation in input parameters may account for the differences in the median TB transmission probability among the models. What is the rationale to utilize the different model with varied input parameters?

Minor comments

An introduction that includes an overview of the model's description; justification for applying each the model i.e an explanation of its benefits and limitations.

The average occupancy rates have to be move from result section to the discussion.

Discus about the key message for the TB program in the prison settings.

**********

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: NUHA AMER Al-Aghbari

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-02877_reviewer-Copy.pdf

Assessment of tuberculosis transmission probability in three Thai prisons based on five dynamic models

PONE-D-24-02877R1

Dear Dr. Jiamjarasrangsi,

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,

Zewdu Gashu Dememew, M.D, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE