Effects of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) on lung cancer screening on incidence and mortality in regions with high tuberculosis prevalence: A systematic review

Debora Castanheira Pires; Luisa Arueira Chaves; Carlos Henrique Dantas Cardoso; Lara Vinhal Faria; Silvio Rodrigues Campos; Mario Jorge Sobreira da Silva; Tayna Sequeira Valerio; Mônica Rodrigues Campos; Isabel Cristina Martins Emmerick

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308106

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 21, 2023
21 Dec 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-22894-Answers to reviewers-12-07.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308106.r001
15 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Jun Hyeok Lim, Editor PONE-D-23-38324Effects of Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) on lung cancer screening on incidence and mortality in regions with high tuberculosis prevalence: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Emmerick, 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 Mar 31 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, Jun Hyeok Lim, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 3. 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. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: No 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: 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: Dear Author, The manuscript presents a thorough investigation into the effects of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer in regions with a high prevalence of tuberculosis (TB). The systematic review and meta-analysis approach are commendable and provide valuable insights into this important topic. The methodology section is well-structured, and the use of the PICOS framework for defining eligibility criteria adds clarity to the research process. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines enhances the transparency and reproducibility of the study. The statistical analysis appears to have been conducted appropriately, supporting the conclusions drawn by the authors. However, the lack of full availability of underlying data is noted, which may impact the reproducibility of the findings. It would be beneficial to address this limitation to strengthen the credibility of the research. Overall, the manuscript is presented clearly and written in standard English, making it accessible to readers. The study contributes valuable insights into the effectiveness of LDCT screening in TB-endemic regions. Addressing the availability of underlying data would further enhance the quality and impact of the research. Reviewer #2: native English needs to be reviewed small sample size needs to be widen the sample in order to fundamentalize the conclusions It would be change some guidelines in the follow up and interpretation of cancers and TB ****** 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: Yes: Marwa I .Khalaf ******** [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.0308106.r002
Revision 1
2 May 2024 Author Response Dear Editor-in-Chief of Plos One, Thank you for the meticulous review of the manuscript. Below are the comments and answers for the manuscript submitted to PLOS ONE under the number “PONE-D-23-38324”. Kind Regards, Isabel Emmerick Reviewer’s Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and does 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 ________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ________________________________ 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy<http://www.plosone.org/static/policies.action#sharing> 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Authors’ answers: All the data used to prepare the graphs and analysis are available in the body of the manuscript within the tables. Due to copyright restrictions, the original manuscripts can not be shared. Nonetheless, they are all appropriately cited in the paper and can be found online. ________________________________ 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 Authors’ answers: An english review was perfomed ________________________________ 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: Dear Author, The manuscript presents a thorough investigation into the effects of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer in regions with a high prevalence of tuberculosis (TB). The systematic review and meta-analysis approach are commendable and provide valuable insights into this important topic. The methodology section is well-structured, and the use of the PICOS framework for defining eligibility criteria adds clarity to the research process. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines enhances the transparency and reproducibility of the study. The statistical analysis appears to have been conducted appropriately, supporting the conclusions drawn by the authors. However, the lack of full availability of underlying data is noted, which may impact the reproducibility of the findings. It would be beneficial to address this limitation to strengthen the credibility of the research. Overall, the manuscript is presented clearly and written in standard English, making it accessible to readers. The study contributes valuable insights into the effectiveness of LDCT screening in TB-endemic regions. Addressing the availability of underlying data would further enhance the quality and impact of the research. Authors’ answers: Thank you for your comments. The purpose of meta-analysis is not to reanalyze the original data but to aggregate and synthesize the results reported in the studies included in the analysis. Meta-analysis provides a quantitative estimate or summary of the findings from multiple studies on a particular topic, allowing researchers to draw more robust conclusions than those based on individual studies alone. By pooling data from various sources, meta-analysis can identify patterns, trends, and overall effects that may not be apparent in single studies. Therefore, the focus is on presenting and interpreting the collective evidence. In addition, we systematically evaluate the quality of the papers included and the risk of bias. All summarized data is available within the manuscript tables, allowing the reproducibility of the findings. Additionally, we included a phrase on not performing a re-analysis of the original data in the limitation section. Reviewer #2: native English needs to be reviewed small sample size needs to be widen the sample in order to fundamentalize the conclusions It would be change some guidelines in the follow up and interpretation of cancers and TB Authors’ answers: Thank you for your comments. 1) The English was revised prior to this version submission. 2) “small sample size needs to be widen the sample in order to fundamentalize the conclusions” In our systematic review, we followed a specific protocol registered in the PROSPERO database (registry number CRD42022309581). We included all the available evidence that met the inclusion criteria and adhered to recommended quality international guidelines. Therefore, the term “sample size” is not applicable in systematic reviews, which are exhaustive by definition. 3) It would be change some guidelines in the follow up and interpretation of cancers and TB - About the guidelines in the usage of radiological investigations in TB and their narrow interpretation so to be following as much as possible the basic guidelines and present them in a clear manner. We included the following text in the manuscript: “Insights from this literature review may inform future guidelines on delivering LDCT screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with high TB burden. Our results emphasize the importance of implementing structured screening programs.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D23-38324- Response to Reviewer-03-31-2024.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308106.r003
17 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Yuchen Qiu, Editor Effects of Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) on lung cancer screening on incidence and mortality in regions with high tuberculosis prevalence: a systematic review PONE-D-23-38324R1 Dear Dr. Emmerick, 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, Yuchen Qiu, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308106.r004
Formally Accepted
2 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Yuchen Qiu, Editor PONE-D-23-38324R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Emmerick, 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. Yuchen Qiu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308106.r005

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 .