Comparison of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the variation in the medical resource utilization rate of Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus (HRSV) infected children by gestational age have recently been made available. This review aimed to determine whether prematurity is independently associated with the use of medical resources in hospitalized children for HRSV infections.
METHODS: We conducted this systematic review on cohort studies published on the medical resources use in preterm and full-term patients hospitalized for confirmed HRSV infections. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Global Index medicus for eligible studies. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and Risk Ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated as summary statistics with random effects meta-analysis. The overall results were adjusted to the common confounders by stratified analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 14 articles (20 studies) were included. Compared to full-term, preterm hospitalized with HRSV infections had more frequent intensive care unit admission (RR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.9-3.5), increased length of stay in hospital (SMD = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5-0.8) and intensive care unit (SMD = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.4-0.8) and increased case fatality rate (RR = 6.9, 95% CI = 2.0-23.8). Mechanical ventilation utilization was more frequent in preterm children ≤ 2 years (RR = 15.5, 95% CI = 8.9-26.4) and those who did not receive prophylaxis against HRSV (RR = 15.9, 95% CI = 9.1-27.9)] than in full-term children. No differences were identified in the frequency of emergency department visits, oxygen utilization, and the age at the first HRSV episode between preterm and full-term infants.
CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of gestational age, preterm infants hospitalized for HRSV infections, especially those ≤ 2 years, have an increased frequency of use of health resources and poor outcomes compared to full-term infants. HRSV vaccine development programs for pregnant women should be accelerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Review registration PROSPERO, CRD42019124375.

Introduction

Human Respiratory syncytial virus (HRSV) is one of the leading causes of acute lower respiratory infection in children worldwide [1-3]. Almost all children are exposed at least once to HRSV at 2 years old, with infection peak occurring between 2–6 months of life [4]. HRSV does not induce long lasting immunity and is therefore a common cause of reinfection [4]. HRSV severe infections are responsible for hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, Emergency Department (ED) visits, and the use of Mechanical Ventilation (MV) and/or oxygen supplementation registered mostly in children less than 1 year of age [5-9]. In addition to this burden the HRSV is also responsible for a high Case Fatality Rate (CFR) in resource-constrained countries [2]. HRSV infections are also responsible for a substantial economic burden on society in terms of the costs of palivizumab immunoprophylaxis, hospitalization costs, and productivity and time lost [10-12]. Several risk factors for infection, severity and mortality of HRSV infections in infants have been identified [13,14]. The most important included low birth weight, young age before or during the HRSV season, immunodeficiency, presence of other conditions (chronic lung diseases, bronchopneumonia disease …), multiple birth, history of atopy, tobacco exposure, male gender, breastfeeding within 2 months or less, overcrowding with school-age siblings or daycare attendance and prematurely infants [14]. Studies have shown increased risk of hospitalization in preterm (PT) compared to full-term (FT) infants with this hospitalization rate inversely correlated with decreased gestational age [15]. There is no antiviral or effective vaccine against HRSV and the management is mainly based on symptom and prevention of complications [16-19]. Palivizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody used for preventative or prophylactic action against HRSV for the reduction of rates and duration of hospitalization related to severe HRSV infections in high-risk children [children with bronchopneumonia disease and/or children born less than 32 weeks of gestational age (wGA)] [20-22]. However, prophylaxis with palivizumab is recommended only for vulnerable children because of its high cost. The cost-effectiveness analysis for palivizumab allows regular review of palivizumab administration guidelines [23]. The 2014 guidelines issued restrictions on certain categories of infants (infants 29–35 wGA without comorbidities). Controversial data has been reported according to increased morbidity following 2014 guidelines restrictions in the administration of palivizumab [24-27]. Studies also reported an increased risk of hospitalization with HRSV in late PT (34 to <37 wGA) who however are not eligible to receive palivizumab prophylaxis [28]. To date, the synthesis of published data comparing the morbidity of HRSV infections in PT (early and late PT) and FT infants remains to be done. These summary data from the comparison of the consequences of premature birth on HRSV infections are needed to further inform the public health stakeholders about the administration guidelines of palivizumab. The objectives of this review were to compare the use of health care resources related to HRSV infections in PT and FT patients.

Methods

Study design

This study was part of the HARIPI (HRSV Acute Respiratory Infections in Preterm Infants) systematic review and meta-analysis that aimed to describe the burden of HRSV in PT infants. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for the writing of this review (S1 Table) [29]. The protocol of this systematic summary was published in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42019124375. This systematic review is based on published studies with participants who have been disidentified and comply with research ethics standards and therefore the approval of an ethics committee was not necessary.

Inclusion criteria

Studies reporting cohorts of patients of all ages hospitalized with confirmed HRSV infections were included. We adopted the classification mode of PT infants proposed by Engle et al. (PT, ≤ 34 wGA and late PT,> 34 wGA) and a second classification defined in this review (≤ 32 wGA vs > 32 wGA) [30]. This second gestational age classification mode considered in this work was consistent with the 32 wGA threshold considered for eligibility to Palivizumab administration in children <1 year of age born between 29 and 32 wGA with other chronic pulmonary comorbidities recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2014 [22]. The diagnosis of HRSV infection was considered for viral laboratory detection conducted during the study or data recorded in databases or patient files. A second group of term patients (≥37 wGA) hospitalized with HRSV infections were the comparator group. Studies enrolling only patients with comorbidity (congenital malformations, low birth weight or immunocompromised) were excluded to reduce potential confounding effects. The frequency of health resources use was compared between the 2 groups (PT vs FT infants) by examining variables such as admission to ICU, ED visits. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included without linguistic, temporal or geographic restrictions.

Search strategy

The articles published until July 22, 2019 were consulted by an electronic search in the Pubmed, Embase, and Global Index medicus databases. The research equation focused on premature birth, HRSV and health care utilization (S2 Table). References list of relevant review and included articles were screened for additional potential eligible articles.

Study selection

We used the EndNote Reference Manager software to remove duplicates. Titles and article abstracts were independently analyzed and selected by two authors (SK and AFM). The disagreements were resolved by discussion between the authors and a third referee (RN).

Data extraction

We (SK and AFM) extracted article related data such as: first author, year of publication, study design, recruitment period, timing of data collection, and country. We collected participant related data such as: age at inclusion, gestational age, used of prophylaxis against HRSV, indicators of hospitalization severity such as length of stay (LOS), admission to the ICU and/or use of MV, ED visits, and HRSV detection assay used. The data collected for the use of health care resources was the total of PT and the total of FT and the number presenting the outcome for each group. The data collected for the confounding factors were the total numbers of PT and FT infant and the numbers presenting the confounding factor in each group.

Risk of bias assessment

The included studies were independently evaluated by two authors (SK and AFM) at the methodological level using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomised comparative studies [31] (S3 Table). Newcastle Ottawa for cohort studies is a 13-star scale that evaluates the selection of participants (6 stars), the comparability of groups (2 stars) and the outcomes (5 stars).

Statistical analysis

We used meta-analyses for binary data (metabin) and continuous data (metacont) in the R software version 3.5.1 [32,33]. For a minimum of three studies, these functions allow to estimate all the parameters that are important for the meta-analyses (effect, heterogeneity and publication bias). This is the reason why we considered for our review, only the outcomes with at least three studies. Data from included studies (numbers, means, and standard deviation) were used to evaluate risk ratio (RR), standardised mean difference (SMD) with their 95% CIs using a random effect model [34]. We chose RR rather than OR because this parameter is indicated in measuring effect for prospective studies with binary outcomes [35]. We used the SMD rather than the mean difference because this parameter is more generalizable [36]. Means and standard deviations were estimated for studies in which they were not provided using the method described by Wan et al [37]. Differences between groups were considered statistically significant for values of p <0.05. Heterogeneity across included studies was assessed using the I2 values from the Q test statistic for which a value > 50% was considered to imply heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses including gestational age, use of HRSV prophylaxis, HRSV detection assays (International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code vs laboratory detection assay), and WHO region were done to investigate the possible sources of heterogeneity. We used the symmetry of funnel plots and did the Egger test to assess the presence of publication and selective reporting bias [38]. A p-value < 0.1 was considered indicative of statistically significant publication bias. The robustness of the results was estimated through sensitivity analyses including only studies with a low risk of bias and patients ≤ 2 years. We evaluated the influence of confounding factors on overall findings by stratified analyses, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, HRSV co-detection with other viruses or bacteria, presence of other underlying medical conditions, breastfeeding, crowding, smoke exposure, age before/during HRSV season, male gender, multiple gestation, and asthma in family history. For each potential confounding factor, we used the total numbers of PT and FT infants and the number with the confounding factor in the PT and FT group from the included studies to recalculate the p-value using the Khi-2 and Fisher exact tests. For Fisher exact or Khi-2 p-value <0.05, we considered the confounding factor to have an asymmetric distribution between PT and FT infant and symmetric if else. To appreciate the effect when the confounding factor is controlled, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with included studies with a symmetric distribution of cofounders between PT and FT infants.

Results

Study selection and characteristics

Our search strategy found 3361 articles through database searching and 7 through other sources and we removed 829 duplicates (Fig 1). We consulted the titles and abstracts of 2519 articles and eliminated 2444 irrelevant according to inclusion criteria of the study. We consulted the full text of 76 articles and eliminated 62 for multiple reasons presented in S4 Table. We finally included 14 articles corresponding to 20 studies whose characteristics are presented in the S5 Table [39-52]. The majority of included studies enrolled participants less than one year (9 studies) who did not receive prophylaxis against HRSV (9 studies), and were conducted in the United States (10 studies). The included studies were published between 1990 and 2018. Study participants were recruited between 1985 and 2017.

Fig 1

Flow chart for the systematic literature search.

Included studies risk of bias assessment

The majority of studies had a low risk of bias (18 studies, S6 Table). Most of the included studies were population-based (15 studies) and therefore representative of the population source. All FT children were recruited from the same population as the PT infants and therefore had no selection bias. Gestational age data were collected from secure patient file and HRSV infections were confirmed by laboratory assays, ICD codes or secure recordings in almost all included studies (18 studies). The majority of included studies did not match participants on age at inclusion (17 studies). Five studies [39,43,45,46,49], however, excluded participants with comorbidities, thereby reducing the confounding factors of these parameters on the effect of prematurity on health care utilization reported by the study.

Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses

Fifteen studies on the association between premature birth and ICU admission shown a combined RR of 2.6 (95% CI = 1.9–3.5, I2 = 83.2%) (Fig 2). The CFR was significantly higher in PT infants enrolled in six studies (RR = 6.9, 95% CI = 2.0–23.8, I2 = 5.2%). Children born prematurely had LOS at hospital (SMD = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5; 0.8, I2 = 77.8%) and at ICU (SMD = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.4; 0.8, I2 = 75.0%) significantly higher than FT infants (Fig 3). There was no difference for age at the time of the first episode of HRSV infection between PT and FT infants (SMD = 0.0, 95% CI = -0.0; 0.1, I2 = 16.6%). The frequency of ED visits (RR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.5–2.1, I2 = 62.6%) and oxygen supplementation (RR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.9–1.6, I2 = 91.4%) were not different between PT and FT infants. There was no association in the overall analysis of the risk of MV utilization between PT and FT infants (RR = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.5–7.1, I2 = 94.8). %), but sensitivity analysis with only children aged ≤ 2 years shows a significantly higher risk in PT infants (RR = 15.5, 95% CI = 8.9–26.9, I2 = 0.0%) (Tables 1 and 2). Results of sensitivity analyzes that included only low-risk studies and children ≤ 2 years of age did not affect RR or 95% CI for ICU admission, ED visits, oxygen supplementation, CFR, LOS at hospital and at ICU, and age at time of index HRSV infection, suggesting the robustness of our meta-analyses.

Fig 2

Forest plot for the association between premature birth and risk of health care use for binary outcomes.

Fig 3

Forest plot for the association between premature birth and the risk of health care use for continuous outcomes.

Table 1

Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses of binary outcomes of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with HRSV infections.

	RR (95%CI)	95% Prediction interval	N Studies	N Preterm infants	N Term infants	H¶ (95%CI)	I2§ (95%CI)	P-value heterogeneity	P-value Egger test
Intensive care unit admission
Overall	2.6 [1.9–3.5]	[0.8–8.1]	15	1640	12884	2.4 [1.9–3.1]	83.2 [73.6–89.3]	< 0.001	0.275
≤ 2 years	2.3 [1.6–3.2]	[0.7–7.3]	11	1316	10846	2.7 [2.1–3.5]	86.5 [77.8–91.9]	< 0.001	0.141
Low risk of bias	2.7 [2.0–3.7]	[0.8–8.5]	14	1627	12830	2.5 [2.0–3.2]	84.1 [74.7–90.0]	< 0.001	0.349
Emergency department visits
Overall	1.1 [0.9–1.2]	[0.4–2.7]	3	89	645	1.5 [1.0–2.8]	54 [0.0–86.8]	0.114	0.027
≤ 2 years	1.1 [0.9–1.2]	[0.4–2.7]	3	89	645	1.5 [1.0–2.8]	54 [0.0–86.8]	0.114	0.027
Low risk of bias	1.1 [0.9–1.2]	[0.4–2.7]	3	89	645	1.5 [1.0–2.8]	54 [0.0–86.8]	0.114	0.027
Mechanical ventilation utilization
Overall	1.9 [0.5–7.1]	[0.0–177.4]	6	793	5054	4.4 [3.4–5.7]	94.8 [91.1–96.9]	< 0.001	0.652
≤ 2 years	15.5 [8.9–26.9]	NA	2	571	4596	1.0	0.0	0.656	NA
Low risk of bias	2.1 [0.4–10.7]	[0.0–788.3]	5	753	4952	3.5 [2.5–4.9]	91.7 [83.5–95.8]	< 0.001	0.229
Supplemental oxygen utilization
Overall	1.2 [0.9–1.6]	[0.4–4]	5	461	1444	3.4 [2.4–4.8]	91.4 [83.0–95.7]	< 0.001	0.424
≤ 2 years	1.2 [0.9–1.7]	NA	2	279	1088	5.1 [3.0–8.5]	96.1 [89.0–98.6]	< 0.001	NA
Low risk of bias	1.3 [0.8–1.9]	[0.2–7.8]	4	448	1390	2.9 [1.9–4.4]	87.7 [70.9–94.8]	< 0.001	0.435
Case fatality rate
Overall	6.9 [2.0–23.8]	NA	2	709	3277	1.0	5.2	0.304	NA
≤ 2 years	6.9 [2.0–23.8]	NA	2	514	1901	1.0	5.2	0.304	NA
Low risk of bias	6.9 [2.0–23.8]	NA	2	669	3175	1.0	5.2	0.304	NA

RR: Risk Ratio; N: Number; 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval; NA: Not Applicable; LOS: Length of stay;

¶H is a measure of the extent of heterogeneity, a value of H = 1 indicates homogeneity of effects and a value of H >1indicates a potential heterogeneity of effects.

§: I2 describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity, a value > 50% indicates presence of heterogeneity

Table 2

Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses of continuous outcomes of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with HRSV infections.

	SMD (95%CI)	95% Prediction interval	N Studies	N Preterm infants	N Term infants	H¶ (95%CI)	I2§ (95%CI)	P-value heterogeneity	P-value Egger test
Hospitalization LOS
Overall	0.6 [0.5; 0.8]	[0.1; 1.1]	12	1441	19945	2.1 [1.6–2.8]	77.8 [61.6–87.2]	< 0.001	0,763
Low risk of bias	0.6 [0.5; 0.8]	[0.1; 1.1]	12	1441	19945	2.1 [1.6–2.8]	77.8 [61.6–87.2]	< 0.001	0,763
≤ 2 years	0.7 [0.5; 0.9]	[0.0; 1.4]	7	616	5681	2.1 [1.4–3]	77.1 [52.1–89]	< 0.001	0,739
Intensive care unit LOS
Overall	0.6 [0.4; 0.8]	[-0.1; 1.2]	7	608	5747	2 [1.4–2.9]	75.0 [47.0–88.2]	0,001	0,262
Low risk of bias	0.6 [0.3; 0.8]	[-0.2; 1.3]	6	568	5645	2.2 [1.5–3.2]	78.8 [53.5–90.3]	< 0.001	0,333
≤ 2 years	0.6 [0.3; 0.8]	[-0.2; 1.3]	6	568	5645	2.2 [1.5–3.2]	78.8 [53.5–90.3]	< 0.001	0,333
Age at time of index HRSV infection
Overall	0.0 [-0.0; 0.1]	[-0.1; 0.2]	5	904	17910	1.1 [1–2.4]	16.6 [0.0–82.6]	0,309	0,622
Low risk of bias	0.0 [-0.0; 0.1]	[-0.1; 0.2]	5	904	17910	1.1 [1–2.4]	16.6 [0.0–82.6]	0,309	0,622
≤ 2 years	0.1 [-0.1; 0.3]	[-1.9; 2.2]	3	261	4002	1.3 [1–2.4]	41.5 [0.0–82.2]	0,181	0,820

SMD: Standardised Mean Difference; N: Number; 95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval; NA: Not Applicable; LOS: Length of stay;

¶H is a measure of the extent of heterogeneity, a value of H = 1 indicates homogeneity of effects and a value of H >1indicates a potential heterogeneity of effects.

§: I2 describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity, a value > 50% indicates presence of heterogeneity

Heterogeneity analyses and publication bias

The studies included in the analyses of ED visits (I2 = 54.0%, P = 0.114), CFR (I2 = 5.2%, P = 0.304), and age at the first episode of HRSV infection (I2 = 16.6%, P = 0.309) were homogeneous. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the remaining analyses. The funnel plot was asymmetric for studies involving the ED visits (P Egger = 0.027, S2 Fig). No publication bias was recorded for the remaining analyses (S1–S8 Figs).

Subgroup analysis

The risk of admission to ICU was significantly higher in PT compared to FT in all WHO regions represented in the review (S7 and S8 Tables). An increased rate of ICU admission in PT infants was found in the Western Pacific (RR = 5.9, 95% CI = 4.6–7.5) and Europe (RR = 3.5, 95% CI = 2.9–4.2) compared to America (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4–2.2) (p < 0.001). The use of MV was significantly greater in PT children who did not receive prophylaxis against HRSV (p = 0.002). The risk of MV utilization in PT infants was significantly higher (p <0.001) in the Western Pacific (RR = 15.9, 95% CI = 9.1–27.9), in America (RR = 5.2, CI 95% = 2.4–11.7) compared to Europe (RR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.3–1.4) where there was no association. The use of MV was statistically higher among PT compared to FT infants in the studies that identified HRSV from International Classification of Disease codes (RR = 15.5, 95% CI = 8.9–26.9) compared to the authors who reported the use of laboratory assays for HRSV identification (RR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.1–0.8) (p = 0.007). There was a significant difference in the subgroup analysis according to age at the time of the first episode of HRSV infection by gestational age of PT children (p = 0.047). Children born at a gestational age ≤ 32 wGA had an age at the time of the first episode of HRSV infection greater than FT infants (SMD = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.0, 0.7). There was no difference in the remaining subgroup analyses by gestational age of PT infants, prophylaxis against HRSV, HRSV detection assays, and WHO region.

Confounding factors

The majority of studies that provided primary data on confounding factors had a symmetric distribution between PT and FT infants (S9 Table) including, HRSV/other virus codetection (2/2), age ≤ 3 months before/during the HRSV season (1/1), history of asthma in the family (1/1), bacterial codetection (1/1), breastfeeding < 2 months (1/1), daycare attendance during the first year (1/1), the presence of siblings of more than one year (1/1), smoking during pregnancy (1/1), twins (1/1), male gender (7/11), and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (3/4). Half of the studies with data on heart disease (3/6) and respiratory co-morbidities (1/2) were equally distributed between PT and FT infants. All studies (4/4) with data on at least one underlying medical condition and passive smoking during the first year of life (1/1) had an inequitable distribution between PT and FT infants. The sensitivity analyses with symmetric distribution of each confounding factors examined revealed no major influence on the overall estimated results (S10 and S11 Tables). The increased frequency of ICU admission was lost (RR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.3–5.1) in a study with a symmetric distribution of children with bronchopneumonia dysplasia [52]. The increased hospital LOS in PT infants was lost in a study with symmetric distribution of day-care attendance 1st year (SMD = 0.0, 95% CI = -0.8; 0.8) and bronchopneumonia dysplasia (SMD = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.5; 1.3) [43].

Discussion

This study showed that compared to FT, PT infants hospitalized for HRSV infections had a greater rate of ICU admission. Premature infants hospitalized for HRSV infections also had longer stays in the hospital and ICU than FT infants. The CFR was also higher in PT hospitalized for HRSV infections compared to FT infants. No significant differences in ED visits, age at first HRSV infection, oxygen utilization, and use of MV were observed between PT and FT infants hospitalized for HRSV infections. The use of MV, however, was significantly more common in PT infants under 2 years hospitalized for HRSV infections. Preterm infants < 32 wGA experienced the first episode of HRSV infection later than FT infants. Admission to the ICU and use of MV was significantly more common in a study of the western Pacific (Taiwan) compared to Europe and America. The risk of ICU stay was more prevalent in Europe compared to America while the risk of MV was more prevalent in America compared to Europe. Finally, we found that prophylaxis against HRSV reduced the risk of MV in the included studies.

The results obtained from this systematic review and meta-analysis are consistent with that of a previous systematic review conducted without meta-analysis with respect to increased frequency in PT compared to FT infants for admission to ICU, LOS in hospital and ICU, and CFR. One explanation for this difference between PT and FT infants may be incomplete pulmonary and immature development of PT infants, which makes them more vulnerable to death and more severe HRSV infections, resulting in longer rates and hospital stays [53-58]. The systematic review conducted by Figueras-Aloy et al. reported that there was no difference in the use of MV and LOS in hospital between PT and FT infants. In the present study, however, a sensitivity analysis in patients aged ≤ 2 years revealed a high frequency of MV use in PT compared to FT infants. Contrary to the present systematic review which shows no difference in the frequency of oxygen supplementation in PT than in FT infants, the Figueras-Aloy et al. had reported controversial results in this regard [15]. This review highlights for the first time a similar rate of ED visit between PT and FT children. We had also shown in this review that there is no difference in age at the first episode of HRSV between PT and FT infants. This result is consistent with the review conducted by Parikh et al. on US published data and databases on patient hospitalized for HRSV infections from 2006 to 2011 [59]. While term infants are protected from HRSV infections during the first months of life by maternal antibodies [60], children born at ≤ 32 wGA are also protected by their prolonged stay in hospitals at birth [61]. This hypothesis is well supported by the subgroup analysis conducted in this work which revealed that children of ≤ 32 wGA were infected with HRSV later than FT infants. The management of HRSV infections varies considerably in countries according to economic and socio-cultural criteria, which greatly compromises the possibility of interpreting differences in the use of hospital care resources according to the WHO regions observed during this work. Several studies have shown that prophylaxis with Palivizumab helps reduce the risk of hospitalization and LOS in hospital in PT children [21,62,63]. This work has shown that children who received palivizumab did not have a greater risk of using MV.

This is the first meta-analysis to establish the association between gestational age and the use of health care resources in patients with HRSV infection. Our results were controlled for multiple confounding factors including breastfeeding, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, daycare attendance, sex, age before / during the HRSV season, tobacco exposure, family antecedent of asthma, underlying medical conditions, viral and bacterial codetections, overcrowding and multiple gestations. Apart from a study conducted in the Western Pacific west, the remaining originated from America and Europe, this represents on the one hand a weakness for this review by compromising the generalizability of findings globally and is also a strength by highlighting a gap of knowledge for other regions of the world consisting mainly of countries with limited resources that could have a particular profile and have a strong specificity in relation to the results of this work. Difference between PT with co-morbid conditions and otherwise healthy PT is also important for HRSV prophylaxis administration guidelines. The included studies in this review did not report the frequency of health care use stratified for healthy and PT with comorbidities. We were therefore not able to do this analysis as part of this review. Some included studies (5/20) used ICD codes for HRSV identification. These records are likely to be affected by inaccurate coding and may therefore incorrectly lead to the inclusion of negative HRSV participants. With the exception of the use of MV category, the group analyzes conducted during this work did not reveal any difference between these studies with the ICD codes and the studies specifying the laboratory assay used. To guarantee the robustness of our statistical analyses, we have limited our meta-analysis to outcomes available in at least 3 articles. Therefore, other relevant outcomes present in less than 3 articles including outpatient visits, antiviral or antibiotic treatment have not been included [43,49,64]. Multiple categories of subgroup analyses were represented by a single category or were not possible due to lack of data. While Grey literature or unpublished evidence would have made an important contribution to this systematic review [65], we nevertheless covered several electronic databases including Embase which represents a database which produces unique references and we conducted robust analyses attesting that the present work is not significantly subject of publication bias [66]. Another limitation of this work is the retrospective nature of the included studies that may be affected by multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, and the difficulty of verifying the data collected in the archives by authors of included studies.

The results of this systematic review indicate that compared to FT hospitalized for HRSV infections, those with a history of premature birth are at increased risk of admission to ICU, leading to longer hospitalizations LOS, a higher rate of MV utilization, and higher mortality. Our results also indicate no difference between age at first episode of HRSV infection, frequency of ED visits, and oxygen supplemental utilization between PT and FT infants. In addition, according to the results of this work, compared to FT infants, there is no difference in the use of health care resources between early (< 32/34 wGA) and late PT infants.

Pediatricians, programme managers and policy makers should be aware that compared to FT children, early and late PT hospitalized for HRSV infections are at high risk for increased use of medical resources and poor outcomes. Special attention should be paid to PT infants < 2 years. Resource-limited areas such as Africa and Southeast Asia have virtually no access to or policies for the administration of HRSV prophylaxis and could thus have a particular profile for the epidemiology of HRSV infections. Additional research from these resource-limited areas is therefore important to fully understand the relationship between gestational age and HRSV infections at the global level. Additional studies of the evaluation of interventions to reduce the use of care resources by HRSV-infected premature infants are also needed.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children admission in intensive care unit.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children visit in emergency department.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children utilization of mechanical ventilation.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children utilization of supplemental oxygen.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children case fatality rate.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children hospitalization length of stay.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children intensive care unit length of stay.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for publications for preterm and term children age at time of index HRSV infection.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Search strategy in Embase.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Items for risk of bias assessment.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Main reasons of exclusion of eligible studies.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Individual characteristics of included studies.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Individual results of the quality assessment of the included studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Subgroup analyses of binary outcomes of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with HRSV infections.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Subgroup analyses of continuous outcomes of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with HRSV infections.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

P-value of Khi-2 and Fisher exact tests for qualitative confounding factors.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Sensitivity analyses of binary outcomes of the symmetrically distributed confounding factors.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Sensitivity analyses of continuous outcomes of the symmetrically distributed confounding factors.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-26852

Comparison of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with HRSV infections: the HARIPI systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Njouom,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Girish Chandra Bhatt, MD

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figures 9 and 10 which you refer to in your text on page 15.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

I congratulate you on this very relevant piece of work.

The following are my queries/suggested modifications -

1. Were studies published in other languages apart from English also included in the analysis? (Line number 114)

2. Was there any attempt to look for grey literature/unpublished literature? (Line number 120)

3. This eligibility was defined as per convenience of available software. This would miss out assessment of outcome if a certain outcome is present in two published articles. This may be mentioned as a limitation? (Line number 149)

4. Here it is mentioned as 75 but in Figure 1, the number is 76. Please correct. (Line number 183)

5. Please give the number of such studies. (Line number 200)

6. This may not be a limitation as with a thorough search, the number of articles was limited on this particular issue, so this cannot be taken as a limitation of methodology. (Line number 358)

7. Stakeholders can be specified as hospital management , programme managers and policy makers. (Line number 373)

8. One recommendation could be to take special precaution for those < 2 years of age as that is a finding of the present study

9. This recommendation is not in line with the results obtained, so should be avoided (Line number 376)

10. In figure 1, for n=7, What are the other sources? For n=2463, a break up should be given regarding the reasons for exclusion as done for full text articles. For incorrect study type=6, does this mean incorrect study design? Then better to mention as study design.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors

Thank you very much for the laudable effort you have put in conducting this useful piece of systematic review. I have some concerns that should be addressed as outlined below

General comments

1. Please elaborte HRSV in the abstract

2. Please elaborate all the abbreviations when used first in the manuscript (e,g, wGA, PT, FT, ICU, ED, MV, ICD, etc)

3. When using the abbreviations, please follow the uniformity (either wGA or WGA , and not interchangeably)

4. I square is looking like I2

**********

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: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-26852_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

10 Jan 2020

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

I congratulate you on this very relevant piece of work.

Authors: We thank the reviewer for this appreciation.

The following are my queries/suggested modifications -

1. Were studies published in other languages apart from English also included in the analysis? (Line number 114)

Authors: We plan to translate articles published in a language other than English using Google Translate. We planned this before we search for items in the various databases. However, no eligible articles were in a language other than English. All included articles are thus published in English.

2. Was there any attempt to look for grey literature/unpublished literature? (Line number 120)

Authors: We have no plans to consider gray / unpublished literature in the work. Only articles published in peer-reviewed newspapers were considered in the review. We have now reformulated line 120 to remove any confusion.

3. This eligibility was defined as per convenience of available software. This would miss out assessment of outcome if a certain outcome is present in two published articles. This may be mentioned as a limitation? (Line number 149)

Authors: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We added the following sentences in the discussion section: “To guarantee the robustness of our statistical analyses, we have limited our meta-analysis to outcomes available in at least 3 articles. Therefore, other relevant outcomes present in less than 3 articles including outpatient visits, antiviral or antibiotic treatment have not been included [64-66].”

4. Here it is mentioned as 75 but in Figure 1, the number is 76. Please correct. (Line number 183)

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have revised as requested. The right number is 76.

5. Please give the number of such studies. (Line number 200)

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have revised as requested. We added the following sentence: “Five studies [53-57], however, excluded participants with comorbidities, thereby reducing the confounding factors of these parameters on the effect of prematurity on health care utilization reported by the study.”

6. This may not be a limitation as with a thorough search, the number of articles was limited on this particular issue, so this cannot be taken as a limitation of methodology. (Line number 358)

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have removed the limitation.

7. Stakeholders can be specified as hospital management , programme managers and policy makers. (Line number 373)

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have revised as requested. We added the following sentence: Pediatricians and programme managers and policy makers should be aware that compared to FT children, early and late PT hospitalized for HRSV infections are at high risk for increased use of medical resources and poor outcomes.

8. One recommendation could be to take special precaution for those < 2 years of age as that is a finding of the present study

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have revised as requested. We added the following sentence: Special attention should be paid to PT infants < 2 years.

9. This recommendation is not in line with the results obtained, so should be avoided (Line number 376)

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have removed this recommendation.

10. In figure 1, for n=7, What are the other sources? For n=2463, a break up should be given regarding the reasons for exclusion as done for full text articles. For incorrect study type=6, does this mean incorrect study design? Then better to mention as study design.

Authors: Thank you for this comment. The other sources represent the articles we found through the screening of the list of references of the included articles and of the relevant reviews that we examined. We have now specified in figure 1 the main reasons considered for the elimination of the 2463 articles which the titles and abstracts have been screened. We have now specified the study design in Figure 1.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors

Thank you very much for the laudable effort you have put in conducting this useful piece of systematic review. I have some concerns that should be addressed as outlined below

Authors: We thank the reviewer for this appreciation.

General comments

1. Please elaborte HRSV in the abstract

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have revised as requested. The HRSV (Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus) is now defined at the first use.

2. Please elaborate all the abbreviations when used first in the manuscript (e,g, wGA, PT, FT, ICU, ED, MV, ICD, etc)

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have revised as requested. The lines where all the article abbreviations were defined when they were first used are specified below.

CFR (line 59)

ICU (line 56)

ED (line 56)

PT (line 68)

FT (line 68)

wGA (line 74)

LOS (line 132)

ICD (line 160)

3. When using the abbreviations, please follow the uniformity (either wGA or WGA , and not interchangeably)

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We have revised as requested.

4. I square is looking like I2

Authors: Thank you for this comment. All the values of I square presented as I2 have now been changed to I2

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-19-26852.doc

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-26852R1

Comparison of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies.

PLOS ONE

Dear PhD Njouom,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Girish Chandra Bhatt, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thanks for your responses. The following are my comments based on your responses -

With reference to comment made earlier under Point no. 2, since grey and unpublished literature was not searched, this should be mentioned as a limitation of the study.

With reference to comment made earlier under Point no. 10, I could not find the corrections made in Figure 1, although the authors have said that they have made corrections in Figure 1.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

Thank you for addressing all the comments and revising the paper accordingly

Bets wishes

**********

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

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Jan 2020

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thanks for your responses. The following are my comments based on your responses -

With reference to comment made earlier under Point no. 2, since grey and unpublished literature was not searched, this should be mentioned as a limitation of the study.

Authors: Thank for this suggestion. We have added a sentence in the Discussion section accordingly: “While Grey literature or unpublished evidence would have made an important contribution to this systematic review [65], we nevertheless covered several electronic databases including Embase which represents a database which produces unique references and we conducted robust analyses attesting that the present work is not significantly subject of publication bias [66].”

With reference to comment made earlier under Point no. 10, I could not find the corrections made in Figure 1, although the authors have said that they have made corrections in Figure 1.

Authors: Thank you for this important reminder. Unfortunately, we provided the old version of Figure 1 after the revision. We have now provided updated Figure 1. We did not consult the full texts of the excluded articles after reading the title and summary. We cannot therefore provide details similar to that of the studies for which we have consulted the full texts, in addition this recommendation is not part of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

Thank you for addressing all the comments and revising the paper accordingly

Bets wishes

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-19-26852.doc

Click here for additional data file.

5 Feb 2020

Comparison of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies.

PONE-D-19-26852R2

Dear Dr. Njouom,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Girish Chandra Bhatt, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

7 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-26852R2

Comparison of health care resource utilization among preterm and term infants hospitalized with Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies.

Dear Dr. Njouom:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Girish Chandra Bhatt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE