The anthropometric assessment of body composition and nutritional status in children aged 2–15 years: A cross-sectional study from three districts in Bangladesh

Md. Kamruzzaman; Shah Arafat Rahman; Sharmin Akter; Humaria Shushmita; Md. Yunus Ali; Md Adnan Billah; Md. Sadat Kamal; M. Toufiq Elahi; Dipak Kumar Paul

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257055

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 13, 2021
11 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Jose M. Moran, Editor PONE-D-21-12299 The anthropometric assessment of body composition and nutritional status in children aged (2-15 years): A cross-sectional study from three districts in Bangladesh PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kamruzzaman, 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. Authors should follow the recommendations made by the reviewers and myself. Specifically, it is necessary before a recommendation for publication of the manuscript can be made that the authors rewrite their discussion as it is currently primarily an extended results section, not providing an accurate discussion of their results. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 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: 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. 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, Jose M. Moran 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. 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) 4. 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. Furthermore, in your Methods section, please provide a justification for the sample size used in your study, including any relevant power calculations (if applicable). 5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 5.1. 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].” 5.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures 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/ [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: Partly ******** 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: 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: This manuscript presents a very interessant approach about how to evaluate antropometric measures on children and adolescence. The writting is well done , specially on introdution and methods, perphaps some improvements are need on other sections that will be pojnted bellow. In general, the manuscript is eligible to be published, but need some revisions. Authors states on introduction that they intend to incorporate new antropometric indicators in addition to assessing the nutritional status. It would be very interesting if the could take a more comparative approach of the results found here with the traditional findings in their discussion. It is of note that they were very cautious on methods since it is it is very well detailed, but please specift why did you decided to do arithmetic average for anatomical point instead of traditional average as you did the other antropometric measures. The firts paragraph of results (line 237) it is not necessary since the age range of children is very extensive, what can the average add to knowledge? Results b age group and sex is much more plausible. Something similar happens when authors presents the mean wieht comparation between groups by age (line 272) : What is the relevance of information? Children of very different ages will certainly have different weights. Unlike the FMI/ FM comparison that presented great and interesting results that shoul be discussed. Please, review the discussion thread: do not mention tables and present direct results, use this section to add the new ideas of your study and return to that at the conclusion (the conclusion do not mentioed the use of the new approach on antropometric measures) FInally, check all commas and points there are serveral errors on discussion text and on table 1 ( mean 2.126 ??) Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study regarding the anthrometry assessment of body composition and nutritional status in Bangladesh children aged 2-15 years. The sample size is relatively small by considering this study was carried out at 3 districts. This kind of study is important in a developing country to understand growing children's nutritional status and body composition as well as their contributing factors. Major concerns: Introduction: It lengthy, with unnecessary literature and without a main focus. Significance of this study was not pointed out in the introduction. First paragraph can be deleted, and please consolidated these lines into two paragraphs only (line76-106; and line108-143). Please add in the previous findings on associations between anthropometric and nutritional status, identify the gaps in current literature, and what is the significance of this study. Methods: Please add in the ethics approval number. More importantly, how do you assess children's nutritional status by anthropometric? What are the cut offs to categorize children into several status of malnutrition? The cut-off in the discussion (line 384-393): should be included in method section Do you have dietary and food intake data--it would be interesting and would value up this paper by cross-checking the nutritional status that was determined by anthropometric measurement as well as food intake questionnaire Results is okay with suitable analysis Discussion: The authors need to re-write the discussion. The current version is hard for the reader to follow. The 1st paragraph of the discussion is to demonstrate the main findings of this paper. The authors have a tendency to explain the different anthropometric parameters/ methods use to access children's body composition profiles (e.g. line 394-385, line 360-382; line 396-401; line 409-412) and these are not necessary. Instead, authors should focus on the main findings: (1) whether the anthropometric and nutritional status in Bangladesh children is lower/ higher as compared to the other developing countries with similar SES with reasons and recommendation; (2) the binary logistic results that show us some potential factors that contributing in the poor nutritional status in Bangladesh children, and with some scientific arguments in related to the previous findings. In addition, please don't mention (Table XXX) in discussion--this should only mention in Result section. Minor concern Please check your English. A lot of typos ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257055.r001
Revision 1
1 Jul 2021 Author Response REBUTTAL LETTER 16 June 2021 Jose M. Moran Academic Editor PLOS ONE Ref: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-12299 Manuscript Title: The anthropometric assessment of body composition and nutritional status in children aged 2-15 years: A cross-sectional study from three districts in Bangladesh Dear Jose M. Moran, Thank you for your email and for reconsidering our submission. We have addressed the issues raised by the editorial team. A rebuttal letter, which provides our responses, is appended. We hope that the revised manuscript will prove acceptable for publication. Kind Regards, Md Kamruzzaman (On behalf of co-authors) POINT-BY-POINT REBUTTAL Response to Editor 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 Response: We thank the Associate Editor for this comment. We have checked again the PLOS ONE’S style requirements and ensured the style. 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Response: We thank the editor for this comment. We have revised the section related to participant consent and provided more information (Page 8 and Line 318). 3. 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. Response: Thanks for this comment. We have copyedited the manuscript language usage, spelling, and grammar. [Edited by Dr Md Rezaul Haque, Professor, Dept. of English, Islamic University, Kushtia, Bangladesh, and Adjunct Associate Professor at St. John's University, New York, USA) 4. 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. Response: We have included the questionnaire in original language (Bengali) and English as supplementary file. Furthermore, in your Methods section, please provide a justification for the sample size used in your study, including any relevant power calculations (if applicable). Response: Thanks for this comment. We have now included the details of sample size calculations (Page 7, Line 298)). 5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: Response: Thanks for this comment. We have now replaced the figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. (Fig 1) (Page 34, Line 1712). Comments from Reviewer 1 Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a very interessant approach about how to evaluate antropometric measures on children and adolescence. The writting is well done , specially on introdution and methods, perphaps some improvements are need on other sections that will be pojnted bellow. In general, the manuscript is eligible to be published, but need some revisions. Authors states on introduction that they intend to incorporate new antropometric indicators in addition to assessing the nutritional status. It would be very interesting if the could take a more comparative approach of the results found here with the traditional findings in their discussion. It is of note that they were very cautious on methods since it is it is very well detailed, but please specift why did you decided to do arithmetic average for anatomical point instead of traditional average as you did the other antropometric measures. The firts paragraph of results (line 237) it is not necessary since the age range of children is very extensive, what can the average add to knowledge? Results b age group and sex is much more plausible. Something similar happens when authors presents the mean wieht comparation between groups by age (line 272) : What is the relevance of information? Children of very different ages will certainly have different weights. Unlike the FMI/ FM comparison that presented great and interesting results that shoul be discussed. Please, review the discussion thread: do not mention tables and present direct results, use this section to add the new ideas of your study and return to that at the conclusion (the conclusion do not mentioed the use of the new approach on antropometric measures) FInally, check all commas and points there are serveral Specific Query and Response Q1: It would be very interesting if they could take a more comparative approach of the results found here with the traditional findings in their discussion. Response: We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have revised the discussion section and provided more information (Page 16). Q2: It is of note that they were very cautious on methods since it is it is very well detailed, but please specift why did you decided to do arithmetic average for anatomical point instead of traditional average as you did the other antropometric measures. Response: Thanks for this comment. As far as we know, arithmetic mean and traditional mean are same, and we used this arithmetic mean or traditional mean. However, the little (point) difference that you have noticed is due to the use of different statistical package or function that we have used in RStudio. We hope this little difference won.t be a big problem. Q 3 The first paragraph of results (line 237) it is not necessary since the age range of children is very extensive, what can the average add to knowledge? Results b age group and sex is much more plausible. Something similar happens when authors presents the mean wieght comparation between groups by age (line 272) : What is the relevance of information? Children of very different ages will certainly have different weights. Unlike the FMI/ FM comparison that presented great and interesting results that shoul be discussed.: Response: Thanks for this comment. Average age and weight of children has been deleted from paragraph of result section (Page 11, Line 438). Q4: Review the discussion thread: do not mention tables and present direct results, use this section to add the new ideas of your study and return to that at the conclusion (the conclusion do not mentioed the use of the new approach on antropometric measures) Response: Thanks for this comment. The discussion section has been revisited and addressed those issues. (Page 16, Page 23). Q5 FInally, check all commas and points there are serveral errors on discussion text and on table 1 (mean 2.126 ??) Response: Thanks for this comment. All error of commas and points has been checked and corrected. (Page 22, Table 1). Comments from Reviewer 2 Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study regarding the anthrometry assessment of body composition and nutritional status in Bangladesh children aged 2-15 years. The sample size is relatively small by considering this study was carried out at 3 districts. This kind of study is important in a developing country to understand growing children's nutritional status and body composition as well as their contributing factors. Major concerns: Introduction: It lengthy, with unnecessary literature and without a main focus. Significance of this study was not pointed out in the introduction. First paragraph can be deleted, and please consolidated these lines into two paragraphs only (line76-106; and line108-143). Please add in the previous findings on associations between anthropometric and nutritional status, identify the gaps in current literature, and what is the significance of this study. Methods: Please add in the ethics approval number. More importantly, how do you assess children's nutritional status by anthropometric? What are the cut offs to categorize children into several status of malnutrition? The cut-off in the discussion (line 384-393): should be included in method section Do you have dietary and food intake data--it would be interesting and would value up this paper by cross-checking the nutritional status that was determined by anthropometric measurement as well as food intake questionnaire Results is okay with suitable analysis Discussion: The authors need to re-write the discussion. The current version is hard for the reader to follow. The 1st paragraph of the discussion is to demonstrate the main findings of this paper. The authors have a tendency to explain the different anthropometric parameters/ methods use to access children's body composition profiles (e.g. line 394-385, line 360-382; line 396-401; line 409-412) and these are not necessary. Instead, authors should focus on the main findings: (1) whether the anthropometric and nutritional status in Bangladesh children is lower/ higher as compared to the other developing countries with similar SES with reasons and recommendation; (2) the binary logistic results that show us some potential factors that contributing in the poor nutritional status in Bangladesh children, and with some scientific arguments in related to the previous findings. In addition, please don't mention (Table XXX) in discussion--this should only mention in Result section. Minor concern Please check your English. A lot of typos Q1: Introduction It lengthy, with unnecessary literature and without a main focus. Significance of this study was not pointed out in the introduction. First paragraph can be deleted, and please consolidated these lines into two paragraphs only (line76-106; and line108-143). Response: The introduction section has been revised accordingly (Page 4). Q2: Please add in the previous findings on associations between anthropometric and nutritional status, identify the gaps in current literature, and what is the significance of this study. Response: Thanks for this comment. This issue has been addressed (Page 7, Line 278). Q3 Methods: Please add in the ethics approval number. More importantly, how do you assess children's nutritional status by anthropometric? What are the cut offs to categorize children into several status of malnutrition? The cut-off in the discussion (line 384-393): should be included in method section Response: Thanks for this comment. Ethical approval no has been added to the method section (Page 8, Line 327). Details of anthropometric cut-off value has been added in details in anthropometric measurement of the method section (Page 9, Line 358). Q4: Do you have dietary and food intake data--it would be interesting and would value up this paper by cross-checking the nutritional status that was determined by anthropometric measurement as well as food intake questionnaire Response: Thanks for raising this nice issue. Indeed, it was interesting and valuable to include dietary and food intake data. However, we didn’t collect those kinds of data. This is beyond are study objectives. We will try to include this kind of date for cross validation of nutritional status of children in future study. Q5: Results is okay with suitable analysis. Response: Thanks for this comment. Q6: Discussion: The authors need to re-write the discussion. The current version is hard for the reader to follow. The 1st paragraph of the discussion is to demonstrate the main findings of this paper. The authors have a tendency to explain the different anthropometric parameters/methods use to access children's body composition profiles (e.g. line 394-385, line 360-382; line 396-401; line 409-412) and these are not necessary. Response: Thanks for this comment. The discussion has been rewritten and checked for error. Q7: Instead, authors should focus on the main findings: (1) whether the anthropometric and nutritional status in Bangladesh children is lower/ higher as compared to the other developing countries with similar SES with reasons and recommendation. Response: Thanks for this comment. The issue has been addressed and discussed in detail in the discussion section. (Page 16, 17, 19, 20, 21) Q8: (2) the binary logistic results that show us some potential factors that contributing in the poor nutritional status in Bangladesh children, and with some scientific arguments in related to the previous findings. Response: Thanks for this comment. The issue has been addressed and discussed in detail in the discussion section. (Page 21, Line 1124) Q9: Minor concern, please check your English. A lot of typos Response: The manuscript has been rechecked for language and typos. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257055.r002
26 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Jose M. Moran, Editor PONE-D-21-12299R1 The anthropometric assessment of body composition and nutritional status in children aged (2-15 years): A cross-sectional study from three districts in Bangladesh PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kamruzzaman, 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. There are minor issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be recommended for publication. Those detailed by reviewer #2 will provide clarity and a better understanding of the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 09 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: 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. 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, Jose M. Moran 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: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: The manuscript was properly reformulated, the language was corrected, the reviewers' questions were answered. The current version is subject to publication. Reviewer #2: I think this manuscript is ready for publication. The authors addressed the comments from both reviewers and editor. However, there are some minor concerns. Introduction: Can authors shorten and re-write the 1st two paragraphs in Introduction section? They are lengthy and without a specific focus. 1st paragraph (from line 87-118): should focus on the malnutrition in children at developing countries instead of worldwide, while 2nd paragraph (from line 120-153): please put the focus on the anthropometric assessments in children, as well as the one that you used in the current study, rather than a literature review on all the available methods in human. Discussion: 1st paragraph (line 388-397) I would think line 388-394 are not necessary, suggest to remove. Please keep line 394-397 and please summarise the main findings of this study in your 1st paragraph of your discussion section. Line 399-410, can you summarise the main message from these lines. This is too lengthy Line 413-415: Please check the sentence. Wrong placement for punctuation marks and capital letters. ****** 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: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257055.r003
Revision 2
28 Jul 2021 Author Response REBUTTAL LETTER 27 July 2021 Jose M. Moran Academic Editor PLOS ONE Ref: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-12299R1 Manuscript Title: The anthropometric assessment of body composition and nutritional status in children aged 2-15 years: A cross-sectional study from three districts in Bangladesh Dear Jose M. Moran, Thank you for your email and for reconsidering our submission. We have addressed the issues raised by the editorial team. A rebuttal letter, which provides our responses, is appended. We hope that the revised manuscript will prove acceptable for publication. Kind Regards, Md Kamruzzaman (On behalf of co-authors) POINT-BY-POINT REBUTTAL Response to Editor 1. 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. Response: We thank the Associate Editor for this comment. The reference has been thoroughly checked again. No retracted article was found among the reference lists. Comments from Reviewer 2 Reviewer #2: Q1: Introduction Introduction: Can authors shorten and re-write the 1st two paragraphs in Introduction section? They are lengthy and without a specific focus. 1st paragraph (from line 87-118): should focus on the malnutrition in children at developing countries instead of worldwide, while 2nd paragraph (from line 120-153): please put the focus on the anthropometric assessments in children, as well as the one that you used in the current study, rather than a literature review on all the available methods in human. Response: The introduction section has been revised accordingly (Page 4, Line 99). Q2: Discussion: 1st paragraph (line 388-397) I would think line 388-394 are not necessary, suggest removing. Please keep line 394-397 and please summarise the main findings of this study in your 1st paragraph of your discussion section. Response: Thanks for this comment. The discussion section has been revised and shorten accordingly Line 388-397 has been removed and main findings of this study has been summarized. (Page 16, Line 373). Q3: Line 399-410, can you summarise the main message from these lines. This is too lengthy Response: The section has been revised and summarized accordingly (Page 16, Line 386). Q4: Line 413-415: Please check the sentence. Wrong placement for punctuation marks and capital letters. Response: The section has been revised accordingly (Page 16, Line 390). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_V2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257055.r004
23 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Jose M. Moran, Editor The anthropometric assessment of body composition and nutritional status in children aged 2-15 years: A cross-sectional study from three districts in Bangladesh PONE-D-21-12299R2 Dear Dr. Kamruzzaman, 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, Jose M. Moran Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257055.r005
Formally Accepted
25 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Jose M. Moran, Editor PONE-D-21-12299R2 The anthropometric assessment of body composition and nutritional status in children aged 2-15 years: A cross-sectional study from three districts in Bangladesh Dear Dr. Kamruzzaman: 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. Jose M. Moran Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257055.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 .