Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 14, 2024
Decision Letter - Alfred S Lewin, Editor

PONE-D-24-05686Retinal imaging with hand-held optical coherence tomography in older people with or without postoperative delirium after hip fracture surgery: A feasibility studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Noah,

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. I apologize that this review has taken so long to return.  I was unable to obtain a second review despite many inquiries, but I believe you will find the comments of the single reviewer helpful in revising your paper. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Section 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Dr Noah’s PhD – British Journal of Anaesthesia/Royal College of Anaesthetists project grant. Grant holder - Prof Iain Moppett

Purchase of OCT – BJA/RCOA grant, Precision Imaging Beacon Centre and Academic Department of Neurology, University of Nottingham."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that "The data underlying the results represented in the study are available from Dr Abi Noah"

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address the reviewers concerns about the limitations of obtaining OCT images by a single operator.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Revision

Retinal imaging with hand-held optical coherence tomography in older people with or

without postoperative delirium after hip fracture surgery: A feasibility study

General comments:

The authors present a feasibility study on the assessment of the peripapillary nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness in patients experience postoperative delirium (DOL) after surgery for unilateral hip fracture. Despite a very small sample of 26 patients without and 4 patients with DOL the authors find significant differences in RNFL thickness between the two groups. While this certainly needs verification in a much larger sample, these results are very much of interest.

Major comments:

The images were taken by one single operator who was in parts assisted by a colleague. Acquisition of OCT images using a handheld device can be very challenging for various reasons. It would have been very insightful if two people had been acquiring the images and their agreement was assessed. Same counts for retinal layer segmentation, especially if a custom tool for ImageJ was used to the assessments.

Minor comments:

p.3 l.55:

Define “older”.

P.3. L.60:

Add a reference for POD hypothesis.

P.4. l.88:

Thinning of the inner retinal layers (most notably RNFL and the IPL-GCL complex) has also been shown on macular OCT. Please include this and explain why it was chosen to assess the peripapillary RNFL. OCT acquisition of the macula is generally easier due to fixation.

P. l.88:

There is evidence of a thinning of the outer retinal layers in frontotemporal dementia. This should be included in the introduction.

P.5 l.93:

Add references.

P.6 l.138:

Define “severe myopia”. Generally, <-6 diopters is used.

P.8. L. 186:

I assume the age-adjusted normative values were taken from a measurements using a different OCT devise. This should be acknowledged and included in the limitations.

P.9. L. 206:

Please define who the “OCT experts” were and how they were trained.

Table 2:

Please include lens status in the table.

p.16 l.312:

Please stick to “cpRNFL” as the abbreviation.

Figure 2:

The size of the segments varies. Please either unitize or explain in detail why this is the case.

**********

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: Lukas Goerdt

**********

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

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

Revision 1

Thank you for your review of our work

This is our response to the reviewer

Your comment

General comments:

The authors present a feasibility study on the assessment of the peripapillary nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness in patients experience postoperative delirium (DOL) after surgery for unilateral hip fracture. Despite a very small sample of 26 patients without and 4 patients with DOL the authors find significant differences in RNFL thickness between the two groups. While this certainly needs verification in a much larger sample, these results are very much of interest.

Our response

Thank you. We agree that a larger study is required to confirm or refute our findings

Major comments

The images were taken by one single operator who was in parts assisted by a colleague. Acquisition of OCT images using a handheld device can be very challenging for various reasons. It would have been very insightful if two people had been acquiring the images and their agreement was assessed. Same counts for retinal layer segmentation, especially if a custom tool for ImageJ was used to the assessments.

Our response

Indeed, it was challenging but actually quick to get used to

My training with the handheld device by the Leica engineer and also by our regional researchers who use handheld OCT was as a single user. Hence my approach of single operator albeit assisted in parts by a second operator.

Agreed, it would have been useful to have two people independently acquire images and compare their agreement. Unfortunately we didn’t. Perhaps in a future study.

Minor comments:

p.3 l.55:

Define “older”.

Our response

Thank you added

Minor comment

P.3. L.60:

Add a reference for POD hypothesis.

Our response

Thank you added

Your comment

P.4. l.88:

Thinning of the inner retinal layers (most notably RNFL and the IPL-GCL complex) has also been shown on macular OCT. Please include this and explain why it was chosen to assess the peripapillary RNFL. OCT acquisition of the macula is generally easier due to fixation.

Our response

Thank you.

Prior to this study we conducted a systematic review on OCT and MCI [Ref Noah]. The majority of studies our literature review identified were circumpapillary. Given that we are looking for potential preclinical changes that may evolve to cognitive impairment, we elected to remain circumpapillary in this study.

Your comment

P. l.88:

There is evidence of a thinning of the outer retinal layers in frontotemporal dementia. This should be included in the introduction.

Our response

Thank you we have added this.

Your comment

P.5 l.93:

Add references.

Our response

Thank you we have added this

Your comment

P.6 l.138:

Define “severe myopia”. Generally, <-6 diopters is used.

Our response

Thank you.

WE have clarified this in the manuscript in the manuscript

Your comment

P.8. L. 186:

I assume the age-adjusted normative values were taken from a measurements using a different OCT devise. This should be acknowledged and included in the limitations.

Our response

Thank you.

Your comments

P.9. L. 206:

Please define who the “OCT experts” were and how they were trained.

Our response

These are Ophthalmologists who conduct research using the handheld OCT device. They work out of the Ulverscroft eye Unit, University of Leicester and are co-authors in this work.

Comment

Table 2:

Please include lens status in the table.

Our response

Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that some of our participants wear glasses. Unfortunately they could not remember what their refractive index was so we did not collect this data. This has been acknowledged as one of the limitations of the work.

Your comment

p.16 l.312:

Please stick to “cpRNFL” as the abbreviation.

Our response

Thank you.

Your comment

Figure 2:

The size of the segments varies. Please either unitize or explain in detail why this is the case.

Our response

Thank you

This is consistent across all the images we obtained from the software

A quick search for Copernicus OCT also shows images with this ‘asymmetry’

Thank you

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Alfred S Lewin, Editor

Retinal imaging with hand-held optical coherence tomography in older people with or without postoperative delirium after hip fracture surgery: A feasibility study

PONE-D-24-05686R1

Dear Dr. Noah,

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,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Alfred S Lewin, Editor

PONE-D-24-05686R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Noah,

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. Alfred S Lewin

Section 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 .