Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 30, 2024
Decision Letter - Oana Dumitrascu, Editor

PONE-D-24-16039Are Hypoperfusion States Risk factors for Non-arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsumi,

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 Jun 30 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,

Oana Dumitrascu, 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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

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: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a compelling and interesting thesis that addresses an interesting question commonly raised but without current definitive evidence for a conclusion. This article suggests that hypovolemia in its several forms delineated by their team could be an independent risk factor for NAION. While retrospective in nature and unable to make a conclusive claim, it is provocative and worth publishing. I put in detailed comments into a separate word document, attached.

Reviewer #2: This review highlights and emphasizes the importance of hypoperfusion as risk factor for NAION with a clinically significant association. I’m not sure what is the reason the author mentioned the word “independent risk factor”.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nafiseh Hashemi

**********

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE hypoperfusion NAION Reviewer comments.docx
Revision 1

Reviewer #1: The authors present a compelling and interesting thesis that addresses an interesting question commonly raised but without current definitive evidence for a conclusion. This article suggests that hypovolemia in its several forms delineated by their team could be an independent risk factor for NAION. While retrospective in nature and unable to make a conclusive claim, it is provocative and worth publishing. I put in detailed comments into a separate word document, attached.

Response: all comments were addressed accordingly.

Reviewer #2: This review highlights and emphasizes the importance of hypoperfusion as risk factor for NAION with a clinically significant association. I’m not sure what is the reason the author mentioned the word “independent risk factor”.

Response: Cardiovascular co-morbidities are well established risk factor for NAION. By using the term "independent risk factor" we have chosen to highlight the fact that states of hypoperfusion are still highly correlated with NAION even after stratifying the groups for these co-morbidities.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Kumar Saurabh, Editor

PONE-D-24-16039R1Hypoperfusion States Could Increase the Risk of Non-arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic NeuropathyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsumi,

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 strength of this study lies in large number of subjects. However the presented findings in the manuscript are not unreported in published literature. Authors are suggested to provide a rationale for their study and state what new information their manuscript adds to the existing knowledge about role of hypoperfusion in nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 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,

Kumar Saurabh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The strength of this study lies in large number of subjects. However the presented findings in the manuscript are not unreported in published literature. Authors are suggested to provide a rationale for their study and state what new information their manuscript adds to the existing knowledge about role of hypovolemia in nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy.

[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 #3: 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 #3: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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: Agree with the revisions and only one suggestion: change running title from Short title: Risk factors for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy to Short title: Hypoperfusion States in non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy

Reviewer #3: Thank you for submitting the results of a large cohort of NAION patients.There are a few glaring flaws in the claims made in the paper.

1.This is not the first paper to address the association of the NAION to ischemic heart diseases.Authors have referenced Dr Hayrehs paper on the systemic diseases and the NAION(REF NO.8) that states" Also, middle-aged and elderly patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease (P < .01)"

The authors have chosen to selectively quote the articles details mentioning only the predisposing factors like HT,DM etc,at another place Dr Hayreh has clearly defined the predisposing factors and the precipitating factors in the evolution of the NAION.The hypoperfusion states of shock,be it the cardiogenic,hypovolemic etc are mentioned in the precipitating factors.

Hayreh, S S. Ischaemic optic neuropathy.. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 48(3):p 171-194, Jul–Sep 2000.

The above paper clearly defines the following

Perfusion pressure = Mean BP minus intraocular pressure (IOP).

Mean BP = Diastolic BP + 1/3 (systolic minus diastolic BP).

Resistance to blood flow

This depends upon the state and calibre of the vessels supplying the ONH, which in turn are influenced by the following:

.....which includes systemic hypotension

Dr SS Hayreh has studied and extensively published about the pathophysiology of NAION.His work had already indicated what your study has observed in a large cohort.

I suggest that the introduction and the discussion be revised to present in a fair manner.If possible get the details of posterior and anterior ischemic optic neuropathy in the group,as the hypoperfusion associated with hypovolemia,is most likely to cause posterior ischemic optic neuropathy.

**********

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: Kimberly Winges, MD

Reviewer #3: Yes: Shikha Talwar Bassi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 2

Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #1:

Agree with the revisions and only one suggestion: change running title from Short title: Risk factors for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy to Short title: Hypoperfusion States in non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy

Response:

Done, line 14

Reviewer #3:

Thank you for submitting the results of a large cohort of NAION patients.There are a few glaring flaws in the claims made in the paper.

1.This is not the first paper to address the association of the NAION to ischemic heart diseases.Authors have referenced Dr Hayrehs paper on the systemic diseases and the NAION(REF NO.8) that states" Also, middle-aged and elderly patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease (P < .01)"

The authors have chosen to selectively quote the articles details mentioning only the predisposing factors like HT,DM etc,at another place Dr Hayreh has clearly defined the predisposing factors and the precipitating factors in the evolution of the NAION.The hypoperfusion states of shock,be it the cardiogenic,hypovolemic etc are mentioned in the precipitating factors.

Hayreh, S S. Ischaemic optic neuropathy.. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 48(3):p 171-194, Jul–Sep 2000.

The above paper clearly defines the following

Perfusion pressure = Mean BP minus intraocular pressure (IOP).

Mean BP = Diastolic BP + 1/3 (systolic minus diastolic BP).

Resistance to blood flow

This depends upon the state and calibre of the vessels supplying the ONH, which in turn are influenced by the following:

.....which includes systemic hypotension

Dr SS Hayreh has studied and extensively published about the pathophysiology of NAION.His work had already indicated what your study has observed in a large cohort.

I suggest that the introduction and the discussion be revised to present in a fair manner.If possible get the details of posterior and anterior ischemic optic neuropathy in the group,as the hypoperfusion associated with hypovolemia,is most likely to cause posterior ischemic optic neuropathy.

Response:

We acknowledge that (to paraphrase off Isacc Newton) we stand on the shoulders of giants such as Dr SS Hayreh and that some of our findings were previously reported. The strength of our findings is in the large size of cohort, which can both help reach new conclusions and establish the validity of existing knowledge.

We have rephrased the relevant paragraph (lines 65-69) as well as rephrased the following sentence (lines 71-72).

Additionally- a comment was added in the discussion (lines 239-241).

With regards to diagnosing PION- we have decided to omit patients who were diagnosed with PION because we found that reporting of that diagnosis was inconsistent in patient’s files and did not allow a reliable large scale study. We added a comment in discussion (lines 247-250)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter 290824.docx
Decision Letter - Kumar Saurabh, Editor

Hypoperfusion States Could Increase the Risk of Non-arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy

PONE-D-24-16039R2

Dear Dr. Tsumi,

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,

Kumar Saurabh

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

**********

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: (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: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kumar Saurabh, Editor

PONE-D-24-16039R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsumi,

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. Kumar Saurabh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .