Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243694. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243694

Impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonality of pediatric respiratory diseases

Milena Siciliano Nascimento 1,*, Diana Milena Baggio 1, Linus Pauling Fascina 1, Cristiane do Prado 1
Editor: Brenda M Morrow2
PMCID: PMC7732104  PMID: 33306735

Abstract

Introduction

Respiratory tract diseases are the major cause of morbidity and mortality in children under the age of 5 years, constituting the highest rate of hospitalization in this age group.

Objectives

To determine the prevalence of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in childhood in the last 5 years and to assess the impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonal behavior of these diseases.

Methods

A cross-sectional clinical study was carried out, with a survey of all patients aged 0 to 17 years who were admitted with a diagnosis of respiratory diseases between January 2015 and July 2020. The database was delivered to the researchers anonymized. The variables used for analysis were date of admission, date of discharge, length of stay, age, sex and diagnosis. In order to make the analysis possible, the diagnoses were grouped into upper respiratory infection (URI), asthma / bronchitis, bronchiolitis and pneumonia.

Results

2236 admissions were included in the study. Children under 5 years old account for 81% of hospitalizations for respiratory disease in our population. In the adjusted model, an average reduction of 38 hospitalizations was observed in the period of social isolation (coefficient: -37.66; 95% CI (- 68.17; -7.15); p = 0.016).

Conclusion

The social isolation measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically interfered with the seasonality of childhood respiratory diseases. This was reflected in the unexpected reduction in the number of hospitalizations in the pediatric population during this period.

Introduction

Respiratory tract diseases are the major cause of morbidity and mortality in children under the age of 5 years, constituting the highest rate of hospitalization in this age group [1, 2]. In developing countries, diseases of the lower respiratory tract represent about 90% of deaths from respiratory diseases, most of which are bronchial and alveolar infections of viral origin [1, 3]. Regarding upper respiratory infections (URI), infants and preschoolers develop, on average, six to eight infections per year [4]. This infection profile, despite not causing serious illness, is responsible for epidemics due to the continuous circulation of pathogens in the community [5].

In this context, it is important to highlight the role of day-care centers and schools that start in increasingly younger age groups and several studies point out as being an important risk factor for the acquisition of respiratory infections, especially in children from zero to two years of age, due to greater children's exposure to infectious agents, confinement and agglomeration. In addition, children can act as sources of infection in their families, further spreading infectious agents in the community [5, 6].

In the year 2020, due to the pandemic caused by COVID-19, social isolation, with the closing of trade and companies and the suspension of classes, was highly recommended in an attempt to reduce the spread of the virus. The impact caused by social isolation was one of the factors that may have contributed to the change in the seasonal characteristic of respiratory diseases in pediatrics in the year in question [7].

In Brazil, social isolation measures that were included suspending classes at schools and universities, closing companies and commerce and banning events, have been started in mid-March. The easing of these measures began in mid-July, however, schools and day care remain closed [8].

The present study aims to determine the incidence of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in childhood in the last 5 years and to assess the impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonal behavior of these diseases.

Methods

Study type and location

A cross-sectional study was carried out by collecting epidemiological data on hospital admissions for respiratory diseases in pediatric patients, at private hospital from January 2015 to July 2020. Patients aged 0 to 17 years were included, who needed of hospitalization with diagnoses of respiratory diseases. Our institution is a tertiary level private hospital that providence approximately 3,000 admissions per year

Protocol

After approval of the project by the Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, a survey was made of all patients aged 0 to 17 years who were hospitalized with primary and secondary diagnosis of respiratory diseases (International Disease Code, 10th Revision: J00 –J99) from January 2015 to July 2020. The database was delivered to the researchers anonymously and, for this reason, the informed consent term was waived by the ethics and research committee.

The variables used for analysis were date of admission, date of discharge, length of stay, age, sex and diagnosis. To make the analysis possible, the diagnoses were grouped using the subcategories by similarity criteria into upper airway infection (URI) asthma / bronchitis, bronchiolitis and pneumonia. The exact grouping of the ICD-10 codes into each subcategory was specified in Table 1. Asthma and bronchitis were grouped because diagnosis of bronchitis was closely associated with the secondary diagnosis of asthma.

Table 1. ICD-10 codes into each subcategory.

Upper airway infection (UAI) J02.8 Acute pharyngitis due to other specified organisms
J02.9 Acute pharyngitis, unspecified
J04.0 Acute laryngitis
J04.1 Acute tracheitis
J04.2 Acute laryngotracheitis
J06.9 Acute upper respiratory infection, unspecified
J38.6 Stenosis of larynx
J39.2 Other diseases of pharynx
Asthma /Bronchitis J45.1 Nonallergic asthma
J45.8 Mixed asthma
J45.9 Other and unspecified asthma
J20.0 Acute bronchitis due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae
J20.5 Acute bronchitis due to respiratory syncytial virus
J20.6 Acute bronchitis due to rhinovirus
J20.8 Acute bronchitis due to other specified organisms
J20.9 Acute bronchitis, unspecified
J21.9 Acute bronchiolitis, unspecified
J40 Bronchitis, not specified as acute or chronic
Bronchiolitis J21.0 Acute bronchiolitis due to respiratory syncytial virus
J21.8 Acute bronchiolitis due to other specified organisms
Pneumonia J10.1 Influenza due to other identified influenza virus with other respiratory manifestations
J12.0 Adenoviral pneumonia
J12.1 Respiratory syncytial virus pneumonia
J12.2 Parainfluenza virus pneumonia
J12.8 Other viral pneumonia
J15.7 Pneumonia due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae
J15.8 Pneumonia due to other specified bacteria
J15.9 Unspecified bacterial pneumonia
J17 Pneumonia in diseases classified elsewhere
J18.0 Bronchopneumonia, unspecified organism
  J18.9 Pneumonia, unspecified organism

Statistical analysis

The data were described by means of absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables and by mean values and standard deviations (SD), minimum, maximum and quartiles for numerical variables. The distributions of continuous variables were investigated using boxplots and histograms.

Generalized linear models with Gamma distribution and logarithmic link function were adjusted to estimate the length of hospital stay and to investigate associations with periods of social isolation Categorical variables were compared between groups with or without social isolation due to COVID-19 using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests

The number of hospitalizations over time and their relationship with social isolation was assessed by a time series regression model, with ARIMA identification. The model considered the monthly numbers of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in pediatric patients in the first semester and social isolation in the period from April to June 2020 was used as an explanatory variable, with the coefficient and p-value for the absence of alteration test being presented. and the level of significance adopted was 5%.

The analyzes were performed with the aid of the SPSS program (version 24.0) and the R (version 4.0.2) and the additional packages: forecast, Rcmdr, RcmdrPlugin.EZR and lmtest. For all analyzes, the 5% significance level was adopted.

Results

The database contained 2618 records and hospitalizations, of which 382 were excluded, as they had primary and secondary diagnoses that did not meet the study's inclusion criteria. Thus, 2236 admissions were included in the study.

The main demographic characteristics as well as the presentation of the main diagnoses are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of pediatric patients admitted for respiratory diseases in the period from January 2015 to June 2020 (n = 2236).

Total (2236) Social isolation due to COVID-19 p-value
No (n = 2216) Yes (n = 20)
Sex 0.571 1
    Female 1089 (48.7%) 1078 (48.6%) 11 (55.0%)
    Male 1147 (51.3%) 1138 (51.4%) 9 (45.0%)
Age group 0.002 2
    0 to 2 years old 1267 (56.7%) 1260 (56.9%) 7 (35.0%)
    3 to 5 years old 543 (24.3%) 541 (24.4%) 2 (10.0%)
    6 to 10 years old 331 (14.8%) 322 (14.5%) 9 (45.0%)
    11 to 17 years old 95 (4.2%) 93 (4.2%) 2 (10.0%)
Diagnosis based on CID* 0.153 2
    Asthma / Bronchitis 223 (10.0%) 221 (10.0%) 2 (10.5%)
    Bronchiolitis 163 (7.2%) 163 (7.3%) 0 (0.0%)
    UAI (upper airway infection) 249 (11.1%) 244 (11.0%) 5 (26.3%)
    Pneumonia 1601 (71.6%) 1589 (71.7%) 13 (63.2%)
Infection Agent 0.141 1
    Bacterium 1466 (65.6%) 1456 (65.7%) 10 (50.0%)
    Virus 770 (34.4%) 760 (34.3%) 10 (50.0%)
Length of hospital stay (days) #
    Mean (IC 95%) 4.21 (4.09; 4.34) 4.23 (4.10; 4.35) 2.70 (1.98; 3.69) 0.005 3
    Minimum; Maximum 0.13; 112.00 0.13; 112.00 1.00; 6.00

Without social isolation: january/2015 –march/2020; with social isolation: april/2020 –june/2020

p-values for the chi-square test(1), Fisher’s exact test(2) and generalized linear model (3).

#: mean and 95% confidence interval estimated by generalized linear model. For those with less than one day in the hospital, we assumed three hours of stay, which equates to 0,125 days of hospitalization

The main demographic characteristics as well as the presentation of the main diagnoses are shown in Table 1. This table also shows the comparisons between period with (April/2020 –June/2020) or without social isolation (January/2015 –march/2020). Children under 5 years old accounted for 81.3% of hospitalizations for respiratory disease in the period without social isolation. During social isolation we observed a significant reduction, with children under 5 years old representing 45% of hospitalizations (p-value = 0.002). We also observed a reduction in the length of hospital stay (p-value = 0,005).

The distribution of the number of hospitalizations per trimester in the period from 2015 to 2020, total and according to diagnosis is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Distribution of the number of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in pediatric patients from January 2015 to June 2020 total and according to diagnosis (n = 2236).

Fig 1

In the ARIMA model, we observed in the period with social isolation (April to June 2020) an average reduction of 38 hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in pediatric patients (coefficient: -37.66; 95% confidence interval: -68.17 to -7, 15; p = 0.016).

The distribution behavior of the total number of admissions and hospitalizations diagnosed with pneumonia is quite similar given the proportion of pneumonia cases (over 60%). This predominance of pneumonia cases can also be seen in Fig 2 that shows the distribution of inpatient diagnoses by age group.

Fig 2. Inpatient diagnoses by age group of pediatric patients admitted for respiratory diseases in the period from January 2015 to June 2020.

Fig 2

Evidence of association of the age group with the diagnosis of hospitalization was found (p <0.001) (Table 3), with highlights for greater proportions of cases of pneumonia in the age groups from three years old than in the age group of zero to two years and all cases bronchiolitis in the range up to two years of age. In the multiple comparisons, no difference was found between the groups of 3 to 5 years old and 11 to 17 years old.

Table 3. Relationship between diagnosis and age groups (n = 2236).

Diagnosis Age groups
0 to 2 years old 3 to 5 years old 6 to 10 years old 11 to 17 years old
Ashtma/Bronchitis 133 (10.5%) 51 (9.4%) 30 (9.1%) 9 (9.5%)
Bronchiolitis 163 (12.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
UAI 147 (11.6%) 46 (8.5%) 34 (10.3%) 22 (23.2%)
Pneumonia 824 (65.1%) 446 (82.1%) 267 (80.7%) 64 (67.4%)
Total 1267 (100.0%) 543 (100.0%) 331 (100.0%) 95 (100.0%)
Global chi-square p-value <0.001 1
Multiple comparisons Bonferroni corrected p values
    versus 0 to 2 years old <0.001 2 <0.001 2 <0.001 2
    versus 3 to 5 years old >0.99 2 0.002 2
    versus 6 to 10 years old 0.033 2

p-values for the chi-square test (1) and Fisher’s exact test (2)

In Fig 3, we see the distribution of the number of hospitalizations per month in the period from 2015 to 2020 for each age group in which the predominance of the age group from a to 2 years is observed very clearly, mainly in the months of seasonal peaks.

Fig 3. Distribution of the number of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in pediatric patients from January 2015 to June 2020, according age group.

Fig 3

Discussion

Our study describes the epidemiological profile of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in the last 5 years and brings evidence that social isolation has significantly reduced hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in the pediatric population.

Hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in children and adolescents usually present a distribution pattern dependent on the age group [1, 2] and seasonality [9].

In our study, children under 5 years old represented 81% of hospitalizations and pneumonia were the main diagnoses (over 65%) in all age groups, however, with a higher proportion of pneumonia cases in the age group from three years. Respiratory diseases of viral etiologies (infections of upper airways, bronchiolitis) are cited as being more common in the pediatric population [9, 10], which contradicts our founds. However, other studies corroborate our results and point to pneumonia as a diagnosis in more than 50% of all hospitalizations for respiratory diseases [2, 11, 12].

In our study, when comparing the period with isolation and without isolation, we observed a significant increase in the percentage of hospitalizations in the group of 6 to 10 years. Kuitunen I et al found no difference in the age distribution of patients in periods with and without isolation [13]. We believe that this percentage increase in the number of hospitalizations in the 6 to 10 age group is related to the drastic reduction in the number of hospitalizations during the isolation period. During this period, only 20 patients required hospitalization for respiratory diseases.

Several studies confirm the occurrence of a seasonal peak in respiratory diseases and point to an association with environmental factors such as tobacco exposure, humidity, temperature and an increase in the level of pollutants [1416]. Sudden changes in temperatures associated with the worsening of the quality of the inspired air are contributing factors for a significant increase in cases of pneumonia, asthma and bronchiolitis [17, 18]. Our results also demonstrated this seasonality pattern of respiratory diseases in the period from April to June 2015 to 2019, the exception being the year 2020.

Other factors such as the presence of siblings and crowding are also associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for respiratory diseases [12]. Attendance to daycare centers and schools are also identified as contributing factors, not only in the increase in the incidence of respiratory diseases in childhood, but also in the maintenance of the circulation of pathogens [19, 20].

The pandemic caused by COVID-19 in 2020 and the significant reduction in the number of hospitalizations for respiratory diseases in the pediatric population observed by our study demonstrates that, agglomerations and attendance at daycare centers and schools, have a greater contribution share than if could study, as they are difficult to control variables in routine situations.

Another 2 recently published studies confirm our findings and strongly suggest that social distancing and other lockdown strategies are effective to slow down the spreading of respiratory diseases and decreasing the need for hospitalization among children [13, 21].

Since then, the exponential growth in the number of cases, resulting in the collapse of the health system in different countries, has led several governments to adopt control measures to reduce the levels of transmission [22, 23]. These measures included suspending classes at schools and universities, closing companies and commerce and banning events. A study that evaluated the effectiveness of adopting such measures in slowing the growth rates of COVID-19 cases demonstrated that this has a direct association with the time of the epidemic in which they were adopted. In Italy and Spain, control measures were taken at the national level in a final stage of the epidemic, which may have contributed to the high spread of COVID-19 in these countries. In Brazil, the measures adopted prevented the collapse of the health system and appear to have an influence on the growth curve of new infections by COVID-19 [7, 8].

In addition to social isolation measures, the education of the population in relation to the use of masks and hand hygiene were also factors that contributed to curb the circulation of pathogens. Rare were cases of bronchiolitis, highly prevalent diseases at this time of year [24, 25].

Historically, since the Spanish flu, we have not had this spectrum of social isolation including closing schools and daycare centers. This fact transformed the seasonality model of pediatric respiratory diseases. Currently, we only have the question: What will 2021 be like?

Conclusion

The social isolation measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically interfered with the seasonality of childhood respiratory diseases. This was reflected in the unexpected reduction in the number of hospitalizations in the pediatric population during this period.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Sonego M, Pellegrin MC, Becker G, Lazzerini M. Risk factors for mortality from acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI) in children under five years of age in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0116380 10.1371/journal.pone.0116380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Oliveira TG De, Arrelaro RC, Ricardi VA, et al. Avaliação das internações de crianças de 0 a 5 anos por infecções respiratórias em um hospital de grande porte. Einstein 2011; 9: 514–517. 10.1590/S1679-45082011AO1908 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yen Chun-Yu, Wu Wan-Tai, Chang Chia-Yuan, Wong Ying-Chi, Lai Chou-Cheng, Chan Yu-Jiun, et al. Viral etiologies of acute respiratory tract infections among hospitalized children e A comparison between single and multiple viral infections. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection 2019; 52:902–910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Monto AS. Studies of the community and family: acute respiratory illness and infection. Epidemiol Rev 1994;16(2):351e73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zomer TP, Erasmus V, Looman CW, et al. Improving hand hygiene compliance in child daycare centres: a randomized controlled trial. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144(12):2552–2560. 10.1017/S0950268816000911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Caudri D, Wijga A, Scholtens S, Kerkhof M, Gerritsen J, Ruskamp JM, et al. Early daycare is associated with an increase in airway symptoms in early childhood but is no protection against asthma or atopy at 8 years. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;180(6):491–8. 10.1164/rccm.200903-0327OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Antunes BBP, Peres IT, Baião FA, et al. Progression of confirmed COVID-19 cases after the implementation of control measures. Progressão dos casos confirmados de COVID-19 após implantação de medidas de controle. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(2):213–223. 10.5935/0103-507x.20200028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aquino E. M. L., Silveira I.H., Pescarini JM, Aquino R, Souza-Filho JA de, Rocha AS et al. Social distancing measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic: potential impacts and challenges in Brazil. Ciênc. saúde coletiva 2020;25(Suppl 1): 2423–2446. 10.1590/1413-81232020256.1.10502020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fisman D. Seasonality of viral infections: mechanisms and unknowns. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(10):946–954. 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03968.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yen CY, Wu WT, Chang CY, et al. Viral etiologies of acute respiratory tract infections among hospitalized children—A comparison between single and multiple viral infections. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2019;52(6):902–910. 10.1016/j.jmii.2019.08.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Natali Renata Martins de T, Santos Danillo Silva P. S. dos, Fonseca Ana Maria C. da, Filomeno Giulia Claudia de M., Figueiredo Ana Helena A., Terrivel Patricia Maranõn et al. Perfil de internações hospitalares por doenças respiratórias em crianças e adolescentes da cidade de São Paulo, 2000–2004. Rev. paul. pediatr. 2011; 29(4): 584–590 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gouveia N, Junger WL; ESCALA investigators. Effects of air pollution on infant and children respiratory mortality in four large Latin-American cities. Environ Pollut. 2018;232:385–391. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kuitunen I, Artama M, Mäkelä L, Backman K, Heiskanen-Kosma T, Renko M. Effect of Social Distancing Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Incidence of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Children in Finland During Early 2020. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020. 10.1097/INF.0000000000002845 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gosai A, Salinger J, Dirks K. Climate and respiratory disease in Auckland, New Zealand. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009;33(6):521–6. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00447.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Silva Júnior JLR, Padilha TF, Rezende JE, Rabelo ECA, Ferreira ACG, Rabahi MF. Effect of seasonality on the occurrence of respiratory symptoms in a Brazilian city with a tropical climate. J Bras Pneumol. 2011;37(6):759–767 10.1590/s1806-37132011000600009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Green RS, Basu R, Malig B, Broadwin R, Kim JJ, Ostro B. The effect of temperature on hospital admissions in nine California counties. Int J Public Health. 2010;55(2):113–21. 10.1007/s00038-009-0076-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Farhat S.C.L, Paulo R.L.P., Shimoda T.M., Conceição G.M.S., Lin C.A., Braga A.L.F. et al. Effect of air pollution on pediatric respiratory emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2005; 38(2): 227–235. 10.1590/s0100-879x2005000200011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vissing NH, Chawes BL, Rasmussen MA, et al. Epidemiology and Risk Factors of Infection in Early Childhood. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6):e20170933 10.1542/peds.2017-0933 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.de Hoog M.L., Venekamp R.P., van der Ent C.K. et al. Impact of early daycare on healthcare resource use related to upper respiratory tract infections during childhood: prospective WHISTLER cohort study. BMC Med 2014 12, 107 (2014). 10.1186/1741-7015-12-107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Schuez-Havupalo L, Toivonen L, Karppinen S, Kaljonen A, Peltola V. Daycare attendance and respiratory tract infections: a prospective birth cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e014635 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hatoun J, Correa ET, Donahue SMA, et al. Social Distancing for COVID-19 and Diagnoses of Other Infectious Diseases in Children. Pediatrics. 2020;146(3):e2020006460 10.1542/peds.2020-006460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wilder-Smith A, Freedman DO. Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. J Travel Med. 2020;27(2): 10.1093/jtm/taaa020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Smith BJ, Lim MH. How the COVID-19 pandemic is focusing attention on loneliness and social isolation. Public Health Res Pract. 2020;30(2):3022008 10.17061/phrp3022008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sakamoto H, Ishikane M, Ueda P. Seasonal Influenza Activity During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak in Japan. JAMA. 2020. 19;323(19):1969–1971. 10.1001/jama.2020.6173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Itaya T, Furuse Y, Jindai K. Does COVID-19 infection impact on the trend of seasonal influenza infection? 11 countries and regions, from 2014 to 2020. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;97:78–80. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Brenda M Morrow

13 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-29375

“Impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonality of pediatric respiratory diseases”

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nascimento,

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 Nov 27 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Brenda M. Morrow, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "After approval of the project by the Research Ethics Committee, a survey was made of all patients aged 0 to 17 years and 11 months who were hospitalized with primary and secondary diagnosis of respiratory diseases (International Disease Code, 10th Revision: J00 – J99) from January 2015 to July 2020."

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The current manuscript describes the seasonality of pediatric upper respiratory infections and the impact of the COVID-19 on the incidences. The report is written in understandable English. The topic is current as the pandemic is still going strong globally. The authors however have some difficulties in presenting the results and the discussion in relation to current knowledge remains vague. I have some questions and comments to be addressed by the authors:

1. Abstract. I’d like the authors to comment shortly about the change in the seasonality that was observed. For example: the social isolation guideline decreased majorly pediatric hospitalizations due respiratory infections. As now the conclusion only states that seasonality was interfered.

2. Abstract line 60, correct COVID-10 to COVID-19.

3. Abstract lines 61 and 63. I would suggest the authors to redefine this statement as now it is unclear, and the final message needs to be more precise.

4. Introduction: I would like to hear more about the social restrictions implemented in Brazil to battle covid-19. For example, were day care centers or pre schools closed in the study area?

5. Introduction line 86: the authors aim to report the prevalence of the hospitalizations, however exact numbers are given and no pediatric population size for the area has been given. Incidence would be more suitable in this given context or if population size is unclear then rates should be interpreted.

6. Methods first chapter: The size of the pediatric population in the area could be provided and the profile of the hospital should be mentioned as primary, secondary or tertiary level center.

7. Methods line 103. The exact grouping of the ICD-10 codes into each subcategory should be specified.

8. Methods line 111. The results of these analysis are not shown. Please provide these, as in the results line 146 the authors state evidence of the association was seen… p<0.001, which is not enough.

9. Methods line 120-121. Please provide the version of the R software and the names of the packages that were used.

10. Results table 1, the length of hospital stay is in Portuguese, please translate to English.

11. Results: I’d personally would like the authors to present more results, as now, mostly the results section is only stating what the tables and figures contain, instead of picking results up

12. In order the compare the effect of the lockdown the table 1 could compare the lockdown period to non-lockdown period.

13. The figure 1 is understandable and clear but the resolution of the image is poor and the numbers small

14. The figure 2 is hard to read as the lines are too close to each other. This figure could benefit from. My suggestion is that the authors could consider presenting the figures 1 and 2 together for example as a stacked area chart, where the number and trends of monthly admissions and the reasons for admission could be seen.

15. Results line 137: The adjusting could be described shortly here. Crude report showed xx.x and when adjusted with gender and age the adjusted xxx was xxx. This would benefit the reader majorly. Although I give credit for using confidence intervals here.

16. When adjusting any statistical models the rational behind the selection of the covariates included in the adjusted model should be presented in the methods and explained, why these variates were taken into the model.

17. Discussion: lines 185-187 could be removed.

18. Lines 200 to 203 have no references. I’d suggest the authors to cite for example:

-Seasonal Influenza Activity During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak in Japan JAMA 2020 May 19;323(19):1969-1971. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6173.

- Does COVID-19 infection impact on the trend of seasonal influenza infection? 11 countries and regions, from 2014 to 2020 Int J Infect Dis 2020 Aug;97:78-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.088. Epub 2020 May 31.

- Effect of Social Distancing Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Incidence of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Children in Finland During Early 2020 Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002845. Online ahead of print.

19. The newly published results from other countries on the incidences of respiratory infections during social isolation could be discussed in relation to the results in this study. For example:

- Effect of Social Distancing Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Incidence of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Children in Finland During Early 2020 Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002845. Online ahead of print.

- Social Distancing for COVID-19 and Diagnoses of Other Infectious Diseases in Children Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 2;e2020006460. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460. Online ahead of print.

20. Conclusion is sound and based on the provided results. However the authors could improve the result and the discussion.

In conclusion the authors should address the methodological problems, the issues in presenting the results and how the results are discussed.

Reviewer #2: PLOS ONE manuscript review

Impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonality of pediatric respiratory diseases

This is an important paper that highlights the effect of public health strategies instituted to control the spread of COVID-19 globally in 2020. It highlights that these strategies yielded an overall reduction in hospitalisations due to lower respiratory tract infections especially in the under 5 age groups.

My comments below for the authors to consider:-

Abstract:

Rephrase the sentence….. we will only know if there is a change in behaviour observed in 2020, it will also influence the seasonality of 2021 with the continuity of results for……

Methods

Line 94: Patients aged 0 to 17 years and 11 months….. On the results sections, the highest age recruited was 17 years; probably delete the 11 months part on the methodology or just state children under 18 years were recruited.

Line 103 and 10: regarding groupings of the various diagnosis, how was this classification arrived at? Please see my comment below regarding this classification in Table 1.

Results

Table 1:” to” is missing in the rows reading age group

Age group:

0 a 2 years old

3 a 5 years old

6 a 10 years old

11 a 17 years old

Diagnosis

I am not clear why the diagnosis of pneumonia is separate from Bronchopneumonia instead of classifying these two categories under pneumonia.

Also the diagnosis of bronchitis versus bronchiolitis, how were the two diagnoses differentiated especially in the younger children age-group?

It is unclear in the results section the various viral aetiologies depicted under viral pneumonia yet we see this on line 202 in the discussion.

The row that reads …Tempo de internação (dias).. please write this in English

Line 137-that starts…..In the adjusted model,….A table showing the results of this analysis will be useful.

Figure 1: This trend is for all groups. Possible to show the trend for different age groups in Figure1?

Figure 2: Classify pneumonia and Bronchopneumonia together (please see my comments above). Also make the markings on the graph clearer.

Figure 3: see my comments above on the classification of the various diagnosis. Please make the labels of figure 3 clear. Also rephrase line 147 to 149 which is the narrative for figure 3

Discussion

Line 165- again pneumonia and bronchopneumonia terminologies… Please see my comments above regarding these two terminologies

Conclusion: This is well written and summarises the overall take-home message well from this study

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Leah N. Githinji

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: reviewer comments PLOS ONE.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243694. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243694.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Oct 2020

São Paulo, Oct 23th 2020

Response to reviewers

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for the revision of our manuscript (PONE-D-20-29375). We appreciated the comments and suggestions, and the manuscript has been discussed or corrected as follows.

Answers are highlighted in red.

Reviewer #1: The current manuscript describes the seasonality of pediatric upper respiratory infections and the impact of the COVID-19 on the incidences. The report is written in understandable English. The topic is current as the pandemic is still going strong globally. The authors however have some difficulties in presenting the results and the discussion in relation to current knowledge remains vague. I have some questions and comments to be addressed by the authors:

1. Abstract. I’d like the authors to comment shortly about the change in the seasonality that was observed. For example: the social isolation guideline decreased majorly pediatric hospitalizations due respiratory infections. As now the conclusion only states that seasonality was interfered.

We agree with the observation and then we modified the conclusion (LINES 58-61 and 250-253)

2. Abstract line 60, correct COVID-10 to COVID-19.

Correction performed (LINE 59)

3. Abstract lines 61 and 63. I would suggest the authors to redefine this statement as now it is unclear, and the final message needs to be more precise.

We agree with the observation and then we modified the conclusion (LINES 58-61 and 250-253)

4. Introduction: I would like to hear more about the social restrictions implemented in Brazil to battle covid-19. For example, were day care centers or pre schools closed in the study area?

Have been included a paragraph and a reference (8) in the introduction detailing the measures adopted in Brazil (LINES 88-91)

5. Introduction line 86: the authors aim to report the prevalence of the hospitalizations, however exact numbers are given and no pediatric population size for the area has been given. Incidence would be more suitable in this given context or if population size is unclear then rates should be interpreted.

We agree that the term “incidence” is more appropriate within our results. The text has been modified (LINE 92)

6. Methods first chapter: The size of the pediatric population in the area could be provided and the profile of the hospital should be mentioned as primary, secondary or tertiary level center.

Our hospital is a tertiary hospital. The average number of hospitalizations per year in pediatric units is 3000 admissions / year. This information was inserted in the methods section (LINES 100-102)

7. Methods line 103. The exact grouping of the ICD-10 codes into each subcategory should be specified.

We agree with the reviewer's suggestion and we have included the subcategories of the ICD-10 codes in the form of a table to make the grouping that was done clearer (table 1)

8. Methods line 111. The results of these analysis are not shown. Please provide these, as in the results line 146 the authors state evidence of the association was seen… p<0.001, which is not enough.

This question was directed to the statistician who performed the analysis of our study. The text in the methods section was modified with the correction of the analyzes and we added table 3 in the results section (LINES 123-127 and 171-176)

9. Methods line 120-121. Please provide the version of the R software and the names of the packages that were used.

The Version of the R software and the names of the packages that were used were added in the methods section (LINES 135-137).

10. Results table 1, the length of hospital stay is in Portuguese, please translate to English.

The table 1 is now table 2. The term was translated in table 2.

11. Results: I’d personally would like the authors to present more results, as now, mostly the results section is only stating what the tables and figures contain, instead of picking results up

Results have been complemented to make the findings of our study more interesting for the reader. In addition, we changed the figures at the reviewers' suggestion and inserted a new table which also improves our results (LINES 148-157; 165-168; 171-176 and 179-182)

12. In order the compare the effect of the lockdown the table 1 could compare the lockdown period to non-lockdown period.

Table 1 is now table 2. Comparison analysis was performed between the period with social isolation and without social isolation, as suggested by the reviewer. This new analysis made it possible to find some differences that had not been evidenced. Table 2 was modified and the new results found were described.

13. The figure 1 is understandable and clear but the resolution of the image is poor and the numbers small.

The answer to that question is described below

14. The figure 2 is hard to read as the lines are too close to each other. This figure could benefit from. My suggestion is that the authors could consider presenting the figures 1 and 2 together for example as a stacked area chart, where the number and trends of monthly admissions and the reasons for admission could be seen.

Figures 1 and 2 were unified as suggested by the reviewer. We chose to present the evolution of time in trimesters to make the figure clearer. As in Brazil the months with the highest incidence of respiratory diseases are April, May and June, we believe that this representation was a good alternative.

15. Results line 137: The adjusting could be described shortly here. Crude report showed xx.x and when adjusted with gender and age the adjusted xxx was xxx. This would benefit the reader majorly. Although I give credit for using confidence intervals here.

Answer to questions 15 and 16 are together.

16. When adjusting any statistical models the rational behind the selection of the covariates included in the adjusted model should be presented in the methods and explained, why these variates were taken into the model.

This question was directed to the statistical professional who performed the analysis of our study and the following answer was sent.

The only variables in this model were: the number of hospitalizations, the referring month and whether or not it was a period of isolation. There was no adjustment based on any other variable. In this model, we are working with grouped data, so gender and age of individuals were not considered.

To make our analysis clearer the word “adjusting” was removed and we emphasized the name of the test that was used in the “ARIMA” model both in the methods section and in the description of the results (LINES 129-130 and 161)

17. Discussion: lines 185-187 could be removed.

We agreed with the reviewer that this information was redundant in the discussion. Lines 185-187 have been removed.

18. Lines 200 to 203 have no references. I’d suggest the authors to cite for example:

-Seasonal Influenza Activity During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak in Japan JAMA 2020 May 19;323(19):1969-1971. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6173.

- Does COVID-19 infection impact on the trend of seasonal influenza infection? 11 countries and regions, from 2014 to 2020 Int J Infect Dis 2020 Aug;97:78-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.088. Epub 2020 May 31.

- Effect of Social Distancing Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Incidence of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Children in Finland During Early 2020 Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002845. Online ahead of print.

We appreciate the suggestions. References 24 and 25 have been added (LINES 241-244)

19. The newly published results from other countries on the incidences of respiratory infections during social isolation could be discussed in relation to the results in this study. For example:

- Effect of Social Distancing Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Incidence of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections in Children in Finland During Early 2020 Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002845. Online ahead of print.

- Social Distancing for COVID-19 and Diagnoses of Other Infectious Diseases in Children Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 2;e2020006460. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-006460. Online ahead of print.

We added 2 new paragraphs to the discussion with the references suggested by the reviewer (LINES 199-206 and 225-228) (References 13 and 21)

20. Conclusion is sound and based on the provided results. However the authors could improve the result and the discussion.

The “result” and “discussion” sessions had their texts supplemented and / or modified

In conclusion the authors should address the methodological problems, the issues in presenting the results and how the results are discussed.

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for the revision of our manuscript (PONE-D-20-29375). We appreciated the comments and suggestions, and the manuscript has been discussed or corrected as follows.

Answers are highlighted in bold. Parts of the text that have been modified are in Italic.

Reviewer #2: PLOS ONE manuscript review

Impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonality of pediatric respiratory diseases

This is an important paper that highlights the effect of public health strategies instituted to control the spread of COVID-19 globally in 2020. It highlights that these strategies yielded an overall reduction in hospitalisations due to lower respiratory tract infections especially in the under 5 age groups.

My comments below for the authors to consider:-

Abstract:

Rephrase the sentence….. we will only know if there is a change in behaviour observed in 2020, it will also influence the seasonality of 2021 with the continuity of results for……

We agree with the observation and then we modified the conclusion (LINES 58-61 and 250-253)

Methods

Line 94: Patients aged 0 to 17 years and 11 months….. On the results sections, the highest age recruited was 17 years; probably delete the 11 months part on the methodology or just state children under 18 years were recruited.

“And 11 months” removed from the text both in the abstract and in the methods

Line 103 and 10: regarding groupings of the various diagnosis, how was this classification arrived at? Please see my comment below regarding this classification in Table 1.

The grouping was performed through the subcategories of the ICD-10 codes. To make it clearer, we include the subcategories of the ICD-10 codes in the form of a table (table 1) to clarify the grouping that was carried out and we grouped bronchopneumonia and pneumonia into a single category, as suggested by the reviewer. After this new categorization, a new statistical analysis was performed,

Results

Table 1:” to” is missing in the rows reading age group

Age group:

0 a 2 years old

3 a 5 years old

6 a 10 years old

11 a 17 years old

The table 1 is now table 2. The terms have been corrected in the table 2

Diagnosis

I am not clear why the diagnosis of pneumonia is separate from Bronchopneumonia instead of classifying these two categories under pneumonia.

We grouped bronchopneumonia and pneumonia in one category, as suggested by the reviewer. After this new categorization, a new statistical analysis was performed.

Also the diagnosis of bronchitis versus bronchiolitis, how were the two diagnoses differentiated especially in the younger children age-group?

We agree with the reviewer that there are no marked clinical differences between the two diagnoses (bronchitis and brochiolitis) mainly in younger children. However, the diagnosis of bronchitis was closely associated with the secondary diagnosis of asthma. For this reason, there was a grouping of these 2 diagnoses. This explanation was inserted in the methods section. (LINES 115-117)

It is unclear in the results section the various viral a etiologies depicted under viral pneumonia yet we see this on line 202 in the discussion.

We agree with the reviewer that there is no description of viral pathogens in the results. These data have not really been collected. However, the authors' idea was to show the cases of bronchiolitis, a disease caused mainly by the respiratory syncytial virus. The terms have been replaced in this paragraph (LINES 241-244).

The row that reads …Tempo de internação (dias).. please write this in English

The table 1 is now table 2. The term was translated in table 2.

Line 137-that starts…..In the adjusted model,….A table showing the results of this analysis will be useful.

This question was directed to the statistical professional who performed the analysis of our study and the following answer was sent.

The only variables in this model were: the number of hospitalizations, the referring month and whether or not it was a period of isolation. There was no adjustment based on any other variable. In this model, we are working with grouped data, so gender and age of individuals were not considered.

To make our analysis clearer the word “adjusting” was removed and we emphasized the name of the test that was used in the “ARIMA” model both in the methods section and in the description of the results (LINES 129-130 and 161)

Figure 1: This trend is for all groups. Possible to show the trend for different age groups in Figure1?

Figure 1 and figure 2 were unified at the request of reviewer 1. To make the visualization of the figures clearer for the reader, we chose to bring a trend for different age groups in a new figure (Figure 3)

Figure 2: Classify pneumonia and Bronchopneumonia together (please see my comments above). Also make the markings on the graph clearer.

We grouped bronchopneumonia and pneumonia in a single category as suggested by the reviewer and the figure was modified.

Figure 3: see my comments above on the classification of the various diagnosis. Please make the labels of figure 3 clear. Also rephrase line 147 to 149 which is the narrative for figure 3

After classifying Bronchopneumonia and pneumonia together, the statistical analysis was redone. We included a new table (table 3) for presenting the results and the text was supplemented (LINES 171-176)

Discussion

Line 165- again pneumonia and bronchopneumonia terminologies… Please see my comments above regarding these two terminologies

We grouped bronchopneumonia and pneumonia in a single category The terms have been corrected.

Conclusion: This is well written and summarises the overall take-home message well from this study

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Brenda M Morrow

26 Nov 2020

“Impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonality of pediatric respiratory diseases”

PONE-D-20-29375R1

Dear Dr. Nascimento,

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,

Brenda M. Morrow, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for answering all of my concerns. This paper has had major improvement. I have no further questions or comments regarding this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed.

You may correct the small typo on line 99 (provide) and missing comma after URI on line 112

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Brenda M Morrow

4 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-29375R1

Impact of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the seasonality of pediatric respiratory diseases.

Dear Dr. Nascimento:

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

Professor Brenda M. Morrow

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 File

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reviewer comments PLOS ONE.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES