Dear Dr. Ogundeji,

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 Jun 01 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.

• 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 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,

Diphale Joyce Mothabeng, PhD

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.-->--> -->-->Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).-->--> -->-->For example, authors should submit the following data:-->--> -->-->- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;-->-->- The values used to build graphs;-->-->- The points extracted from images for analysis.-->--> -->-->Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.-->--> -->-->If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.-->--> -->-->If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.-->--> -->-->3. Please include a copy of Tables number 5 and 3 which you refer to in your text on page 10 and 12.-->?>

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for the manuscript. Kindly revise in response to the reviewers comments.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  The poor reference style changes the content of the study. The author used Vancouver referencing style and starting a sentence by author and in this case a number e.g. according to (6)....." or (34) stated that...." This changes the readability of the manuscript.

The title sound like a qualitative manuscript but the aim is quantitative. Later on, and in their limitation, they mentioned the records were not updated. This now sounds like a record review. The author stated that the questionnaire were distributed to inpatient but they also included those discharged. It is now clear that they used records of those discharged.

The study is good but has lot of flaws.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this study

Reviewer #2:  Overview

First, I commend the authors for the efforts and rigour invested into this study. This is a cross-sectional study entitled “Direct Cost of Wound Dressing: Hospitalized Patients Experience in South West Nigeria” sought to determine the cost implications of wound dressing across wound aetiology (sic) among hospitalized patients. According to the authors,” 34.2% of the respondents had road traffic accidents, followed by cancers, 22.6%, and surgical wound infections, 16.8%. Most patients were involved in daily (41.6%) or alternate-day (38.4%) wound dressing. 53.2% of the respondents earn less than US$30 per month, 34.7% earn between US$30 - US$60, while only 3.2% earn more than US$ 120 per month. Also, 55.7% require 1-5 moderate or significant dressing packs per week. 75% had wound care paid for by relatives. The average burn injuries cost of wound dressing per week is estimated to be $8.42, while falls ($5.31), occupational injuries ($3.77), gunshot injuries ($3.74), and road traffic accidents ($3.49). The average cost of hospitalization for burn injuries per week was estimated to be $22.35, while for falls, road traffic accidents, and surgical wound infections, was $19.58, $19.32, and $18.37, respectively.” Authors concluded thus “The cost requirements for prosperous wound dressing place a high financial burden on hospitalized patients in Nigeria. There is a need to scale Nigeria's health insurance database to include the low socioeconomic class”

Areas of improvements

The study possesses important data for the South Africa populace. In addition, the study was rigorously conducted and manuscript well-written. However, a few minor revisions are required to improve coherence and readability.

Title

The study title needs to be rephrased. The use of “experience” suggests that the study employed interpretivist paradigm, whereas in practice, the authors adopt positivism. Therefore, , based on first impression, title is misleading.

Introduction

I would acknowledge similar previous studies in Nigeria and highlight a few of their weakness/gaps and how the present study would fill the gap(s).

Misuse of aetiology

Many times, the authors misused the term “aetiology”. I would prefer the use of causes or mechanism of injuries in many instances where the authors used ‘aetiology” which is an umbrella term referring to the cause (i.e. all the causes) of a disease/injury including the mechanism of injury.

Method

Design: The checklist used to guide the study was not specified.

Discussion

Whereas authors compared the cost data with other similar data in other climes, I would first focus on comparing the data from the present study with similar Nigerian studies. This will allow the readers to decide if the data presented in this current study is an outlier from other similar Nigeria study and if so, what could the reason (changing times?). Second, I would then compare the data with similar data in other climes, bearing in mind the Nigerian average. Kindly revise as appropriate.

Conclusion

Overstated conclusions; Conclusion(s) should be drawn from findings, without unsubstantiated claims.

Decision

I recommend the publication of the manuscript following minor revision.

**********

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:  Nontembiso Magida

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Direct Cost of Wound Dressing.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos one_review outcome.docx

Direct cost of inpatient wound dressing in South West Nigeria: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-25-03711R1

Dear Dr. Ogundeji,

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,

Diphale Joyce Mothabeng, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for addressing reviewer comments. The journal will come back to you regarding the way forward.

Reviewers' comments: