PONE-D-23-27828Vowel onset measures and their reliability, sensitivity and specificity: A systematic literature reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chacon,

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 02 2024 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,

Antonino Maniaci

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: 

Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"Contributions by Michael Döllinger were supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant no. DO1247/8-2. Contributions by Tomás Arias-Vergara were supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant no. SCHU3441/3-2. Contributions by Antonia Margarita Chacon and Duy Duong Nguyen were supported by the Doctor Liang Voice Program at The University of Sydney."

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: 

"Contributions by MD were supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant no. DO1247/8-2. Contributions by TA were supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant no. SCHU3441/3-2. Contributions by AC and DN were supported by the Doctor Liang Voice Program at The University of Sydney. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, nor preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have referenced (ie. unpublished dissertations/works) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 3, 5 and 6 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as 'Supporting Information' with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

7. 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:

Dear authors, perform minor revisions required.

Bests

[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: 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 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: Well written manuscript. Well done to all authors. I would just like to highlight minor comments.

Methods

Line 118- I would suggest to put MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID

Study population characteristics

Line 204- I would suggest putting these summarized details in a table 1, it would be easier to read. Don’t have to repeat them in text.

Line 518- above mentioned.

Supplement materials

Please include search strategy for all the databases.

Reviewer #2: Abstract

- Purpose: To systematically review validity of vowel onset measures for clinical voice assessment.

- Methods: Electronic databases searched for studies measuring vowel onset using >1 instrument. Data extracted on measures, reliability, sensitivity, specificity.

- Results: 35 studies covered 5 measurement categories; 39 measures identified. Measures showed low-to-moderate reliability; sensitivity rarely assessed.

- Conclusions: Heterogeneity in populations and methods preclude conclusions on most valid measures. Standardization of research methodology is needed.

Introduction

- Note prevalence of voice disorders and importance of early/accurate diagnosis

- Outline current clinical assessment methods and limitations (perceptual only)

- Define voice onset and importance in assessment/treatment monitoring

- Highlight variability in instrumental onset measures used across studies

- State importance of establishing valid clinical measures for standardized assessment

- Explicitly state research questions:

- What vowel onset measures have been used instrumentally?

- What is the evidence for their reliability, sensitivity and specificity?

- Hypothesize most effective measures will demonstrate high reliability, sensitivity, specificity

- Aim to inform standardized assessment by identifying valid instrumental onset measures

Methods

- Specify retrospective systematic review design

- Provide inclusion/exclusion criteria in detail

- Describe all information sources and search strategy used

- Explain screening, data extraction and analysis processes

- Detail all variables/data extracted from studies

- Describe approach to risk of bias/quality assessment

- State programs/statistical analyses used

Results

- Report study selection details quantitatively in PRISMA flow diagram

- Provide characteristics of included studies as evidence tables

- Categorize measures used and define each clearly

- Present findings for each measurement category separately:

- Report measures used, populations, reliability, etc. numerically

- Include relevant tables/figures to organize data

- Note any similarities/differences between categories

- Acknowledge limitations like heterogeneity between studies

Discussion

- Compare findings to other reviews on this topic and highlight novel insights

- Critically discuss sources of heterogeneity between studies (measures, populations, etc.)

- Analyze how heterogeneity limits interpretation and generalizability

- Explore possible reasons for low/variable reliability reported

- Address lack of sensitivity/specificity analyses between studies

- Relate findings to current clinical practices and limitations

- Recommend standardized measurement criteria/protocols for future research

- Suggest priorities for future studies based on gaps identified

- E.g. Validating individual measures, diverse populations/disorders, automation

- Discuss implications of findings for voice assessment standardization

- Conclude by emphasizing need for high-quality data before recommending measures

- Acknowledge limitations like excluding non-English sources

- Consider strengths like comprehensive search and inclusion of gray literature

**********

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: Yes: Salvatore

**********

[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.

Vowel onset measures and their reliability, sensitivity and specificity: A systematic literature review

PONE-D-23-27828R1

Dear Dr. Chacon,

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,

Li-Hsin Ning

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Both research ethics and publication ethics are essential for maintaining the integrity of the scientific community and ensuring that research findings are reliable, trustworthy, and accountable. They provide a framework for researchers, institutions, and publishers to uphold ethical standards and promote responsible conduct in research and scholarly publishing. Violations of research ethics and publication ethics can have serious consequences, including damage to reputation, loss of trust, and potential harm to individuals or the scientific community as a whole.

**********

7. 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: Yes: RANITA HISHAM SHUNMUGAM

Reviewer #2: Yes: Salvatore Lavalle

**********