Interventions to improve adherence/compliance to home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A systematic review protocol

Amani Kacem; Imen Ben Saida; Dhekra Chebil; Helmi Ben Saad; Mohamed Boussarsar

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318329

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 12, 2024
12 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318329.r001
15 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Felix Bongomin, Editor PONE-D-24-39536Interventions to improve adherence/compliance to home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in stable hypercapnic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients : A Systematic Review ProtocolPLOS ONE Dear Dr. BEN SAIDA, 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 Jan 29 2025 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, Felix Bongomin, MB ChB, MSc, MMed, FECMM 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Partly ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments re: PONE-D-24-39536 In this study, the authors performed a systematic review protocol and on the Interventions to improve adherence/compliance to home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in stable hypercapnic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. This is a very important and relevant topic. The study protocol is well-designed and performed. I feel however, there are some issues that need to be addressed before publication. I have included some suggestions for how the paper could be strengthened. 1. An assessment of the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in the original studies was omitted. Review authors should categorize risk of bias as low, medium, or high. It would have been important for the review authors to assess the risk of bias among the included studies. 2. Searching exclusively in two databases may prove insufficient. I recommend that the author broaden the literature search by consulting additional databases beyond those currently utilized, as this may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and facilitate the identification of a representative set of studies. 3. The methods section of the article currently lacks a subheading for "Data Synthesis." I kindly request that the author include this section, as data synthesis, whether through meta-analysis or qualitative synthesis, is a critical stage in the systematic review process. This stage involves pooling and evaluating the extracted data, which is essential for determining the outcomes of the review. ****** 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 ******** [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.0318329.r002
Revision 1
4 Jan 2025 Author Response Dear Editor-in-Chief of “Plos One”, I would like to extend my gratitude to the editorial board and reviewers for their time and careful consideration of our manuscript entitled "Interventions to improve adherence/compliance to home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in stable hypercapnic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients : A Systematic Review Protocol". All necessary changes were brought to this manuscript, taking into account the comments of the reviewer. Please note that we have acknowledged the reviewer in the acknowledgements section (please see lines 196-199) We hope that this manuscript will be eligible for publication in your reputed journal. Sincerely yours, Reviewer comments for: Manuscript ID PONE-D-24-31948. REFEREE 1 Comment : In this study, the authors performed a systematic review protocol and on the Interventions to improve adherence/compliance to home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in stable hypercapnic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. This is a very important and relevant topic. The study protocol is well-designed and performed. I feel however, there are some issues that need to be addressed before publication. I have included some suggestions for how the paper could be strengthened. Response : Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the importance and relevance of this topic, as well as your positive remarks regarding the design and execution of our systematic review protocol. Your suggestions for strengthening the paper are highly valued, and we have addressed the issues you raised to ensure the quality and impact of our work. Thank you once again for your support and guidance! Comment : An assessment of the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in the original studies was omitted. Review authors should categorize risk of bias as low, medium, or high. It would have been important for the review authors to assess the risk of bias among the included studies. Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding the “omission” of a risk of bias assessment in the RCTs included in our review protocol. We agree that categorizing the risk of bias as low, medium, or high is essential for ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the quality and reliability of the evidence. However, we would like to draw your attention to lines 145-154, where we have already included a paragraph stating: "Risk of bias (quality) assessment." Furthermore, we have included a figure (Figure 1) which illustrates the anticipated quality assessment of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. We acknowledge that there are many tools for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs in the original studies: e.g., Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2 (RoB 2), GRADE, JBI. By systematically identifying and assessing potential biases, JBI critical appraisal tools for RCTs provide a valuable resource for researchers and clinicians to assess the quality of evidence and make informed decisions about clinical practice. We acknowledge the robustness of other available tools, such as the widely used Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. However, we have chosen the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools due to their simplicity and validated methodology. Furthermore, we are familiar with these tools and have prior experience in their application. Thank you once again for your constructive input! The following sentence exist in side the paper lines 145-154: “Risk of bias (quality) assessment: To assess the methodological quality of included studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool will be used [25]. This tool evaluates various aspects of study design, with items rated as "yes," "no," "unclear," or "not applicable." To enhance reliability, two investigators (AK and IBS in the authors’ list) will independently apply the JBI checklist to each study. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus, with a third investigator (DC in the authors’ list) mediating if necessary. A percentage score will be calculated based on the number of affirmative responses to checklist items. This checklist includes 13 items (Figure 1). Studies will be categorized as having high, moderate, or low risk of bias according to predetermined thresholds: ≤ 49%, 50-69%, and ≥ 70% affirmative responses, respectively [26].” Figure 1 (see below) illustrates the anticipated quality assessment of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Comment : Searching exclusively in two databases may prove insufficient. I recommend that the author broaden the literature search by consulting additional databases beyond those currently utilized, as this may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and facilitate the identification of a representative set of studies Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback. Searching at least 2 major databases is the minimum prerequisite for conducting a systematic review (Patole S, editor. Principles and Practice of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0). However, as recommended by the reviewer, expanding the search to include additional relevant databases can significantly enhance the comprehensiveness of the review. We have added Cochrane Library to the 2 databases initially included. As recommended by the reviewer, the following paragraph was added lines 99-100: “A comprehensive literature search will be conducted online, utilizing three reputable databases, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library” Lines 104-105: “In the case of Scopus and Cochrane Library, the same terms will be sought in the article titles, abstracts, and/or keywords.” Comment : The methods section of the article currently lacks a subheading for "Data Synthesis." I kindly request that the author include this section, as data synthesis, whether through meta-analysis or qualitative synthesis, is a critical stage in the systematic review process. This stage involves pooling and evaluating the extracted data, which is essential for determining the outcomes of the review. Response : Thank you for your valuable feedback and for highlighting the importance of including a subheading for "Data Synthesis" in the Methods section. We appreciate your suggestion, as data synthesis is indeed a crucial component of the systematic review process. Thank you again for your constructive input, which will help improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of the manuscript. We have included a dedicated subsection titled "Data Synthesis" within the Methods section to outline the approach used for pooling and evaluating the extracted data. Please see lines 157-173. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318329.r003
15 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Felix Bongomin, Editor Interventions to improve adherence/compliance to home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients : A systematic review protocol PONE-D-24-39536R1 Dear Dr. BEN SAIDA, 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, Felix Bongomin, MB ChB, MSc, MMed, FECMM Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318329.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Felix Bongomin, Editor PONE-D-24-39536R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ben Saida, 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. Felix Bongomin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318329.r005

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 .