Dear Dr. Zora,

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 Jan 26 2026 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 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,

Cheong Kim

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. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

4. 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.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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: 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

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: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This is such a captivating topic. I also love the fact that the research article was concise & easy to read and understand. The tables being in an appendix made reading through the article smooth and uninterrupted. The research was well done & the scoring systems correlated in the results. The were also no plagiarism noted.

However, there are a few things I would like to highlight;

1. Ensure to use the same wordings in the text as was used in the table to allow for uniformity. In the results section, regarding reference to the discern scale, correct "55.6% were mild" to "55.6% were moderate.

2. In the comparison between individuals and other sources; correct that paragraph to "Differences between videos from non individual sources using metrics such as VPI, likes, comments and quality scores as compared to individual videos were not statistically significant."

3. In the discussion section; 1st paragraph, moderate quality does not align with poor quality, find a correct correlation or you could rephrase the sentence so as to align with your results.

4. In the last line of the 4th paragraph, it should be preferably put as "In future research, though using a single scale may provide an indication of overall quality, using multiple scales would enhance reliability by providing cross validation.

Lastly, I noticed that the percentage figures quoted for JAMA, GQS and Modified Discern scales in the overall quality, accuracy and reliability portion of the results section didn't tally with what was on the table. Only those for the Discern scale were in tandem. Kindly look in and reassess your data.

Thank you and well done

Reviewer #2: . Abstract:

Result: Clarify the first sentence for precision. Instead of "Out of 422 patients, 37.9% of patients developed about 214 complications," consider:

"Of the 422 patients, 160 (37.9%) experienced one or more critical events, with a total of 214 complications recorded."

Conclusion: Ensure consistency. The phrase "unhealthy body weight" in the conclusion should be explicitly tied to the BMI categories used (overweight/underweight).

2. Introduction:

Flow: Improve connectivity between sentences. Use transition words (e.g., Furthermore, Consequently, However) to guide the reader through the rationale.

Citations: Verify that the statement about limited data in Africa is directly supported by the newly added references (e.g., Blaise Pascal FN et al. 2021).

3. Methods:

Ethics: The approval code R/C/S/D/357/01/18 is now included, which is good.

Clarity: The explanation for not analyzing Clavien-Dindo Grade III-V separately (sample size limitations) is acceptable but should be stated clearly in the limitations section if not already.

4. Results:

Language: Replace informal phrases. For example:

"Even though it’s not surprising..." → "As anticipated, the incidence..."

"The proportions... were nearly equal..." → "The proportions were similar across groups, ranging from 35% to 38.4%."

Narrative: When discussing Table 5 in the text, explicitly state the key findings (e.g., "Patients attended by untrained nurses had over three times the odds of experiencing a critical event (AOR=3.15...).")

5. Discussion:

Tone: Maintain an objective, scientific tone. Avoid speculative phrasing like "We couldn’t provide the possible reasons..." Instead, state: "The reason for this discrepancy is not clear from our data but may relate to differences in case mix or definitions."

Structure: When comparing studies, first state the agreement or disagreement, then provide the comparative data, and finally offer a brief, plausible reason for the difference.

6. Language & Grammar (Final Polish):

Conduct a meticulous line-by-line edit focusing on:

Article Use: Ensure correct use of "a," "an," and "the."

Prepositions: Check "in," "on," "at," "for," etc.

Subject-Verb Agreement: (e.g., "The data were analyzed").

Plurals: (e.g., "complications").

Typos: "Sever hypoxemia" → "Severe hypoxemia"; "statistically significant" (not "statically").

7. Figures & Tables:

Flowchart (Figure 1): Ensure it matches the description in the "Response to Reviewers":

Quantify excluded patients (n=11).

Place "n = 422" label next to "Patients included in the study".

Final branch clearly shows: "Patients with ≥1 critical event (n=160)" and "Patients without critical events (n=262)".

Submission Checklist:

Before final submission, verify:

The Response to Reviewers letter is complete, polite, and addresses every point raised by each reviewer and the editor.

The Data Availability Statement in the submission system is accurate.

All supporting files (dataset, checklist, ethical approval) are uploaded.

The manuscript text is the "clean" version with all track changes accepted and no comment bubbles.

Conclusion

The manuscript is in its final stages. By implementing these focused revisions for clarity, precision, and language polish, you will significantly strengthen it for publication. The study provides valuable, actionable insights for improving PACU care in similar resource-limited settings.

**********

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: Dr. Temiloluwa Adefusi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ali Afkhaminia

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Assessing the Accuracy and Educational Value of YouTube Videos on a Novel Regional Anesthesia Technique (PENG Block)

PONE-D-25-59170R1

Dear Dr. Zora,

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,

Cheong Kim

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I love that all the corrections noted have been effected. The article is easy to read and is interesting. Well done to the team.

**********

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: ADEFUSI TEMILOLUWA

**********