Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Parasitic contamination of vegetables is a public health problem in several countries and a challenge for food safety. With a short path from the field to the table, these foods can suffer several flaws in the good practices of production, transport and packaging which culminate in an offer of contaminated food to consumers. Therefore, this study describes a systematic review protocol with meta-analysis on evaluating the effectiveness of existing sanitation methods in removing parasites from vegetables.
METHODS: The study will be conducted from published studies that report analyzes of parasites in vegetables before and after sanitization processes. The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, FSTA, LILACS, Scopus and AGRIS electronic databases will be used. In addition, manual searches will be carried out through related articles, references to included articles and directories of theses and dissertations. The primary outcome will be the reduction or absence of parasitic forms in vegetables after the intervention or combined interventions, and the secondary outcomes will include: identification of the main parasites, assessment of the time required for processing and cost-effectiveness analysis. Two authors will independently screen the studies and extract data. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, and a third reviewer will decide if there is no consensus. The criteria established by the Cochrane Manual (with some adaptations) will be used to assess the risk of bias in the studies and if the results are considered acceptable and sufficiently homogeneous, and a meta-analysis will be performed to synthesize the findings. DISCUSSION: The systematic review produced from this protocol will provide evidence on the effectiveness of sanitation protocols for removing parasitic forms in vegetables and will contribute to strengthening food safety, with the adoption of best sanitation practices and prevention of health risks. In addition, the study may highlight possible knowledge gaps that need to be filled with new research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020206929.

Introduction

There are multiple ecological and environmental factors in the vegetable production stages. They range from soil contamination with animal and human waste; poor irrigation conditions and prolonged periods of rain, which carry parasites to contaminate underground soil; low quality of fertilizer and chemical components; and direct contact with animals and insects, increasing the diffusion process of enteroparasitosis [1].

In addition to these factors, associated with the increased consumption of raw or undercooked vegetables in recent years, expansion of the volume in world trade, and also the persistence of protozoa in contaminated vegetables further increase the risk of contracting foodborne diseases and reflect the potential that parasitic agents present as a public health problem [2].

Although the stage of vegetable cultivation is probably the main source of contamination, other factors influence the contamination of vegetables during the production chain: improper handling under low hygienic conditions, low quality of water used in post-harvest cleaning, transportation, contaminated equipment and temperature abuse in storage, product display at the point of sale and even handling in the home kitchen are stages sensitive to contamination and require intensification of health surveillance strategies [3-5].

Even with these risks throughout the entire production chain, the correct hygiene of these foods can reduce or completely eliminate contamination levels [6]. There are several methods available to carry out this decontamination: physical methods (brushing, rinsing, irradiation), chemical methods (sodium hypochlorite, acidified sodium chlorite, acids, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, bromine, iodine, trisodium phosphate, compounds of quaternary ammonium and ozone) and even biological methods when using antagonists as biocontrol agents to fight a specific pathogen [7].

The procedure choice should be based on the absence of damage to plant structures and safety to handlers (being non-toxic, non-irritating and non-corrosive), presenting good solubility for residue removal, good storage stability, in addition to being economical and having quick action [7, 8].

There is no consensus on the procedures required to sanitize vegetables. The general guidelines on food hygiene provided by the Codex Alimentarius establish for vegetable sanitization, in addition to cleaning in water to remove dirt, the use of detergent solutions and appropriate chemical sanitizers, which must have the correct removal of residues after sanitization [9]. The FDA and the CDC recommend that vegetables should be washed in running water, avoiding the use of chemicals products like soap, detergent and any use of bleach solution, and for products labeled as ready-to-eat, this cleaning in running water can be dispensed [10, 11]. In Brazil, the protocol for sanitizing vegetables recommended by the Ministry of Health of Brazil recommends washing vegetables in running water, with subsequent immersion of these foods in 200ppm chlorinated water for 15–30 minutes and removal of residues in running water [12].

These protocols, although efficient in inactivating or decreasing the bacterial load [13-15], have questionable efficacy in parasitological decontamination [16-20]. One of the factors that increase the difficulty of this decontamination is due to the surface characteristics of the vegetables. Green leafy vegetables with a wide and uneven surface promote the attachment of parasite eggs and cysts that easily adhere to the matrix of these foods, in contrast to vegetables with smooth and narrow surfaces with lower parasite rates due to the reduction of this attachment of parasite forms [21]. One example is the high adherence of Cryptosporidium oocysts to spinach, with the internalization of the oocysts in the leaf stomata, making removal by washing alone inefficient [22].

This questionable effectiveness of the various methods available for removing parasites from vegetables makes a systematic review on the subject necessary. Therefore, the aim of this study is to describe a protocol for conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis which will assess the published evidence about the best hygiene practices that reduce parasitic contamination in vegetables, ensuring better food quality.

Materials and methods

Study design

This protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (International prospective register of systematic reviews), with registration number CRD42020206929 and is reported in accordance with the guidelines provided in the PRISMA-P guide (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol) [23] (S1 Checklist). A systematic review protocol should present the methodological strategies that will be used in the systematic review, such as: search strategies, eligibility criteria, what data will be extracted from the selected articles, what are the variables of interest, how the data will be analyzed, and how heterogeneities will be handled, thus, the protocol should demonstrate transparency in the process of performing the systematic review [24].

The systematic review with meta-analysis will be conducted following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook of Systematic Reviews [25], as a systematic, transparent and reproducible method in the investigation of scientific evidence, following the steps corresponding to the flowchart below (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Flowchart steps of the systematic review.

Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria for the study were defined using the PICOS classification (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) as a tool to guide the research and formulate the search strategy, as described in Table 1. No linguistic or date restriction were applied as part of the eligibility criteria.

Table 1

Eligibility criteria.

Category	Inclusion	Exclusion
Population	Studies that report parasitic analyzes on vegetables before and after some intervention process to sanitize these foods and compare this effect.	Studies on the prevalence of parasites in vegetables.
Intervention	Action of different sanitization protocols (chemical, physical or associated) in removing or reducing parasitic forms adhered to vegetables.	Studies which only report the sanitizing effect on microbiological contamination of vegetables.
Comparator	Unsanitized vegetables or samples with artificial contamination.
Outcomes	Absence or reduction of parasitic forms in vegetables.
Study type	Comparative and controlled studies

Search strategy

Structured terms were created based on information from PICOS that would translate the search criteria into the formulation of a search strategy. The bibliographic databases chosen were: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, FSTA (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences), Scopus, AGRIS (International Information System for Agricultural Sciences and Technology), in addition to manual searches in related articles and thesis and dissertation directory.

The primary search strategy was: (“Lettuce” OR “Vegetables” OR “Fresh produce” OR “Plants, Edible” OR “Leafy vegetables” OR “Salads”), AND (“exp Disinfection/” OR “hypochlorite.mp.” OR “Hypochlorous Acid/” OR “Peracetic Acid/” OR “Hydrogen Peroxide/” OR “exp Detergents/” OR “Chlorine/” OR “disinfection agent.mp.” OR “Decontamination/” OR “chemical agent.mp.” OR “Sanitation/” OR “Wash” OR “Clean*.mp” OR “Anti-Infective Agents/” OR “Ozone” OR “Ultraviolet “OR “Disinfectants”), AND (“Parasites” OR “Parasite Load” OR “Parasit*.mp.” OR “Parasite Encystment” OR “exp Oocysts/” OR “exp Helminths/” OR “Egg Count” OR “Parasite Egg Count/” OR “parasite examination.mp.” OR “intestine parasite.mp.” OR “Entamoeba.mp. Dysentery” OR “Amebic Entamoebiasis” OR “Food safety” OR “Food quality” OR “Food analysis” OR “Food contamination” OR “Food parasitology”). The primary search strategy had some modifications to meet the specifics in the search syntax of each database (S1 File).

Screening procedure

The screening procedure will be carried out in two stages and by two evaluators independently. The titles and abstracts will be read in the first stage, and the full texts will be read to confirm eligibility if the study meets the inclusion criteria; a third reviewer will decide on the inclusion of the article in case of disagreement. The Mendeley software program will be used to manage references to carry out this selection and remove duplicate articles. The screening will be done without any interference or contact between reviewers in order to maintain transparency and avoid influences on the decision process.

Data extraction

Data extraction will be performed by filling out an electronic spreadsheet with a detailed description of the main information of the selected studies and will also be performed by two researchers independently in order to avoid the measurement bias, which occurs due to misinterpreting information or even the loss of important data collection. Authors of articles may be contacted for clarification if information is insufficient. Any cases of disagreement will also be resolved by consensus, and when disagreement persists, the definition will be given by a third evaluator.

The data to be collected in order for this information to be clearly and objectively compared was previously established, thus facilitating the agreement and disagreement process, including: quantity and types of vegetables analyzed, type of intervention used, description of the methodologies used in the phases of extraction and identification, which parasitic forms were found, the outcomes obtained, in addition to the time and materials needed for processing.

Risk of bias assessment

The qualitative analysis of the articles will be performed by assessing the risk of bias, based on the assessment methodology of the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 Tool [26], but with some modifications to suit food analysis studies such as verifying the sensitivity and specificity of the analytical method; using the test according to validated methodology or if it contains validated modifications; number of samples analyzed and verification of randomization, blinding or random numbering of the sample that minimizes the influence of the analyst.

The evaluation will be categorized into 5 domains: selection bias, sampling bias, performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias. A pilot analysis will initially be carried out among the evaluators to ensure that they can apply the criteria consistently. Again, this step will be performed independently by two evaluators, and disagreements between researchers will be decided by a third evaluator.

Each evaluator’s judgment in this study will be scored according to the criteria established in the Bias Assessment Worksheet (S2 File), which comprises a judgment and support for each bias domain. The judgment of each domain involves assessing the risk of bias as “low”, “high” or “uncertain”, with the latter occurring when the information is not possible for judgment in other categories or when the bias is assessed as an intermediary in its magnitude power.

The points will be added up for the overall evaluation of the article and ranked according to the following score: considered “low risk of bias” if the score is between 7 to 10 points; considered “uncertain risk of bias” if the score is between 3 to 6 points; and considered “high risk of bias” if it is below 2 points. The level of bias will influence the importance degree of the study in the evidence synthesis from this systematic review.

Data synthesis

The main outcome to be evaluated will be the effectiveness of sanitation protocols in parasitic decontamination, which will be calculated by the percentage of parasitic forms that were reduced or completely eliminated after the sanitization process. In addition, secondary outcomes will also be analyzed such as an identification of the main parasites found, evaluation of the time required for processing and cost-effectiveness analysis. Thus, the average price of inputs needed for vegetable hygiene will be calculated for this analysis, and then compared with the amount of larvae, eggs or parasite cysts that were effectively reduced after processing.

It is expected that the measurement effects are quite different as this is such a variable population group, even due to the characteristics of the foods, as in the case of leafy vegetables, which have a larger contact surface for fixing parasites than other vegetables. Therefore, analyses will be performed in subgroups if possible to minimize this problem, reducing the effect of heterogeneity between the results. This analysis will depend on how the outcomes will be made available in the studies and on the amount of work available.

Other possible points of heterogeneity in the research such as: study design, types of control, analytical methodologies, validation of results and statistical analysis will also be treated in subgroups when possible.

Heterogeneity will be assessed using i-squared (I2) and chi-squared (χ2) statistics, which describe whether the percentage of variation between studies is due to heterogeneity and not to chance. The χ2 test is one of the most used to assess the significance level of heterogeneity, if there is little variation between the tests, with a significance level of p < 0.10 and values of the magnitude of heterogeneity, assessed by I2, less than 50%, we can conclude that the synthesis of results is viable [27, 28]. Sensitivity analysis will be performed considering the studies that present high bias risk versus low bias risk for the domains (sampling, performance and detection bias).

The potential for publication bias will be analyzed using Funnel plots by graphical verification of asymmetry between the included studies. In addition, additional statistical tests by Egger [29] and Begg [30] will be performed, which will consider the presence of publication bias for p-values < 0.10.

In the systematic review, the data regarding the efficacy rates in reducing parasitic forms in vegetables of each sanitization protocol will be used in the comparison between the protocols, and if the results are considered acceptable and sufficiently homogeneous, we will use the Review Manager software program (RevMan version 5.4) for meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis result, the data will be presented estimating a 95% confidence level (95% CI) for corresponding effect size.

If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, the results will be summarized and discussed, weighing the risk of bias and the magnitude of the findings of each study. After synthesizing the results, interventions which present effective results and provide possible conclusions for conducting further studies and better decision-making will be identified.

Discussion

Infections transmitted by parasites in food have a global distribution, and although they are preventable, they cause significant morbidities, ranging from mild to severe, and in some cases resulting in mortality. In addition, there is the associated deleterious effect on the socio-economy, worker absence due to illness, lowered productivity in subclinical infections, and the costs of treatments [31]. One of the factors that contributes to their transmission is the neglect to combat the disease effectively, perhaps due to the low presence of acute symptoms, which affects the delay in treatment and expands its spread, as well as the mistaken perception that they are diseases which are only related to poverty [32].

In addition, the increase in the global vegetable trade and changes in eating habits with the increase in meals away from home or delivered by apps, in addition to the demand for ready-to-eat foods such as peeled and portioned vegetables, further favor the transmission risk of these diseases [3].

Therefore, carrying out studies that assess deficiencies in food hygiene practices by agricultural producers, vendors and consumers and which point to improvements in the process and in the education of the actors involved are very important, as they favor an increase in the general perception of risks to food safety and facilitate the adoption of best practices, ensuring improvement in food quality [4].

One of the main advantages of conducting a systematic review protocol is to enhance the commitment to transparency in research by publicizing the methodological construction of the systematic review in a broad way, structured, and organized enough to provide robust findings that aid in the decision making process and that are strongly valued by all stakeholders. Therefore, researching the effectiveness of sanitization protocols through a systematic review will serve to provide sufficient scientific evidence to contribute to the prevention of parasitic diseases obtained by these foods, as well as an alternative in combating the prevalence of enteroparasites in vegetables.

One of the major limiting factors of this protocol is the restriction to unpublished, ongoing, gray literature, or unregistered data sources in the chosen databases, which thus will not be included in the synthesis of results. Evidently, methodological limitations of primary studies such as the use of manual and insensitive diagnostic methods, reporting biases, and methodological modifications without prior validation may provide results with lower confidence and should have the quality of their evidence evaluated to minimize these effects.

The expectation is that this protocol will assist in carrying out a systematic review, ensuring greater reliability in the results through transparency in the criteria and methodology adopted, as well as facilitating reproducibility of future updates of this review, contributing to disseminate more systematic reviews in the area of controlling food quality.

PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Risk of bias evaluation.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Feb 2022

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Masoud Foroutan, Ph.D; Assistant Professor

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work received financial support from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, which granted the scholarship (001).”

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

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

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

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review of published evidence on best hygiene practices to reduce parasite contamination of vegetables through a meta-analysis. This has certain significance for food quality assurance.

Specific comment

Line 52-91: The references in this part are too old. It is suggested to cite more literatures published in the recent 2-3 years.

Line 109-112: The first column of Table 1 has five pieces of content. Why are they classified in this way? It is suggested to introduce the basis for such classification.

Line 120-131: Keywords within the five categories are linked with “OR” during search. However, it is not clear whether to use “OR” or “AND” to connect the relationship between categories.

Line 171: “Kahren.2023” and “Kahren.2024” appear in the first table of supplementary material 2. What are the meanings of “2023” and “2024”?

Line 204-205: Sensitivity analysis is recommended to ensure the robustness of the results obtained under certain conditions.

Line 218-240: What are the advantages and limitations of this protocol? In short, the discussion section is poor.

Reviewer #2: In your data synthesis you have stated that : ''the main outcome to be evaluated will be the effectiveness of sanitation protocols in parasitic decontamination, which will be calculated by the percentage of parasitic forms that were reduced or completely eliminated after the sanitization process......'' My concern is that :different studies might have used different laboratory techniques to check the presence /absence of parasite stages on vegetables after the produce is went through sanitization protocol ...so how are you going to manage such issues ?

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors highlight the Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis. Overall, the topic is interesting and important; however, the manuscript has major drawbacks and limitations related to data management and statistical analysis, methods, presentation of results and quality of writing.

I have some considerations.

1. I do not see any PRISMA flow diagram in the text. Since the authors searched other databases e.g. WHO and performed other manual searches, they ought to use the following PRISMA flow diagram: PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews, which include searches of databases, registers and other sources. Manual searching can be conducted by tracking new citations, using keywords in the databases, and even tracing the sources of news I have added the flow diagram at the bottom. Please look at this paper as a reference for step-by-step guidelines on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis: (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31388330/)

2. I could not find any Forest plots, Egger’s funnel plot and Begg’s funnel plot in the text. Please provide these items.

3. All scientific names in the manuscript must be in italic.

4. Please update your information based on the two new review articles (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108582 & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108656)

5. Why the authors of the manuscript did not include the start year of study?

6. Provide the syntax for each databases appropriately.

7. Please consider upper and lower limits e.g. 0% (95% CI; 0% - 1%) this throughout the manuscript (Abstract, Result, Discussion,…), and supplementary files.

8. The discussion section of the article is very short, please extend this section.

9. Limitations of the study should be acknowledged and discussed at the end of the discussion section.

10. Provide author contributions statement after acknowledgments.

11. Finally, all the analyzed studies must be in the references chapter.

Reviewer #4: PLOS ONE

Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a

systematic review with meta-analysis

--Manuscript Draft

REVIEW

The idea to prepare this metanalysis is excellent.

However, looking in the obtained file I can see any results and data analysis.

The text in the MS needs to be revised. The authors speak in the future despite they need to speak in the past.

I cant see any results….

I think that the protocol should be also compared with the protocol developed in Europe and in the USA

Where is the aim of the study promised in the lines 86-91?

I can not open any supplementary material.

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

18 Mar 2022

Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering our manuscript entitled "Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis", for revision. We have carefully read the comments, answering all questions in this letter, and made the requested changes in the revised manuscript (highlighted in yellow). We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLos One.

Best regards,

Cristiane Fernandes de Assis

Department of Pharmacy

Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte

Phone: (55 84) 99152-7007

E-mail: cristianeassis@hotmail.com

Answers to reviewer #1: This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review of published evidence on best hygiene practices to reduce parasite contamination of vegetables through a meta-analysis. This has certain significance for food quality assurance.

Specifics comments

Line 52-91: The references in this part are too old. It is suggested to cite more literatures published in the recent 2-3 years.

References have been updated.

Line 109-112: The first column of Table 1 has five pieces of content. Why are they classified in this way? It is suggested to introduce the basis for such classification.

This division into 5 parts was established according to the anagram PICOS, as mentioned in line 124.

Line 120-131: Keywords within the five categories are linked with “OR” during search. However, it is not clear whether to use “OR” or “AND” to connect the relationship between categories.

Thank you for the comment. The suggestions were accepted.

Line 171: “Kahren.2023” and “Kahren.2024” appear in the first table of supplementary material 2. What are the meanings of “2023” and “2024”?

Thank you for your comment. The file has been replaced, the mentioned information refers to examples of bias evaluation that were sent in the submission by mistake. The table for bias evaluation analysis is now described in supplementary material 3. We apologize for that.

Line 204-205: Sensitivity analysis is recommended to ensure the robustness of the results obtained under certain conditions.

A topic about sensitivity analysis was included in the data synthesis section (page 09).

Line 218-240: What are the advantages and limitations of this protocol? In short, the discussion section is poor.

Thank you for the comment. The suggestions were accepted. We made the proper changes.

Answers to reviewer #2:

In your data synthesis you have stated that : ''the main outcome to be evaluated will be the effectiveness of sanitation protocols in parasitic decontamination, which will be calculated by the percentage of parasitic forms that were reduced or completely eliminated after the sanitization process......'' My concern is that :different studies might have used different laboratory techniques to check the presence /absence of parasite stages on vegetables after the produce is went through sanitization protocol ...so how are you going to manage such issues ?

In the last paragraph of the data synthesis (lines 235 - 238) it explains how the data are treated if the quantitative synthesis is not appropriate due to the reporting of results with too much heterogeneity. These results will be summarized and discussed, considering the risk of bias and the magnitude of the findings of each study.

Answers to reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors highlight the Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis. Overall, the topic is interesting and important; however, the manuscript has major drawbacks and limitations related to data management and statistical analysis, methods, presentation of results and quality of writing.I have some considerations.

1. I do not see any PRISMA flow diagram in the text. Since the authors searched other databases e.g. WHO and performed other manual searches, they ought to use the following PRISMA flow diagram: PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews, which include searches of databases, registers and other sources. Manual searching can be conducted by tracking new citations, using keywords in the databases, and even tracing the sources of news I have added the flow diagram at the bottom. Please look at this paper as a reference for step-by-step guidelines on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis: (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31388330/)

Dear reviewer, this manuscript is a protocol for a systematic review, it is not yet the systematic review, it describes the methodology that will be applied in the systematic review. We follow the Prisma-P checklist (PRISMA for systematic review protocols ), the most current one published in 2015. (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Protocols).

2. I could not find any Forest plots, Egger’s funnel plot and Begg’s funnel plot in the text. Please provide these items.

Dear reviewer, as this manuscript is a protocol for a systematic review, therefore, Forest plots, Egger's funnel plot and Begg's funnel plot will be placed in the final systematic review if the results have a compatible heterogeneity.

3. All scientific names in the manuscript must be in italic.

Thank you for the comment. The suggestions were accepted.

4. Please update your information based on the two new review articles (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108582 & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108656)

5. Why the authors of the manuscript did not include the start year of study?

Because few studies were selected according to the inclusion criteria, we decided to expand the sensitivity of the search by not restricting publication dates.

6. Provide the syntax for each databases appropriately.

The syntaxes have been included in supplementary material 2.

7. Please consider upper and lower limits e.g. 0% (95% CI; 0% - 1%) this throughout the manuscript (Abstract, Result, Discussion,…), and supplementary files.

Thank you for the comment. The suggestions were accepted.

8. The discussion section of the article is very short, please extend this section.

Thank you for the comment. The suggestions were accepted.

9. Limitations of the study should be acknowledged and discussed at the end of the discussion section.

Thank you for the comment. The suggestions were accepted.

10. Provide author contributions statement after acknowledgments.

Thank you for the comment. The suggestions were accepted.

11. Finally, all the analyzed studies must be in the references chapter.

The results will be presented in the publication of the systematic review, as mentioned this manuscript is the protocol for the systematic review.

Answers to reviewer #4:

The idea to prepare this metanalysis is excellent. However, looking in the obtained file I can see any results and data analysis. The text in the MS needs to be revised. The authors speak in the future despite they need to speak in the past. I cant see any results….I think that the protocol should be also compared with the protocol developed in Europe and in the USA Where is the aim of the study promised in the lines 86-91? I can not open any supplementary material.

Dear reviewer, this manuscript is a protocol, not the systematic review yet, hence, the absence of analysis, results and future tense in the text.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Apr 2022

22 Apr 2022

Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte

Departament of Pharmacy

Natal, April 22th, 2022

Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering our manuscript entitled "Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis" for revision. We have made the changes suggested by the reviewers (highlighted in yellow). We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLoS One.

Best regards,

Cristiane Fernandes de Assis

Department of Pharmacy

Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte

Phone: (55 84) 99152-7007

E-mail: cristianeassis@hotmail.com

Answers to reviewer #1: Present study describes a systematic review protocol with meta-analysis on evaluating the effectiveness of existing sanitation methods in removing parasites from vegetables it will help researcher to better understanding important of food safety. The authors already answered my questions and revised them in the text. recommend it to publishing.

Thank you for considering the article for publication.

Answers to reviewer #2: Generally, I want to mention again that the topic is interesting and important. The authors have made major modifications by taking into consideration reviewers comment. Specifically, my concern about the protocol is well addressed.

Thank you for considering the article for publication.

Answers to reviewer #3: The authors have answered all of my questions and made considerable revisions to the manuscript and can be accepted.

Thank you for considering the article for publication.

Answers to reviewer #4: The authors improved their MS. Some positions in the refs need revision; see 21, 31, pl also check the international literature if you are missing some original related papers.

We appreciate the comments and made the proper changes in references.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Apr 2022

Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-34531R2

Dear Dr. de Assis,

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,

Masoud Foroutan, Ph.D; Assistant Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

28 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-34531R2

Efficacy of sanitization protocols in removing parasites in vegetables: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis

Dear Dr. de Assis:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Masoud Foroutan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE