PONE-D-24-47282Work-related Musculoskeletal disorder and its associated factors among bank workers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Geto,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear Authors,Your manuscript was reviewed by me and two expert reviewers. While both reviewers find merit in your manuscript, they have raised several important feedback and comments. I also believe that those comments are very useful to improve the quality of the manuscript. You should revise your manuscript based on reviewer and editor comments.Comments:1. There are many grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. I would suggest for a language editing by a native speaker.2. Authors should add statistics to support their claim in the abstract.3. Please confirm if risk of bias was assessed? how?4. Authors stated that the article was searched by 4 reviewers, screened by 3 reviewers, and the quality was assessed by 2 reviewers. Why were all reviewers not utilized in all the stages? Whether inter-reviewer reliability was tested in any stages? what was the results?5. in the result section, authors should add comparators for all listed variables in Table 2. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 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,

Shahnawaz Anwer, PhD

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. 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.  

[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: MANUSCRIPT ID: PONE-D-24-47282

MANUSCRIPT TITLE: Work-related Musculoskeletal disorder and its associated factors among bank workers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

REVIEWER COMMENT

The manuscript entitled “Work-related Musculoskeletal disorder and its associated factors among bank workers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. The information provided in this manuscript is beneficial for researchers and academia, but this study has some limitation as the provided information is only for the pooled prevalence of and factors associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorder among bank workers in Ethiopia; and I have suggested some revisions.

Abstract: results- The study reveals in terms of the gender, job stress, physical activity, and work experience were found to be factors significantly associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorder why and what measure the author taken to end up such conclusion should be stated more in the abstract. Research on other variables is limited- please elaborate other variables related to musculoskeletal disorder.

Systematic review and meta-analysis - The author mentioned in statistical analysis table-1, all the study are cross sectional, do the study find any longitudinal study based on Ethiopia and or greater Africa if not then stated in the methods. the result table-2 BMI classification only two class overweight and underweight what about normal BMI range data- Do the normal BMI has any relation with work-related musculoskeletal disorder.

Results: Could the author explain more how they categorized low risk bias, unclear risk of bias.

• Please avoid repetition-

• Please check reference style throughout MS

• Recheck Legends description is as per figure number and discussion.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript provides a thorough examination of the pooled prevalence and associated factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) among bank workers in Ethiopia, addressing a critical occupational health issue. However, several areas require refinement to enhance the clarity, rigor, and impact of the study. The keywords should be formatted according to MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms for improved indexing.

The methodology adheres to the PRISMA guidelines but would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how heterogeneity across studies was addressed. While statistical tools, such as I², were used, discussing additional steps taken to minimize variability, such as subgroup analyses or sensitivity tests, would strengthen the robustness of the study. A clearer justification for the use of the random-effects model and a more detailed description of the criteria for including and excluding studies, particularly gray literature, are also recommended.

The discussion contextualizes the findings well within global and regional studies but could better highlight how these findings can inform occupational health interventions and policies in Ethiopia. Discussing practical recommendations, such as workplace ergonomic improvements or stress management programs, will enhance the applicability of the manuscript.

Additionally, the conclusion should focus more on the implications of the findings for occupational health policies and the need for further research to include diverse regions and adopt a longitudinal design.

Figures and tables are informative but lack clear legends and captions, making them less accessible to the readers. Ensure that all visual elements are self-contained with sufficient explanatory details. Finally, a proofreading pass is required to address minor grammatical inconsistencies and ensure clarity throughout the text.

**********

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:  RUHINA BINAT GHANI

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.

Work-related Musculoskeletal disorder and its associated factors among bank workers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PONE-D-24-47282R1

Dear Dr. Geto,

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,

Shahnawaz Anwer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: