https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5596-5010
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionAugust 1, 2025 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Kafaiya, 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 Feb 09 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN 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. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. PLOS' guidelines require systematic reviews to be comprehensive and therefore up-to-date (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses). Specifically, we expect scoping review searches not to have been done earlier than one year before the time of submission. To this effect, please include in the Methods section the date of the most recent search of the literature review conducted for your study. Thank you for your attention to this request. 3. 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. 4. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments: In addition to addressing all reviewer comments, please ensure that all scientific names are italicized throughout the manuscript, including the abstract, main text, figures, and tables. For example, in the abstract (lines 30–39), Klebsiella pneumoniae, , , , Acinetobacter baumannii, and , and , and , and Escherichia coli should be italicized.should be italicized.should be italicized.should be italicized. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: N/A ********** 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.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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: I wish to thank editor for asking me to review this manuscript on prevalence of AMR in Tanzania. Comments General and abstract section Authors aimed to perform the systematic review and meta-analysis to present prevalence of AMR in Tanzania. Authors may clarify if they included animal and environmental AMR studies and if not why they are excluded (just to confirm). Results section Authors included ESKAPE-E bacterial organisms of which majority are multidrug resistant. All except Streptococcus spp. are intrinsically resistant to penicillin/ampicillin. These organisms are mostly acquired in healthcare settings and the most of access antibiotics from AWaRe classes are rather ineffective. They may apply to community infections. KP as intrinsically resistant to penicillin/ampicillin should be removed from analysis and the same for A. baumannii and other from the group. Klebsiella pneumoniae exhibits intrinsic resistance to ampicillin due to the presence of the SHV-1 penicillinase gene on its chromosome. The antibiotic resistome concept is predicated on the understanding that soil-dwelling environmental bacteria are producers of antimicrobial compounds. Thus, many components of the resistome must have evolved long before the use of antibiotics became clinically common. Based on knowledge about the bacteria in the group one may suggest to reanalyze data and focus on watch and reserve antibiotics and to categorize according settings. End of comments Reviewer #2: The review notes unclear objectives, limited clarity on AMR terms and AWaRe, methodological gaps, data inconsistencies, and unaddressed limitations, though it effectively synthesizes resistance trends to inform policy. Please view additional comments in the attachment. Reviewer #3: The manuscript was well written in English and followed the PRISMA guideline which ensures technicality. Below are some concerns and recommendation: Abstract 1. Please include justification for conducting the study in the abstract 2. Adjust the statement “Heterogeneity was assessed using forest plots”. A forest plot is not used to assess heterogeneity. Heterogeneity is assessed using I² statistic. 3. Is the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance defined by descriptive or meta-analysis? 4. Adjust the grammar in this statement: “Resistance to meropenem was lowest among Escherichia coli (0.04 [0.01–0.10]) and Klebsiella spp. (0.07 [0.03–0.15]), with an overall pooled 37 resistance to the ESKAPE-E pathogen of (0.11[0.06–0.19]).” 5. Specify who this recommendation is targeted at “The variability in resistance patterns underscore the need to re-evaluate empirical treatment protocols (STG/NEMLIT) to ensure effective treatment regimens, strengthening antimicrobial stewardship, enhancing surveillance systems, and promote rational antibiotic use.” Introduction 6. Line 47 – 59: Can you quantify the burden of antimicrobial resistance globally and in Tanzania, respectively? 7. Clarify the language in this statement: “This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in low- and middle-income countries, where antibiotic abuse is pervasive, infectious disease burdens are high, yet scarce healthcare resources” 8. Provide references for the statement: “A variety of factors contribute to the rising rates of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in the country, including over-prescription of antibiotics, self-medication, and inadequate regulatory frameworks for antibiotic use.” 9. What do you mean by “urgency” in line 68? 10. Line 69 -70: describe and cite what other reviews have done or did not do. Also, cite some individual studies on antimicrobial resistance in Tanzania that you referred to in this section. 11. Address the grammar in this statement: While several studies have reported resistance patterns for specific pathogens, therefore a consolidated analysis that captures the overall prevalence across the country was needed Method 12. I think the information on lines 91 – 98 should be part of your introduction 13. State what approach was used to define the research question. If you used the PICO approach, include it in your “Review procedures section.” 14. Justify why you focused only on studies across 10 years 15. In your selection criteria, is there a difference between “studies reporting on the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens” and “studies focused on antibiotic resistance” 16. Did you predefine the bacterial pathogens and antibiotics analyzed in this review? If yes, you should justify why they were selected 17. State how many reviewers conducted the quality assessment? 18. Include the statistical package you used to conduct descriptive statistics. 19. Usually, only the I² statistic is used to evaluate heterogeneity and not the forest plot. 20. What cut-off was used to determine the higher value for the I² statistic? Results 21. More specific numbers should be used instead of percentages to report on the number of studies. When using percentages, maintain consistency in reporting. Also, ensure that the papers conducted at each location are cited. 22. Line 186 – 190. You mentioned 17 antibiotics but only listed 10. You should include the other seven. You should define the criteria that were used to categorize resistance as high or low. Discussion 23. This is new; it was not mentioned in the result. Ensure that you discuss only the results presented. 24. I suggest you focus on interpreting the results rather than repeating them in the discussion section. 25. Line 306: “Reserved group.” This was not mentioned in the result. You should not bring up new terms or information in your discussion 26. You should also focus on connecting the findings of the study to the study objectives. The objectives seem lost somewhere in the discussion 27. You should provide explanations and reasons behind each finding from the study 28. “These findings are similar to the studies conducted in Iran, USA, India, and Africa (80 83), where higher resistance rates were reported, highlighting the potential regional differences in antibiotic use and resistance patterns.” Please, provide more information on these studies. 29. You may also want to add some recommendations to the discussion Conclusion 30. “Last resort” is this referring to the reserved group mentioned in the discussion section? If yes, ensure consistency in the terms used across the manuscript. Thanks Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which addresses an important public health issue in Tanzania antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the prevalence and patterns of AMR across bacterial pathogens. The topic is timely, policy-relevant, and consistent with the WHO Global AMR Surveillance System (GLASS) priorities. Overall, the manuscript has scientific value, but several areas require strengthening to meet publication standards. Below is a detailed critique structured around the scientific components of the manuscript. 1. Introduction Strengths Gives a clear general background on antimicrobial resistance and global importance. Cites authoritative sources including WHO, NFID, and global AMR estimates. Identifies ESKAPE pathogens as critical threats and connects this to clinical relevance. Areas for Improvement a. Literature Review Depth The introduction describes global and Tanzanian context but does not sufficiently review past systematic reviews or local prevalence meta-analyses. For example: EMR surveillance reports (Camara 2023, Silago 2024) are mentioned later but not integrated into the introduction. The review does not discuss earlier regional AMR systematic reviews beyond one sentence. A stronger introduction should synthesize: Regional AMR trends (East Africa 2005–2020) Tanzania’s National AMR Action Plan (2017–2022) Gaps in surveillance and empirical treatment guidelines (STG/NEMLIT) b. Clear identification of the knowledge gap The authors state that “comprehensive data remain sparse” but should articulate: What has not been synthesized previously Why a national pooled prevalence is needed now How this research will directly inform Tanzanian AMR policy c. Objective Placement and Clarity The last paragraph provides an objective (“to present a thorough overview…”) but this should be formatted as a clear study aim: “This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate pooled prevalence of antibiotic resistance among clinically relevant bacterial pathogens in Tanzania from 2014–2024 and evaluate resistance patterns across antibiotic classes using subgroup analyses.” 2. Methods Strengths Protocol registered on PROSPERO (major strength). PRISMA guidelines followed appropriately. Search terms and Boolean operators provided. Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment tools described. Meta-analysis approach with random-effects model is appropriate given expected heterogeneity. Areas for Improvement a. Search Strategy Google Scholar yielded 18,000 results. The authors should specify: how many pages were screened which filters were used what strategies were used to avoid missing key grey-literature but also avoid irrelevant hits. b. Duplicates Only 416 duplicates removed out of 18,265 – this appears unusually low. Most systematic reviews typically remove 10–30% duplicates. Authors should clarify if: deduplication was automated, inclusion was restricted by year, Google Scholar citations were sorted. c. Data Extraction A brief description is provided, but reproducibility requires more detail: Was a data extraction form piloted? How were discrepancies resolved between the two independent reviewers? Was interrater agreement (κ statistic) assessed? d. Risk of Bias Assessment The manuscript states that JBI cross-sectional appraisal tools were used. However: The results of the appraisal should be summarized in the Results section. A table (S1) is referenced but not fully interpreted or summarized in the text. e. Meta-analysis Specifics To ensure reproducibility, the authors must specify: Thresholds for heterogeneity (I² cutoff) Handling of zero-event studies Whether proportions were transformed (logit, Freeman–Tukey double arcsine) This is essential because meta-analysis of proportions is highly sensitive to transformation choice. f. Ethics Systematic reviews do not require IRB approval. However, the authors should state this explicitly: “As this study used published data only, institutional review board approval was not required.” 3. Results Strengths PRISMA flow diagram is clear and appropriate. Characteristics of included studies are well organized. Tables and figures illustrate study design, sample sources, and regional distribution. Forest plots are visually clear and appropriately formatted. Areas for Improvement a. Chronological Alignment with Objectives Results should be structured into clear subsections: Description of included studies Resistance patterns by antibiotic class Resistance patterns by pathogen Heterogeneity assessment Currently, there is overlap between description and interpretation of findings. b. Over-reporting raw proportions Many values are repeated excessively in the narrative. For a meta-analysis, the text should highlight: Most resistant pathogens Most resistant antibiotic classes Most consistent patterns across studies Any observable trend over time c. Figures and Tables Some figure numbers overlap (Fig 1 appears referenced twice). Figures S1–S14 are referenced but not described in adequate detail. d. Missing Footnotes and Abbreviation Definitions Table 1 uses acronyms (EMD, IPD, SSI, PROM) without footnotes. Standard reporting requires defining all abbreviations. 4. Discussion Strengths Adequately interprets overall findings. Connects resistance patterns to clinical relevance and treatment guidelines. Compares findings with regional and global literature. Identifies implications for empirical prescribing guidelines. Areas for Improvement a. Too Much Repetition of Results Several paragraphs simply restate the same numeric values from the Results section. The Discussion should instead emphasize: Why resistance is high Mechanisms (antibiotic misuse, OTC availability, weak stewardship, hygiene gaps) Regional differences Policy impact b. Missing Interpretation of Heterogeneity High heterogeneity (>75%) was identified in most analyses but not discussed. The authors must explain: Possible causes: variation in study designs, regions, testing methods Implications for pooled estimates c. Lack of Forward-Facing Recommendations Given Tanzania has a National AMR Action Plan, the authors should recommend: Strengthening surveillance systems Restricting OTC antibiotic access Enhancing stewardship in hospitals Improving laboratory diagnostics Updating STG/NEMLIT guidelines d. Missing Consideration of Publication Bias Even though publication bias tests for proportion meta-analysis are limited, authors should state: Why funnel plot asymmetry was not tested Limitations related to publication bias 5. Limitations This section is present but needs expansion to include: High heterogeneity across studies Overrepresentation of urban hospital data Underrepresentation of rural facilities Variation in laboratory testing standards Possible publication bias No time-trend analysis due to inconsistent reporting years 6. Conclusion Strengths Summarizes major findings. Emphasizes importance of stewardship and surveillance. Areas for Improvement Should more clearly reflect the primary objective: pooled prevalence. Should include concrete policy recommendations. Should avoid adding new information not discussed earlier. Should follow PRISMA standard: one paragraph summarizing findings, implications, and future needs. SUMMARY FOR AUTHOR To improve the manuscript for resubmission, the authors should: Expand the introduction with stronger literature review and clearer objectives. Provide a more reproducible and transparent search strategy. Clarify duplicate removal and data extraction steps. Explicitly describe meta-analysis transformations and heterogeneity interpretation. Structure the results more clearly and reduce redundancy. Strengthen the discussion with causal explanations, regional differences, policy implications, and stewardship recommendations. Add a complete limitations section. Improve clarity and grammar throughout. Provide complete data availability in supplemental files. Ensure all figures, abbreviations, and footnotes meet reporting standards. Ensure all figures are accessible or in the paper. ********** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: Yes:Olga PerovicOlga PerovicOlga PerovicOlga Perovic Reviewer #2: Yes:Uchechukwu Chiemelu, MHA, BSc., MLTUchechukwu Chiemelu, MHA, BSc., MLTUchechukwu Chiemelu, MHA, BSc., MLTUchechukwu Chiemelu, MHA, BSc., MLT Reviewer #3: Yes:Mojirade M AThedetobaMojirade M AThedetobaMojirade M AThedetobaMojirade M AThedetoba Reviewer #4: 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.] 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Kafaiya, 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 Apr 24 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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: In addition to addressing the comments from Reviewer 2, please attend to the following minor issues:
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 4. 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.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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: I take this opportunity to thank authors for addressing reviewers comments appropriately. It is clear that the current review highlights the critical rates of antimicrobial resistance among ESKAPE-E pathogens in Tanzania. I have no further comments. Reviewer #2: Reviewer Recommendation and Comments: Manuscript Number PONE-D-25-41665R1 The integration of a quality assessment tool would be best discussed after data synthesis, analysis and reporting section. Line 165-166 “Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third reviewer adjudicated.” You can also state that the methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by two reviewers using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies, and any discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Limitations: You mention heterogeneity is "likely due to differences in... antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) practices". You could specify if this refers to different guidelines, such as CLSI vs. EUCAST, as these are common sources of variation in AMR studies. Additionally, the phrase "formal assessment of publication bias was not performed due to methodological limitations" could be more specific. You might mention that standard tests (like Egger's test) are often underpowered or inappropriate for proportions/prevalence meta-analyses. Conclusion, recommendations, and policy implications: In the first sentence, there is a missing comma between "bloodstream infections" and "pneumonia”. Additionally, there is a typographical error in lines 367 and 368. Reviewer #3: Thank you for revising the manuscript. It has greatly improved, and all previous comments have been addressed. The only minor issue I noticed was with the abbreviations. Since there is a section defining abbreviations, I suggest removing the definitions from the other sections to avoid repetition. Reviewer #4: The authors should be commended for their thorough and constructive engagement with reviewer feedback. The revised manuscript demonstrates substantial improvement across all previously identified areas of concern. The statistical analysis is appropriate, transparent, and sufficiently rigorous for the study design. Key improvements since the previous round include: Explicit definition of dependent and independent variables and reference categories Clear justification for batch-level analysis and the inability to perform multilevel modelling Appropriate use of univariate and multivariable logistic regression Reporting of model diagnostics (Hosmer–Lemeshow test and AUC) Explicit discussion of collinearity, correlated predictors, and unequal seasonal sample sizes The revised interpretation of seasonal effects particularly the attenuation and direction change after adjustment is now statistically sound and carefully explained. In particular: The Methods section is now comprehensive and reproducible, with clear variable definitions, data cleaning procedures, and modelling decisions. Statistical inconsistencies identified in the previous round have been corrected, and interpretations are now aligned with the final model specification. The addition of a choropleth map appropriately complements the tabular spatial analysis and supports descriptive claims without overstating inference. The Discussion and Conclusion have been carefully revised to avoid causal language and speculative claims, with limitations clearly acknowledged and integrated. Overall, the manuscript now provides a robust, transparent, and policy-relevant epidemiological description of bovine brucellosis patterns in Mpumalanga Province and represents a valuable contribution to the literature on routine surveillance data use in endemic settings. I have no further substantive comments and support publication. ********** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: Yes:Olga PerovicOlga PerovicOlga PerovicOlga Perovic Reviewer #2: Yes:Uchechukwu ChiemeluUchechukwu ChiemeluUchechukwu ChiemeluUchechukwu Chiemelu Reviewer #3: Yes:Mojirade AdetobaMojirade AdetobaMojirade AdetobaMojirade Adetoba Reviewer #4: 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.] 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.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance in Tanzania: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis PONE-D-25-41665R2 Dear Dr. Kafaiya, 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 and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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, Mabel Kamweli Aworh, DVM, MPH, PhD. FCVSN Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-41665R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Kafaiya, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 Dr. Mabel Kamweli Aworh 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 .