RETRACTED: Investigating the association between Candida albicans and early childhood dental caries: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

Lusine G. Khachatryan; Fatemeh Allahbakhsi; Diana E. Vadiyan; Mahdi Mohammadian

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315086

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 6, 2024
9 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor PONE-D-24-27773Investigating the Association Between Candida Albicans and Early Childhood Dental Caries: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohammadian, 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. Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 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, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, Ph.D. Endo, FDS, FPFA, MFDS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. 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. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well [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: 1. The names of fungi and bacteria should be italicized; 2. Why is the significance level set to P<0.10; 3. It is recommended to increase the evaluation of the impact of other factors on ECC after C. albicans infection. Reviewer #2: The review by Khachatryan et al provides an overview of the association between candida albicans and early childhood dental caries (ECC). Their work is thorough and should provide other investigators with information that the presence of C. albicans in oral cavity leads to an elevated risk of dental caries in children. They have systematically analyzed 22 studies involving 3301 participants from different geographic locations held at various time points. They have focused on the relationship between C. albicans and ECC. I offer the following minor suggestions for consideration. Minor points: 1.This review is only focused on association of C. albicans with ECC neglecting other microorganisms in oral cavity since >700 species are present in oral cavity. It would be interesting if the author could analyze these 22 studies and point out the following observations. •What are the other microorganisms present in oral cavity like C. albicans? •Are there any other microorganisms which are present with C. albicans? This would help to understand whether occurrence of C. albicans leads to localization of other microorganisms or vice vera. 2. Bacterial/fungal species name needs to be italicized through the manuscript. This review article is well written, mentions new analysis supporting the conclusion drawn, and adds knowledge to the field. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315086.r001
Revision 1
27 Sep 2024 Author Response Dear Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE, Greetings, I am pleased to submit our revised manuscript, entitled “Investigating the Association Between Candida Albicans and Early Childhood Dental Caries: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” for consideration in your esteemed journal. We have addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers with meticulous attention and have made significant modifications to the article. These changes are highlighted in yellow. All authors have made substantial contributions to this study. We confirm that this work has not been published previously, in whole or in part, and that it is not under consideration elsewhere. Furthermore, all authors have agreed to submit this article to PLOS ONE. We declare no conflicts of interest and affirm that there are no factors that could influence the results reported in this study. We are grateful for the insightful comments from your esteemed editor and reviewers. Our responses to these comments are included. Sincerely, Mahdi Mohammadian Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. Email: research.m1400@gmail.com Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Author's answer: Thank you for highlighting the importance of adhering to PLOS ONE's style requirements. We have thoroughly reviewed our manuscript to ensure it complies with all the journal's guidelines, including those related to file naming conventions. We have made the necessary adjustments to meet these standards. 2.1. 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. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. In the modified version of the article, all this information is provided in detail and based on your comment in Table No. 7 of the attached file of the article. 2.2. 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. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your kind comment. In the modified version of the article, all this information is provided in detail and based on your comment in Table 1- 3 of the article. 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. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. In the modified version of the article, all this information is provided in detail and based on your comment in Table 1 of the Supporting information file (S1 File) of the article. An explanation of how missing data were handled. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. In the modified version of the article, relevant explanations were provided at the end of the study materials and methods section. 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. I assure you that in no part of this article are references to retracted articles. Reviewer comment: Reviewer #1: 1. 1. The names of fungi and bacteria should be italicized; Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have carefully revised and reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all scientific names of fungi and bacteria are italicized. 2. Why is the significance level set to P<0.10; Author's answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the significance level initially set at P<0.10. After considering your comment and to align with conventional standards for statistical significance, we have revised the manuscript to use a significance level of P<0.05. This adjustment ensures greater consistency and clarity in the interpretation of our results. All relevant analyses and discussions in the manuscript have been updated accordingly. Thank you again for your insightful review and support. 3. It is recommended to increase the evaluation of the impact of other factors on ECC after C. albicans infection. Author's answer: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the evaluation of other factors influencing ECC following Candida albicans infection. We have expanded our discussion section to provide a more comprehensive analysis of these additional factors. This includes an in-depth examination of nutritional habits, oral hygiene practices, and socioeconomic factors, among others, that may contribute to the development of ECC. We have also included relevant literature to support these discussions and enhance the overall context of our findings. We believe these additions provide a more robust understanding of the multifactorial nature of ECC following C. albicans infection. We appreciate your feedback and trust these enhancements meet your expectations. Reviewer #2: The review by Khachatryan et al provides an overview of the association between candida albicans and early childhood dental caries (ECC). Their work is thorough and should provide other investigators with information that the presence of C. albicans in oral cavity leads to an elevated risk of dental caries in children. They have systematically analyzed 22 studies involving 3301 participants from different geographic locations held at various time points. They have focused on the relationship between C. albicans and ECC. I offer the following minor suggestions for consideration. 1.This review is only focused on association of C. albicans with ECC neglecting other microorganisms in oral cavity since >700 species are present in oral cavity. It would be interesting if the author could analyze these 22 studies and point out the following observations. •What are the other microorganisms present in oral cavity like C. albicans? Author's answer: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful feedback regarding the scope of our analysis. In response to the suggestion to consider other microorganisms present in the oral cavity, we have thoroughly reviewed all 22 studies included in our meta-analysis. For each study, we identified additional microorganisms, aside from Candida albicans, that were evaluated and investigated in the oral cavity. To address this, we have compiled the findings into Table 3 of our article. This table now provides a detailed account of other microorganisms studied in each included research. These organisms include various bacterial species such as Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus, Actinomyces, and other fungal species where applicable. Our intention is to enrich the discussion by acknowledging the complex microbial ecosystem in the oral cavity and its potential interactions with C. albicans. We believe this addition enhances the comprehensiveness of our review and aligns with the reviewer's suggestion to acknowledge the diverse microbial communities present in the oral cavity. We hope this satisfies the reviewer's concerns and look forward to any further feedback. •Are there any other microorganisms which are present with C. albicans? This would help to understand whether occurrence of C. albicans leads to localization of other microorganisms or vice vera. Author's answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We recognize the importance of understanding the broader microbial context surrounding Candida albicans in the oral cavity, given the presence of over 700 microbial species. To address your insightful comment, we have conducted a thorough review of all 22 studies included in our analysis. For each study, we documented other microorganisms evaluated alongside C. albicans in the oral cavity. This information is now summarized in Table 3 of our article. The table highlights the co-occurrence of C. albicans with other notable microorganisms such as Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus species, Actinomyces, and etc. These organisms are known for their roles in oral biofilm development and caries progression. We hope this addition meets the reviewer's expectations and enhances the overall depth of our analysis. We appreciate your guidance in refining our work and welcome any further suggestions. 2. Bacterial/fungal species name needs to be italicized through the manuscript. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have carefully revised and reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all scientific names of fungi and bacteria are italicized. This review article is well written, mentions new analysis supporting the conclusion drawn, and adds knowledge to the field. Author's answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive feedback. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315086.r002
8 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor PONE-D-24-27773R1Investigating the Association Between Candida Albicans and Early Childhood Dental Caries: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohammadian, 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. ============================== Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 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, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, Ph.D. Endo, FDS, FPFA, MFDS 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: Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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: 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: 1. Line 221, C. albicans should be in italics, and there is no period at the end of this paragraph. 2. Table 3, The names of fungi and bacteria should be italicized Reviewer #2: This revision has significantly improved the manuscript. The authors highlighted the manuscript's changes and effectively explained the detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments. I would recommend the manuscript for publication. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315086.r003
Revision 2
8 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Editor-in-Chief of PLOS ONE, Greetings, I am pleased to submit our revised manuscript, entitled “Investigating the Association Between Candida Albicans and Early Childhood Dental Caries: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” for consideration in your esteemed journal. We have addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers with meticulous attention and have made significant modifications to the article. These changes are highlighted in yellow. All authors have made substantial contributions to this study. We confirm that this work has not been published previously, in whole or in part, and that it is not under consideration elsewhere. Furthermore, all authors have agreed to submit this article to PLOS ONE. We declare no conflicts of interest and affirm that there are no factors that could influence the results reported in this study. We are grateful for the insightful comments from your esteemed editor and reviewers. Our responses to these comments are included. Sincerely, Mahdi Mohammadian Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. Email: research.m1400@gmail.com Journal Requirements: 1. 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. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We checked the list of references of this study again and made sure that this list is complete and correct. In the reference list of this study, no retracted article is referenced. Many thanks 2. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Kindly read all the comments given by the reviewers carefully and address them; make the changes in the revised manuscript accordingly. Best regards and keep well Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. In the modified version of the article, all the comments of the respected reviewers of the article have been applied and highlighted in yellow. Reviewer comment: Reviewer #1: 1. Line 221, C. albicans should be in italics, and there is no period at the end of this paragraph. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The required corrections were made and are highlighted in yellow in the text of the article. 2. Table 3, The names of fungi and bacteria should be italicized. Author's answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The required corrections were made and are highlighted in yellow in the table 3 of the article. Reviewer #2: 1. This revision has significantly improved the manuscript. The authors highlighted the manuscript's changes and effectively explained the detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments. I would recommend the manuscript for publication. Author's answer: Many thanks. We appreciate your valuable comments during the article review period. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315086.r004
21 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor Investigating the Association Between Candida Albicans and Early Childhood Dental Caries: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis PONE-D-24-27773R2 Dear Dr. Mohammadian, 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, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, BDS, MScD.Endo, Ph.D. Endo, FDS, FPFA, MFDS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, The authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions reviewers gave, and the manuscript has dramatically improved. The manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form. I would like to congratulate the authors and wish them all the very best in their future endeavours. Best regards and keep well 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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: The authors highlighted the manuscript's changes and effectively explained the detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments. I would recommend the manuscript for publication. 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: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315086.r005
Formally Accepted
3 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mohmed Isaqali Karobari, Editor PONE-D-24-27773R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohammadian, 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 Prof Dr. Mohmed Isaqali Karobari Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315086.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 .