PONE-D-20-28461

Interrater reliability of novice examiners using A-mode ultrasound and skinfolds to measure subcutaneous body fat

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wagner,

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.

Carefully address the points presented by the reviewers to the best of your ability. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 14, 2020 11:59PM EST. 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,

Cherilyn N. McLester, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please include additional information regarding the data collection tool 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, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Overall

This is interesting work that has great practical implications for fitness professionals or clinicians. The interrater reliability for two body composition techniques, one being widely used, that are easily accessible for assessing body composition were compared. The manuscript is written well and has great potential for aiding practitioners, but a couple of additional analyses and methodological details would improve the utility of this information.

Abstract

N/A

Introduction

N/A

Methods

Line 81: Considering the nature of this work and importance of familiarity, it would be helpful if there was at least a rough approximation of the average experience (e.g., < 1 hr?) for these students with the SKF technique

What was done to limit compression via the US probe and keep it consistent? It is well known that this influences the morphology of the tissue deep to the probe, so this is at least worth mentioning. Differences in compression could arguably be one of the larges influences on interindividual variability.

A limitation the unknown equation that is used for the US, especially since this means the two techniques are likely using different equations to calculate BF%

For a more comprehensive examination of reliability, the standard error of measurement (SEM) should be provided for both modalities. The SEM provides a different analysis of reliability and is more useful for practitioners. See Weir, 2005.

Given the practical utility of this study and its findings, it would be much improved if the minimal difference to be considered real was calculated (aka MD). This could be very useful for practitioners to know, depending on the testing modality, what a meaningful change would be.

A figure indicating a typical US scan and the selected subcutaneous fat would helpful, especially considered the feasibility for novices to use this technique.

Results

Line 13: “accumulated” indicates there was an intervention or that this was a longitudinal study.

Discussion

Based on a qualitative inspection of the scatterplots, it looks the greatest interindividual differences were at relatively higher fat levels. Was this a common observation? While this is to be expected, it is worth mentioning as it could be useful for practitioners to be aware of.

Reviewer #2: This topic is of important to athletic trainers, personal trainers, coaches etc, as field methods are generally used to measure body composition. Overall, it is a very well designed study and well written.

Introduction:

Does the study have a hypothesis?

Line 45: Need more than one reference to support this statement.

Methods:

Please provide a power analysis. What was the p value set to for significance?

Discussion:

Future research? What are the limitations and strengths of this study?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos One_peer review_10.27.2020.docx

Interrater reliability of novice examiners using A-mode ultrasound and skinfolds to measure subcutaneous body fat

PONE-D-20-28461R1

Dear Dr. Wagner,

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,

Cherilyn N. McLester, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: