Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 11, 2020
Decision Letter - Paolo Magni, Editor

PONE-D-20-16786

Magnitude, components and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Northern Ethiopia: Evidences from regional NCDs STEPS survey, 2016

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ajemu,

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 fully addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by January 15, 2021. 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,

Paolo Magni

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 Figure 1in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted.

All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish this figure specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figure from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish this figure under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

Please fully address the reviewer's comments.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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: No

**********

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

**********

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 title of the article is "Magnitude, components and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Northern Ethiopia: Evidences from regional NCDs STEPS survey, 2016".

The authors conducted a community based cross sectional study. This study aimed to assess magnitude, components, and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Tigray region northern Ethiopia, 2016.

This is a quite interesting study. However, the manuscript still could be further improved after some revisions.

Specific comments:

1. In Methods section; Statistical analyses, please clarify, what method that used for adjusting in multivariate analysis? Please provide test for interaction between variables, goodness of fit, and multicollinearity. In addition, please demonstrate flowchart of participants. If non-probability convenience sampling was employed. This limitation of the study might affect generalizability.

2. Data collection: Who interviewed the participants? Were they doctors, nurses, medical students, or research investigators? Were they trained before administered the questionnaires? How the authors deal with missing data?

3. Data collection: By how many people, in how long time, where? The time of interview for each person? Missing values?

4. Include full details of how the authors handled missing data and outliers in the ‘Methods’ section.

5. The main concern is that the questionnaires should be validated and have good reliability and validity. Reliability of questionnaires should be mentioned. Please provide citation and reference of the questionnaire. The English peer-review reference should be placed.

6. Please describe the detail of Tigray region northern Ethiopia; such as is it rural or urban community, the number of population and population structure.

7. It is important that within the manuscript, the authors clarify the importance of this work, how it differs from and advances previously published work and how this article can benefit the field and patients in the future etc. Please also add more information from recently published research and offer a more speculative and forward-looking perspective.

**********

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: Wisit Kaewput

[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.

Revision 1

Responses to Reviewer’s and editor comments

Journal name: PLOS ONE

Corresponding Author: Kiros Fenta Ajemu

We would like to express our appreciation to the reviewer for their constructive and supportive comments in the first version of the manuscript entitled “Magnitude, components and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Northern Ethiopia: Evidences from regional NCDs STEPS survey, 2016”. This will be an input to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have meticulously revised the manuscript and incorporated all the changes in the revised version of the manuscript based on the suggestions and comments made by the reviewer. We have highlighted these changes in the manuscript. We have listed all the responses for each of the comment/ suggestion made by the reviewer as follows:

Responses to comments Academic Editor: Mr. Paolo Magni

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive comment. We crosscheck the manuscript based on the PLOS ONE style requirements in line with the web site you suggested.

Comment 2: We noted that “Figure 1” in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted.

Response 2: Thank you for your transparent and constructive comment. Actually we made the map using regional GPS data but as you have said the map is not that much relevant since Mekelle city is already known and everybody can Google it from internet. Therefore we agreed to remove the figure “Figure 1” from the main body of the manuscript. The change made is listed below as per your comments and suggestions in:

- Material and Methods section Line (70), Page (4)].

Responses to reviewer comments

Comment 1: The title of the article is "Magnitude, components and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Northern Ethiopia: Evidences from regional NCDs STEPS survey, 2016".The authors conducted a community based cross sectional study. This study aimed to assess magnitude, components, and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Tigray region northern Ethiopia, 2016.This is a quite interesting study.

Response 1: thank you for your acknowledgment that makes me to do more.

Comment 2: in the statistical analyses, please clarify what method that used for adjusting in multivariate analysis? Please provide test for interaction between variables, goodness of fit, and multicollinearity.

Response 2: thank you for your consideration in statical analysis in line with data handling mechanisms since it is the back bone and pillar to find the real evidence and minimize biases and errors. The changes that we made were listed below as per your comments and suggestions in Method section, Line (137-144), Pages (7)].

- Test of interaction, Line (142-143), Pages (7)].

- Goodness of fit, Line (140-142), Pages (7)].

- Multicollinearity, Line (145-146), Pages (7)].

Comment 3: If non-probability convenience sampling was employed. This limitation of the study might affect generalizability.

Response 3: thank you and I accept you fear of generalizability but we put it as a limitation in the:

- Strength and Limitation section, Line (243-244), pages (15)]. As part of the limitation of the study

Comment 4: Who interviewed the participants? Were they doctors, nurses, medical students, or research investigators? Were they trained before administered the questionnaires, by how many people, in how long time, where? The time of interview for each person?

Response 4: thank you your concern for data quality and the changes made were explained in Method section, Line (94- 103] Page (5)]

- Who interviewed, Line (96-97), Pages (5)].

- How many people, Line (96-97), Pages (5)].

- How long and where, Line (102-103), Pages (5)].

Comment 5: The main concern is that the questionnaires should be validated and have good reliability and validity. Reliability of questionnaires should be mentioned Please provide citation and reference of the questionnaire.

Response 5: thank you for your comment and the changes made were listed in Method section Line (94-95] Page (5)]

- Validated questionnaire, Line (94), Pages (5)].

- Reference, Line (95), Pages (5)].

Comment 6: Please describe the detail of Tigray region northern Ethiopia; such as is it rural or urban community, the number of population and population structure.

Response 6: thank you for your concern in the study area and the changes made were listed in Method section Line (70-77] Page (4)]

Comment 7: It is important that within the manuscript, the authors clarify the importance of this work, how it differs from and advances previously published work and how this article can benefit the field and patients in the future etc.

Response 7: the previously published work has different objective and it was a scientific report on prevalence of behavioral characteristics such as alcohol use, eating diet, physical activity, diabetes and pre-diabetes prevalence. The study did not address predictor factors the magnitude of association in respective cardiovascular disease. The current study will provide detail of the risk factors for future deployment of visible intervention. For further information you can access the article on line Journal of scientific report https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006379/.

Once again thank you for your strong and committed concern for improving the manuscript

Sincerely your’s Kiros Fenta Ajemu (kirosfenta@gmail.com)Researcher, Tigray Health Research Institute, Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers..docx
Decision Letter - Paolo Magni, Editor

Magnitude, components and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Northern Ethiopia: Evidences from regional NCDs STEPS survey, 2016

PONE-D-20-16786R1

Dear Dr. Kiros Fenta Ajemu,

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,

Paolo Magni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes: Wisit Kaewput

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Paolo Magni, Editor

PONE-D-20-16786R1

Magnitude, components and predictors of metabolic syndrome in Northern Ethiopia: Evidences from regional NCDs STEPS survey, 2016

Dear Dr. Ajemu:

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

Prof. Paolo Magni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .