Clinical efficacy of different methods for treatment of granulomatous lobular mastitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yuxiang Zhou; Leilai Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318236

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 22, 2024
29 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Serkan Yılmaz, Editor PONE-D-24-22261Clinical efficacy of different methods for treatment of granulomatous lobular mastitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. XU, 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 Nov 13 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Serkan Yılmaz 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments: POP [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: No 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: In this work, the authors applied a meta-network analysis to evaluate treatment options for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). The final network includes data from 19 articles. Odds ratio values were used to evaluate the recurrence rate of IGM, finding that the combination of three treatments: surgery, local steroid injection, and systemic steroids therapy, had the highest probability of reducing the recurrence rate. The authors followed a standard pipeline used in network meta-analysis studies to derive their results, and the study selection criteria are well described. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed: Table 1 includes characteristics of the studies analyzed. However, there are at least nine articles that were not included in the References section. All studies used for this analysis must be added to the References list. The authors should include a table with individual statistics for each study, such as the recurrence rate with the associated confidence intervals (CIs). The Data Analysis section states, “The assessment included checks for similarity, transitivity, and consistency.” However, there is no description of the methods used for these checks. The PROSPERO entry mentioned in the manuscript has a description of the Higgins I squared statistic thresholds used to assess heterogeneity (or inconsistency). However, these are not mentioned in the manuscript. A thorough description of all the methods used to derive the results is needed in the Data Analysis section. The authors mention Lei’s meta-analysis study from 2017, which included 15 publications. The overlap between the selected studies should be mentioned, and a brief discussion of the improvements made in treatment options from that date until now should be included. There is another publication that should be used to compare and discuss the results obtained from this analysis: Godazandeh, G., Shojaee, L., Alizadeh-Navaei, R., et al. "Corticosteroids in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Surg Today 51, 1897–1905 (2021). These authors also found that the combination of surgery plus steroids has the lowest recurrence rate. Just as in the case for Lei, 2017, adding a brief discussion about the overlap and differences in the results could inform the reader about the diversity in conclusions made with similar methodologies. Reviewer #2: Please see comments. The article is well written and the analysis is well documented. There seems one methodology error though pertaining to the use of Odds ratio instead of risk ratio, a mistake popularly done in the literature. ****** 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: Muhammad Abdul Qadeer ******** [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-D-24-22261 (1).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318236.r001
Revision 1
9 Dec 2024 Author Response Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: In this work, the authors applied a meta-network analysis to evaluate treatment options for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). The final network includes data from 19 articles. Odds ratio values were used to evaluate the recurrence rate of IGM, finding that the combination of three treatments: surgery, local steroid injection, and systemic steroids therapy, had the highest probability of reducing the recurrence rate. The authors followed a standard pipeline used in network meta-analysis studies to derive their results, and the study selection criteria are well described. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed: （1）Table 1 includes characteristics of the studies analyzed. However, there are at least nine articles that were not included in the References section. All studies used for this analysis must be added to the References list. Response： Thank you so much for your suggestions! We have added citations to the references in each study in Table 1. （2）The authors should include a table with individual statistics for each study, such as the recurrence rate with the associated confidence intervals (CIs). Response： Thank you so much for your suggestions! We have included the recurrence rate for each study, but unfortunately, we did not obtain the associated confidence intervals (CIs). （3）The Data Analysis section states, "The assessment included checks for similarity, transitivity, and consistency." However, there is no description of the methods used for these checks. Response： Thank you so much for your suggestions! Per the reviewer's requirements, the similarity, transitivity, and consistency methods have been described more clearly. （4）The PROSPERO entry mentioned in the manuscript has a description of the Higgins I squared statistic thresholds used to assess heterogeneity (or inconsistency). However, these are not mentioned in the manuscript. A thorough description of all the methods used to derive the results is needed in the Data Analysis section. Response： Thank you so much for your suggestions! We acknowledge that your suggestion is necessary. In network meta-analysis (NMA), the Higgins I² statistic helps assess heterogeneity and consistency of results. However, in NMA, we consider assessing consistency more critical than determining traditional heterogeneity, as consistency reflects the difference between the results of direct and indirect comparisons. NMA typically uses global consistency tests (such as the χ² test) and local consistency tests (such as side-splitting), which may directly assess the consistency issue within the network structure more than the I² does. Thank you once again for your valuable insights! （5）The authors mention Lei's meta-analysis study from 2017, which included 15 publications. The overlap between the selected studies should be mentioned, and a brief discussion of the improvements made in treatment options from that date until now should be included. There is another publication that should be used to compare and discuss the results obtained from this analysis: Godazandeh, G., Shojaee, L., Alizadeh-Navaei, R., et al. "Corticosteroids in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Surg Today 51, 1897–1905 (2021). These authors also found that the combination of surgery plus steroids has the lowest recurrence rate. Just as in the case for Lei, 2017, adding a brief discussion about the overlap and differences in the results could inform the reader about the diversity in conclusions made with similar methodologies. Response： Thank you so much for your suggestions! Based on the review comments, we have adjusted the discussion section. With these modifications, we can demonstrate the overlap and differences between the studies by Lei (2017) and Godazandeh (2021) while highlighting the improvements and trends in treatment methods from 2017 to the present. This will help readers better understand the background and logic behind the conclusions of different studies. Reviewer #2: Please see comments. The article is well written and the analysis is well documented. There seems one methodology error though pertaining to the use of Odds ratio instead of risk ratio, a mistake popularly done in the literature. Response： Thank you for the constructive feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the thorough analysis and overall clarity. We understand the concern about using odds ratio (OR) instead of risk ratio (RR) for our analysis of treatment effects on recurrence rates in granulomatous lobular mastitis. Here are several explanations for the use of odds ratios in our study. 1.Comparative Analysis Across Varied Interventions: The study included diverse treatment strategies with distinct patient group sizes and recurrence events. Odds ratios are generally favored in meta-analyses with diverse intervention types because they provide stability across studies with varying event rates, facilitating indirect comparisons within a network analysis framework. 2.Low Incidence of Recurrence Events: Recurrence was infrequent in treatment arms. ORs tend to be robust in these low-event scenarios, reducing the likelihood of biased effect estimation due to small sample sizes or zero-event occurrences, which can arise in meta-analyses of rare events. 3.Consistency with Literature in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses in similar contexts have also utilized ORs, as they allow for broader applicability when pooling results across studies with methodological heterogeneity. This approach aligns our work with existing literature, ensuring comparability across studies and maintaining methodological coherence. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318236.r002
14 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Serkan Yılmaz, Editor Clinical efficacy of different methods for treatment of granulomatous lobular mastitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis PONE-D-24-22261R1 Dear Dr. XU, 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, Serkan Yılmaz 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: I Don't Know ****** 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: All my comments have been addressed. The discussion and methodology sections have been substantially improved by the authors. 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: Diana Garcia Cortes Reviewer #2: Yes: Muhammad Abdul Qadeer ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318236.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Serkan Yılmaz, Editor PONE-D-24-22261R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xu, 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. Serkan Yılmaz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318236.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 .