Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 13;18(3):e0279048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279048

Sexually transmitted infections among key populations in India: A protocol for systematic review

Mihir Bhatta 1, Agniva Majumdar 1, Utsha Ghosh 1, Piyali Ghosh 1, Papiya Banerji 1, Santhakumar Aridoss 2, Abhisek Royal 3, Subrata Biswas 1,*, Bhumika Tumkur Venkatesh 4, Rajatsuvra Adhikary 3, Shanta Dutta 5
Editor: Addisu Melese Dagnaw6
PMCID: PMC10010531  PMID: 36913427

Abstract

Background

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are one of the leading causes of health, and economic burdens in the developing world, leading to considerable morbidity, mortality, and stigma. The incidence and prevalence of the four curable STIs viz. syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis vary remarkably across different geographical locations. In India, the prevalence of four curable STI among general populations is in between 0 to 3.9 percent. However, it is assumed that STI prevalence is much higher among subpopulations practicing high-risk behaviour. Like men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender (TG), injecting drug users (IDU), and female sex workers (FSW).

Objectives

In the present circumstances, a systematic review is necessary to integrate the available data from previously published peer-reviewed articles and published reports from several competent authorities to provide the prevalence and geographical distribution of the four curable STIs among the key population of India.

Methods

All available articles will be retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane database, Scopus, Science Direct, and the Global Health network using the appropriate search terms. The data will be extracted through data extraction form as per PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) framework. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be performed according to the situation with the help of available conventional protocol.

Discussion

The future systematic review, generated from the present protocol, may provide evidence of the prevalence and geographical distribution of the four curable STIs among the key population of India. We hope that the findings of the future systematic review will strengthen the existing surveillance system in India, to determine the above-mention STIs prevalence among key populations in India.

Protocol registration number: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number CRD42022346470.

Introduction

According to a recent estimate by World Health Organization (WHO), approximately three hundred seventy million new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur each year around the world, and almost half of the infected individuals are young in their age [1]. For the suitable planning and execution of sexually transmitted disease (STD) control strategies, a proper understanding of the patterns of STDs, prevailing at different geographic pockets is required [2]. Individuals suffering from STIs are not only susceptible to getting infected with HIV but also play an important role in the transmission of STIs and HIV to others [3, 4].

Recent research indicates synergy between bacterial STIs and HIV transmission and acquisition and in turn enhances transmission and or acquisitions of HIV among high-risk groups (HRGs) who have sex with men (MSM), transgender (TG), injecting drug users (IDU), and female sex workers (FSW) [2]. According to WHO [1], more than thirty different bacteria, viruses, and parasites are transmitted sexually. Among them, eight are selected as the prominent causal agent of sexually transmitted diseases. Between these eight, four are curable viz. syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis [5]. The other four are incurable viz. hepatitis B, herpes simplex virus (HSV or herpes), HIV, and human papillomavirus (HPV) [5]. STIs are spread through unprotected sexual contact, which includes vaginal, anal, and oral routes. Certain organisms are also transmitted through maternal lineage during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. Mother-to-child transmission of STIs has effects like stillbirth, neonatal death, low-birth weight and prematurity, sepsis, pneumonia, neonatal conjunctivitis, and congenital deformities [6]. People with STIs rarely show the symptoms of the disease. General symptoms of STIs, are abdominal pain, urethral discharge or burning in men, vaginal discharge, and genital ulcers. STIs remain a major public health challenge for people belonging to high-risk groups (for HIV) around the world [6]. During the last twenty years, the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) has undertaken the prevention of STIs as one of its key strategies in India [7]. NACO through its network of more than eleven hundred designated clinics branded as Suraksha Clinics, located mostly at the district-level government healthcare facilities provides free sexual and reproductive health services based on syndromic case management through trained counsellors, expert paramedics, and experienced medical personnel [8].

NACO is the authority for the management of STI to ensure consistency of service across all facilities, over the country. The recently released strategy document of NACP Phase-V reinforces the STI component in terms of the elimination of vertical transmission of HIV and syphilis [8]. In India, the prevalence of four curable STIs among general populations is less than four percent, but the STI burden is probably much higher among subpopulations practicing high-risk behaviour like MSM, TGs, IDU, and FSWs. There is limited literature on STI prevalence among key populations across India but of course there are still relevant studies available these data have not been integrated to depict the overall spatial and temporal trends of STI infections among various key populations [9]. In the present circumstances, a systematic review (or if possible and meta-analysis) is needed to integrate the available data from previously published peer-reviewed articles and published reports from several competent authorities [9]. The present protocol for a systematic review is set against this background and intended to include an intensive consultation with various experts, program managers, and representatives of key populations to recognize the present prevalence and geographic distribution of STIs among key populations in India. The present findings would be vital for enlightening STI status among high-risk group people and designing evidence-based strategies and programs for STI prevention in high-risk group people in India.

Objective

The objectives of the present study are as follows:

  1. Synthesize evidence on the prevalence of four curable STIs viz. syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and Trichomoniasis (caused by Treponema pallidum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) respectively) among FSW, MSM, IDU and H/TG populations in India.

  2. Perform a Systematic Review (and Meta-analysis, upon the availability of necessary data) on existing evidence of the prevalence (pooled prevalence, in case of meta-analysis) as well as the geographical distribution of four curable STIs among key populations in India from previously published articles.

Materials and methods

A study protocol is developed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [10]. The protocol is registered in the PROSPERO [11], International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the registration number CRD42022357425 [12].

Review questions

  1. What is the current prevalence of four curable sexually transmitted infections such are, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and Trichomoniasis (caused by Treponema pallidum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) respectively), among the key populations (FSW, MSM, H/TG, and IDU) in India?

  2. What is the distribution of four curable sexually transmitted infections at the different geographical locations/ representations across India?

Inclusion criteria

PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) framework is used for defining systematic review questions according to the method described by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 [13]. Any article published in peer-reviewed journals, any reports by the government or authorized and competent non-governmental agencies during the accepted timeline (i.e., January 2001 to December 2022).

Population

  1. The population belongs to the key population, which are FSW, MSM, H/TG and IDU in India (as per NACO Case definition).

  2. Adults and young people aged 18 years and over.

  3. Women, men, and transgender.

Intervention

Not relevant to this review of observational studies.

Comparison group

Not relevant to this review.

Outcome

Individual and/or cumulative pooled prevalence of four curable sexually transmitted infections are, Treponema pallidum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) among the key populations (FSW, MSM H/TG and IDU) across different geographical regions in India.

Study design

Data will be extracted through a previously prepared Data Extraction Form which includes different levels of data accumulation to obtain a general picture of four curable STIs among the key population belonging to different geographical regions in India, from previously published articles divided into cross-sectional or baseline studies on different key population or cohort studies and different state/ central government reports regarding these four curable STIs among FSW, MSM H/TG and IDU. After the completion of data extraction, data will be analysed and a cumulative report of the systematic review will be generated.

Exclusion criteria

  1. Countries other than India;

  2. Serological and syndromic studies, sampling other than these four curable STIs;

  3. The study population does not belong to FSW, MSM, H/TG, and IDU;

  4. Any article does not contain data on either/any four curable STIs among FSW, MSM, H/TG, and IDU;

  5. Articles published not within the accepted timeline;

  6. Participants aged less than 18 years;

  7. Commentaries and editorials.

Search strategies and selection process

Electronics databases

The following databases will be searched from January 2001 to December 2022 for published articles in English language. The search will be updated before initiating a statistical analysis.

  1. MEDLINE

  2. Cochrane Library

  3. Psychinfo

  4. Science Direct

  5. Scopus

  6. EMBASE

  7. Google Scholar and

  8. PUBMED

Grey literature

An extensive search will be carried out through the following reports relevant to the study.

  1. Annual reports of NACO

  2. Reports by SANKALAK (NACO)

  3. Annual reports of UNAIDS

  4. Annual reports of WHO

  5. Annual reports of UNDP

  6. Annual reports of ICMR

  7. Ganga Social Foundation

  8. West Bengal State AIDS Prevention and Control Society

  9. Tamil Nadu State AIDS Prevention Control Society

  10. Annual reports of Delhi State AIDS Control Society

  11. State reports of Kerala, Rajasthan

  12. MGVS annual report

  13. KSAPS annual report

Inclusion of studies from Grey literature will be carried out after being checked through a quality assessment tool (Axis Tool) [14].

Search terms

Search terms are provided in S1 File

Additional searches

  1. Reference lists: if retrieved publications will be include source references for potential studies about the prevalence of four curable STIs on any members of the Key population, the originals will be retrieved;

  2. Experts in the field will be contacted to ask if they know of any additional publications, which will not be identified by the search strategy.

De-duplication

  1. Mendeley [15], a bibliographic application will be used for reference management.

  2. The following rules will be used to remove duplicate hits from the database

  3. Title, or various combinations of the author, year, secondary title, volume, issue, and pages will be compared through the ‘de-duplication’ process

  4. The full records of suspected duplicates will be compared visually

  5. Duplicate entries will be saved in a separate MS Word file

Selection of eligible studies

Titles and abstracts of articles selected through the search strategy will be screened by two reviewers independently, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any article selected as being probably qualified will be taken for the full text review. Where no abstract will be available electronically, and eligibility could not be judged from the title alone, the full text of the article will be retrieved and screened. The abstracts of articles identified through additional searches will be reviewed in the same manner as those identified through database searches. Data will be extracted by data extraction form.

Strategy for data synthesis

The data will be extracted from full-text published articles according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). With the help of Epi Info—(Ver. 6.0) generated modified data extraction form [16].

Assessment of the methodological quality

Evaluation of articles through name, abstract, and entire text of the selected articles will be performed prior to the addition of it in the ultimate analysis. Assessment will be performed with the help of a modified Newcastle—Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale [17].

Publication bias analysis

To evaluate publication bias Egger’s [18] and Begg and Mazumdar’s [19] assessments will be used along with the Funnel diagram.

Descriptive analysis

The prevalence (pooled prevalence in case of meta-analysis) estimation will be done from each study on above mentioned four curable sexually transmitted infections among the key populations in India.

Strength and limitations of the study

Like any systematic review, the present study will also be restricted by the comprehensiveness of the published articles and whether workers published their study in open accessed and peer-reviewed journals as well as available reports from various agencies. Moreover, future included articles that will be included as per the current protocol may have to contain surveys that accumulate biological data leaving an approach for further studies.

Expected outcomes

The future systematic review, which will be generated from the present protocol, may provide evidence on the current prevalence (pooled prevalence in case of meta-analysis) and present geographical distribution of four curable STIs viz. Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, and Trichomoniasis among key populations in India.

Discussions

The future systematic review, which will be generated from the present protocol, may provide evidence of the prevalence and geographical distribution of the four curable STIs among the key population of India. The findings of the future systematic review will strengthen the existing surveillance system under NACP-V (fifth phase of National AIDS Control Programme under the supervision of NACO, Government of India. This phase is renamed as National AIDS & STI Control Programme), to determine the above-mentioned STIs prevalence among key populations in India. The present protocol might be handy to conduct a systemic review of the prevalence and geographical distribution of the four above-mentioned bacterial STIs among the general population in India.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.

(PDF)

S1 File. Search terms and strategy.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Data extraction form.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

Fund for this research is provided by WHO-India (Reg. No. 2022/1250989). Moreover, the funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance, World Health Organization. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO. A tool for strengthening STI surveillance at the country level, World Health Organization. World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.WHO. Baseline report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance 2012, World Health Organization. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. Global progress report on HIV, viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections, 2021: accountability for the global health sector strategies 2016–2021: actions for impact: web annex 2: data methods, World Health Organization. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Newman L, Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Wijesooriya NS, Unemo M, Low N, et al. Global estimates of the prevalence and incidence of four curable sexually transmitted infections in 2012 based on systematic review and global reporting. PloS one. 2015; 10(12):e0143304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Korenromp E, Low N, Unemo M, Abu-Raddad LJ, et al. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2019; 97(8):548–562P. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.228486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Haldar P, Morineau G, Das A, Mehendale S, et al. A surveillance model for sexually transmitted infections in India. Indian journal of public health. 2015; 59(4):286. doi: 10.4103/0019-557X.169658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.NACO. Country scenario during NACP-IV, National AIDS Control Organisation, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare: New Delhi. National AIDS Control Organisation, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare: New Delhi; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sexton J, Garnett G, Røttingen JA. Metaanalysis and metaregression in interpreting study variability in the impact of sexually transmitted diseases on susceptibility to HIV infection. Sexually transmitted diseases. 2005; p. 351–357. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000154504.54686.d1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj. 2015; 349. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schiavo JH. PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols. Medical reference services quarterly. 2019; 38(2):171–180. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1588072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bhatta M, et al. PROSPERO registrar protocol on Systematic Review of Sexually Transmitted Infections among Key Populations in India. ID CRD42022357425; 2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Higgins J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Welch V. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 In. London: Cochrane. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ open. 2016; 6(12):e011458. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zahedi Z, Costas R, Wouters P. Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2017; 68(10):2511–2521. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Camp B, Mandivarapu JK, Ramamurthy N, Wingo J, Bourgeois AG, Cao X, et al. A new cross-platform architecture for epi-info software suite. BMC bioinformatics. 2018; 19(11):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12859-018-2334-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Luchini C, Stubbs B, Solmi M, Veronese N. Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: Advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. World J Meta-Anal. 2017; 5(4):80–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997; 315(7109):629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994; p. 1088–1101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Addisu Melese Dagnaw

7 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-31768

Sexually Transmitted Infections among Key Populations in India: A Protocol for Systematic Review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Biswas,

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 24 2023 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,

Addisu Melese Dagnaw, MSc

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "Fund for this research is provided by WHO-India (Reg. No. 2022/1250989)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This protocol is well written, with a clear objective to get a better insight in the prevalence of four major sexually transmitted infections in India. I have only some minor comments to further improve the manuscript.

Minor comments and editorials

Introduction

-In line 9 is mentioned that ‘almost half of them are much younger of age’. This is not comprehensive. Half of what? Younger than who? Please clarify and adjust this sentence.

-Line 14: In this line STIs and HIV is written. Hiv infection actually is an STI. Please adjust.

-Line 29: please remove the comma between ‘STIs’ and ‘are’.

-Line 44: Please add ‘probably’ before ‘much higher’, since the STI prevalences are the subject of this study.

-Line 45: It is mentioned that ‘there is limited literature’ which is indeed why this review will be performed, but of course there are still relevant studies available. It would be good to already refer to some major studies here.

-In line 48 reference 9 is given. It suggests that this will refer to key populations in India but that is not the case in ref 9. Please adjust.

Objective

-Line 61: please add ‘the’ before ‘present’.

-Line 70: Please remove the hard return.

Methods

-Lines 147-154: please consider to add a ‘snowballing strategy’ (=use references within references)

-Line 181: please rewrite to ‘will be included’

Strengths and limitations

-Line 233-234: ‘moreover, future included…’: this sentence is not comprehensive; please rewrite.

Conclusions

-Line 243: Actually there are no conclusions yet. Maybe rename this paragraph ‘Discussion’? Also in the abstract?

-Line 248: ‘NACP’ should probably be ‘NACO’?

-Line 250: Please adjust to ‘systematic’

Reviewer #2: 1. Methodology

i. This review may include studies that use different methods for diagnosing STIs, such as the Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) – the gold standard test for N. gonorrhea, C. trachomatis, and T. vaginalis – as well as those that rely on clinical examination instead of laboratory investigations.

What strategy will be utilized for this issue (as it will have an impact on the pooled prevalence; varying sensitivity specificity of diagnosis methods)? This must be mentioned in the method section.

ii. Is there any operational definition for the 'geographical region' mentioned in the protocol? This may be clearly stated as it is not clear how the data will be pooled/analyzed/presented in later stages. e. g. Does the geographical region mean physical divisions of Indian Geography ? or state-wise division or zone-wise?

iii. Though from the protocol it appears that authors will be considering only observational designs, it makes it more convenient for all readers if the types of study designs, to be included, are mentioned clearly at the outset.

2. Data extraction:

Suggestion: i. You may consider enumerating a few details of the extraction form. Some of them may be sample size, setting, urban/rural, duration of the study, completeness of follow-up, enumeration of variables that are adjusted in the included study, and other factors that may influence the validity of the results. Also, administrative details like: study author, year, place, published/unpublished status

3. Data analysis:

i. The software to be used doing the meta-analysis (Individual and/or cumulative pooled prevalence )may be mentioned.

ii. Suggestion: Consideration for subgroup analysis e.g. based on categories chosen: MSM, TGs, IV drug users, and FSWs; Based on the state's population and size; per capita. income; state categorization based on the health index (NITI Aayog)

iii. Few details on how the assessment of heterogeneity will be done needs to mentioned.

iv. Do the authors plan to conduct sensitivity analyses in cases of substantial heterogeneity?

v. How the missing data will be dealt?

4. Abstract of the protocol:

i. There is literature from India substantiating the high STI prevalence among the sub-population considered for this review ( e.g. Syphilis prevalence, was reported to be 13% among MSM in Mumbai in a study published in 2009) hence assuming word in the abstract i.e., "assumed that STI prevalence is much higher among subpopulations practicing high-risk behavior", may be modified.

ii. Please specify the tools to be used for risk of bias, and quality assessment mentioned in the abstract. Please clarify the role of the Funnel plot.

iii. The authors have taken on an intriguing topic for this review, however, their abstract conclusion is not adequately supported. Therefore, the conclusion may be rephrased in a manner that emphasizes and highlights the unique contributions that this review makes to the existing body of literature.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. Overall, this protocol requires a major revision before it could be submitted for the consideration. This will also require an English editing before resubmission.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

- Background could be shortened.

- For objective, recommend to only include the main objective of the study rather than providing the rationale behind it, which could be part of a background section.

-Need to elaborate the methods section. What would be the inclusion criteria for the selection of articles (e.g., time period, language etc.)? What key words will be used?

Introduction:

- Page 2, Line 8: How is the information on young age relevant to the context of this study?

-Page 2, Line 13 and 16: Spell out the abbreviations when using for the first time in the text.

- Page 2, Line 30: Needs citation.

- Needs more concrete rationale/justification for the conduct of this systematic review.

- Objective could be included in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

- Objective A: Isn't synthesis part of a systematic review? In systematic review, we synthesize study findings from the relevant articles.

Materials and Methods:

- Requires overall revision of this section.

- Page 3, Line 75: Authors have specified "A study protocol (published)". This indicates that the protocol is already published. If it's already published, why is there a need of publishing the protocol again?

- What geographical divisions will be sued by the authors?

- Page 3, Line 97: What's the reason behind selecting the given timeline is not clear.

- Authors should consider writing methods section in paragraph rather than in bullet points.

- Strengths and limitations section needs to be more developed as well as paraphrased.

**********

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: Sylvia M. Bruisten

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Ranadip Chowdhury, Dr. Barsha Pathak

Reviewer #3: 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 13;18(3):e0279048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279048.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Feb 2023

Reviewer #1:

This protocol is well written, with a clear objective to get a better insight in the prevalence of four major sexually transmitted infections in India. I have only some minor comments to further improve the manuscript.

Minor comments and editorials

Introduction

In line 9 is mentioned that ‘almost half of them are much younger of age’. This is not comprehensive. Half of what? Younger than who? Please clarify and adjust this sentence.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Line 14: In this line STIs and HIV is written. HIV infection actually is an STI. Please adjust.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Line 29: please remove the comma between ‘STIs’ and ‘are’.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Line 44: Please add ‘probably’ before ‘much higher’, since the STI prevalence are the subject of this study.-Line 45: It is mentioned that ‘there is limited literature’ which is indeed why this review will be performed, but of course there are still relevant studies available. It would be good to already refer to some major studies here.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

In line 48 reference 9 is given. It suggests that this will refer to key populations in India but that is not the case in ref 9. Please adjust.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Objective

Line 61: please add ‘the’ before ‘present’

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Line 70: Please remove the hard return.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Methods

Lines 147-154: please consider to add a ‘snowballing strategy’ (=use references within references)

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Line 181: please rewrite to ‘will be included’

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Strengths and limitations

Line 233-234: ‘moreover, future included…’: this sentence is not comprehensive; please rewrite.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Conclusions

Line 243: Actually there are no conclusions yet. Maybe rename this paragraph ‘Discussion’? Also in the abstract?

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Line 248: ‘NACP’ should probably be ‘NACO’?

Authors’ reply: NACP is the National AIDS Control Programme under NACO (National AIDS Control Organisation), Government of India. At present phase-V is going on which is renamed as National AIDS & STI Control Programme.

Line 250: Please adjust to ‘systematic

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this, and rephrased the requisite statement accordingly. Please, have a look on the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

1. Methodology

i. This review may include studies that use different methods for diagnosing STIs, such as the Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) – the gold standard test for N. gonorrhea, C. trachomatis, and T. vaginalis – as well as those that rely on clinical examination instead of laboratory investigations.

Authors’ reply: Authors are fully agreed with the reviewer about this fact also like to mention that this is a Review protocol not the review itself, when we will able to perform the Systematic Review, we will include all the diagnostic methods performed along with Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT).

What strategy will be utilized for this issue (as it will have an impact on the pooled prevalence; varying sensitivity specificity of diagnosis methods)? This must be mentioned in the method section.

Authors’ reply: As of now we only can think about the systematic review, if the situation comes in such a way that favours us in performing Meta-analysis, then we can think about doing the pooled prevalence

ii. Is there any operational definition for the 'geographical region' mentioned in the protocol? This may be clearly stated as it is not clear how the data will be pooled/analyzed/presented in later stages. e.g. Does the geographical region mean physical divisions of Indian Geography? Or state-wise division or zone-wise?

Authors’ reply: Here, 'geographical region' is nothing but the zone-wise division of Indian political territory.

iii. Though from the protocol it appears that authors will be considering only observational designs, it makes it more convenient for all readers if the types of study designs, to be included, are mentioned clearly at the outset.

Authors’ reply: Here we like to add that we are not considering observational designs only, rather we like to add all the types of study designs (as available). Reviewer is requested to kindly go through the Data Extraction Form, please.

2. Data extraction:

Suggestion: i. You may consider enumerating a few details of the extraction form. Some of them may be sample size, setting, urban/rural, duration of the study, completeness of follow-up, enumeration of variables that are adjusted in the included study, and other factors that may influence the validity of the results. Also, administrative details like: study author, year, place, published/unpublished status

Authors’ reply: Thanks for you kind suggestion. We had included every point of your concern in the Data Extraction Form.

Reviewer is requested to kindly go through the Data Extraction Form, please.

3. Data analysis:

i. The software to be used doing the meta-analysis (Individual and/or cumulative pooled prevalence) may be mentioned.

Authors’ reply: Authors are fully agreed with the reviewer about this fact also like to mention that this is a Review protocol not the review itself. As of now we only can think about the systematic review, if the situation comes in such a way that favours us in performing Meta-analysis, then we will use STATA 13.0 (we usually use STATA for analysis Funnel and Forest plot preparation along with Zotero and web portal like rayyan.ai for study data management).

ii. Suggestion: Consideration for subgroup analysis e.g. based on categories chosen: MSM, TGs, IV drug users, and FSWs; Based on the state's population and size; per capita. Income; state categorization based on the health index (NITI Aayog).

iii. Few details on how the assessment of heterogeneity will be done needs to mention.

iv. Do the authors plan to conduct sensitivity analyses in cases of substantial heterogeneity?

v. How the missing data will be dealt?

Authors’ reply: Authors are fully agreed with the reviewer about this fact also like to mention that this is a Review protocol not the review itself. As of now we only can think about the systematic review, if the situation comes in such a way that favours us in performing Meta-analysis, then we will perform subgroup analysis, assess heterogeneity. We also have a definite plan to conduct sensitivity analyses in cases of there is substantial heterogeneity. Moreover, we will deal with missing data with conventional protocol.

4. Abstract of the protocol:

i. There is literature from India substantiating the high STI prevalence among the sub-population considered for this review (e.g. Syphilis prevalence, was reported to be 13% among MSM in Mumbai in a study published in 2009) hence assuming word in the abstract i.e.," assumed that STI prevalence is much higher among subpopulations practicing high-risk behavior", may be modified.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this and modified the sentence accordingly.

ii. Please specify the tools to be used for risk of bias, and quality assessment mentioned in the abstract. Please clarify the role of the Funnel plot.

Authors’ reply: Authors fully agreed with the reviewer about this and reframed the sentence as “Risk of bias and quality assessment will be performed according to the situation with the help of available conventional protocol”.

iii. The authors have taken on an intriguing topic for this review, however, their abstract conclusion is not adequately supported. Therefore, the conclusion may be rephrased in a manner that emphasizes and highlights the unique contributions that this review makes to the existing body of literature.

Authors’ reply: Agreed with the reviewer suggestion we omitted the section Conclusion and rewrite the section as “Discussion: The future systematic review, generated from the present protocol, may provide evidence of the prevalence and geographical distribution of the four curable STIs among the key population of India. We hope that the findings of the future systematic review will strengthen the existing surveillance system in India, to determine the above-mention STIs prevalence among key populations in India”.

Reviewer #3:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. Overall, this protocol requires a major revision before it could be submitted for the consideration. This will also require an English editing before resubmission.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

Background could be shortened.

For objective, recommend to only include the main objective of the study rather than providing the rationale behind it, which could be part of a background section.

Need to elaborate the methods section. What would be the inclusion criteria for the selection of articles (e.g., time period, language etc.)? What key words will be used?

Authors’ response:

Background section is justified the present scenario as well as the rationale behind the present work.

For objective no rational is given.

We like to elaborate the method section but it is already so large (from line no 80 -256). For inclusion and exclusion criteria Reviewer is requested to go through the text from line no. 97-147. For key words Reviewer is requested to vie the search terms.

Introduction:

Page 2, Line 8: How is the information on young age relevant to the context of this study?

Authors’ response: people representing the young age group are the backbone of a society/ country. If the prevalence of STI is more among young people it will be a major threat to the steady and continuous growth of a nation.

Page 2, Line 13 and 16: Spell out the abbreviations when using for the first time in the text.

Authors’ response: when using first time in text all the abbreviations with their full form are mentioned accordingly.

Page 2, Line 30: Needs citation.

Needs more concrete rationale/justification for the conduct of this systematic review.

Objective could be included in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

Authors’ response: Citation is already mentioned as follows

6. Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Korenromp E, Low N, Unemo M, Abu-Raddad LJ, et al. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2019;97(8):548–562P.

Objective A: Isn't synthesis part of a systematic review? In systematic review, we synthesize study findings from the relevant articles.

Authors’ response: Agreed with the reviewer comments. But this is a Review protocol not the Systematic Review itself. When we will perform the Systematic Review, such objective will be mentioned as per the conventional protocol.

Materials and Methods:

Page 3, Line 75: Authors have specified "A study protocol (published)". This indicates that the protocol is already published. If it's already published, why is there a need of publishing the protocol again?

Authors’ response`: Agreed with the reviewer’s comments. Those statements were rephrased as follows

“A study protocol is developed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [10]. The protocol is registered in the PROSPERO [11], International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the registration number CRD42022357425 [12]”.

What geographical divisions will be sued by the authors?

Authors’ response: Here, 'geographical region' is nothing but the zone-wise division of Indian political territory.

Page 3, Line 97: What's the reason behind selecting the given timeline is not clear.

Authors’ response: In India, there was little work done before 2001. But, being more inclusive rather than exclusive, we like to add all the available relevant work in the present study.

Authors should consider writing methods section in paragraph rather than in bullet points. Strengths and limitations section needs to be more developed as well as paraphrased.

Authors’ response`: Agreed with the reviewer’s comments, we like to mention that we can happily do the task, recommended by the Reviewer. But we are here compelled to follow the conventional way of protocol writing.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer rebutal.docx

Decision Letter 1

Addisu Melese Dagnaw

22 Feb 2023

Sexually Transmitted Infections among Key Populations in India: A Protocol for Systematic Review

PONE-D-22-31768R1

Dear Dr. Biswas,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Addisu Melese Dagnaw, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments were answered to satisfaction and the paper is now acceptable for publication.

Please still check all grammar carefully. For example, 'Discussion' not 'discussions'. The results of the systematic review will be interesting.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all comments adequately. I have no further comments. The manuscript can be accepted.

**********

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: Sylvia Bruisten

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ranadip Chowdhury

**********

Acceptance letter

Addisu Melese Dagnaw

3 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-31768R1

Sexually Transmitted Infections among Key Populations in India: A Protocol for Systematic Review

Dear Dr. Biswas:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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

Mr. Addisu Melese Dagnaw

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.

    (PDF)

    S1 File. Search terms and strategy.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Data extraction form.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer rebutal.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES