Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 11, 2025
Decision Letter - Mohammed Badeso, Editor

PONE-D-25-02498The prevalence of undernutrition and associated risk factors in people with tuberculosis in Lao People's Democratic RepublicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Elsayed,

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 May 30 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,

Mohammed Hasen Badeso, Epidemiologist

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 update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 3. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: Funding of this study was provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for the Western Pacific (WPRO).   Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: We first would like to thank study participants and their household members who consented to participate in this study. Also, we acknowledge the contribution of clinical dieticians, medical doctors, nurses who participated in the training sessions and contributed to data collections in study sites. Special recognition goes to Dr Khamphet Phoumin, Dr Phonenaly Chittamany, for their dedicated assistance in the data collection process. We acknowledge the support provided by Phitsada Siphanthong. We also appreciate the invaluable technical insights provided by Dr Kalpeshsinh Rahevar to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Funding of this study was provided by the WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific. We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: Funding of this study was provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for the Western Pacific (WPRO).   Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 7. 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. 8. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 9. We notice that your supplementary table is included in the manuscript file. Please remove and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

10. 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. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: 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:  The reported odds ratios and their corresponding log(odds ratios) are inconsistent and require re-analysis. Ensure that computations align correctly before finalizing the results.

(Figure 1):

o The odds ratio (OR) quantifies the association between an exposure and an outcome. The null hypothesis (no association) corresponds to an OR of 1, meaning the odds of the outcome are the same in both groups.

o Since the logarithm of 1 is 0 (i.e., log(1) = 0), the null value for the log odds ratio (log(OR)) is also 0.

o Your figure shows that all variables have Log(OR) > 0, suggesting that all are positively associated with the outcome. However, this contradicts the textual interpretation of the results using odds ratios.

o Additionally, the antilog of the reported log(OR) values does not match the stated odds ratios. For example, the antilog of 3.1 does not yield an OR of 6.8 for the age group 15–24. A re-analysis is necessary.

Reviewer #2:  This study investigates malnutrition among tuberculosis patients at the time of diagnosis in Lao PDR. The results and discussion are presented based on data obtained from central and provincial hospitals in relation to the stated research objectives. Although the representativeness of the collected data in tuberculosis patients is a concern, the study appropriately discusses its limitations. Given its valuable insights into the topic, this manuscript is considered worthy of acceptance.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Thank you for your further review and comments. We added our responses to each comment with red font text and revised the manuscript with track changes accordingly.

Reviewer #1: The reported odds ratios and their corresponding log(odds ratios) are inconsistent and require re-analysis. Ensure that computations align correctly before finalizing the results.

(Figure 1):

o The odds ratio (OR) quantifies the association between an exposure and an outcome. The null hypothesis (no association) corresponds to an OR of 1, meaning the odds of the outcome are the same in both groups.

o Since the logarithm of 1 is 0 (i.e., log(1) = 0), the null value for the log odds ratio (log(OR)) is also 0.

o Your figure shows that all variables have Log(OR) > 0, suggesting that all are positively associated with the outcome. However, this contradicts the textual interpretation of the results using odds ratios.

Thank you for your clarifications. The results are estimated with antilog scale and therefore, for all the results shown in fig 1, the null hypothesis of the analysis still corresponds to an OR of 1, not zero. Given that a variable (weight decreased) has much a wider confidence interval (i.e. CI 2.3-36.4 for hospitalization), we applied a log scale to the x-axis label (not results themselves) only for the visualization purposes. Hence, we do not change the analytical approach.

We understand that there might be confusions as raised by the reviewer, and therefore we revised the axis title and also added a footnote for this matter.

o Additionally, the antilog of the reported log(OR) values does not match the stated odds ratios. For example, the antilog of 3.1 does not yield an OR of 6.8 for the age group 15–24. A re-analysis is necessary.

Thank you for spotting these inconsistencies. We revised the paragraph in result section accordingly.

… in Figure 1 (results with univariate and multivariate analysis are available in Table S1 in appendix). There were substantially heightened risk of low BMI among different age groups. Specifically, individuals aged 15-24 years old exhibited a remarkably higher risk (AOR: 6.9, 95%CI: 2.2-23.2) compared to those aged 35-44 years old. Similarly, the risk remained elevated for those aged 25-34 years old (AOR: 2.2, 95%CI: 0.9-5.5) and even for individuals aged 65 years and above (AOR=2.0, 95% CI: 0.8-4.8). The presence of drug resistance also emerged as a significant risk factor for low BMI (AOR: 3.2, 95% CI=1.0-11.8). Moreover, patients who were hospitalized until the diagnosis of TB faced a substantially higher risk of low BMI (AOR: 3.4, 95% CI=2.0-5.9). This indicates that the severity of the TB condition, requiring hospitalization, is associated with a greater likelihood of low BMI at the time of TB diagnosis. Notably, individuals who experienced weight loss in the last 6 months prior to TB diagnosis were at a significantly elevated risk of having a low BMI (AOR: 7.8, 95% CI: 2.3-36.4). Finally, patients who were categorized as being below the international poverty line at the time of TB diagnosis also faced an increased risk of low BMI (AOR: 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6).

*x-axis is with log-scale.

Reviewer #2: This study investigates malnutrition among tuberculosis patients at the time of diagnosis in Lao PDR. The results and discussion are presented based on data obtained from central and provincial hospitals in relation to the stated research objectives. Although the representativeness of the collected data in tuberculosis patients is a concern, the study appropriately discusses its limitations. Given its valuable insights into the topic, this manuscript is considered worthy of acceptance.

Thanks for your favourable comment and decision to our manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: R1_responses to reviewers_v1.docx
Decision Letter - Mohammed Badeso, Editor

The prevalence of undernutrition and associated risk factors in people with tuberculosis in Lao People's Democratic Republic

PONE-D-25-02498R1

Dear Author(s),

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,

Mohammed Hasen Badeso, Epidemiologist

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohammed Badeso, Editor

PONE-D-25-02498R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Elsayed,

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 Mohammed Hasen Badeso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .