PONE-D-24-45814Intermittent pneumatic compression therapy as a preventive measure for venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty: A systematic reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahmed,

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 22 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,

Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini

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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

[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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: At the end I have some questions about this article.

The specific questions and recommendations are as follows:

1:Conclusion parts in both the abstract and the main text needs to be rewritten and lengthened. Consider

adding more supporting evidence.

2:The discussion should be more comprehensive. Furthermore, The introduction presents an appropriate

outline but it is better to be lengthened. Adding additional references is recommended in both introduction

and discussion section.

3:It is recommended to add a new section at the end of the article after conclusion section, describing any

abbreviation which is being used throughout the article.

Thanks to the authors for their hard work on this Study. It’s a pleasure to review such a contribution to the field.

Reviewer #2: I am glad to have the opportunity to review this manuscript and thank the authors for conducting this research on the use of intermittent pneumatic compression therapy as a preventive measure for venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty. The results section lacks clarity on the added value of the study to the topic. The authors should provide conclusive insights from the included studies and consider presenting new findings. Additionally, the discussion requires substantial revision. My specific comments are as follows:

Line 51: The authors should provide a full explanation of "THA" when it is first mentioned in the manuscript.

Line 53: Consider replacing the word “lakh” with a term more universally understood by the audience.

Line 55: The authors are encouraged to explain "VTE" the first time it appears in the manuscript.

Line 71: Similarly, please provide an explanation for "IPC" at its first mention in the manuscript.

Line 91: Could the authors clarify the rationale behind restricting the search dates to studies published from 2004 onward?

Line 94: The complete search strategy should be included as a supplementary file and referenced in the corresponding paragraph of the manuscript. If this is not feasible, please provide it in your response to comments.

Line 105: The authors state that RCTs were excluded; however, the results section mentions that all included articles were RCTs. This discrepancy suggests an error in line 105 that needs correction.

Line 109: In the “Selection Process” section, please specify how differences between the two reviewers were resolved.

Line 150, Figure 2: The authors should address the selective bias and reporting bias components in Figure 2 for completeness.

Table 4: It would enhance the table's informativeness if study design, country, and follow-up duration were included.

Table 4: Two of the included studies were conducted by Paudel et al. The authors are advised to verify whether these two articles share participants. If they do, only the more comprehensive study should be included unless the outcomes reported are distinct.

Line 183: "LMWH" should be explained the first time it is mentioned in the manuscript.

Results Section: The results section lacks clarity on the added value of the study to the topic. The authors should provide conclusive insights from the included studies and consider presenting new findings, such as the VTE rate following IPC, using proportion analysis or pooled prevalence analysis.

Line 227: The definition of IPC appears in the discussion section but should be introduced earlier, in the introduction, where IPC is first mentioned.

Discussion Section: The discussion requires substantial revision. Much of its content (e.g., Lines 208-214, Lines 216-223, Lines 224-246) would be more appropriate in the results section. The discussion should focus on synthesizing the findings, their implications, and the broader context of the study.

General Comment: The manuscript would benefit from a thorough revision of its English for clarity and readability.

**********

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: Yes:  SEYED AMIRHOSSEIN MAZHARI

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review 26.pdf

Intermittent pneumatic compression therapy as a preventive measure for venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review

PONE-D-24-45814R1

Dear Dr. Ahmed,

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,

Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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 manuscript is well-structured and well-analyzed and provides valuable results. The tables

and figures are appropriately depicted and Cleary presented. Study limitation are mentioned in a

separate section in detail, adding additional strength to the article. The Discussion section

required to be more thorough and detailed and in the revised version it has been expanded and

more references are incorporated.

At the end I have some questions about this article.

The specific questions and recommendations are as follows:

1:

Conclusion parts in both the abstract and the main text needs to be rewritten and lengthened. Consider

adding more supporting evidence.

Conclusion part in the revised version is more informative than before, and clinical implications are also

better discussed.

2:

The discussion should be more comprehensive. Furthermore, The introduction presents an appropriate

outline but it is better to be lengthened. Adding additional references is recommended in both introduction

and discussion section.

Appropriately revised by authors, an additional 7 new references has been incorporated in the new

version.

3:

It is recommended to add a new section at the end of the article after conclusion section, describing any

abbreviation which is being used throughout the article.

A new table describing the any abbreviated term has been added properly.

Thanks to the authors for their hard work on this Revision. It’s a pleasure to review such a contribution to

the field.

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:  SEYED AMIRHOSSEIN MAZHARI

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review 26a.pdf