Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Edosa Tesfaye Geta; Dufera Rikitu Terefa; Wase Benti Hailu; Wolkite Olani; Emiru Merdassa; Markos Dessalegn; Miesa Gelchu; Dereje Chala Diriba

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306296

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 27, 2024
24 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Chikezie Hart Onwukwe, Editor PONE-D-24-07517Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Geta, 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 08 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, Chikezie Hart Onwukwe 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 [The data extracted from included studies and analyzed in this review are available from the corresponding author based on the reasonable request.]. 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. 3. 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. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: 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: 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: No 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: Thank you for inviting me to be the reviewer of this manuscript “Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis”. Edosa T et al. has submitted a Systematic review and Meta analysis of literature on Shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients. Given the increasing burden of Diabetes and diabetes related complications, the chosen topic gains significance. I am giving my observations and comments for the author to consider: Introduction: Line 62,63 - Please be consistent in use of abbrevations –HbA1c or HbA1C Line 64 -The statement given here seems irrelevant and the reference doesn’t match Line 66,67 - error in the statement. It should be HbA1c ≤ 7% Line 76 – the word "current" may be removed as the ADA guideline cited here was 2015 guidelines Line 96 – repetitive word”in” Overall, the statements under introduction seem repetitive and the flow of language is not very professional and uncomfortable and I would suggest making it more concise. Methodology: This systematic review is observed to have followed rigorous methodology, have applied relevant search strategies and analysis methods. The authors have provided an approved protocol (PROSPERO) along with the methods employed for article inclusion. The manuscript incorporates detailed descriptions of the search methodology, study selection, and data extraction procedures. PRISMA checklist, ROB for quality of included studies, Heterogeneity tests has been performed and shared. Methods: The types of studies included in this systematic review are thoroughly described. The PRISMA flow diagram is easy to follow and complete. ROB for the quality of studies was performed and the details are shared Line 177 – typo error Discussion and Conclusion: Though the strength and limitations of the study are well thought and documented, the conclusion driven out of this study ( line 349-351) did not match the discussion points (line 330-332). I suggest to rewrite the discussion in a more intelligent way and draw precise conclusions Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, The manuscript addresses a significant subject due to the progressive growth of the population with diabetes and its complications. It also emphasizes the importance of evaluating the shared decision-making for glycaemic control effectiveness, as it is widely recommended but not primarily followed in most places, and identifying what may influence its outcomes. However, this manuscript has some points that need to be clarified. #1 - on page 3, line 66, it says ...'(HbA1c) ≥7% (53 mmol/mol) is considered a favorable indicator of glycemic control and is the recommended treatment a goal...' # 2 - on page 5, lines 111-113, it says ...'the current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of shared decision-making compared to usual diabetes care for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients.' Nevertheless, in the item 'Study selections and eligibility' on page 6, when you describe the 'C' of PICO criteria, it is not expressed that you will compare a group under usual care and another with SDM. #3 - Related to observation #2, I wonder why the authors included in the review the study of Corser et al. (reference 26), which has only an intervention group evaluation and no control group with usual care. Moreover, this may interfere with the whole evaluation. #4 - on page 9, Table 1, it says 18 RCTs, when it is 17; in the item Study events rate, there are no percentage results, and in the risk with usual care, the authors present the mean effect of SDM on HbA1C. #5 - the whole manuscript deserves a writing review. ****** 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 ******** [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.0306296.r001
Revision 1
10 Apr 2024 Author Response Responses to reviewers’ comments Manuscript Title: Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis Dear Editor, Thank you for your suggested revision that has helped us to improve the manuscript. We have undertaken revision and modified the manuscript. We attached, you will find our revised and modified manuscript and we explained the substance modification and below you will find responses to each comment. Reviewer 1 Evaluation Dear reviewer 1, thank you for understanding our research work, your comments and suggestions. We attached, you will find our revised and modified manuscript and we explained the substance modification and below you will find responses to each comment. Introduction: 1. Line 62,63 - Please be consistent in use of abbreviations –HbA1c or HbA1C Response 1: Thank you, we have corrected it to HbA1c. 2. Line 64 -The statement given here seems irrelevant and the reference doesn’t match. Response 2: Thank you, we checked it, and the irrelevant statement has been removed. 3. Line 66,67 - error in the statement. It should be HbA1c ≤ 7%. Response 3: Now it has been Corrected. 4. Line 76 – the word "current" may be removed as the ADA guideline cited here was 2015 guidelines. Response 4: Thank you, we have corrected. 5. Line 96 – repetitive word”in” Response 5: we checked and corrected it. 6. Overall, the statements under introduction seem repetitive and the flow of language is not very professional and uncomfortable, and I would suggest making it more concise. Response 6: Thank you. We have made it more concise through revision. Methodology: 7. This systematic review is observed to have followed rigorous methodology, have applied relevant search strategies and analysis methods. The authors have provided an approved protocol (PROSPERO) along with the methods employed for article inclusion. The manuscript incorporates detailed descriptions of the search methodology, study selection, and data extraction procedures. PRISMA checklist, ROB for quality of included studies, Heterogeneity tests has been performed and shared. Response 7: Thank you for your understanding of our research work. Methods: 8. The types of studies included in this systematic review are thoroughly described. The PRISMA flow diagram is easy to follow and complete. ROB for the quality of studies was performed and the details are shared. 9. Line 177 – typo error Response 9: Thank you, we corrected it. Discussion and Conclusion: 10. Though the strength and limitations of the study are well thought and documented, the conclusion driven out of this study ( line 349-351) did not match the discussion points (line 330-332). I suggest to rewrite the discussion in a more intelligent way and draw precise conclusions. Response 11: Thank you. We revised the discussion and conclusion parts. Reviewer 2 Evaluation Dear reviewer 1, thank you for understanding our research work, your comments and suggestions. We attached, you will find our revised and modified manuscript and we explained the substance modification and below you will find responses to each comment. The manuscript addresses a significant subject due to the progressive growth of the population with diabetes and its complications. It also emphasizes the importance of evaluating the shared decision-making for glycaemic control effectiveness, as it is widely recommended but not primarily followed in most places, and identifying what may influence its outcomes. However, this manuscript has some points that need to be clarified. 1. on page 3, line 66, it says ...'(HbA1c) ≥7% (53 mmol/mol) is considered a favorable indicator of glycemic control and is the recommended treatment a goal...' Response 1: Thank you; it was an error, and now it has been corrected to HbA1c ≤7% (53 mmol/mol). 2. On page 5, lines 111-113, it says ...'the current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of shared decision-making compared to usual diabetes care for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients.' Nevertheless, in the item 'Study selections and eligibility' on page 6, when you describe the 'C' of PICO criteria, it is not expressed that you will compare a group under usual care and another with SDM. Response 2: Thank you, patients who received usual care of T2DM were comparison group (C ) and we have it made clear. 3. Related to observation #2, I wonder why the authors included in the review the study of Corser et al. (reference 26), which has only an intervention group evaluation and no control group with usual care. Moreover, this may interfere with the whole evaluation. Response 3: Thank you. We excluded the study and performed a reanalysis; changes were made to the revised manuscript. 4. On page 9, Table 1, it says 18 RCTs, when it is 17; in the item Study events rate, there are no percentage results, and in the risk with usual care, the authors present the mean effect of SDM on HbA1C. Response 4: Thank you. In our revised manuscript, we included 17 RCT studies, labeled Table 1 as Table 2, and moved the table to the end of the result section. The percentage results have been mentioned in the section on “participant characteristics,” and regarding the risk with usual care, we estimated the mean of HbA1c%, which was the primary outcome of the study, and the mean effect of SDM on HbA1c was estimated. The table has been updated and named Table 2, including details and clear information. To do so, we used a COCHRANE GRADE review to evaluate the certainty of the meta-analysis evidence from RCT studies. 5. The whole manuscript deserves a writing review. Response 5: Thank you; we have revised the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.r002
29 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Chikezie Hart Onwukwe, Editor PONE-D-24-07517R1Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Geta, 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 13 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, Chikezie Hart Onwukwe 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 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: No 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 #1: Thank you for inviting me to re-review the manuscript “Systematic review and Meta analysis of literature on Shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients”. The authors have taken the suggestions and comments from the previous review and have included. The introduction is more precise and to the point. Changes suggested to the methodology had been included and the results are discussed accordingly. PRISMA checklist on effectiveness of SDM included and very elaborate. The limitations of the study are well thought of and listed. There are still more typo errors which were overlooked. I would suggest to meticulously go through the manuscript and correct the error.Some are: Line 39 - reduction Line 62 – glycated Line 80 – ‘between’ instead of ‘among’ Line 262,264 – HbA1c Line 289 - reduction Table 2 title – patients Line 337 – review, participated Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, The authors answered all the reviewer's questions, and the included data helped better understand the study. However, there are still a few points to correct. 1. Fig 1 - PRISMA states 425 records, but on page 2, line 28, page 7, line 145, and page 9, line 193, it is mentioned as 445 records. #2. On page 17, line 337, two words need to be corrected. ****** 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.r003
Revision 2
1 May 2024 Author Response Manuscript title: Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis Manuscript number: PONE-D-24-07517R1 Response to Editor comments 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. Response: Dear editor, thank you for the comment and suggestion to revise our manuscript to be considered for publication. Since we did not include and cite the retracted paper in our current review, no changes have been made to the cited references. To be sure, we have reviewed the references and rechecked for retraction status. We found a correction to reference number 17, and the correction to this article was published on February 14, 2024. The update did not affect the results of our current systematic review and meta-analysis. In addition, we have included the DOI for references cited when available. Response to reviewers’ comments Reviewer 1 Thank you for inviting me to re-review the manuscript “Systematic review and Meta analysis of literature on Shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients”. The authors have taken the suggestions and comments from the previous review and have included. The introduction is more precise and to the point. Changes suggested to the methodology had been included and the results are discussed accordingly. PRISMA checklist on effectiveness of SDM included and very elaborate. The limitations of the study are well thought of and listed. There are still more typo errors which were overlooked. I would suggest to meticulously go through the manuscript and correct the error. Dear Reviewer1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing comments to improve and revise it. We checked all comments and suggestions; changes were made to the revised manuscript. Some are: 1. Line 39 – reduction Response 1: Checked and corrected. 2. Line 62 – glycated Response 2: Corrected. 3. Line 80 – ‘between’ instead of ‘among Response 3: Corrected. 4. Line 262,264 – HbA1c Response 4: Correction made. 5. Line 289 – reduction Response 5: Correction made. 6. Table 2 title – patients Response 6: Corrected. 7. Line 337 – review, participated Response 7: Correction made. Reviewer 2 The authors answered all the reviewer's questions, and the included data helped better understand the study. However, there are still a few points to correct. Dear Reviewer 2: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing comments to improve and revise it. We checked all comments and suggestions; changes were made to the revised manuscript. 1. Fig 1 - PRISMA states 425 records, but on page 2, line 28, page 7, line 145, and page 9, line 193, it is mentioned as 445 records. Response 1: Corrections were made to 425 records. 2. On page 17, line 337, two words need to be corrected. Response 2: We checked them, and corrections were made. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.r004
14 May 2024 Decision Letter - Chikezie Hart Onwukwe, Editor PONE-D-24-07517R2Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Geta, 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 28 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, Chikezie Hart Onwukwe 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 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: The authors have considered all the previous comments and has made changes accordingly except that there are still minor typographical errors which were overlooked: Line 123 – and google scholar Line 186 – analysis Table 2 – typo patients Line 339 - Typo review 344-346 – rewrite- "fair control" With these changes incorporated, I recommend the manuscript is acceptable for publication Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I am glad to re-review the manuscript "Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," which addresses a subject that may contribute to improving diabetes outcomes. The authors accepted the reviewers' suggestions and have made the corrections. ****** 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.r005
Revision 3
16 May 2024 Author Response Response to reviewers’ comments Manuscript title: Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis Manuscript number: PONE-D-24-07517R2 Response to Editor comments 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. Response: Dear editor, thank you for the comment and suggestion to revise our manuscript to be considered for publication. Since we did not include and cite the retracted paper in our current review, no changes have been made to the cited references in the revised manuscript. Response to reviewers’ comments Reviewer 1: Reviewer #1: The authors have considered all the previous comments and has made changes accordingly except that there are still minor typographical errors which were overlooked: Dear reviewer1: Thank you for reviewing our revised manuscript and providing comments to improve and revise it to be considered for publication. We checked all comments and suggestions; changes were made to the revised manuscript. 1. Line 123 – and google scholar Response 1: Thank you, checked and corrected 2. Line 186 – analysis Response 2 : A correction has been made. 3. Table 2 – typo patients Response 3: A correction has been made. 4. Line 339 - Typo review Response 4: A correction has been made. 5. 344-346 – rewrite- "fair control" Response 5: Thank you, changes were made. Reviewer 2: Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I am glad to re-review the manuscript "Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," which addresses a subject that may contribute to improving diabetes outcomes. The authors accepted the reviewers' suggestions and have made the corrections. Dear reviewer 2: Thank you for reviewing our revised manuscript and considering it for publication. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.r006
17 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Chikezie Hart Onwukwe, Editor Effectiveness of shared decision-making for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus adult patients: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis PONE-D-24-07517R3 Dear Dr.Edosa Tesfaye Geta, 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, Chikezie Hart Onwukwe 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 #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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 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: Thank you for inviting me to re-review the article. The authors have incorporated all the previous suggestions and edits in the manuscript. I don't have any further comment on the manuscript. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.r007
Formally Accepted
25 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Chikezie Hart Onwukwe, Editor PONE-D-24-07517R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Geta, 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. Chikezie Hart Onwukwe Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.r008

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 .