Predictability of combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy using Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula.

PURPOSE: To compare the predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using the Barrett Universal II and the SRK/T formulas in eyes undergoing combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of 56 consecutive eyes undergoing cataract surgery and trabeculectomy. IOL power calculations were performed using the Barrett Universal II and SRK/T formulas. We compared the prediction error, the absolute error, and the percentages within ± 0.5 D and ±1.0 D of the targeted refraction, 3 months postoperatively, and also investigated the relationship of the prediction error with the keratometric readings and axial length, using the two formulas.
RESULTS: The prediction error using the SRK/T formula was significantly more myopic than that using the Barrett Universal II formula (paired t-test, p<0.001). The absolute error using the Barrett Universal II formula was significantly smaller than that using the SRK/T formula (p = 0.039). We found significant correlations of the prediction error with the axial length (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.273, p = 0.042), and the keratometric readings (r = -0.317, p = 0.017), using SRK/T formula, but no significant correlations between them (r = 0.219, p = 0.167, and r = -0.023, p = 0.870), using the Barrett Universal II formula.
CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett Universal II formula provides a better predictability of IOL power calculation and is less susceptible to the effect of the axial length and the corneal shape, than the SRK/T formula. The Barrett Universal formula, rather than the SRK/T formula, may be clinically helpful for improving the refractive accuracy in such eyes.

Introduction

Cataract surgery has become a widely recognized refractive surgery, since the safety and the efficacy has been much improved, and subsequent patient expectation has become higher year by year. In order to correct refractive errors as much as possible, it is mandatory to accurately calculate the IOL power using modern sophisticated calculation formulas. In recent years, the Barrett Universal II formula has been gathering attention to provide more accurate IOL power than other conventional formulas [1-4].

To date, there have been only a few studies on the predictability of combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy, but all these studies merely focused on the refractive error by using conventional IOL power calculation formulas, such as the SRK II, SRK/T Holladay, and Hoffer Q formulas [5-7]. However, to the best of our knowledge, the Barrett Universal II formula has not been applied for these combined surgical procedures. It may give us intrinsic insights on the IOL power calculation of modern cataract surgery with trabeculectomy, which is one of the viable surgical options in eyes having coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

In the present study, our goal is twofold; to assess the predictability outcomes of combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy using the Barrett Universal II formula, with special attention to the keratometric readings and axial length, and to compare the outcomes with them using the SRK/T formula.

Materials and methods

Study population

The study protocol was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (000038822). This retrospective study comprised a total of 56 eyes of 56 consecutive patients (24 men and 32 women, mean age ± standard deviation: 69.1 ± 7.8 years), who underwent simultaneous cataract surgery and trabeculectomy with non-toric monofocal IOL implantation, between June 2015 and June 2019 at Kitasato University Hospital, and who completed a 3-month follow-up. Eyes with postoperative best corrected visual acuity of >0.15 logMAR, eyes with any history of ocular surgery, ocular trauma, or other concomitant eye diseases, and eyes developing any intraoperative or postoperative complications that could affect refractive outcomes, were excluded from the study. This retrospective review of the data was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Kitasato University (B19-200) and followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Our Institutional Review Board waived the requirement for informed consent for this retrospective study.

Surgical procedures

Experienced surgeons conducted standard phacoemulsification, followed by IOL power calculation. The surgical technique consisted of a capsulorhexis, nucleus and cortex extraction, and non-toric IOL (AQ-110NV, STAAR Surgical, Chiba, Japan) implantation, through a 2.8-mm temporal corneal incision. One 11–0 nylon suture was placed to prevent leakage from corneal incision.

Simultaneously, they conducted standard trabeculectomy with a nasal superior fornix-based conjunctival flap and partial thickness rectangular scleral flap (3.0 x 3.0 mm). In all cases, 0.5 mg/mL of mitomycin-C was applied for 2 minutes. The scleral flap and conjunctiva were sutured with 4 to 6 interrupted 10–0 nylon sutures. Postoperative suture lysis was appropriately performed to achieve that the intraocular pressure was maintained between 10 and 12 mmHg. Postoperatively, steroidal, antibiotic, and bromfenac sodium medications were topically administered for 1 month, the dose being reduced gradually thereafter.

Assessment of prediction error and absolute error

We performed IOL power calculations by using the Barrett universal Ⅱ formula and SRK/T formula, using axial length, keratometric readings (for both formulas), and anterior chamber depth (only for Barrett Universal II formula), measured with a partial coherence interferometer (IOL Master 500TM, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). We used the optimized A-constants for the IOL power calculation. The prediction errors defined by subtracting the predicted postoperative refraction from the postoperative spherical equivalent 3 months postoperatively, these absolute values, and the percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D and ±1.0 D of the targeted refraction, were calculated [8, 9].

We also assessed the relationship between the prediction error and the keratometric readings and axial length, in order to clarify the effect of the keratometry or axial length on the refractive accuracy, using the two IOL formulas.

Statistical analysis

We performed statistical analyses by using a commercially available statistical software (Bellcurve for Excel, Social Survey Research Information Co, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Since normal distribution of the data was confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the paired t-test was used to compare the prediction errors using the two IOL power calculation formulas. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship of the two variables. The Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D and ±1.0 D of the targeted correction. The results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, and a value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Table 1 shows the preoperative demographics of the study population. The intraocular pressure was significantly decreased, from 17.8 ± 4.7 mmHg preoperatively, to 11.0 ± 3.0 mmHg postoperatively (paired t-test, p<0.001). The prediction error (-0.35 ± 0.65 D) using the SRK/T formula was significantly more myopic than that (-0.09 ± 0.34 D) using the Barrett Universal II formula (p<0.001) (Fig 1). The absolute error (0.46 ± 0.13 D) using the Barrett Universal II formula was significantly smaller than that (0.56 ± 0.47 D) using the SRK/T formula (p = 0.039) (Fig 2). The percentages within ± 0.5 D and ± 1.0 D of the targeted refraction were 54 and 79%, respectively, using the SRK/T formula, and 63% and 91%, respectively, using the Barrett Universal II formula. There were no significant differences in the percentages within ± 0.5 D and ± 1.0 D using the two formulas (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.444, p = 0.127).

Table 1

The preoperative demographics of the study population.

Mean ± standard deviation (range)
Number of eyes	56
Age	69.1 ± 7.8 years (51 to 82 years)
Male: Female	24: 32
logMAR CDVA	0.07 ± 0.12 (-0.08 to 0.40)
Mean keratometric readings	44.65 ± 1.39 D (41.33 to 48.23 D)
Axial length	24.81 ± 1.78 mm (21.37 to 28.93 mm)
Intraocular pressure	17.8 ± 4.7 mmHg (11 to 35 mmHg)
Glaucoma type (POAG: NTG: CACG: PESG)	33: 16: 3: 4

logMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution, CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity, D = diopter, POAG = primary open angle glaucoma, NTG = normal tension glaucoma, CACG = chronic angle closure glaucoma, PESG = pseudo-exfoliation secondary glaucoma.

Fig 1

A graph showing the prediction error using the SRK/T and the Barrett Universal II formulas.

The prediction error using the Barrett Universal II formula was significantly more myopic than that using the SRK/T formula (paired t-test, p<0.001).

Fig 2

A graph showing the absolute error using the SRK/T and the Barrett Universal II formulas.

The absolute error using the Barrett Universal II formula was significantly smaller than that using the SRK/T formula (paired t-test, p = 0.022).

We found a significant positive correlation between the prediction error and the axial length using the SRK/T formula (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.273, p = 0.042), but no significant correlation between them using the Barrett Universal II formula (r = 0.219, p = 0.167) (Fig 3). We also found a significant negative correlation between the prediction error and the keratometric readings using the SRK/T formula (r = -0.317, p = 0.017), but no significant correlation between them using the Barrett Universal II formula (r = -0.023, p = 0.870) (Fig 4).

Fig 3

A graph showing correlations between the prediction error and the axial length (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.219, p = 0.167 for the Barrett Universal II formula, r = 0.273, p = 0.042 for the SRK/T formula).

Fig 4

A graph showing correlations between the prediction error and the mean keratometry (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = -0.023, p = 0.870 for the Barrett Universal II formula, r = -0.317, p = 0.017 for the SRK/T formula).

Discussion

In the present study, our results showed that the use of the Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula provided a higher predictability of IOL power calculation than that of the SRK/T formula, in terms of the prediction and absolute errors. Our results also showed that there were significant correlations of the prediction error with the axial length and the keratometric readings using the SRK/T formula, but no significant correlations between them using the Barrett Universal II formula. It is suggested that the SRK/T formula was susceptible to the axial length and the keratometric readings, but the Barrett Universal II formula was not susceptible to them, even in eyes undergoing combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy. It was in agreement with previous studies on cataract surgery alone. Olsen et al. [10] demonstrated that the SRK/T formula showed a hyperopic error in eyes with long axial length (>26.0 mm). Zhang et al. [11] showed that Barrett Universal II formula provided the lowest predictive error and the least variable predictive error compared with the SRK/T and other formulas in high myopic eyes. Liu et al. [12] showed that the percentage of eyes (79.56%) within 0.5 D using the Barrett Universal II formula was significantly higher than that (61.88%) using the SRK/T formula in eyes with long axial length (>26.0 mm). Olsen et al. [10] found a significant negative correlation of the prediction error with the keratometric readings (r = -0.23, p<0.0001), when the SRK/T formula was used. Faramarzi et al. [13] demonstrated that the prediction error was -0.06 ± 0.52 D in eyes with a keratometry > 46 D, when the SRK/T formula was applied. Reitblat et al. [14] showed that myopic refractive errors (-0.31 ± 0.54 D) were found in eyes with a keratometry > 46 D, but hyperopic errors (0.16 ± 0.31 D) were observed in eyes with a keratometry < 42 D, when the SRK/T formula was used, and that the prediction error was -0.04 ± 0.45 D and -0.07 ± 0.26 D, in eyes with a keratometry > 46 D and < 42 D, respectively, both of which were not significantly different from zero, when the Barrett Universal II formula was used.

Table 2 summarizes previous studies on the predictability of simultaneous cataract surgery and trabeculectomy [5-7]. Law et al. [5] demonstrated that the refractive outcome of combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy did not differ significantly from the predicted refraction in comparison with cataract surgery alone, using the average IOL power obtained from the results of the SRK/T, Holladay, and Hoffer Q formulas. Chan et al. [6] showed that the prediction and absolute errors after phacotrabeculectomy were 0.20 ± 1.31 D and 0.96 ± 0.89 D, respectively, using the SRK II formula. Chung et al. [7] stated that the prediction and absolute errors after phacotrabeculectomy were -0.05 ± 0.64 D and 0.46 ± 0.44 D, respectively, using the SRK/T formula. However, conventional IOL power calculation formulas were used in all previous studies. As far as we can ascertain, this is the first report to assess the refractive accuracy of combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy using the latest Barrett Universal II formula, which has been reported to provide higher accuracy of IOL power calculation than conventional formulas. Moreover, we only included eyes with postoperative logMAR CDVA ≤ 0.15 in this study, since accurate and reliable refraction could be obtained. In consideration of the strict inclusion criteria, we believe that it will be helpful for improving the predictability of these combined procedures in daily practice.

Table 2

Summary of previous studies on the predictability of intraocular lens power calculation in eyes undergoing combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy.

Author	Number of eyes	IOL power calculation formula	Inclusion criteria (Postoperative logMAR CDVA)	Prediction error (D)	Within ± 0.5 D (%)	Within ± 1.0 D (%)
Law SK et al. [5]	24	SRK/T, Holladay, and Hoffer Q	N.A.	0.22 ± 0.91	N.A.	N.A.
Chan JC et al. [6]	25	SRK II	N.A.	0.20 ± 1.31	N.A.	N.A.
Chung JK et al. [7]	51	SRK/T	< 1.00	-0.05 ± 0.64	67	90
Current	56	Barrett Universal II	≤ 0.15	-0.09 ± 0.34	63	91
		SRK/T		-0.35 ± 0.65	54	79

IOL = intraocular lens, logMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution, CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity, D = diopter, N.A. = not applicable.

There are several limitations to this study. First, the study was performed in a retrospective fashion. Second, the sample size was relatively small. A prospective study with a large number of patients would be helpful for confirming the authenticity of our results. Third, we did not investigate the effect of the changes in keratometry or axial length on the predictability outcomes, since we primarily focused on the refractive outcomes of combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy. Fourth, we did not have a control group of cataract surgery alone. Therefore, the effect of trabeculectomy itself on the refractive accuracy remained unanswered. Fifth, we did not use the intraoperative abberometry for IOL power calculation. It has been reported that the mean absolute error using the intraoperative aberrometry was significantly lower than that using the preoperative biometry in a total of 32189 eyes [15]. Therefore, it would be beneficial for further improving the predictability in eyes undergoing such combined surgical procedures.

In conclusion, our results may support the view that the Barrett Universal II formula provides a higher predictability of the IOL power calculation than the SRK/T formula, and that the former formula is less susceptible to the axial length and the keratometric readings than the latter formula, even in eyes undergoing combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy. We believe that this information may be clinically helpful for understanding the properties of the two major IOL power calculation formulas in eyes requiring combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy.

29 Dec 2021

26 May 2022

May 20, 2020

Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahmed Awadein,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding our manuscript (PONE-D-21-33861[EMID:cc03f3a28b08e2b4]

. entitled " Predictability of Combined Cataract Surgery and Trabeculectomy Using Barrett Universal II Formula."), together with the comments from the reviewers. We believe that the paper has been much improved, largely as a result of the reviewers’ many thoughtful comments. We would like to respond below to each comment.

To ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The manuscript is well-written. However, there are some limitations regarding the study design and the number of cases that should be mentioned.

Thank you for positive comments for revision. We have added them as some of the study limitations.

[Page 11, Line 13]: Three sentences have been modified.

“First, the study was performed in a retrospective fashion. Second, the sample size was relatively small. A prospective study with a large number of patients would be helpful for confirming the authenticity of our results.”

To Reviewer 1:

This study is conducted to compare the predictability of intraocular lens power calculation using the Barrett Universal II and the SRK/T formulas, according to the keratometry. Generally its well written manuscript although may needs some revisions.

Thank you for your positive comments for revision.

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

We have ensured that our manuscript meets the journal style requirements.

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10792-020-01476-4

- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10384-019-00699-y

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

We have found the overlap descriptions especially at “Assessment of Prediction Error and Absolute Error and Statistical Analysis” in the Methods section, and thus we have cited our previous manuscripts.

[Page 15, Line 8]: Two references have been added.

“8. Yoneyama R, Kamiya K, Iijima K, Takahashi M, Shoji N. Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after phototherapeutic keratectomy. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2020;64(1):62-67.

9. Kamiya K, Fujimura F, Iijima K, Nobuyuki S, Mori Y, Miyata K. Regional comparison of preoperative biometry for cataract surgery between two domestic institutions. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(11):2923-2930.”

3. 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

We confirmed the ORCID ID for the corresponding author in this manuscript (Kazutaka Kamiya; 0000-0002-8004-5887).

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

We apology this incorrect statement on the text of our manuscript. We used only Tables 1 and 2, and thus have changed Table 4 to Table 2 in the text.

[Page 10, Line 14]: One sentence has been added.

“Table 2 summarizes previous studies on the predictability of simultaneous cataract surgery and trabeculectomy.[5-7]”

5. Please include a copy of Table 4 which you refer to in your text on page 10.

We apology this incorrect statement on the text of our manuscript. We used only Tables 1 and 2, and thus have changed Table 4 to Table 2 in the text.

[Page 10, Line 14]: One sentence has been added.

“Table 2 summarizes previous studies on the predictability of simultaneous cataract surgery and trabeculectomy.[5-7]”

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have reviewed our reference list and have ensured that it is complete and correct.

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: I Don't Know

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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)

To Reviewer #1:

The study is fine adding good knowledge, the only comment is in the procedure stating that IOL calculation was done following phakoemulsification which is not the case as IOL calculation is always done before the surgery.

Thank you for your positive comments for revision. We have included the data of the IOL power calculation intraoperatively using the aberrometry.

[Page 12, Line 2]: Three sentences have been modified.

“Fifth, we did not use the intraoperative abberometry for IOL power calculation. It has been reported that the mean absolute error using the intraoperative aberrometry was significantly lower than that using the preoperative biometry in a total of 32189 eyes.[15] Therefore, it would be beneficial for further improving the predictability in eyes undergoing such combined surgical procedures.”

[Page 16, Line 9]: One reference has been added.

“15. Cionni RJ, Dimalanta R, Breen M, Hamilton C. A large retrospective database analysis comparing outcomes of intraoperative aberrometry with conventional preoperative planning. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(10):1230-1235.”

To Reviewer #2:

The manuscript is valuable and is written in standard English . However, needs to be prospective and include lager sample size.Regarding statistics it's not my area of interest.Yet ,I accept this manuscript without modifications.

Thank you for your positive comments for revision. We have added them as some of the study limitations.

[Page 11, Line 13]: Three sentences have been modified.

“First, the study was performed in a retrospective fashion. Second, the sample size was relatively small. A prospective study with a large number of patients would be helpful for confirming the authenticity of our results.”

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: Yes: Zeinab Elsanabary

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nermeen Mostafa Bahgat

We believe the manuscript has been prepared and submitted satisfactorily and hope that it will be accepted for publication in your esteemed journal. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Kazutaka Kamiya, MD, PhD

Professor, Kitasato University, School of Allied Health Sciences, Visual Physiology, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0373, Japan

tel: +81-42-778-8464, fax: +81-42-778-9920, E-mail: kamiyak-tky@umin.ac.jp

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers IijimaK Rv3.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Jun 2022

Predictability of Combined Cataract Surgery and Trabeculectomy Using Barrett Universal Ⅱ Formula.

PONE-D-21-33861R1

Dear Dr. Kamiya,

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,

Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

13 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-33861R1

Predictability of Combined Cataract Surgery and Trabeculectomy Using Barrett Universal Ⅱ Formula.

Dear Dr. Kamiya:

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. Ahmed Awadein

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE