Abdominal obesity and association with sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical data in climacteric women assisted in primary care

Wiviane da Costa Pimenta; Josiane Santos Brant Rocha; Antônio Prates Caldeira; Daniela Araújo Veloso Popoff; Viviane Maia Santos; Joyce Elen Murça de Souza; Maria Suzana Marques; Fernanda Piana Santos Lima de Oliveira; Daniela Marcia Rodrigues Caldeira; Geraldo Edson Souza Guerra Júnior; Ronilson Ferreira Freitas; Yaroslav Wladmir Lopes Popoff; Gustavo Veloso Rabelo; Mirna Rossi Barbosa-Medeiros; Luiza Augusta Rosa Rossi-Barbosa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237336

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 17, 2020
17 Mar 2020 Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-20-04707 ABDOMINAL OBESITY ASSOCIATED WITH SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC, BEHAVIORAL AND CLINICAL DATA IN CLIMACTERIC WOMEN ASSISTED IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Piana Santos Lima de Oliveira, 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. SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS: Your manuscript was handled by an expert reviewer in the field. Although interest was found in your study, there were several major comments that arose during the review. For instance, it does not seem as if a thorough review of the literature was included to rationalize the experimental design; several vague comments require clarification; and there are suggestions to strengthen the data presentation. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 01 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, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "The participants agreed to respond to this research voluntarily by signing the Free and Informed Consent Form. The project was submitted, analyzed and approved for execution by the Ethics and Research Committee, nº 817.666 (CAAE 36495714.0.0000.51)." i) Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study. ii) Once you have amended this statement in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 4. We note that your recently published article (Marques, Maria Suzana, et al. "Health conditions associated with overweight in climacteric women." PloS one 14.12 (2019).), is related to the present study, as the same sample population was considered, and the same scale adopted. To meet PLOS ONE criteria on related manuscripts (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts), we would ask that the previous analysis is adequately mentioned and cited (not only in the Abstract) in the present submission, and the rationale of these separate analyses is clearly discussed; moreover, please discuss why the number of participants included in the two studies is slightly different. 5. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated. 6. 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. 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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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 ****** 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: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The literature review seems not have been fully explored in order to support the choice of variables included in study. It is not clear if this study is part of a bigger research project. If yes, it should be mentioned and explained, specially about the strategies of recruitment and selection of participants, quality control protocols for anthopometric mesures and choice of the questionaires. It should be explained that Family Health Strategy is a Brazilian government strategy for organizing the primary health care, and the Family Health Care Units where people receive health care. It should be informed the referent cathegory for each variable, it is not clear. The translation and validation of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was not mentioned. There are some part of text in portugues, please see lines 191-192, 296-297. The tables should be revised. Please, see the absolute numbers and percentages of variables "tryglicedies" and "total cholesterol". The absolute numbers of cathegories "not obese" and "obese" could be excluded, lefting just the percentages. On the table 4 should be excluded p value since it already show confidence intervals. Please, do not present percentages on the discussion section. Data discussion seems not to be deeply explored by authors, specially not regarding gender aspects. The transversal framework of study is a limitation that was not mentioned. Conclusion are not properly presented, this manuscript section should not show percentagem. ****** 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 [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237336.r001
Revision 1
7 Jun 2020 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers. Attending the reviewers’ recommendations, we described below the modifications made in the manuscript. 1) Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study. RESPONSE: It was included 2) We note that your recently published article (Marques, Maria Suzana, et al. "Health conditions associated with overweight in climacteric women." PloS one 14.12 (2019).), is related to the present study, as the same sample population was considered, and the same scale adopted. To meet PLOS ONE criteria on related manuscripts (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts), we would ask that the previous analysis is adequately mentioned and cited (not only in the Abstract) in the present submission, and the rationale of these separate analyses is clearly discussed; moreover, please discuss why the number of participants included in the two studies is slightly different. RESPONSE: This part of the methods section has been included for better understanding. Regarding the different number in the final sample, the first reason was due to the classification of menopause, we used the one performed by the sample and not by age, therefore having seven people missing. The second reason referred to those women who did not answer the questionnaire about food and we believe it is essential for the dependent variable. But we think it is unnecessary to include this justification in the article once it has met the necessary number of participants according to the sample calculation. 3) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated. RESPONSE: Additional information was included. 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. RESPONSE: It was included. 5) The literature review seems not have been fully explored in order to support the choice of variables included in study. RESPONSE: The literature review was revised and supports the choice of variables included in the study. We would like to point out that the manuscript is part of a master's dissertation, where the literature review was evaluated by qualification and defense boards. 6) It is not clear if this study is part of a bigger research project. If yes, it should be mentioned and explained, specially about the strategies of recruitment and selection of participants, quality control protocols for anthopometric mesures and choice of the questionaires. RESPONSE: We have added this information in the text. 7) It should be explained that Family Health Strategy is a Brazilian government strategy for organizing the primary health care, and the Family Health Care Units where people receive health care. RESPONSE: It was explained. 8) It should be informed the referent cathegory for each variable, it is not clear. RESPONSE: The categories of the variables were better informed. 9) The translation and validation of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was not mentioned. There are some part of text in Portuguese, please see lines 191-192, 296-297. RESPONSE: We included this information. We corrected the parts that were written in Portuguese”. All text has been revised to English. 10) The tables should be revised. Please, see the absolute numbers and percentages of variables "tryglicedies" and "total cholesterol". The absolute numbers of cathegories "not obese" and "obese" could be excluded, lefting just the percentages. RESPONSE: The tables have been revised. We excluded the absolute numbers. 11) On the table 4 should be excluded p value since it already show confidence intervals. RESPONSE: P value was excluded. 12) Please, do not present percentages on the discussion section. RESPONSE: We removed the percentages from the discussion section. 13) Data discussion seems not to be deeply explored by authors, specially not regarding gender aspects. RESPONSE: We verified that there is no way to discuss gender aspects. Male gender was not an analyzed variable. 14) The transversal framework of study is a limitation that was not mentioned. RESPONSE: We added this limitation. 15) Conclusion are not properly presented, this manuscript section should not show percentage. RESPONSE: The percentage has been removed from conclusion section. Sincerely, The authors Dear Editor and Reviewers. Attending the reviewers’ recommendations, we described below the modifications made in the manuscript. 1) 1) Thank you for your resubmission. We note that the following request has not been addressed: We note that your recently published article (Marques, Maria Suzana, et al. "Health conditions associated with overweight in climacteric women." PloS one 14.12 (2019).), is related to the present study, as the same sample population was considered, and the same scale adopted. To meet PLOS ONE criteria on related manuscripts (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts), we would ask that the previous analysis is adequately mentioned and cited (not only in the Cover letter) in the present submission, and the rationale of these separate analyses is clearly discussed. RESPONSE: We have added this information in the text. The text has been revised accordingly so that this information is described in more detail (line 88-99). Sincerely, The authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237336.r002
2 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor PONE-D-20-04707R1 Abdominal obesity and association with sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical data in climacteric women assisted in Primary Care PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Piana Santos Lima de Oliveira, 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. SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS: We apologize for the delay in reviewing your revised manuscript. The previous reviewer had issues with COVID-19 and had to opt out of re-reviewing your manuscript. However, as academic editor, I have proofed the manuscript and related revisions. Although the majority of comments were addressed appropriately, I think it would be a good idea to better state somewhere within lines 88-99 what is novel about this study by including a directional hypothesis statement (to match one included in the abstract and introduction), as this seems to be a re-analysis of data collected from an already-published cohort. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 16 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237336.r003
Revision 2
22 Jul 2020 Author Response Dear Editor, Attending the specific academic editor comments, we described below the modifications made in the manuscript. 1) Although the majority of comments were addressed appropriately, I think it would be a good idea to better state somewhere within lines 88-99 what is novel about this study by including a directional hypothesis statement (to match one included in the abstract and introduction), as this seems to be a re-analysis of data collected from an already-published cohort. RESPONSE: We have added this information in the text. The text has been revised accordingly so that this information is described in more detail (line 94-98). When reviewing the text, some information was moved from paragraph to paragraph as noted in the lines (119-120) and (129-130). All changes are highlighted in red in the body of the text. Sincerely, The authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237336.r004
24 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor Abdominal obesity and association with sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical data in climacteric women assisted in Primary Care PONE-D-20-04707R2 Dear Dr. Piana Santos Lima de Oliveira, 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, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237336.r005
Formally Accepted
4 Aug 2020 Acceptance Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor PONE-D-20-04707R2 Abdominal obesity and association with sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical data in climacteric women assisted in Primary Care Dear Dr. Piana Santos Lima de Oliveira: 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. Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237336.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .