Active trachoma among children aged 1–9 years in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis from 2019 to 2024

Kibruyisfaw Weldeab Abore; Melat Tesfaye Asebot; Gifty Berhanemeskel Kebede; Robel Tibebu Kasaye; Asonya Abera Akuma; Mahlet Minwuyelet Dagne; Tewobesta Fesseha Tesfaye; Mahlet Tesfaye Abebe; Estifanos Bekele Fole

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323601

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 10, 2024
10 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323601.r001
9 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Dawit Getachew Gebeyehu, Editor PONE-D-24-40061Active trachoma among children aged 1-9 years in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis from 2019 to 2024PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abore, 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 Mar 24 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, Dawit Getachew Gust Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal 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. 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. We appreciate the authors for the excellent work done. The meta-analysis highlights the public health problem and is highly relevant with detailed eligibility criteria. I request Authors to address the following queries! 1, Why non-peer reviewed studies were excluded? 2, While comparing to previous studies, consider discussing any methodological differences that might account for discrepancies.Al so further discussion on confounding variables would strengthen. Additional Editor Comments: Dear author, Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Active trachoma among children aged 1-9 years in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis from 2019 to 2024" to our journal. After careful consideration, we have found the manuscript can be published in this journal, but it is not in its current form. We have received the required number of review reports. Based on the reviewer comment and suggestion, we have decided the manuscript needs major revision. Therefore, in the revised manuscript,, try to address points raised by reviwewrs. [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: Very good meta-analysis. I would recommend adding more on the possible ways to tackle the trachoma health crisis in certain countries like analyzing the SAFE techniques more for the better understanding of the reader. Reviewer #2: First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their efforts. This manuscript is titled Active trachoma among children aged 1-9 years in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis from 2019 to 2024. Although the overall quality of this manuscript is good, the following comments are for improving its quality: 1. In the Methods section, please submit your full search syntax for each database as a supplementary file. 2. Which version of PRISMA was used? 3. In Figure 1, please specify how many studies each database had. 4. Given the local nature of your topic, it is recommended to include studies published in your local language. This will reduce selection bias. 5. How did you deal with grey literature? Because according to PRISMA and Cochrane, it is recommended to include grey literature studies in the search and perform sensitivity analysis on them. 6. Is there no IRB code for this manuscript? 7. Are there any deviations from the protocol registered in Prospero? If so, please write under the title protocol amendment. 8. All abbreviations should be written in full the first time they are used. 9. Mention any limitations of your study, including selection bias, etc. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-40061.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323601.r002
Revision 1
3 Apr 2025 Author Response Dear editor, We would like to take a moment to thank the Editor and the peer reviewers for the constructive evaluation of our paper. We have reviewed the comments provided by the editor and the reviewers and have carefully edited the manuscript. We have also provided responses accordingly. Sincerely, Kibruyisfaw Weldeab Abore Editorial comments 1. 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. Response: thank you for the comment. We have included a table of all identified studies as a supplementary file 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. Response: thank you for the comment. We have included a table of all data extracted as a supplementary file 3. 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 signaling questions for each study. If you used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence, provide judgments about each of the quality of evidence factor. This should be provided for each outcome. Response: thank you for the comment. We have included a table showing ROB assessment for each studies. 4. An explanation of how missing data were handled. Response: thank you for the comment. We have included a statement on how missing data was handled. 5. Why non-peer reviewed studies were excluded? Response: thank you for the comment. We put this exclusion criteria initially while preparing the protocol. We understand that it can’t introduce selection bias. However, no study that fulfilled the eligibility criteria was excluded due to this criteria. We have removed it from the eligibility criteria. 6. While comparing to previous studies, consider discussing any methodological differences that might account for discrepancies. Also further discussion on confounding variables would strengthen. Response: Thank you for the comment. We accept the comment and have edited the section. Reviewer 1 1. Very good meta-analysis. I would recommend adding more on the possible ways to tackle the trachoma health crisis in certain countries like analyzing the SAFE techniques more for the better understanding of the reader. Response: Thank you for the comment. We have edited the manuscript based on the insight provided. Reviewer 2 1. In the Methods section, please submit your full search syntax for each database. Response: Thank you for the comment. We have included the search used to identify literatures from databases 2. Which version of PRISMA was used? Response: thank you for the comment. We have included the version of PRISMA in the manuscript. 3. In Figure 1, please specify how many studies each database had. Response: Thank you for the comment. We have specified the number of studies identified 4. Given the local nature of your topic, it is recommended to include studies published in your local language. This will reduce selection bias. Response: Thank you for the comment. We acknowledge including those published in English language only would introduce selection bias. However, we did not identify any article that assessed the outcome of interest published in local languages. 5. How did you deal with grey literature? Because according to PRISMA and Cochrane, it is recommended to include grey literature studies in the search and perform sensitivity analysis on them. Response: thank you for the comment. The search was made on prelisted databases. Grey literatures including those from university repositories were made. Manual search of literatures was done from list of references of articles as well. 6. Is there no IRB code for this manuscript? Response: thank you for the comment. Since no data was collected from human subject for this study, Ethical approval is waived. 7. Are there any deviations from the protocol registered in Prospero? If so, please write under the title protocol amendment. Response: thank you for the comment. We have edited the manuscript based on comments. 8. All abbreviations should be written in full the first time they are used. Response: thank you for the comment. We have amended the manuscript based on the comment. 9. Mention any limitations of your study Response: Thank you for the comment. We have added the limitations of the study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323601.r003
11 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Dawit Getachew Gebeyehu, Editor Active trachoma among children aged 1-9 years in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis from 2019 to 2024 PONE-D-24-40061R1 Dear Dr. Kibruyisfaw, 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, Dawit Getachew Gebeyehu, MPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323601.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Dawit Getachew Gebeyehu, Editor PONE-D-24-40061R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abore, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Mr. Dawit Getachew Gebeyehu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323601.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 .