Burden of mortality and its predictors among TB-HIV co-infected patients in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Amare Kassaw; Demewoz Kefale; Tigabu Munye Aytenew; Molla Azmeraw; Muluken Chanie Agimas; Shegaw Zeleke; Mastewal Ayehu Sinshaw; Nigatu Dessalegn; Worku Necho Asferie

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312698

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 18, 2024
16 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Musa Mohammed Ali, Editor PONE-D-24-10192Burden of mortality and its Predictors among TB-HIV co-infected patients in Ethiopia: systematic review and Meta-analysis.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kassaw, 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 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, Musa Mohammed Ali, PhD 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 note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <S1Table.docx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address -Ages more specific than whole numbers -Internet protocol (IP) address -Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.) -Contact information such as phone number or email address -Location data -ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (Search date), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. 3. As required by our policy on Data Availability, please ensure your manuscript or supplementary information includes the following: A numbered table of all studies identified in the literature search, including those that were excluded from the analyses. For every excluded study, the table should list the reason(s) for exclusion. If any of the included studies are unpublished, include a link (URL) to the primary source or detailed information about how the content can be accessed. A table of all data extracted from the primary research sources for the systematic review and/or meta-analysis. The table must include the following information for each study: Name of data extractors and date of data extraction Confirmation that the study was eligible to be included in the review. All data extracted from each study for the reported systematic review and/or meta-analysis that would be needed to replicate your analyses. If data or supporting information were obtained from another source (e.g. correspondence with the author of the original research article), please provide the source of data and dates on which the data/information were obtained by your research group. If applicable for your analysis, a table showing the completed risk of bias and quality/certainty assessments for each study or outcome. Please ensure this is provided for each domain or parameter assessed. For example, if you used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, provide answers to each of the signalling questions for each study. If you used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence, provide judgements about each of the quality of evidence factor. This should be provided for each outcome. An explanation of how missing data were handled. This information can be included in the main text, supplementary information, or relevant data repository. Please note that providing these underlying data is a requirement for publication in this journal, and if these data are not provided your manuscript might be rejected. 4. 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: 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: Some minor error in the construction of paragraphs. The author must revise some repetitions for example 2024. As a systematic review and met analysis I think that all the parts of this types of study has been completed. The aims of the paper has been reached. The introduction gives a summary of the causes of death in the region and globally, specifically for human immunodeficiency infection and tuberculosis. The review disclosed that the pooled proportion and incidence of mortality were 18.73% (95% CI: 15.92-20.83) and 4.94 (95% CI: 2.98-6.89) respectively. Being bedridden and ambulatory functional status, poor ART adherence, CD4 count below the threshold (<200 cells/mm3), advanced WHO clinical staging, not provision of cotrimoxazole and isoniazid preventing therapy, anemia and extra pulmonary TB were significant predictors of mortality. The results reports or are in agreement with the conclusions of the study. It is the first systematic review of its kind done in the country. Should take this in consideration in doing a final assessment of its suitability for acceptance. Reviewer #2: This study addresses important questions related to the double burden of HIV and TB in Ethiopia. It explores the burden of mortality from HIV and TB co-infection over the past 20 years, offering a better understanding of the predictors of mortality among individuals co-infected with HIV and TB in Ethiopia. Minor comments 1. Acronyms - The authors can improve clarity by introducing the full term followed by its abbreviation when first mentioned, and then consistently using the acronym in subsequent references, rather than repeating the full term. 2. To ensure consistent formatting, the authors should address some issues. In the discussion section, the word 'REMEMBER' is in capital letters and should be corrected to lowercase. Additionally, 'S7 Figure' is highlighted in red in the results section, which needs adjustment. Lastly, one of the lines in Figure 1 of the results section requires fixing for clarity. Major comments 1. There appears to be a lack of consistency in the naming of the outcome measures. For instance, the methods section refers to the outcome measures as 'pooled mortality rate' and 'pooled incidence mortality rate,' while the results section uses the term 'incidence density mortality rate.' Additionally, the term 'pooled proportion' is used in the conclusion. It is important to ensure consistency in the terminology used for the outcome measures throughout the manuscript. It would be helpful to include definitions for the two outcome measures in the methods section and to explain how they were calculated. This could involve specifying both the numerator and denominator for each outcome to ensure clarity and consistency. 2. The manuscript would benefit from thorough proofreading and editing to enhance clarity and accuracy. 3. In the methods section of the abstract, authors may not need to mention the quality assessment of primary studies or publication bias; these details could be reserved for the methods section of the manuscript. Instead, the abstract should include the number of papers included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, the duration of the search period (from 2004 to 2024), and the total sample size. Additionally, specify the analyses performed with the data extracted from the primary studies, including any subgroup analyses conducted by region. ****** 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: Angel Vaillant 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.0312698.r001
Revision 1
26 Sep 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers and editor Point by point responses We would like to take this opportunity to thank the reviewers and editor for sharing their view and constructive comments. The comments were very important which further improves the quality of our manuscript. The point-by-point responses for each of the comments are provided in the following pages. Our responses are written in blue font color. # Journal requirements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming Authors’ Response We are grateful to this comment of technical relevance. Thus, we have ensured that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming 2. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <S1Table.docx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory Authors’ Response We accept the comment and remove all personal information (Search date and location) and re-upload the data. 3. As required by our policy on Data Availability, please ensure your manuscript or supplementary information includes the following: A numbered table of all studies identified in the literature search, including those that were excluded from the analyses. For every excluded study, the table should list the reason(s) for exclusion. A table of all data extracted from the primary research sources for the systematic review and/or meta-analysis. The table must include the following information for each study: Name of data extractors and date of data extraction Confirmation that the study was eligible to be included in the review All data extracted from each study for the reported systematic review and/or meta-analysis that would be needed to replicate your analyses. An explanation of how missing data were handled. This information can be included in the main text, supplementary information, or relevant data repository. Please note that providing these underlying data is a requirement for publication in this journal Authors’ Response Thank you for this concern. We clearly put this concern in figure one that showed all studies identified in the literature search including those that were excluded from the analyses with reasons of exclusion. Accepting the comment, we have put the extracted data on (S1 data) of supporting information on the revised manuscript. The date and the names of the data extractors were include on the main document of the revised version of this manuscript. The eligibility of the include studies were assessed on the quality assessment part of methods section. As detailed in the methods sections, the pooled mortality rate among TB- HIV co-infected patients and its predictors was estimated using random effects model using DerSimonian-Laird model weight by utilizing Stata 17 statistical software. Regarding to how missing data were handled, an explanation is done on the revised manuscript (page 6). 4. 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 Authors’ Response The authors are very grateful of these constructive comments. After read the reference lists carefully, we made some correction and addressed the incomplete one. We are sure that we have not cited retracted references, almost all references are recent. Response to Reviewer #1 comments 5. Some minor error in the construction of paragraphs. The author must revise some repetitions for example 2024. As a systematic review and meta-analysis I think that all the parts of this types of study has been completed…..the aims of the paper have been reached the results reports or are in agreement with the conclusions of the study. It is the first systematic review of its kind done in the country. Should take this in consideration in doing a final assessment of its suitability for acceptance. Authors’ Response First of all, we really thank the reviewer for his constructive comments and suggestions. The authors have accepted the comments and corrected it in the revised version of the manuscript Reviewer #2: Minor comments 1. Acronyms - The authors can improve clarity by introducing the full term followed by its abbreviation when first mentioned, and then consistently using the acronym in subsequent references, rather than repeating the full term. Authors’ Response Dear reviewer, we want to say thank you very much for your relevant, constructive and detail comments and suggestions that have a great value to improve our manuscript. The comment is taken and corrected accordingly. 2. To ensure consistent formatting, the authors should address some issues. In the discussion section, the words ‘REMEMBER' is in capital letters and should be corrected to lowercase. Additionally, 'S7 Figure' is highlighted in red in the results section, which needs adjustment. Lastly, one of the lines in Figure 1 of the results section requires fixing for clarity Authors’ Response Thank you and we corrected it. Major comments 1. There appears to be a lack of consistency in the naming of the outcome measures. For instance, the methods section refers to the outcome measures as 'pooled mortality rate' and 'pooled incidence mortality rate,' while the results section uses the term 'incidence density mortality rate.' Additionally, the term 'pooled proportion' is used in the conclusion. It is important to ensure consistency in the terminology used for the outcome measures throughout the manuscript. It would be helpful to include definitions for the two outcome measures in the methods section and to explain how they were calculated. This could involve specifying both the numerator and denominator for each outcome to ensure clarity and consistency. Authors’ Response Based on the comment, correction is made on the revised version of the manuscript. 2. The manuscript would benefit from thorough proofreading and editing to enhance clarity and accuracy. Authors’ Response Thank you for your constructive comments. After we have read carefully through the whole document, we properly addressed the concerned issues. Accepting the comment, the authors have read thoroughly and edited carefully the whole manuscript before submission. 3. In the methods section of the abstract, authors may not need to mention the quality assessment of primary studies or publication bias; these details could be reserved for the methods section of the manuscript. Instead, the abstract should include the number of papers included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, the duration of the search period (from 2004 to 2024), and the total sample size. Authors’ Response Accepting the comment, the authors have corrected accordingly. 4. Additionally, specify the analyses performed with the data extracted from the primary studies, including any subgroup analyses conducted by region. Authors’ Response After we extracted the data from primary studies on Microsoft excel, the analysis was performed by using STATA 17 statistical software. Then, the pooled mortality rate among TB- HIV co-infected patients and its predictors was estimated using random effects model using DerSimonian-Laird model weight. Sub-group analysis was also performed using publication year, region, sample size and age of patients from the extracted data and presented using frost plot. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312698.r002
11 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Musa Mohammed Ali, Editor Burden of mortality and its Predictors among TB-HIV co-infected patients in Ethiopia: systematic review and Meta-analysis. PONE-D-24-10192R1 Dear Dr. Kassaw, 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, Musa Mohammed Ali, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (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: The authors have carefully addressed all the comments raised during the peer review process. After thorough revisions, the research work appears accurate and unbiased. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Dr. Angel Vaillant Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312698.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Musa Mohammed Ali, Editor PONE-D-24-10192R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kassaw, 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. Musa Mohammed Ali Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312698.r004

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 .