https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2065-3207
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 21, 2024 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Butsing, 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 13 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.
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, Elvan Wiyarta, M.D. 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 2. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data cannot be shared publicly because of the institution's data-sharing policy, as it contains patients' clinical information. Data is available upon request and ethics committee approval. Researchers may submit their research proposals to the Human Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital at https://www.rama.mahidol.ac.th or contact the corresponding author for help.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** Reviewer #1: This cohort describes factors of changes in functional outcome after a first-time stroke. The results of this paper show lots of outstanding outcomes of functional recovery after stroke and discharge. Functional status recovery after an acute stroke varies significantly depending on factors such as the severity and type of stroke, the area of the brain affected, the individual’s pre-stroke health, and the medical intervention such as medications and rehabilitation. Although I appreciate such an achievement, I still have three major questions and those questions that authors should reveal key points that are included in the method. 1. Location and size of the stroke in the brain imaging by CT, MRI, or angiography. 2. Timing of treatment such as thrombolysis with tPA or mechanical thrombectomy or supportive care only. 3. Any multidisciplinary rehabilitation including physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy. Reviewer #2: Authors report an interesting analysis of stroke outcome in Thailand, pointing out the profound differences between minor and severe strokes, the worse outcome of ICH and longer F.U. time needed for ICH, etc. However, some flaws arise, as follows. The selection process is not clearly described. For example, at line 103 - “The primary study included 186 consecutive acute first-stroke patients hospitalized…” - the primary study is not cited and is not possible to piece together the origin of this study cohort. It also seems that Authors had “a priori” excluded fatal strokes and those patients who died later during the F.U. period (or mRS = 6), but this point not clear. I would be quite impressed that no death occurred at least within hemorrhagic and severe strokes. More, they state anyway that one patient died before 6 months F.U., and this contributes to make unclear how they managed fatal strokes. Overall, this point should be addressed/explained in M&M and in the “sample selection process flow chart (figure 1). It could be mentioned in the Discussion as well. Furthermore, the exclusion of aphasic patients should be at least reported as a limitation since aphasia is one of the most important neurological deficits after stroke. Authors did not mention/consider rehabilitation regimens (i.e., intensive, extensive, outpatients’ programs, no rehab at all, etc.) in their analysis. At least the proportion of patients who underwent an active intervention to modify functional outcome could be reported. The following two sentences (lines 232-235) are hard reading, and they seem contradictory, please clarify: “Participants with hemorrhagic stroke had poorer functional outcomes than those with ischemic stroke, with significant changes in mRS median scores from discharge to 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-discharge (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant change in mRS scores from 1-month to 3-month after discharge from hemorrhagic stroke”. English phrasing must be revised in several sections. Following, only very few examples: Line 25 - and varied by according to/depending on several factors… Line 56 - worldwide the world [1]. Line 80 – 3 months… Within Figure 1: all strokes ********** 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: Yes: Francesco Janes ********** [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 |
|
Changes in functional outcome after a first-time stroke: Data from a longitudinal study PONE-D-24-52408R1 Dear Dr. Butsing, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Elvan Wiyarta, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ********** Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Yes: Francesco Janes ********** |
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 .