Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 26, 2023
Decision Letter - Victor Daniel Miron, Editor

PONE-D-23-01471Susceptibility and infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 in children versus adults, by variant (wild-type, Alpha, Delta): a systematic review and meta-analysis of household contact studiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Uthman,

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 Oct 08 2023 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,

Victor Daniel Miron

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. We noted that the database search of your systematic review was carried out January 2022. Please ensure that your search is up to date and any relevant studies published since January 2022 are included in your systematic review. Thank you for your attention to this request.

3. When you submit your revised manuscript, please update the Editorial Manager submission form to include the correct email for co-author Yang Ge.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

This research was commissioned by the Robert Koch Institute, Germany (OAU, SA, UB, BH). 

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.

5. 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. 

6. 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.

Editor Comments:

Although the Alpha and Delta variants are no longer circulating today, your analysis is of interest as it provides insight into the impact that SARS-CoV-2 has had on its evolution. Throughout the pandemic, the pediatric population has been of particular interest to the medical world due to the response that children have had to the infection. The data you present is of interest and worth publishing.

I recommend a revision of the text to update it, given that it was written in 2022.

The introduction should be changed without reference to the number of cases and deaths.

Review the discussion on Omicron and the limitations part where it makes mention of Omicron.

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: The authors have performed a a systematic reivew of susceptiblity and infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 in children versus adults by variant type - wild type, alpha and delta.

The authors defined "household", "index/primary case", "household contact" NB acronym hhc should be capitalised.

Why should vaccinated individuals be excluded as a contact? Very relevant in delta (and more recent variants); and useful to understand the differences in susceptiblity in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals.

The authors mention that a large proportion of studies were from China and the USA, but would recommend mentioning whether all studies were performed in high-moderate income countries. As this is a systematic review, the authors are behest to the quality of the studies. That said, it is important for the reader to understand and would recommend the authors to comment on 1. average household size, 2. guidance on isolation away from household members (or note it as a limitation if unknown) as this will affect both susceptibility and infectiousness.

The authors mention that the search was conducted up to and including January 2022, and therefore only 1 delta household study has been included. I think the authors should acknowledge that further studies have been published, in other settings to better inform HH transmission of the delta variant.

Variants are not usually capitalised (e.g. should read alpha, delta, omicron etc)

Page 16 - consider revising "After the omicron such studies have..." (remove 'the')

**********

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

**********

[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

Dear Editor,

I can confirm that “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”

Thank you for considering our manuscript "Susceptibility and infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 in children versus adults, by variant (wild-type, alpha, delta): a systematic review and meta-analysis of household contact studies" for publication in PLOS ONE. We appreciate the thoughtful comments from the reviewers and the opportunity to submit a revised version of our work.

As agreed with you we have not rerun the entire search as it would have resulted in too many new publications. We have, however, done the following:

1. We updated all preprint references to peer-reviewed publications where available and removed one study that had significant methodological changes between preprint and publication, which we considered inappropriate (for details see table with point-to-point reply).

2. we removed global specific case and death numbers from the Introduction.

3. we acknowledged the limited number of included delta studies as a limitation and noted that more recent data are perhaps available, although we doubt that they will be of a similar quality as the Danish study that is included in this review. In addition, please note that the objective of this study was to analyze the effect of the variants themselves, i.e. among immune-naïve persons. Since the advent of omicron, its variants and recombinants the same approach is virtually not feasible anymore.

4. Minor editorial changes for consistency and clarity were made (see track changes in revised manuscript).

With these amendments, we believe our work remains a valuable contribution to understanding the relative susceptibility and infectiousness of (immune-naïve) children and adolescents across SARS-CoV-2 variants. Our systematic approach focusing on household studies only and on isolating the effects of each variant independent of vaccination provide a rigorous analysis of this important public health question.

Below, we have provided detailed point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers' comments, outlining the specific changes made or justifications provided for our approach. We hope these will satisfactorily address any outstanding concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Ola Uthman for the Authors

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: 00_ResponsesToReviewers_Final.docx
Decision Letter - Victor Daniel Miron, Editor

Susceptibility and infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 in children versus adults, by variant (wild-type, alpha, delta): a systematic review and meta-analysis of household contact studies

PONE-D-23-01471R1

Dear Dr. Uthman,

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,

Victor Daniel Miron

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Victor Daniel Miron, Editor

PONE-D-23-01471R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Uthman,

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. Victor Daniel Miron

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 .