Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMay 11, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-13979 HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cyst among eu-thyroid population: a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 24 2021 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:
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, Yoshihiro Kokubo, PhD, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, FESO 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 2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: 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 manuscript entitled “HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cyst among euthyroid population: a cross sectional study” describes an inverse association between HbA1c levels and thyroid cysts in euthyroid patients. The Authors interpret this finding as a potential tool to explore a reduction in thyroid function. The idea is original but the manuscript leaves too many edges without a clear explanation. Major comments 1. Introduction: page 6 line 103: without preference data. Do you mean personal habits? 2. The introduction could benefit of further description on how 2 apparently disconnected parameters such as HbA1c and TPOab are linked. Is the carbohydrate alteration related to thyroid autoimmunity ? 3. Considering that thyroid cysts are common and 2 mm is a small size it would be better to clarify what the Authors refer to with “status for cysts” is it “yes or no” or “number of cysts”? 4. In statistical methods it would be useful to describe the tests in relation to what is shown later in the results section. In table 1 patients are distributed in 3 groups according to HbA1c levels but this is not introduced in methods. For the logistic regression where does it say that HbA1c and cysts are going to be analysed as it states in table 3? 5. A description of the biochemical and anthropometric parameters of the whole population should be included. 6. Which is the proportion of cysts according to HbA1c tertiles? 7. Table 1 please define levels of low, median, high level of HbA1c 8. References are quite scarce considering the abundance on the topic of thyroid and carbohydrate metabolism. 9. The manuscript should be revised for the English language. Minor comments 1. Several grammar mistakes have to be corrected as in lines 29-31-39-68-71-72-118-132-143-164-165-172-173-194-196-231-254 - Reviewer #2: This manuscript suffers from many flaws, making it very difficult to read and evaluate. For example, there are several points inconsistent between the text and the tables, the quality of English is very poor, and the meaning of the conclusion is also unclear. ********** 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: Gabriela Brenta 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-20-13979R1 HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cysts in a euthyroid population: a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 04 2021 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:
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, Yoshihiro Kokubo, PhD, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, FESO Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for correcting the treatise. There is a contradiction between the results and considerations that the authors have derived. I think that one of the causes of the contradiction is due to cross-sectional research. The authors should carefully discuss this in this manuscript. Secondly, since the cut-off value of the third quantile of HbA1c is within the normal range, it would be meaningless to classify within that. Therefore, the cut-off value of HbA1c should be the value used in clinical diagnosis. The peer reviewers were not interested in the numerous peer review requests. It will be necessary to devise ways to get the reader interested. One reviewer's comments are very reasonable. Please reconsider faithfully to this comment. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: I think your conclusion is unreasonable from your results. First, in lines 50-53 in the Abstract, you wrote “Previously, we reported that euthyroid individuals without thyroid cysts had a stronger correlation between TSH and free T3 than those with thyroid cysts [3]. Therefore, the absence of thyroid cysts might negatively affect thyroid hormone synthesis.” However, those correlations were r=-0.13 (p<0.001) in Thyroid cyst (-) group and r=-0.03 (p=0.525) in Thyroid cyst (+) group. In lines 232-237 in the Discussion, you wrote “As the absence of thyroid cysts might indicate latent damage to the thyroid [3,4,7], insulin resistance related to TSH levels might underlie the association between thyroid cysts and HbA1c. In fact, in our additional analysis, a slight but significant positive association between TSH and HbA1c levels was observed, while significant inverse associations between TSH and thyroid hormone (free T3 and free T4) levels were observed among all euthyroid participants (Table 3).” However, those results showed r<0.15 (absolute value). Your interpretation of those results does not seem appropriate. If a Correlation Coefficient is less than 0.2 (absolute value), it is considered negligible. Even if it has statistical significance, it doesn’t necessarily mean it has medical significance. The odds ratio in Table 5 for Models 1, 2, 3 are around 0.75. Those don’t seem to indicate strong associations. Based on the above points, I think you are jumping to the conclusion that your findings provide an efficient tool to evaluate the thyroid hormone activity that relates to insulin resistance. Furthermore, in line 119, you wrote “… to determine the association between TPO-Ab and thyroid cysts”, but you didn’t measure TPO-Ab. Therefore, you cannot determine that association. That kind of statement is confusing for the reader. Reviewer #3: Revisions are extremely helpful. The English is now clear and the import of the report is evident. ********** 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 #2: Yes: Mihoko Takahashi, PhD Reviewer #3: Yes: Donald Zimmerman [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 2 |
|
PONE-D-20-13979R2 HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cysts in a euthyroid population: a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. In particular, I recommed to change the conclusions of your manuscript according to the indications of Reviewer 2. Please submit your revised manuscript by April 15th. 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:
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, Silvia Naitza Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Dr. Shimizu, please find attached the comments from the Reviewers to the revised version 2 of your manuscript PONE-D-20-13979R2. As you can see, one Reviewer has still major concerns especially with the conclusions of your manuscript, which I also share. Please, change your manuscript accordingly before resubmitting a new version addressing the reviewers criticisms. Best regards, Silvia Naitza [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: Thank you for the revision. The results were interesting. It might be valuable for publication. However, I still don’t agree with your conclusion. In the discussion, you wrote “the absence of thyroid cysts might indicate latent damage to the thyroid" (line 223) and “which could not be evaluated based on TSH, free T3 and free T4 levels" (lines 269-270). It sounds like you are suggesting a hypothesis that the absence of thyroid cysts could be used to diagnose latent damage and thyroid activity. I could understand if you said the existence of thyroid cysts might indicate a high level of thyroid activity. However, it is difficult to say the absence of thyroid cysts indicate latent damage. Among the people without thyroid cysts, there must be a lot of people with completely healthy thyroids. Isn’t it more appropriate to think there is only a small fraction of people with latent damage? Jumping to conclusions like that will lead to mistaken diagnoses. Reviewer #3: 1. Abstract first sentence-- Change to: Previously, anti-peroxidase antibodies (TPO-Ab), which are known to cause autoimmune thyroiditis, were shown to be present in individuals in inverse proportion to the prevalence of thyroid cysts. 2. Abstract third sentence--Change to: Since participants with subclinical hypothyroidism are reported to have higher HbA1c than do normal healthy controls, HbA1c could be inversely associated with the incidence of thyroid cysts through a mechanism reflecting latent thyroid damage. ********** 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 #2: Yes: Mihoko Takahashi, PhD Reviewer #3: Yes: Donald Zimmerman,MD [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 3 |
|
PONE-D-20-13979R3 HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cysts in a euthyroid population: a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. In particular, please modify the sentences highlighted by reviewer 2 to improve clarity and refrase some of the paragraphs in your conclusions in a more dubitative form, leaving an hypothesis open, as suggested by reviewer 3. Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 days. 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:
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. 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, Silvia Naitza Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Dr. Shimizu, please find enclosed the comments of the three referees that have now evaluated your revised manuscript PONE-D-20-13979R3. Although the manuscript has its value and has been improved following the referees' advice, there is still concern about its suitability for publication in Plos ONE as it stands now. In particular, the language can be further improved as the meaning of some sentences is not very clear (see reviewer 2) and the interpretation of the results is rather provocative, which led one of the reviewer to suggest rejection of your manuscript. I invite you to address the requests of these reviewers and refrase some of the paragraphs in your conclusions in a more dubitative form, leaving an hypothesis open before resubmitting a revised version to the journal. Best regards, Silvia Naitza [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: Partly Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: Even though the manuscript has been improved there are still some concerns with the meaning of some sentences that would need to be modified. 1)Line 20 “Previously, anti-peroxidase antibody (TPO-Ab) which is known cause of autoimmune thyroiditis is revealed to be inversely…” I would suggest rephrasing the following sentences for clarity. 2) Line 38 “investigations are necessary, the present findings help efficiently evaluate thyroid hormone activity corresponding to insulin resistance among participants with normal…” Please rephrase since the meaning of the sentence is not clear 3) Line 49 “and isolated systolic hypertension [3]. Since hyperthyroidism is known to be a common cause of isolated systolic hypertension [4], development of thyroid cysts could benefit patients with low thyroid hormone synthesis, and absence of thyroid cysts might attenuate thyroid hormone synthesis.” I understand the Authors want to state that the absence of thyroid cysts might reflect attenuated thyroid hormone synthesis but the whole sentence does not make sense . Please rephrase. 4) Line 110 6.5≤ Does it means less than 6.5? 5)Footnote table 3: please correct “HDLc” 6) Title table 6: please correct “without taking glucose lowering” 7)Line 255: “Therefore, the sensitivity of using the absence of thyroid cysts and higher levels of HbA1c to detect latent damage to the thyroid could be much greater than that of using TSH level.” I would suggest changing this sentence because the sensitivity of these putative diagnostic tools has not been assessed in this study and cannot replace a standardized biochemical test such as TSH that has been traditionally used to detect hypothyroidism. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the reply. I read this manuscript again after reading your explanation. However, my concern still remains. In fact, you wrote “I also could understand the meaning that this reviewer thought that there are too many completely healthy participants without thyroid cysts.” However, you didn’t discuss that in the manuscript. Thus, you didn’t reflect my comments at all, even though you agree with part of my comments, nor did you provide a satisfactory explanation for the part of my comments with which you disagreed. Consequently, I recommend rejecting this manuscript. Reviewer #3: The manuscript reads well and is of considerable interest. The relation between thyroid cysts and hemoglobin A1C is well established. ********** 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: Gabriela Brenta Reviewer #2: Yes: Mikoho Takahashi, PhD Reviewer #3: Yes: Donald Zimmerman [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 4 |
|
PONE-D-20-13979R4 HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cysts in a euthyroid population: a cross-sectional study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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. In particular, you should modify your manuscript in the points suggested by reviewer 2 and then resubmit to the Jounal. Please submit your revised manuscript by June 11th. 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:
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. 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, Silvia Naitza Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 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 Reviewer #2: No ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: All comments have been adequately answered I am still in doubt if the p values in table 6 are correct since they are non significant. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the revision. Since you deleted the sentence, “Therefore, the sensitivity of using the absence of thyroid cysts and higher levels of HbA1c to detect latent damage to the thyroid could be much greater than that of using TSH level.”, I am able to accept your logic a little. However, I still disagree with your conclusion. In the conclusion, you wrote, “the present finding provides an efficient tool to evaluate the thyroid hormone activity relative to insulin resistance among participants with normal thyroid function.” However, this conclusion was based on your hypothesis, not your results. You should put, “The absence of thyroid cysts and higher levels of HbA1c could indicate the latent functional damage of the thyroid” into the Conclusion, as you wrote in the Discussion, and delete “the present finding provides an efficient tool to evaluate the thyroid hormone activity relative to insulin resistance among participants with normal thyroid function.” The same is true about the Abstract. Furthermore, in lines 274-275 in the Discussion, you wrote, “the present study also provides an efficient tool to evaluate the validity of HbA1c level control in participants with normal thyroid function.” I think you should also change this sentence for the same reason. ********** 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: Gabriela Brenta Reviewer #2: Yes: Mihoko Takahashi [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 5 |
|
HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cysts in a euthyroid population: a cross-sectional study PONE-D-20-13979R5 Dear Dr. Shimizu, 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, Silvia Naitza Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-13979R5 HbA1c is inversely associated with thyroid cysts in a euthyroid population: a cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Shimizu: 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. Silvia Naitza 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 .