Three months use of Hybrid Closed Loop Systems improves glycated hemoglobin levels in adolescents and children with type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis

Yuan-yuan WANG; Hui-min YING; Fang TIAN; Xiao-lu QIAN; Zhen-feng Zhou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308202

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 29, 2024
26 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Timotius Ivan Hariyanto, Editor PONE-D-24-12735Three months use of Hybrid Closed Loop Systems Could Improve Glycated Hemoglobin Levels in Adolescents and Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHOU, 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 Aug 10 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Timotius Ivan Hariyanto, M.D. 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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article is good meta-analysis of Closed loop insulin pump use and benefits in the management of Type 1 Diabetes.Extensive references are an asset of any review article. The longterm benefits like A1c reductions and hypoglycaemias are important aspects of a pump use in children & adolescent with Type 1 Diabetes.The total number of subjects in the meta-analysis is good enough to get a tangible and acceptable concusions. Reviewer #2: The authors conducted a meta-analysis assessing variations in glycated hemoglobin due to the use of automated insulin delivery systems. The study is methodologically sound, and the results confirm the benefits of these innovative technological devices for diabetes management. However, there is a significant concern regarding the authors' decision to include only randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In the field of diabetes technology, some of the most impactful findings often stem from real-world studies. Can the authors provide a rationale for this choice? Additionally, there are several typos throughout the text. A thorough revision of the style and language is recommended to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. ****** 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.0308202.r001
Revision 1
27 Jun 2024 Author Response Dear Editor in Chief: Thanks for your kind suggestions. I have sincerely considered your and the reviewers’ comments. Thanks again for your time and effort expending on this paper. Best wishes. Yours sincerely, Zhen-feng Zhou 1. Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.1. 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 Answer: we have revised the manuscript according to the PLOS ONE's style requirements. 1.2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. Answer: we have revised the Data Availability Statement as: “All data are in the manuscript and supporting information files.” 1.3. 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. Answer: we have reviewed and revised our reference list. 2. Review Comments to the Author 2.1Reviewer #1: The article is good meta-analysis of Closed loop insulin pump use and benefits in the management of Type 1 Diabetes.Extensive references are an asset of any review article. The longterm benefits like A1c reductions and hypoglycaemias are important aspects of a pump use in children & adolescent with Type 1 Diabetes.The total number of subjects in the meta-analysis is good enough to get a tangible and acceptable concusions. Answer: Thank you so much! 2.2 Reviewer #2: The authors conducted a meta-analysis assessing variations in glycated hemoglobin due to the use of automated insulin delivery systems. The study is methodologically sound, and the results confirm the benefits of these innovative technological devices for diabetes management. However, there is a significant concern regarding the authors' decision to include only randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In the field of diabetes technology, some of the most impactful findings often stem from real-world studies. Can the authors provide a rationale for this choice? Additionally, there are several typos throughout the text. A thorough revision of the style and language is recommended to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Answer: the purpose of this Meta-Analysis is investigate that 3 months use of HCL could improve glycated hemoglobin levels in adolescents and children with T1D when compared to standard of care. As we know, the best method to compare the advantages and disadvantages of new therapies with standard therapies is a randomized controlled trial, so we only include randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The phenomenon that makes it difficult to interpret the therapeutic effect is called the "confounding effect", and randomization can prevent this effect from occurring. Randomization can ensure that patients participating in different treatment trials have roughly the same physiological characteristics, so there is comparability of data between different groups. If there is a difference in the treatment effect between the two groups at this time, it can be considered that it is caused by the difference in the treatment itself. Therefore, randomization is a crucial step in directly comparing the therapeutic effects of different therapies. The manuscript was revised by one of the companies that Elsevier recommends for English translation services before we submit it. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: detailed response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308202.r002
17 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Timotius Ivan Hariyanto, Editor PONE-D-24-12735R1Three months use of Hybrid Closed Loop Systems Could Improve Glycated Hemoglobin Levels in Adolescents and Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHOU, 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 remove the word "could" from the title as the reviewer has suggested before I can formally accept this manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 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, Timotius Ivan Hariyanto, M.D. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please remove the word "could" from the title as the reviewer has suggested before I can formally accept this manuscript. [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: (No Response) ******** 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: All the quiries of reviewers has been clarified & corrected satisfactorily.The article may be accepted for publication in the latest version. Reviewer #2: I suggest changing the title. Particularly, removing the word "could" makes the title more impactful. ****** 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.0308202.r003
Revision 2
18 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear Editor in Chief: I have sincerely considered your and the reviewers’ comments. We hope that our revised version will be satisfactory for publication in PLOS ONE. Great thanks to you and the referee for the time and effort you expend on this paper. Best wishes. Yours sincerely, Zhen-feng Zhou 1. 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. Answer: we have reviewed and revised our reference list. We remove the reference 43 that have been retracted and delete the discussion of reference 43. Page 12 line 20-23 in Revised Manuscript with Track Changes. And we replace references 3 with relevant current references. 2.Additional Editor Comments: Please remove the word "could" from the title as the reviewer has suggested before I can formally accept this manuscript. Answer: we have removed the word "could" from the title as the reviewer has suggested. Page 1 line 1. Review Comments to the Author Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable recommendations. Great thanks to you and the referee for the time and effort you expend on this paper. Thank you so much, you are so kind! Reviewer #1: All the quiries of reviewers has been clarified & corrected satisfactorily.The article may be accepted for publication in the latest version. Answer: Thank you so much, you are so kind! Reviewer #2: I suggest changing the title. Particularly, removing the word "could" makes the title more impactful. Answer: thank you very much for your valuable recommendations. We have removed the word "could" from the title as you suggested. Page 1 line 1. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: detailed response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308202.r004
19 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Timotius Ivan Hariyanto, Editor Three months use of Hybrid Closed Loop Systems Improves Glycated Hemoglobin Levels in Adolescents and Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis PONE-D-24-12735R2 Dear Dr. ZHOU, 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, Timotius Ivan Hariyanto, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308202.r005
Formally Accepted
2 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Timotius Ivan Hariyanto, Editor PONE-D-24-12735R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHOU, 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. Timotius Ivan Hariyanto Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308202.r006

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 .