Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 24, 2024
Decision Letter - Usama Waqar, Editor

PONE-D-24-30541July effect in hospitalized cirrhosis patients: a US nationwide study using difference-in-differences analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Celdir,

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 Dec 04 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,

Usama Waqar, M.B.B.S

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Overall a good study given appears to be novel in looking at the impact of the July effect. It is slightly surprising that there was not significant differences in mortality at all and especially major complications in the teaching hospitals with the new trainees. It would be interesting to see if there would be a difference in terms of types of trainees as not all teaching hospitals have GI fellowships. So if the teaching hospitals include programs without GI fellowships, would the outcomes be different as many patients get admitted to community teaching hospitals that have residency programs but no GI fellowships.

Reviewer #2: Summary: This study investigates the "July effect" by examining the impact of trainee physician turnover on clinical outcomes in cirrhosis patients admitted to US teaching hospitals. Conflicting evidence exists around the July effect, however, this study utilizes a difference-in-differences analysis, comparing outcomes in May and July for teaching versus non-teaching hospitals. The key outcomes measured are mortality and length of stay (LOS), with the results showing no significant difference in mortality but a modest increase in LOS in teaching hospitals, particularly for patients with severe complications. The study emphasizes the need for better supervision of new trainees to mitigate operational disruptions.

Overall Impression: The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow, with clear articulation of the research question, methods, and results. It is methodologically strong and addresses an important research question, contributing valuable insights into the ongoing debate on the July effect. The use of a large, representative dataset (NIS) and a rigorous statistical approach (difference-in-differences) strengthens the validity of the findings. However, there are several areas where further clarification are required, as discussed below.

1. Potential confounding factors: July effect might interact with factors not captured in the dataset, such as differences in hospital staffing structures or the availability of specialized care for cirrhosis patients

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.

Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1: Overall a good study given appears to be novel in looking at the impact of the July effect. It is slightly surprising that there was not significant differences in mortality at all and especially major complications in the teaching hospitals with the new trainees. It would be interesting to see if there would be a difference in terms of types of trainees as not all teaching hospitals have GI fellowships. So if the teaching hospitals include programs without GI fellowships, would the outcomes be different as many patients get admitted to community teaching hospitals that have residency programs but no GI fellowships.

Response: Thank you; this is an excellent point. Unfortunately, the NIS database does not contain data specifically on the presence of GI fellowships. NIS obtains the hospital’s teaching status from the AHA Annual Survey of Hospitals, and a hospital is designated if it has at least one ACGME-approved residency or a ratio of full-time equivalent interns and residents to beds of 0.25 or higher. GI fellowship-specific information can provide further insight into whether subspecialty consultation with trainee involvement affects outcomes in months following new trainee recruitment. We have added this limitation and discussion point to the manuscript. (Line 287 in the clean version of the manuscript body)

Reviewer #2: Summary: This study investigates the "July effect" by examining the impact of trainee physician turnover on clinical outcomes in cirrhosis patients admitted to US teaching hospitals. Conflicting evidence exists around the July effect, however, this study utilizes a difference-in-differences analysis, comparing outcomes in May and July for teaching versus non-teaching hospitals. The key outcomes measured are mortality and length of stay (LOS), with the results showing no significant difference in mortality but a modest increase in LOS in teaching hospitals, particularly for patients with severe complications. The study emphasizes the need for better supervision of new trainees to mitigate operational disruptions.

Overall Impression: The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow, with clear articulation of the research question, methods, and results. It is methodologically strong and addresses an important research question, contributing valuable insights into the ongoing debate on the July effect. The use of a large, representative dataset (NIS) and a rigorous statistical approach (difference-in-differences) strengthens the validity of the findings. However, there are several areas where further clarification are required, as discussed below.

Response: Thank you for the encouraging comments.

1. Potential confounding factors: July effect might interact with factors not captured in the dataset, such as differences in hospital staffing structures or the availability of specialized care for cirrhosis patients

Response: This is an important point that emphasizes the presence of residual confounding even after we adjusted our models and is a limitation of the study's registry-based cross-sectional design. We have now added this limitation in the discussion session. (Line 307 in the clean version of the manuscript body)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Usama Waqar, Editor

July effect in hospitalized cirrhosis patients: A US nationwide study using difference-in-differences analysis

PONE-D-24-30541R1

Dear Dr. Celdir,

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,

Usama Waqar, M.B.B.S

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Usama Waqar, Editor

PONE-D-24-30541R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Celdir,

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. Usama Waqar

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 .