Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 9;19(7):e0301153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301153

Trends in using intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring during parathyroidectomy: Protocol and rationale for a cross-sectional survey study of North American surgeons

Phillip Staibano 1,2,*, Tyler McKechnie 2,3, Alex Thabane 2, Michael Xie 1, Han Zhang 1, Michael K Gupta 1, Michael Au 1, Jesse D Pasternak 4, Sameer Parpia 2, James Edward Massey Young 1, Mohit Bhandari 2,5
Editor: Mabel Aoun6
PMCID: PMC11233005  PMID: 38980868

Abstract

Hyperparathyroidism is a common endocrine disorder that occurs secondary to abnormal parathyroid gland functioning. Depending on the type of hyperparathyroidism, surgical extirpation of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands can be considered for disease cure. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) monitoring improves outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism, but studies are needed to characterize its institutional adoption and its role in surgery for secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism, as these entities can be difficult to cure. Hence, we will perform a cross-sectional survey study of surgeon rationale, operational details, and barriers associated with IOPTH monitoring adoption across North America. We will utilize a convenience sampling technique to distribute an online survey to head and neck surgeons and endocrine surgeons across North America. This survey will be distributed via email to three North American professional societies (i.e., Canadian Society for Otolaryngologists–Head and Neck Surgeons, American Head and Neck Society, and American Association of Endocrine Surgeons). The survey will consist of 30 multiple choice questions that are divided into three concepts: (1) participant demographics and training details, (2) details of surgical adjuncts during parathyroidectomy, and (3) barriers to adoption of IOPTH. Descriptive analyses and multiple logistic regression will be used to evaluate the impact of demographic, institutional, and training variables on the use of IOPTH monitoring in surgery for all types of hyperparathyroidism and barriers to IOPTH monitoring adoption. Ethics approval was obtained by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (2024-17173-GRA). These findings will characterize surgeon and institutional practices with regards to IOPTH monitoring during parathyroid surgery and will inform future trials aimed to optimize the use of IOPTH monitoring in secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism.

Introduction

Hyperparathyroidism is defined by abnormal secretion of parathyroid hormone [1]. Primary hyperparathyroidism is caused by a single hyperfunctioning gland in over 80% of cases and it is classically associated with osteoporosis, nephrocalcinosis, and nephrolithiasis [2]. The global incidence of primary hyperparathyroidism is expected to increase alongside wider accessibility to serum calcium measurements and it remains one of the most common endocrine disorders amongst postmenopausal women [3]. Secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism, on the other hand, are typically diagnosed in the context of chronic kidney disease, which can lead to persistent parathyroid gland stimulation and hyperplastic changes affecting more than one parathyroid gland [4]. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is associated with worse cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in CKD and will likely rise in prevalence alongside increasing rates of CKD while tertiary hyperparathyroidism is becoming more prevalent secondary to increased global access to hemodialysis and kidney transplantation [5, 6]. In primary hyperparathyroidism, surgical extirpation of hyperfunctioning gland tissue is often indicated for disease cure [7]. In 2017, clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder secondary recommended parathyroidectomy as preferred therapy for refractory secondary hyperparathyroidism [8]. While in tertiary hyperparathyroidism, despite advances in medical therapy with calcimimetics, parathyroidectomy represents definitive management with higher cure rates and lower complication rates compared to chronic medical therapy [9, 10]. Parathyroidectomy is a commonly performed surgery within the technical scope of head and neck surgeons and endocrine surgeons [1, 11]. Despite advances in imaging that have improved cure rates in primary hyperparathyroidism, the surgical management of secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism remains challenging [12].

In 1991, Irvin and colleagues successfully harnessed the rapid half-life of PTH to guide parathyroidectomy by introducing intraoperative PTH (IOPTH) monitoring [13]. Since then, this technology has been used increasingly in parathyroidectomy with recent meta-analyses demonstrating its utility in reducing persistent and recurrent disease following surgery [14, 15]. The benefit, however, of IOPTH monitoring in surgery for secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism remains controversial [16]. Herein, we report a protocol for cross-sectional survey study of IOPTH monitoring practices amongst head and neck and endocrine surgeons across North America. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) To describe the clinical indications and technical details regarding IOPTH monitoring in primary, secondary, and tertiary hyperparathyroidism; (2) To identify the clinical, geographic, and institutional barriers to adopting IOPTH monitoring at endocrine centres across North America.

Materials and methods

Sampling technique and recruitment

We will perform convenience sampling to recruit survey respondents for this descriptive survey study. All candidate respondents will be head and neck surgeons and endocrine surgeons practicing in North America and they will be contacted via the email lists of professional and academic societies (e.g., American Head and neck Society, American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, and Canadian Society of Otolaryngologists–Head and Neck Surgeons). It is important to note that active AAES members may reside in North, Central, and South America [17]. As these professional societies may not differentiate staff surgeons from surgical trainees, we will evaluate this based on survey responses. Our purpose is to sample academic surgeons who work at high-volume endocrine centers and so, distributing this survey via professional society email networks will capture that intended population.

Description of survey tool and distribution

The online survey will contain a description of the study objectives, benefits, and harms of participating in the study, requirements for participation, the implications of the research findings, and a consent form. The survey will be generated using Qualtrics XM software (Provo, UT, USA) and administered to clinician emails via approved professional society mailing lists. There will be 30 questions requiring multiple choice responses with and without freeform text input. The survey will be divided into three sections: (1) demographics and surgical training, (2) the use of IOPTH and surgical adjuncts during parathyroidectomy, and (3) perceived barriers to adopting IOPTH monitoring (S1 Appendix). There will be adaptive reasoning within the survey based upon respondents’ answers to certain questions. Neither patients nor the public were involved in the design of the survey. The survey was created with input from five content experts and was piloted for flow and clinical sensibility with five local surgeons, whereby further refinements were implemented [18]. This survey study will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) [19].

Survey respondents will not be required to answer every survey question to complete and submit the survey. We estimate it will take 5–8 minutes to complete the entire survey. There will be no non-English translations of the survey as it will only be distributed within North America. All respondents will only be able to submit survey once. Survey completion will not be timed and there will be no incentives for completing the survey. We will not stratify survey distribution based upon demographic variables or training level. The survey will be distributed on a rolling basis over the course of four months (i.e., July 1, 2024, to November 1, 2024) and will be emailed to potential respondents at least twice during this interval. All survey distribution will be overseen by participating professional societies and the study team will not have access to respondent emails. The anticipating study completion date is December 31, 2024. Respondents will not receive their completed survey results but will be notified of publication through their respective professional society.

Planned sample size

In Canada, there are an estimated 715 otolaryngology–head and neck surgeons practicing in either community or academic centres [20]. In the US, there are an estimated 12,609 otolaryngology–head and neck surgeons practicing in either community or academic centres [21]. There are 518 active or corresponding members in the AAES [17]. We do understand that not all practicing surgeons are members of the professional societies selected for survey distribution and thus, estimate that we will be sampling from a population of approximately 10,000 practicing surgeons and trainees across North America. As the goal of this survey is to describe IOPTH usage trends without a predefined primary outcome, we will not perform a sample size calculation. We will, however, aim for a survey completion rate of 60–75%, which is consistent with other survey studies of surgeons and will help maintain external validity [18, 22].

Study outcomes

The overall goal of this survey study is to explore clinical indications and technical details for employing IOPTH monitoring in primary, secondary, and tertiary hyperparathyroidism. We plan on characterizing IOPTH usage trends in the context of type of surgical training, type of surgical practice, and geography of surgical practice. The respondent demographic questions will be explored using nominal variables, while indications and details regarding IOPTH monitoring will be explored using both nominal and ordinal variables (i.e., Likert scale responses).

Data analysis plan

For all completed or partially completed surveys, we will perform descriptive analyses to report proportions and frequencies for each survey response. We will evaluate variability in responses and estimates using 95% confidence intervals. As all responses will be described as nominal or ordinal variables, we will perform chi-square or Fischer’s exact tests for comparative analysis with an emphasis on comparing type of surgical discipline and location of practice. Based on survey responses, we will also evaluate the relationship of surgical practice location and the year of acquisition on the uptake of IOPTH monitoring technology. We also plan to perform logistic regression analysis to determine the effect of demographic and training variables on responses pertaining to rationale and details for using IOPTH monitoring and barriers to using IOPTH monitoring technology. The key characteristics that we will insert in our multiple logistic regression model will be age, gender, type/level of training, type of practice, surgical volume, and location of training and practice. We will utilize the stepwise regression analysis to include significant variables into the model. We will evaluate model assumptions and goodness-of-fit by examining residuals and at least 10 observations will be required for each independent variable to be included into the regression model. There will be no planned subgroup analyses. Any free-text responses will be evaluated based upon conceptual analysis. All statistical analyses will be performed using R (version 4.3.1, Vienna, Austria).

Ethical and safety considerations

Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board as project number 2023-17173-GRA. Participation in this study will be voluntary and all participants will provide informed consent before starting the online survey. Participation will unlikely cause any adverse effects or discomfort related to the conduct or outcomes of the survey. There will be no timer associated with survey completion. All data collected will be pseudonymous. Survey datasets will be securely stored in Qualtrics, protected by Single-Sign-On, and in password-protected OneDrive accounts. The data will reside on password-protected, encrypted personal computers accessed via secure networks. Data will be destroyed two years following the completion of the study. All protocol amendments will be submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board as modifications prior to implementation. Amendments will also be communicated during dissemination to both academic and lay audiences.

Discussion

In 2016, the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons strongly recommended the use of IOPTH in minimally invasive parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism to reduce operative failure [1]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that IOPTH monitoring may be helpful in guiding challenging parathyroid surgery such as in cases of parathyroid hyperplasia and renal hyperparathyroidism [23, 24]. There is, however, little standardization and consensus in the utility of IOPTH monitoring amongst patients undergoing parathyroid surgery. The survey will explore alternative indications for applying IOPTH monitoring to guide parathyroidectomy and describe the technical details of using IOPTH monitoring at institutions across North America. These results will help to inform future prospective trials aimed at optimizing the use of IOPTH monitoring in challenging parathyroid surgeries.

Dissemination plan

The findings of the survey will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal aimed at informing surgical practices in head and neck, and endocrine surgery. The primary investigator will present findings at national and international conferences. We will also communicate study findings to relevant stakeholders (i.e., surgeons, universities, hospital administrations, and government officials) to brainstorm other research questions and translate survey results into actionable items. These results will be used to inform future observational studies, cost analyses, and trials aimed at improving the adoption and optimization of IOPTH technology for guiding parathyroidectomy.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Survey cover letter and questionnaire.

(DOCX)

pone.0301153.s001.docx (26.2KB, 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

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wilhelm SM, Wang TS, Ruan DT, Lee JA, Asa SL, Duh QY, et al. The American Association of Endocrine Surgeons Guidelines for Definitive Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):959–68. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2310 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bilezikian JP, Cusano NE, Khan AA, Liu JM, Marcocci C, Bandeira F. Primary hyperparathyroidism. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16033. Epub 2016/05/20. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.33 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5385896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wermers RA. Incidence of Primary Hyperparathyroidism in the Current Era: Have We Finally Reached a Steady State? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;108(12):e1749–e50. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgad267 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10655524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Saliba W, El-Haddad B. Secondary hyperparathyroidism: pathophysiology and treatment. J Am Board Fam Med. 2009;22(5):574–81. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.05.090026 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Torino C, Tripepi R, Russo D, Vilasi AD, Panuccio VA. Editorial: Secondary hyperparathyroidism: an ongoing challenge for the nephrologist. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1305791. Epub 20231123. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1305791 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10704019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bozic M, Diaz-Tocados JM, Bermudez-Lopez M, Forne C, Martinez C, Fernandez E, et al. Independent effects of secondary hyperparathyroidism and hyperphosphataemia on chronic kidney disease progression and cardiovascular events: an analysis from the NEFRONA cohort. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2022;37(4):663–72. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfab184 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chen H. Surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism: what is the best approach? Ann Surg. 2002;236(5):552–3. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200211000-00002 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1422610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Isakova T, Nickolas TL, Denburg M, Yarlagadda S, Weiner DE, Gutierrez OM, et al. KDOQI US Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD). Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;70(6):737–51. Epub 20170921. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.07.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Steinl GK, Kuo JH. Surgical Management of Secondary Hyperparathyroidism. Kidney Int Rep. 2021;6(2):254–64. Epub 20201230. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2020.11.023 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7879113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dulfer RR, Franssen GJH, Hesselink DA, Hoorn EJ, van Eijck CHJ, van Ginhoven TM. Systematic review of surgical and medical treatment for tertiary hyperparathyroidism. Br J Surg. 2017;104(7):804–13. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10554 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ernst H, Sowerby L, Sahovaler A, Macneil D, Nichols A, Yoo J, et al. Rapid standardized operating rooms (RAPSTOR) in thyroid and parathyroid surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;50(1):44. Epub 20210708. doi: 10.1186/s40463-021-00525-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8265141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Itani M, Middleton WD. Parathyroid Imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2020;58(6):1071–83. Epub 2020/10/13. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.07.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Irvin GL 3rd, Dembrow VD, Prudhomme DL. Operative monitoring of parathyroid gland hyperfunction. Am J Surg. 1991;162(4):299–302. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(91)90135-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Medas F, Cappellacci F, Canu GL, Noordzij JP, Erdas E, Calo PG. The role of Rapid Intraoperative Parathyroid Hormone (ioPTH) assay in determining outcome of parathyroidectomy in primary hyperparathyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2021;92:106042. Epub 20210730. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106042 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Quinn AJ, Ryan EJ, Garry S, James DL, Boland MR, Young O, et al. Use of Intraoperative Parathyroid Hormone in Minimally Invasive Parathyroidectomy for Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;147(2):135–43. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.4021 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7677873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pitt SC, Sippel RS, Chen H. Secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism, state of the art surgical management. Surg Clin North Am. 2009;89(5):1227–39. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2009.06.011 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2905047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Beninato T, Laird AM, Graves CE, Drake FT, Alhefdhi A, Lee JA, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of endocrine surgery. Am J Surg. 2022;223(4):670–5. Epub 20210721. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.07.009 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8294714. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Burns KE, Duffett M, Kho ME, Meade MO, Adhikari NK, Sinuff T, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ. 2008;179(3):245–52. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.080372 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2474876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34. Epub 20040929. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1550605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Brandt MG, Scott GM, Doyle PC, Ballagh RH. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgeon unemployment in Canada: a cross-sectional survey of graduating Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery residents. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;43(1):37. Epub 20140916. doi: 10.1186/s40463-014-0037-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4329541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hughes CA, McMenamin P, Mehta V, Pillsbury H, Kennedy D. Otolaryngology workforce analysis. Laryngoscope. 2016;126 Suppl 9:S5–S11. Epub 20160831. doi: 10.1002/lary.26238 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meyer VM, Benjamens S, Moumni ME, Lange JFM, Pol RA. Global Overview of Response Rates in Patient and Health Care Professional Surveys in Surgery: A Systematic Review. Ann Surg. 2022;275(1):e75–e81. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004078 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8683255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Thielmann A, Kerr P. Validation of selective use of intraoperative PTH monitoring in parathyroidectomy. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;46(1):10. Epub 2017/02/09. doi: 10.1186/s40463-017-0188-0 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5294871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ahn D, Kwak JH. Role and Recent Trend of Intraoperative Parathyroid Hormone Monitoring During Parathyroidectomy in Patients With Primary Hyperparathyroidism. Korean Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2022;65(5):253–9. doi: 10.3342/kjorl-hns.2022.00332 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mabel Aoun

12 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-07939Trends in using intraoperative parathyroid monitoring during parathyroidectomy: Protocol and rationale for a cross-sectional survey study of North American surgeonsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Staibano,

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 provide a point-by-point response to reviewers #2 and #3. Unfortunately reviewer #1 assessed the manuscript as a final paper and not as a protocol. Looking forward to your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mabel Aoun, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. Ethics statement appears in the Methods section of the manuscript AND at the end of the manuscript:

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

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript.

This manuscript did not include any study outcomes. I could not evaluate the importance of this manuscript without results. Please re-submit after finalizing the study.

Reviewer #2: In this original manuscript by Staibano et al., authors report the protocole of a survey they plan to start on March, 2024 about the use of intra-operative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) measurement during parathyroidectomy either for primary, secondary, or tertiary hyperparathyroidism. IOPTH is being more and more used for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) but very few is known about its use when treating secondary (SHPT) or tertiary (THPT) hyperparathyroidism. In such, this study will help the community get a better understanding of both its use and barriers. Manuscript is overall well written and protocole is very straightforward. I still have some comments/questions authors may address.

A. MAJOR COMMENTS

1. Within the introduction section, authors suggest that "all [forms of HPT] are definitively managed via surgical extirpation". Later, they suggest that SHPT may be managed medically. So, that first statement may be more tempered: the price for "curing" SHPT may sometimes be hypoparathyroidism. Moreover, more and more data suggest that THPT may recover several months/years after kidney transplantation without surgery.

2. Authors suggest that SHPT and THPT only occur during chronic kidney disease (CKD) which, if probably frequent, is not totally true: SHPT is even more frequent during vitamin D deficiency or obesity. Here, surgery should never be performed. Moreover, authors suggest that THPT may only be diagnosed after kidney transplant which, again, if frequent, is not the sole circumstance for diagnosis, dialysis being probably even more frequent.

B. MINOR COMMENTS

1. In the description of the study, authors mention the survey will be distributed for 6 months. A few sentences later, they state it will take place from March 28 to August 31, meaning 5 months. I'd suggest being consistent between those two statements.

2. Regarding ethics, authors mention their survey will be 'anonymous'. Anonymous data are data that cannot allow identifying people whom data have been collected. In the present study, crossing demographics and educational data may allow to identify participants. Therefore, such dataset is made of pseudonymous data in which no data allow direct identification. I'd strongly suggest to use this wording (pseudonymous) instead of 'anonymous' when describing such a dataset.

3. In the appendix, the letter mentions that data will be stored for 5 years after the completion of the study while the manuscript states it will be for 2 years. I'd suggest being consistent between those two statements.

Reviewer #3: In this paper for a protocol for a survey study of surgeons performing parathyroidectomy is presented. The study design is well presented and the protocol easy to follow.

The authors should specify how they will follow the PLOS Data policy - 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.

********** 

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: Takahisa Hiramitsu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jean-Philippe Bertocchio

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. 2024 Jul 9;19(7):e0301153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301153.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-07939

Trends in using intraoperative parathyroid monitoring during parathyroidectomy: Protocol and rationale for a cross-sectional survey study of North American surgeons

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Staibano,

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 provide a point-by-point response to reviewers #2 and #3. Unfortunately reviewer #1 assessed the manuscript as a final paper and not as a protocol. Looking forward to your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mabel Aoun, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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.

Thank you – we did adjust style and file naming to meet PLOS ONE requirements.

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

We have made all associated documents available. Since this is a protocol, there is no collected data that requires sharing. All authors agree to full data sharing plan.

3. Ethics statement appears in the Methods section of the manuscript AND at the end of the manuscript:

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

We have made sure to only include this in the methods section.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

We did change this match formatting guidelines.

5. 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.

All references have been reviewed.

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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript.

This manuscript did not include any study outcomes. I could not evaluate the importance of this manuscript without results. Please re-submit after finalizing the study.

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: In this original manuscript by Staibano et al., authors report the protocole of a survey they plan to start on March, 2024 about the use of intra-operative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) measurement during parathyroidectomy either for primary, secondary, or tertiary hyperparathyroidism. IOPTH is being more and more used for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) but very few is known about its use when treating secondary (SHPT) or tertiary (THPT) hyperparathyroidism. In such, this study will help the community get a better understanding of both its use and barriers. Manuscript is overall well written and protocole is very straightforward. I still have some comments/questions authors may address.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript.

A. MAJOR COMMENTS

1. Within the introduction section, authors suggest that "all [forms of HPT] are definitively managed via surgical extirpation". Later, they suggest that SHPT may be managed medically. So, that first statement may be more tempered: the price for "curing" SHPT may sometimes be hypoparathyroidism. Moreover, more and more data suggest that THPT may recover several months/years after kidney transplantation without surgery.

Thank you for this comment. In the abstract and introduction sections, we did soften this language.

2. Authors suggest that SHPT and THPT only occur during chronic kidney disease (CKD) which, if probably frequent, is not totally true: SHPT is even more frequent during vitamin D deficiency or obesity. Here, surgery should never be performed. Moreover, authors suggest that THPT may only be diagnosed after kidney transplant which, again, if frequent, is not the sole circumstance for diagnosis, dialysis being probably even more frequent.

Thank you for this comment. In the introduction section, we did soften this language.

B. MINOR COMMENTS

1. In the description of the study, authors mention the survey will be distributed for 6 months. A few sentences later, they state it will take place from March 28 to August 31, meaning 5 months. I'd suggest being consistent between those two statements.

To account for delayed processing in the approval of this survey by the professional societies that will oversee distribution, we have updated the time window of survey distribution.

We have clarified that survey distribution will happen from July 1 to November 1, 2024 and that the study will be completed by December 31, 2024.

2. Regarding ethics, authors mention their survey will be 'anonymous'. Anonymous data are data that cannot allow identifying people whom data have been collected. In the present study, crossing demographics and educational data may allow to identify participants. Therefore, such dataset is made of pseudonymous data in which no data allow direct identification. I'd strongly suggest to use this wording (pseudonymous) instead of 'anonymous' when describing such a dataset.

Thank you – this is a very helpful comment and we have amended this to pseudonymous.

3. In the appendix, the letter mentions that data will be stored for 5 years after the completion of the study while the manuscript states it will be for 2 years. I'd suggest being consistent between those two statements.

We did change this to two years on both documents. We also removed the survey link since this leads to a beta version of the survey that we used for validation within our team. The actual link will be sent with the email to potential respondents.

Reviewer #3: In this paper for a protocol for a survey study of surgeons performing parathyroidectomy is presented. The study design is well presented and the protocol easy to follow.

Thank you for your comments.

The authors should specify how they will follow the PLOS Data policy - 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.

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: Takahisa Hiramitsu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jean-Philippe Bertocchio

Reviewer #3: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_PONE-D-24-07939.docx

pone.0301153.s002.docx (23.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mabel Aoun

16 Jun 2024

Trends in using intraoperative parathyroid monitoring hormone during parathyroidectomy: Protocol and rationale for a cross-sectional survey study of North American surgeons

PONE-D-24-07939R1

Dear Dr. Staibano,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mabel Aoun, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mabel Aoun

27 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-07939R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Staibano,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mabel Aoun

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 Appendix. Survey cover letter and questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0301153.s001.docx (26.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_PONE-D-24-07939.docx

    pone.0301153.s002.docx (23.4KB, 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