Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 20;18(3):e0283185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283185

The efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia: Protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Xinxing Fei 1,, Shiqi Wang 2,3,, Jiyang Li 4, Jianxiong Wang 4, Yaqian Gao 5,*, Yue Hu 4,*
Editor: Vincenzo De Luca6
PMCID: PMC10027216  PMID: 36940201

Abstract

Background

Schizophrenia is a chronic persistent disease with high recurrence rate and high disability rate in the field of psychiatry. Sodium nitroprusside is a nitric oxide (NO) donor and considered a promising new compound for the treatment of schizophrenia. New high-quality clinical trials of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia have been published in recent years. It is necessary to re-conduct the meta-analysis after the inclusion of these new clinical trials. Our study will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relevant literature in this field, so as to lay an evidence-based medicine foundation for the efficacy of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Methods and analysis

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia were searched through English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and Chinese databases (China Biology Medicine disc, VIP, WanFang Data, and CNKI). The extracted data will be inputted into Review Manager 5.3 for Meta-analysis. The included literature will be assessed for bias risk according to the bias risk assessment tools in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Funnel plots will be used to assess possible publication bias. Heterogeneity is tested by I2 and χ2 tests, and the existence of heterogeneity is defined as I2 ≥50% and P ≤0.1. If heterogeneity exists, the random-effect model will be used, and sensitivity analysis or subgroup analysis will be performed to further determine the source of heterogeneity.

Prospero registration number

CRD42022341681.

Introduction

Schizophrenia is a chronic persistent disease with high recurrence rate and high disability rate in the field of psychiatry [1], which is often accompanied by cognitive impairment and severe social function defects [2]. According to the World Health Organization (https://www.who.int/zh/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders), schizophrenia affects about 20 million people worldwide [3]. The average prevalence rates in Europe, America and Southeast Asia are 5.0 ‰, 4.2 ‰ and 3.7 ‰, respectively [4]. In China, epidemiological surveys in some provinces and cities show that the prevalence rate of schizophrenia has exceeded 5.0 ‰ [5]. In addition, the prevalence rate in areas with high economic development level is higher than that in areas with relatively backward economy [6]. More importantly, the burden of mental illness continues to increase in all countries around the world, which will further increase the social and economic family burden and have negative consequences for the health of individuals [7, 8].

The pathogenic mechanism of schizophrenia is not completely clear. Abnormal neurodevelopment mediated by genetic susceptibility, neurobiochemical factors and social environmental factors may lead to the occurrence of schizophrenia [9, 10]. Abnormal nitric oxide (NO) and glutamate signaling are involved in the onset of mental illness [11]. Patients with schizophrenia not only have N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) dysfunction, but also change the expression levels of NO metabolites and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) in body fluid [12, 13]. Therefore, targeted regulation of NMDA/NO/cGMP pathway may be one of the strategies for treating schizophrenia [14, 15].

Since schizophrenia is a group of syndromes that includes multiple symptoms and dysfunction, treatment of the disorder is difficult [16]. Although antipsychotic drugs can control patients’ mental symptoms, they are relatively poor in the treatment of negative symptoms and cognitive impairment [2]. Thus, new drugs with high efficiency and safety need to be urgently developed [17]. Sodium nitroprusside is an emergency antihypertensive drug commonly used in clinic [18]. So far, sodium nitroprusside is being studied as a potential antipsychotic [19]. Sodium nitroprusside has been shown to be a NO donor and is considered a promising new compound for the treatment of schizophrenia [19]. Sodium nitroprusside could change DMDAR activity and increase cGMP expression level. It has been found that sodium nitroprusside can alleviate cognitive and memory deficits and social withdrawal induced by the ketamine (a NMDA receptor antagonist) in rats [20, 21]. More importantly, a clinical trial suggested that the symptoms of acute schizophrenia could be improved rapidly after intravenous injection of sodium nitroprusside [22].

Many clinical trials of sodium nitroprusside and schizophrenia have been published. However, the reports on its effectiveness are not uniform. We previously conducted a meta-analysis of the efficacy of intravenous sodium nitroprusside in schizophrenia and reached a negative conclusion [23]. New high-quality clinical trials of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia have been published in recent years [2426]. Since sodium nitroprusside does have the potential to treat schizophrenia, it is necessary to re-conduct the meta-analysis after the inclusion of these new clinical trials. This study will search the relevant clinical trials in this field, and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, so as to lay an evidence-based medicine foundation for the efficacy of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Methods and analysis

Study registration

The protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO), registration number CRD42022341681, and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement guidelines (S1 Checklist).

Patient and public involvement

No patient or public participation in this study, so no ethical approval was required to conduct this study.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

Studies that meet the following conditions will be included in the study: (1) patients diagnosed with schizophrenia by "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" or "International Classification of Diseases" without restriction on their race, nationality, sex, and course of disease; (2) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia published in Chinese or English. (3) the intervention group was treated with sodium nitroprusside, while the control group was treated with normal saline or other treatment methods. Except not using sodium nitroprusside, the other intervention measures of the two groups were consistent as far as possible.

Exclusion criteria

The following studies will be excluded: (1) languages other than Chinese and English; (2) full text of the trial is not available; (3) the details in the table or figure are still not available by contacting the corresponding authors via e-mail; (4) lack of outcome measures; (5) abstracts, reviews, protocols, case reports or basic researches.

Intervention/Control

The intervention group was treated with sodium nitroprusside, while the control group was treated with normal saline or other treatment methods. Except not using sodium nitroprusside, the other intervention measures of the two groups were consistent as far as possible.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures are positive and negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), including PANSS positive Scale, PANSS Negative Scale, PANSS General psychopathology Scale, and 18-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-18). Besides, the description and evaluation of adverse reactions will be recorded.

Search methods for identification of studies

RCTs of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia will be searched through English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and Chinese databases (China Biology Medicine disc, VIP, WanFang Data, and CNKI). The method of "subject words + free words" will be used for searching, and the search words will mainly include: "schizophrenia," "sodium nitroprusside," and "nitroprusside." We will make reasonable adjustments according to different databases. The search strategy taking PubMed as an example is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Search strategy for PubMed.

Number Search items
#1 Schizophrenia [Mesh] OR Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders [Mesh] OR Schizophrenia, Paranoid [Mesh] OR Schizophrenia, Disorganized [Mesh] OR Schizophrenia, Childhood [Mesh] OR Schizophrenia, Catatonic [Mesh]
#2 schizophrenia OR schizo OR schizoid OR schizophrenic OR schizophreniac
#3 #1 OR #2
#4 Nitroprusside [Mesh] OR sodium nitroprusside adenine complex [Supplementary Concept]
#5 sodium nitroprusside OR nitroprusside
#6 #4 OR # 5
#7 #3 AND #6

Study selection and data extraction

Endnote X9 will be used to manage the searched articles, and the duplicate articles searched from each database will be deleted. Two researchers (XF and SW) will separately screen the literature and extract data in full accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. If there is disagreement, a third researcher will intervene (JL) and reach a conclusion after discussion. The flow chart will be drawn according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (http://www.prisma-statement.org/), as shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing the study selection process.

Fig 1

The steps of literature screening and data extraction will be completed through the following three steps: (1) preliminary screening: browse the literature title and abstract, and exclude the irrelevant literature. (2) reading the full text: read the contents of the literature carefully and judge whether the literature meets the standard. (3) data extraction: the extraction contents are research title, authors, publication time, baseline and terminal characteristics, intervention methods, and follow-up time.

When there is no data in the literature, the data is obtained by contacting the first author or the correspondending author. If the data is still not available, the researchers will try using the GetData Graph Digitizer software (Australia) to extract the data. We will use the Excel spreadsheet to record the information of eligible articles, and all eligible studies will be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

Assessment of risk of bias

The included literature will be assessed for bias risk according to the bias risk assessment tools in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [27], including randomized methods, double-blind Settings, concealment protocols, selective reporting, data integrity, and other sources of bias. Two independent researchers (XF and SW) would conduct the assessment, and in case of disagreement, the third researcher (JL) would analyze the data extracted by both sides to find out the root cause of the data contradiction and draw a unified conclusion. In addition, funnel plots will be used to assess possible publication bias if at least 10 studies are included in the outcome indicator analysis.

Data synthesis

The extracted data will be inputted into Review Manager 5.3 for Meta-analysis, and the test level is α(bilateral) = 0.05. The mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) will be used as the effect size of the outcome measure depending on the synthesis of results. Heterogeneity is tested by I2 and χ2 tests, and the existence of heterogeneity is defined as I2 ≥50% and P ≤0.1. The random-effect model treats the regression coefficients of fixed effects models as random variables. When there is heterogeneity after the synthesis of various studies, the random-effect model can meet the requirements of the weighted average of multiple different population parameters of the combined effect value of meta-analysis [28, 29]. Moreover, sensitivity analysis or subgroup analysis will be performed to further determine the source of heterogeneity.

Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis

On the premise of a sufficient number of studies, the subgroup analysis will be performed according to the type of schizophrenia, duration of disease, and age to explore the impact of these factors on prognosis. In addition, sensitivity analysis will be performed for the effects of studies of low quality, particularly heavy weights, or results that differed from other studies.

Discussion

Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that has a profound impact on individuals, families, and society [30]. Patients with schizophrenia have reduced cardiopulmonary function and muscle strength, and are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia [31]. Therefore, alleviating the increasing burden of schizophrenia and other mental diseases is an important research direction in the field of psychiatry.

Although the classical theory of dopamine neurotransmission is still being explored, recent evidence suggests that there are other abnormal factors in schizophrenia, including viral infection, cellular immune response, and dysregulation of glutamate nitric oxide cyclic guanosine phosphate network [32, 33]. The blockage of NMDAR in patients with schizophrenia can lead to a decrease in NO production, resulting in a decrease in cGMP levels [33]. Sodium nitroprusside is a rapid, reliable, and easy-to-adjust antihypertensive drug, which can release NO and directly dilate arterioles and veins [34]. Thus, sodium nitroprusside has become a potential therapeutic drug in the treatment of schizophrenia.

In terms of molecular mechanism, a reasonable explanation is that sodium nitroprusside can regulate the NMDA/NO/cGMP pathway. Sodium nitroprusside can eliminate the behavioral effect of phencyclidine, an antagonist of glutamate NMDAR, which indirectly indicates that sodium nitroprusside may have the potential to treat mental disorders [35, 36]. However, the antipsychotic effect of SNP was initially observed and proposed in clinic [22]. In recent years, new high-quality trials on sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia have been published, which may lead to changes in the results of the previous meta-analysis.

Therefore, we believe it is necessary to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing high-quality RCTs provide a basis for clinical decision-making. This protocol describes the specific steps and methods of the updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings will reveal the efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study will provide new ideas for the drug treatment of schizophrenia. If positive results are obtained, it is very likely to optimize the existing drug treatment strategy. More importantly, medical staff can choose better treatment methods in clinical practice according to the findings of this study.

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*.

(DOC)

Abbreviations

cGMP

cyclic guanosine monophosphate

NMDAR

N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor

NO

nitric oxide

RCTs

Randomized controlled trials

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

This work was supported by School-level scientific research project of Southwest Medical University (Grant Number: 2021ZKQN042). The funder had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Picchioni MM, Murray RM. Schizophrenia. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2007;335(7610):91–5. [published Online First: 2007/07/14] doi: 10.1136/bmj.39227.616447.BE [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Saleem A, Qurat Ul A, Akhtar MF. Alternative Therapy of Psychosis: Potential Phytochemicals and Drug Targets in the Management of Schizophrenia. Frontiers in pharmacology 2022;13:895668. [published Online First: 2022/06/04] doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.895668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cummings NE, Williams EM, Kasza I, et al. Restoration of metabolic health by decreased consumption of branched-chain amino acids. The Journal of physiology 2018;596(4):623–45. [published Online First: 2017/12/22] doi: 10.1113/JP275075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bruckner TA, Scheffler RM, Shen G, et al. The mental health workforce gap in low- and middle-income countries: a needs-based approach. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2011;89(3):184–94. [published Online First: 2011/03/08] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wang Changhong LL, Yao Fengju, Zhang Ruiling, Guo Weidong, Zhou Gang, Xiao Shuiyuan, Gui Lihui, Tian Qingfeng, Zhang Weiping. An epidemiological survey of schizophrenia in Henan Province. Chin J Psychiatry 2020;53(01):23–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nuevo R, Chatterji S, Verdes E, et al. The continuum of psychotic symptoms in the general population: a cross-national study. Schizophrenia bulletin 2012;38(3):475–85. [published Online First: 2010/09/16] doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbq099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weber S, Scott JG, Chatterton ML. Healthcare costs and resource use associated with negative symptoms of schizophrenia: A systematic literature review. Schizophrenia research 2022;241:251–59. [published Online First: 2022/02/19] doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2022.01.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Xu L, Xu T, Tan W, et al. Household economic burden and outcomes of patients with schizophrenia after being unlocked and treated in rural China. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 2019;29:e81. [published Online First: 2019/12/17] doi: 10.1017/S2045796019000775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.de Oliveira Figueiredo EC, Calì C, Petrelli F, et al. Emerging evidence for astrocyte dysfunction in schizophrenia. Glia 2022. [published Online First: 2022/06/01] doi: 10.1002/glia.24221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wu XL, Yan QJ, Zhu F. Abnormal synaptic plasticity and impaired cognition in schizophrenia. World journal of psychiatry 2022;12(4):541–57. [published Online First: 2022/05/19] doi: 10.5498/wjp.v12.i4.541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Buck SA, Quincy Erickson-Oberg M, Logan RW, et al. Relevance of interactions between dopamine and glutamate neurotransmission in schizophrenia. Molecular psychiatry 2022. [published Online First: 2022/06/11] doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01649-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rosenbrock H, Dorner-Ciossek C, Giovannini R, et al. Effects of the glycine transporter-1 inhibitor iclepertin (BI 425809) on sensory processing, neural network function, and cognition in animal models related to schizophrenia. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics 2022. [published Online First: 2022/06/07] doi: 10.1124/jpet.121.001071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang W, Ross PJ, Ellis J, et al. Targeting NMDA receptors in neuropsychiatric disorders by drug screening on human neurons derived from pluripotent stem cells. Translational psychiatry 2022;12(1):243. [published Online First: 2022/06/11] doi: 10.1038/s41398-022-02010-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ferreira RCM, de Almeida DL, Duarte IDG, et al. The antipsychotic aripiprazole induces peripheral antinociceptive effects through PI3Kγ/NO/cGMP/K(ATP) pathway activation. European journal of pain (London, England) 2022;26(4):825–34. [published Online First: 2022/01/20] doi: 10.1002/ejp.1910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Adell A. Brain NMDA Receptors in Schizophrenia and Depression. Biomolecules 2020;10(6) [published Online First: 2020/06/27] doi: 10.3390/biom10060947 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Luvsannyam E, Jain MS, Pormento MKL, et al. Neurobiology of Schizophrenia: A Comprehensive Review. Cureus 2022;14(4):e23959. [published Online First: 2022/05/12] doi: 10.7759/cureus.23959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stępnicki P, Kondej M, Kaczor AA. Current Concepts and Treatments of Schizophrenia. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 2018;23(8) [published Online First: 2018/08/22] doi: 10.3390/molecules23082087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bertazza Partigiani N, Spagnol R, Di Michele L, et al. Management of Hypertensive Crises in Children: A Review of the Recent Literature. Frontiers in pediatrics 2022;10:880678. [published Online First: 2022/05/03] doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.880678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zoupa E, Pitsikas N. The Nitric Oxide (NO) Donor Sodium Nitroprusside (SNP) and Its Potential for the Schizophrenia Therapy: Lights and Shadows. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 2021;26(11) [published Online First: 2021/06/03] doi: 10.3390/molecules26113196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Trevlopoulou A, Touzlatzi N, Pitsikas N. The nitric oxide donor sodium nitroprusside attenuates recognition memory deficits and social withdrawal produced by the NMDA receptor antagonist ketamine and induces anxiolytic-like behaviour in rats. Psychopharmacology 2016;233(6):1045–54. [published Online First: 2015/12/22] doi: 10.1007/s00213-015-4181-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kandratavicius L, Balista PA, Wolf DC, et al. Effects of nitric oxide-related compounds in the acute ketamine animal model of schizophrenia. BMC neuroscience 2015;16:9. [published Online First: 2015/04/19] doi: 10.1186/s12868-015-0149-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hallak JE, Maia-de-Oliveira JP, Abrao J, et al. Rapid improvement of acute schizophrenia symptoms after intravenous sodium nitroprusside: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. JAMA psychiatry 2013;70(7):668–76. [published Online First: 2013/05/24] doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.FEI X X ZXJ, LIU K Z, et al. Efficacy of intravenous sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. China Journal of Modern Medicine 2021;31(20):64–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Adelino MPM, Nunes MV, Nunes MFQ, et al. Treatment-resistant schizophrenia—A RCT on the effectiveness of repeated-dose sodium nitroprusside. Schizophrenia research 2021;231:70–72. [published Online First: 2021/03/28] doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2021.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Brown HE, Freudenreich O, Fan X, et al. Efficacy and Tolerability of Adjunctive Intravenous Sodium Nitroprusside Treatment for Outpatients With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA psychiatry 2019;76(7):691–99. [published Online First: 2019/03/28] doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Merritt K, Catalan A, Cowley S, et al. Glyceryl trinitrate in first-episode psychosis unmedicated with antipsychotics: A randomised controlled pilot study. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) 2020;34(8):839–47. [published Online First: 2020/05/22] doi: 10.1177/0269881120922967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2019;10:Ed000142. [published Online First: 2019/10/24] doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gronsbell J, Hong C, Nie L, et al. Exact inference for the random-effect model for meta-analyses with rare events. Statistics in medicine 2020;39(3):252–64. [published Online First: 2019/12/11] doi: 10.1002/sim.8396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shi J, Lee S. A novel random effect model for GWAS meta-analysis and its application to trans-ethnic meta-analysis. Biometrics 2016;72(3):945–54. [published Online First: 2016/02/27] doi: 10.1111/biom.12481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Owen MJ, Sawa A, Mortensen PB. Schizophrenia. Lancet (London, England) 2016;388(10039):86–97. [published Online First: 2016/01/19] doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01121-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chesney E, Goodwin GM, Fazel S. Risks of all-cause and suicide mortality in mental disorders: a meta-review. World psychiatry: official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) 2014;13(2):153–60. [published Online First: 2014/06/04] doi: 10.1002/wps.20128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Metcalf SA, Jones PB, Nordstrom T, et al. Serum C-reactive protein in adolescence and risk of schizophrenia in adulthood: A prospective birth cohort study. Brain, behavior, and immunity 2017;59:253–59. [published Online First: 2016/09/14] doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2016.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brown AS, Schaefer CA, Wyatt RJ, et al. Maternal exposure to respiratory infections and adult schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a prospective birth cohort study. Schizophrenia bulletin 2000;26(2):287–95. [published Online First: 2000/07/08] doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gunnarsson TP, Ehlers TS, Baasch-Skytte T, et al. Hypertension is associated with blunted NO-mediated leg vasodilator responsiveness that is reversed by high-intensity training in postmenopausal women. American journal of physiology Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology 2020;319(6):R712–r23. [published Online First: 2020/10/20] doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00170.2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hoyt KR, Tang LH, Aizenman E, et al. Nitric oxide modulates NMDA-induced increases in intracellular Ca2+ in cultured rat forebrain neurons. Brain research 1992;592(1–2):310–6. [published Online First: 1992/10/02] doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(92)91690-g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bujas-Bobanovic M, Bird DC, Robertson HA, et al. Blockade of phencyclidine-induced effects by a nitric oxide donor. British journal of pharmacology 2000;130(5):1005–12. [published Online First: 2000/07/06] doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0703406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vincenzo De Luca

11 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-25733The efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia: protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

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 25 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,

Vincenzo De Luca

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

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.

[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

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: 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: 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: PONE-D-22-25733

Title: The efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia:

protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Summary:

This is a systematic review protocol of a planned review of studies on sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia. The review proposes that it will use updated literature that includes studies that have not been included in reviews to date. The authors outline the analytic approach to assessing publication bias, heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses.

Major Comments:

Overall the contribution to the field and need for the review is clear. Suggestions are made throughout for the need for academic language to be used, and to add references throughout.

Furthermore, there appear to be issues with tenses. If this is a protocol my understanding is that it should be written framing around what will be done, however the authors are writing in past tense. Has this review then already been completed prior to publishing the protocol? Please be clear about the stage of the work, and be sure the tenses used in the writing are clear and consistent throughout the paper.

Minor comments:

Abstract.

Spell out NO donor on first use, the NO acronym

The authors note that qual and quant analysis is needed. Do they plan to do qual analysis? If not they should not mention it here

Background:

1. The statement below needs a reference, and please don’t use the word “we”

Therefore, we may be able to treat schizophrenia

by regulating the NMDA-NO-cGMP pathway.

2. Please change urgent to urgently and include a reference

Thus, the development of efficient and safe new drugs has become an

urgent need.

3. For the below, please remove “As we all know,”

As we all know, sodium nitroprusside is an emergency antihypertensive drug

commonly used in clinic

4. For the below please add reference

Up to now, sodium nitroprusside is being studied as a potential

Antipsychotic

5. For the below please change “our” to “this”

Our study will search the relevant clinical trials in this field

Methods

1. For the below should say “patients diagnosed with schizophrenia”

patients

diagnosed as schizophrenia by

2. For the below, the sentence is not clear, it is in past tense, maybe needs to be future tense?

Except not using sodium nitroprusside, the other intervention

measures of the two groups were consistent as far as possible.

3. Exclusion criteria—there is a note about contacting the author—what is the procedure for this contact? How will the authors do this?

4. For the below, again is this already completed? If not, then if this is a protocol it should be future tense about what will be done?

Besides, description and evaluation of adverse

reactions were recorded

5. Again, issues of tense here, mixing past and future

The method of

"subject words + free words" will be used for searching, and the search words mainly

included: "schizophrenia," "sodium nitroprusside," and "nitroprusside."

6. For the below what does mainly completed mean? Do you mean solely/completely/only completed through this?

“The steps of literature screening and data extraction are mainly completed through the

following three steps:”

7. For the below should say “ we will try using the”

If the data is still not available, try using the GetData Graph

Digitizer software (Australia) to extract the data.

8. Under this heading : Assessment of risk of bias

Please add a reference to the Cochrane Handbook

9. Can you say. More about this? How will the 3rd person be able to help reach agreement?

Two independent researchers (XF and SW)

would conduct the assessment, and in case of disagreement, a third researcher (JL) would

intervene to reach a unified conclusion after participating in the discussion.

10. For the below, explain the random effect model, how it works, what its purpose is and why it is appropriate and add a reference

random-effect model will be used

11. subgroup analysis:

If necessary,

*how will you determine “if necessary” ? is it based on the number and diversity of populations in the studies identified? Please explain

Discussion

1. It does not seem to me that the discussion section expands much more beyond repeating the background. Can the authors add some information regarding how they expect the review to inform potential next steps in clinical practice and policy?

**********

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: 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 20;18(3):e0283185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283185.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Feb 2023

Editorial Board

PLOS ONE

March 28, 2022

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We are resubmitting our revised manuscript entitled “The efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia: protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis” by Fei et al. to PLOS ONE. We have addressed your helpful comments and suggestions as outlined below and revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope that the manuscript is ready to be published in PLOS ONE.

Response to Reviewer 1’s comments:

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-22-25733

Title:

The efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia:

protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Summary:

This is a systematic review protocol of a planned review of studies on sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia. The review proposes that it will use updated literature that includes studies that have not been included in reviews to date. The authors outline the analytic approach to assessing publication bias, heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses.

Major Comments:

Overall the contribution to the field and need for the review is clear. Suggestions are made throughout for the need for academic language to be used, and to add references throughout. Furthermore, there appear to be issues with tenses. If this is a protocol my understanding is that it should be written framing around what will be done, however the authors are writing in past tense. Has this review then already been completed prior to publishing the protocol? Please be clear about the stage of the work, and be sure the tenses used in the writing are clear and consistent throughout the paper.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the language of the manuscript, regulated the use of academic language, and added references based on your suggestions. In addition, we asked a native speaker to edit the manuscript for language. This protocol was completed before the systematic review, so we agree with you that it is mainly written in the future tense in the section of method.

Minor comments:

Abstract

Spell out NO donor on first use, the NO acronym

Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we have added the full name of NO.

- Sodium nitroprusside is a nitric oxide (NO) donor… (Page 4)

The authors note that qual and quant analysis is needed. Do they plan to do qual analysis? If not they should not mention it here.

Response:

Thanks for your suggestion, we deleted it. And we have rephrased this sentence.

- It is necessary to re-conduct the meta-analysis after the inclusion of these new clinical trials. (Page 4)

Background:

1. The statement below needs a reference, and please don’t use the word “we”

Therefore, we may be able to treat schizophrenia by regulating the NMDA-NO-cGMP pathway.

Response:

Thanks to your suggestion, we have deleted the "we" and added references.

- Therefore, targeted regulation of NMDA/NO/cGMP pathway may be one of the strategies for treating schizophrenia. (Page 5)

-Reference 14 and 15 (Page 14)

2. Please change urgent to urgently and include a reference

Thus, the development of efficient and safe new drugs has become an urgent need.

Response:

We have rephrased this sentence and added a reference.

- Thus, new drugs with high efficiency and safety need to be urgently developed. (Page 5)

- Reference 17 (Page 14)

3. For the below, please remove “As we all know,”

As we all know, sodium nitroprusside is an emergency antihypertensive drug commonly used in clinic

Response:

We are sorry to have affected your reading experience. We revised it immediately.

- Sodium nitroprusside is an emergency antihypertensive drug commonly used in clinic. (Page 5)

4. For the below please add reference

Up to now, sodium nitroprusside is being studied as a potential Antipsychotic

Response:

According to your suggestion, we have added the reference.

- reference 19 (Page 14)

5. For the below please change “our” to “this”

Our study will search the relevant clinical trials in this field

Response:

Thanks for your advice, we have revised it. We have checked the manuscript and tried to avoid writing in the first person.

- This study will search the relevant clinical trials in this field, and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, … (Page 6)

Methods

1. For the below should say “patients diagnosed with schizophrenia”

patients diagnosed as schizophrenia by

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised it.

- patients diagnosed with schizophrenia by "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" or … (Page 7)

2. For the below, the sentence is not clear, it is in past tense, maybe needs to be future tense?

Except not using sodium nitroprusside, the other intervention measures of the two groups were consistent as far as possible.

Response:

We apologize for interrupting your reading experience. We think it should be past tense here, because we will include randomized controlled trials that have been carried out. These randomized controlled trials have been conducted and published.

3. Exclusion criteria—there is a note about contacting the author—what is the procedure for this contact? How will the authors do this?

Response:

We are sorry we did not explain it clearly. In fact, when the data cannot be obtained through the article, we will contact the corresponding authors involved in the study by e-mail as much as possible. We have also redescribed this part.

- the details in the table or figure are still not available by contacting the corresponding authors via e-mail. (Page 7)

4. For the below, again is this already completed? If not, then if this is a protocol it should be future tense about what will be done?

Besides, description and evaluation of adverse reactions were recorded

5. Again, issues of tense here, mixing past and future

The method of "subject words + free words" will be used for searching, and the search words mainly included: "schizophrenia," "sodium nitroprusside," and "nitroprusside."

Response to No.4 and No.5:

We apologize for interrupting your reading experience, and we have corrected the tense immediately.

- Besides, the description and evaluation of adverse reactions will be recorded. (Page 7)

- The method of "subject words + free words" will be used for searching, and the search words will mainly include: "schizophrenia," "sodium nitroprusside," and "nitroprusside." (Page 8)

6. For the below what does mainly completed mean? Do you mean solely/completely/only completed through this?

“The steps of literature screening and data extraction are mainly completed through the following three steps:”

Response:

We are sorry that we did not explain it clearly. In fact, data extraction will be carried out in full accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Therefore, our steps will follow exactly the process we described. We have deleted "mainly" to avoid ambiguity.

- The steps of literature screening and data extraction will be completed through the following three steps: … (Page 8-9)

7. For the below should say “we will try using the”

If the data is still not available, try using the GetData Graph Digitizer software (Australia) to extract the data.

Response:

Thanks for your suggestion, we have revised the tenses immediately.

- If the data is still not available, the researchers will try using the GetData Graph Digitizer software (Australia) to extract the data. (Page 9)

8. Under this heading: Assessment of risk of bias

Please add a reference to the Cochrane Handbook

Response:

According to your suggestion, we have added the reference.

- reference 27 (Page 14)

9. Can you say. More about this? How will the 3rd person be able to help reach agreement?

Two independent researchers (XF and SW) would conduct the assessment, and in case of disagreement, a third researcher (JL) would intervene to reach a unified conclusion after participating in the discussion.

Response:

We are sorry we did not explain it clearly. At present, most meta-analysis guidelines suggest that the degree of bias of data extraction by two individuals is lower than that of two extracts by one person. When there is disagreement, a decision needs to be discussed or decided by a third person. In our study, the third person will analyze the extracted data of two independent researchers on the basis of using the bias risk assessment tools to find out the root cause of data contradictions.

- Two independent researchers (XF and SW) would conduct the assessment, and in case of disagreement, the third researcher (JL) would analyze the data extracted by both sides to find out the root cause of the data contradiction and draw a unified conclusion. (Page 9)

10. For the below, explain the random effect model, how it works, what its purpose is and why it is appropriate and add a reference

random-effect model will be used

Response:

Thank you for your advice. We explain the random-effect model and add references.

- The random-effect model treats the regression coefficients of fixed effects models as random variables. When there is heterogeneity after the synthesis of various studies, the random-effect model can meet the requirements of the weighted average of multiple different population parameters of the combined effect value of meta-analysis. (Page 9)

11. subgroup analysis:

If necessary,

*how will you determine “if necessary” ? is it based on the number and diversity of populations in the studies identified? Please explain

Response:

We are sorry we did not explain it clearly. At this time, we cannot determine the number of studies that will be included and the characteristics of the participants (such as sex, age, race, etc.). If the final number of included studies is too small to conduct subgroup analysis, we have to give up. In order to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, we have redescribed this sentence.

- On the premise of a sufficient number of studies, the subgroup analysis will … (Page 10)

Discussion

1. It does not seem to me that the discussion section expands much more beyond repeating the background. Can the authors add some information regarding how they expect the review to inform potential next steps in clinical practice and policy?

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion, and it enrich the discussion section of our manuscript.

- This protocol describes the specific steps and methods of the updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings will reveal the efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study will provide new ideas for the drug treatment of schizophrenia. If positive results are obtained, it is very likely to optimize the existing drug treatment strategy. More importantly, medical staff can choose better treatment methods in clinical practice according to the findings of this study. (Page 11)

________________________________________

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: No

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.

Yours Sincerely,

Yue Hu

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Vincenzo De Luca

6 Mar 2023

The efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia: protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-22-25733R1

Dear Dr. Hu,

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,

Vincenzo De Luca

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

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: No additional comments at this time, the authors have addressed all of my comments. Thank you of rthe opportunity to review this manuscript.

**********

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: Heather Palis

**********

Acceptance letter

Vincenzo De Luca

10 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-25733R1

The efficacy and safety of sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of schizophrenia: protocol for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Hu:

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

Dr. Vincenzo De Luca

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*.

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.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