Experiences and perceptions of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

Yu Li; Dongchi Ma; Lili Yang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311798

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 19, 2024
30 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Sham Santhanam, Editor PONE-D-24-24187Experiences and perceptions of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, 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. ============================== The manuscript has been written well. Though the message is not new, there has been no meta synthesis done before. Please modify it as per reviewers comments. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 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, Sham Santhanam 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 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: Congrats on the effort. Editorial comments: Reviewer 1 The topic addressed in the study is well known by the rheumatology community and does not add anything new to what is already known. However, the approach to the topic via a meta-synthesis is something new. I have some comments 1. In the abstract (Page 2, Line11), the word ‘intensive spinal colitis’ needs to be changed as it does not mean anything. 2. Qualitative studies can be very tiring for the reader to interpret and read. Hence it would be wise to include a table summarising the current problems highlighted in the study and their potential solutions as discussed in discussion section. 3. The conclusion needs to be better written. The line (page 13, Line 222) ‘Healthcare professionals should use internet to enhance their knowledge of AS’ does not read well. Please rewrite it to better reflect the study. 4. Most of the problems discussed in the study stem from lack of awareness about the disease in community. It should be discussed and emphasised in the study. 5. Reference 15 and 50 are just protocols and do not have a conclusion. Please remove them and find better references for the text in discussion. Reviewer 2 Accept [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: 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 topic addressed in the study is well known by the rheumatology community and does not add anything new to what is already known. However, the approach to the topic via a meta-synthesis is something new. I have some comments 1. In the abstract (Page 2, Line11), the word ‘intensive spinal colitis’ needs to be changed as it does not mean anything. 2. Qualitative studies can be very tiring for the reader to interpret and read. Hence it would be wise to include a table summarising the current problems highlighted in the study and their potential solutions as discussed in discussion section. 3. The conclusion needs to be better written. The line (page 13, Line 222) ‘Healthcare professionals should use internet to enhance their knowledge of AS’ does not read well. Please rewrite it to better reflect the study. 4. Most of the problems discussed in the study stem from lack of awareness about the disease in community. It should be discussed and emphasised in the study. 5. Reference 15 and 50 are just protocols and do not have a conclusion. Please remove them and find better references for the text in discussion. Reviewer #2: nil----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Kushagra Gupta Reviewer #2: Yes: Vijaya Prasanna ******** [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.0311798.r001
Revision 1
22 Aug 2024 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Experiences and perceptions of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies." Your feedback is invaluable and has been instrumental in improving our manuscript. Below, we provide responses to each comment in turn. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript were all highlighted within the document by using red-colored text. If there are any discrepancies or further questions regarding the manuscript, please do not hesitate to let us know. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in PLOS ONE. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Yours Sincerely, Yu Li Reponse to Editor’s Comments: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Reponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We checked again whether our manuscript and file name meet the journal's requirements using the link you shared. According to the template styles, we modified the font on the first page of the manuscript. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your feedback on the revised version. 2. 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. Reponse: Thank you for your detailed review and valuable suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have rechecked the references to this manuscript and replaced the URL with the DOI number. We have not retracted any of the references, and you can search them using their DOI or PMID numbers. In addition, the original references 15 and 50 have been replaced with new ones. We have also inserted two new references, 45 and 52. Due to the increase in the number of references, the order of some references has changed from the original manuscript. The table below shows the order of references before and after the changes. Reference number (before) Reference number (after) [45] [46] [46] [47] [47] [48] [48] [49] [49] [50] [50] [51] [51] [52] [52] [53] [53] [54] Reponse to Reviewer 1’s Comments: The topic addressed in the study is well known by the rheumatology community and does not add anything new to what is already known. However, the approach to the topic via a meta-synthesis is something new. Reponse: Thank you for reviewing our work. We appreciate the comments received to further improve the manuscript and have made the necessary changes accordingly. 1. In the abstract (Page 2, Line11), the word ‘intensive spinal colitis’ needs to be changed as it does not mean anything. Reponse: Thank you for pointing this out. We apologize for the confusion caused by our previous writing. After consideration, we have decided to change 'intensive spinal colitis' to' ankylosing spondylitis'. Please see Page 2, Line 10. Page 2, Line 10: The systematic evaluation of relevant qualitative studies on the experiences of patients with ankylosing spondylitis provides a foundation for the clinical development of personalized disease management programs for this patient category. 2. Qualitative studies can be very tiring for the reader to interpret and read. Hence it would be wise to include a table summarising the current problems highlighted in the study and their potential solutions as discussed in discussion section. Reponse: Thank you for your excellent suggestion. We also think that a tabular summary of current problems and potential solutions is more convenient for readers to read this article. So we created Table 5. Potential solutions to the current problems. In the summary process, we were pleased to find that peer support programs can also help patients positively cope with the disease, so we added this method in the discussion section of the article and Table 5. Please see Page 13, Lines 196-197 and Page 13, Lines 220-221. Page 13, Lines 196-197: Moreover, peer support programs can be beneficial during the early stages of coping following diagnosis, aiding patients in better adjusting to life with the disease [45]. Page 13, Lines 220-221: A summary of potential solutions to the current problems identified in this study is shown in Table 5. Table 5. Potential solutions to the current problems current problems potential solutions Difficulties in diagnosis and treatment Medical experience twists and turns Physicians set up AS teams; timely referral. The dilemma of pain medication use Establish an online communication platform for patients. Effects of disease symptoms The diagnosis of the disease caused a bad mood Pay attention to patients' emotions; cognitive-behavioral therapy; peer support programs. Pain brings challenges to daily life Chinese medicine techniques (Taiji and Eight-Duan Brocade); alternative therapies (aromatherapy, music therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy). Fatigue affects the quality of life Exercise training. Maladjustment of social roles Weakened family functioning Encourage patients to respond positively; Career planning was disrupted Home-workplace exercise methods. There is social isolation Providers educate the public about the disease. Lack of support for disease response Lack of emotional support Providers educate the public about the disease; dyadic coping intervention. Lack of social support The community provides suitable jobs; conduct health follow-up; start a recovery club. 3. The conclusion needs to be better written. The line (page 13, Line 222) ‘Healthcare professionals should use internet to enhance their knowledge of AS’ does not read well. Please rewrite it to better reflect the study. Reponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We revised this and other sentences in the conclusion for better reading and understanding. Please see Page 14, Lines 233-237. Page 14, Lines 233-237: Healthcare professionals should leverage the Internet to enhance public awareness and inclusion of AS, prioritize the mental well-being of diagnosed patients, support active self-management, deliver personalized interventions, and promote rehabilitation and overall quality of life improvement. The community should leverage its strengths to effectively disseminate knowledge about diseases and create an optimal environment for patient rehabilitation. 4. Most of the problems discussed in the study stem from lack of awareness about the disease in community. It should be discussed and emphasised in the study. Reponse: Thank you for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We all agree very strongly with you. In the discussion section, we explained from different angles what troubles people caused by a lack of understanding of diseases and emphasized the importance of raising awareness of diseases. We also have some feasible solutions for the community. Please see Page 12, Lines 178-181 and Page 13, Lines 212-217. Page 12, Lines 178-181: In this study, it is evident that both healthcare professionals and the public have an insufficient understanding of AS. A lack of awareness among healthcare professionals hinders accurate disease diagnosis and may compromise the effectiveness of subsequent treatment [11]. Similarly, the public's unfamiliarity with AS can lead to misconceptions about patients, which negatively impacts patient responses to the disease and undermines social harmony. Page 13, Lines 212-217: To address the public's lack of understanding of AS, which hinders patient rehabilitation, the community should fully utilize the linkage model of the five societies to play a pivotal role. First, community managers should conduct periodic disease education programs for residents to enhance health literacy and increase public understanding and acceptance of patients. Second, community volunteers should be encouraged to offer services such as daily care and rehabilitation support. When necessary, patients' financial burdens can be alleviated through public welfare projects, fundraising, and other initiatives. 5. Reference 15 and 50 are just protocols and do not have a conclusion. Please remove them and find better references for the text in discussion. Reponse: Thank you for your detailed feedback. We are very sorry for our inappropriate references to these two articles. We have found new references to replace the original references 15 and 50 and added a new reference 52 on this basis to prove that music therapy, as one of the alternative therapies, can also reduce pain in patients. Due to the increase in the number of references, the order of reference 50 becomes 51. We appreciate your attention to this matter and will make the change in the revised manuscript. Please see Page 16, Lines 300-302 and Page 18, Lines 397-402. Page 16, Lines 300-302: 15. Hu J, Mao Y, Zhang Y, Ye D, Wen C, Xie Z. Moxibustion for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Ann Palliat Med, 2020, 9(3): 709-720. doi: 10.21037/apm.2020.02.31. PMID: 32312058. Page 18, Lines 397-402: 51. Ehde D M, Dillworth T M, Turner J A. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for individuals with chronic pain: efficacy, innovations, and directions for research [J]. American psychologist, 2014, 69(2): 153-166. doi: 10.1037/a0035747. PMID: 24547801. 52. Deng C, Xie Y, Liu Y, Li Y, Xiao Y. Aromatherapy Plus Music Therapy Improve Pain Intensity and Anxiety Scores in Patients With Breast Cancer During Perioperative Periods: A Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Clinical Breast Cancer, 2022, 22(2): 115-120. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.05.006. PMID: 34134947. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311798.r002
2 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Sham Santhanam, Editor PONE-D-24-24187R1Experiences and perceptions of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, Please revise the manuscript as per reviewer comments. Please provide a point by point response and highlight the changes in the manuscript. APlease ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 17 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, Sham Santhanam 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 revise the manuscript as per reviewer 1 comments. [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 ******** 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: 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 ****** 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 making all the suggested corrections. The phrase 'Intensive spinal colitis' still remains in the main abstract of the article which needs to be changed. ****** 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: Yes: Kushagra Gupta ******** [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.0311798.r003
Revision 2
2 Sep 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewer, Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Experiences and perceptions of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies (PONE-D-24-24187R1)” again. According to the review comments, this revision is mainly for the abstract content in the system, and the manuscript content does not need to be modified. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Yours Sincerely, Yu Li Reponse to Editor’s Comments: 1. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. Reponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Through examination, our manuscript meets the criteria of plos one. 2. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. Reponse: Thank you for your excellent suggestion. Our manuscript type is a systematic review and meta-synthesis, which contains the results of the study but does not require pilot data. Reponse to Reviewer 1’s Comments: 1. The phrase 'Intensive spinal colitis' still remains in the main abstract of the article which needs to be changed. Reponse: Thank you very much for your careful review. In the last revision, we have changed the phrase “intensive spinal colitis” in the manuscript to “ankylosing spondylitis”. However, due to an oversight, we did not check that the term “intensive spinal colitis” was not replaced in the summary of the system. In this submission, we have amended “intensive spinal colitis” to “ankylosing spondylitis” in the system. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponse to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311798.r004
25 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Sham Santhanam, Editor Experiences and perceptions of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies PONE-D-24-24187R2 Dear Dr. Yang, 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, Sham Santhanam Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Best wishes 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: 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 ****** 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 addressing all the queries. There are no further corrections or recommendations pending from my side. Best of luck with your submission. ****** 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.0311798.r005
Formally Accepted
8 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sham Santhanam, Editor PONE-D-24-24187R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, 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. Sham Santhanam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311798.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 .