The impact of subject positioning on body composition assessments by air displacement plethysmography evaluated in a heterogeneous sample

Raluca Horhat; Monica Miclos-Balica; Paul Muntean; Sandra Popa; Irina Sima; Bogdan Glisici; Onisim Cîrja; Adrian Neagu; Monica Neagu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267089

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 8, 2021
8 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Miquel Vall-llosera Camps, Editor PONE-D-21-15286The impact of subject positioning on body composition assessments by air displacement plethysmography evaluated in a heterogeneous samplePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Neagu, 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. I would like to sincerely apologize for the delay you have incurred with your submission. It has been exceptionally difficult to secure reviewers to evaluate your study. We have now received two completed reviews; their comments are available below. The reviewers have raised constructive concerns about the study that need to be addressed in a revision. In particular, please pay attention to Reviewer#2 comments about the Bland and Altman SI plots. Please revise the manuscript to address all the reviewer's comments in a point-by-point response in order to ensure it is meeting the journal's publication criteria. Please note that the revised manuscript will need to undergo further review, we thus cannot at this point anticipate the outcome of the evaluation process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 25 2022 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: https://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, Miquel Vall-llosera Camps, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: 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: Overall, this is a really good study and I adds to the body composition literature on subject positioning using the BodPod. I encourage the author to correct past tense as well as grammar issues. Abstract: Line 29: I’d just state how many were in the study Eight-two healthy adults (42 men and 40 women etc….) How is healthy defined? Line: 31. How is “extreme” defined? I suggest just taking it out and saying “two different position were utilized. Introduction: Line 60: The accuracy of ADP was confirmed 61 for various categories of subjects, including healthy adults [4, 5, 6], elderly [7, 8], and children [6, 62 9]. I would change was confirmed to The accuracy has been validated in various subjects…… Line 108: Take out “has” Line115-116: Research doesn’t prove it merely suggests. Reword this sentence please. Methods: Line 135: What about nicotine or caffeine or alcohol consumption? Line 136: Why did the void before arrival? Usually you have subjects VOID right before testing. Line 200: Change “were done” to were analyzed. Discussion: Bringing the reader back to the purpose would be good. Change all ref to the actually author Jones-Smith et al.. Reviewer #2: Thank you for your in-depth investigation of factors influencing calculation of the SAA for adults undergoing ADP assessments! See the attached file for this reviewer's comments/questions/suggestions. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLoS Comments to the Authors.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267089.r001
Revision 1
17 Feb 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers We thank the reviewers for the thorough analysis of our manuscript! We equally appreciate their positive comments, which encourage us, and their constructive criticism, which hopefully helped us to improve the paper. The reviewers’ comments are listed in this letter point-by-point, placed between quotation marks. Each comment if followed by our answer. In the revised manuscript, the modified portions of the text are highlighted using the Track Changes function of Microsoft Word. Line numbers are also given wherever the new text appears on a different line in the revised manuscript than in the original one. Reviewer #1 Comment 1: "Overall, this is a really good study and adds to the body composition literature on subject positioning using the BodPod. I encourage the author to correct past tense as well as grammar issues." We thank Reviewer #1 for the appreciative comment and for the help with pinpointing English usage issues. Comment 2: Line 29: "I’d just state how many were in the study Eight-two healthy adults (42 men and 40 women etc….) How is healthy defined?" We revised the Abstract accordingly. Comment 3: Line: 31. "How is “extreme” defined? I suggest just taking it out and saying “two different position were utilized." Done. Comment 4: Line 60: "The accuracy of ADP was confirmed 61 for various categories of subjects, including healthy adults [4, 5, 6], elderly [7, 8], and children [6, 62 9]. I would change was confirmed to The accuracy has been validated in various subjects……" Done. Comment 5: Line 108: "Take out “has”" Done (line 109 in the revised manuscript). Comment 6: Line115-116: "Research doesn’t prove it merely suggests. Reword this sentence please." Done (lines 116-117 in the revised manuscript). Comment 7: Line 135: "What about nicotine or caffeine or alcohol consumption?" Indeed, we asked them not to consume alcohol for two days prior to being tested, but we did not mention smoking and coffee consumption. We revised the text accordingly (line 136 in the revised manuscript). Comment 8: Line 136: "Why did the void before arrival? Usually you have subjects VOID right before testing." Actually, we asked them to visit the bathroom right before commencing the first test. Hopefully, the rewritten sentence is less confusing than the original (line 138 in the revised manuscript). Comment 9: Line 200: "Change “were done” to were analyzed." Done (line 202 in the revised manuscript). Comment 10: "Change all ref to the actually author Jones-Smith et al.." Done. Reviewer #2 Comment 1: "Thank you for your in-depth investigation of factors influencing calculation of the SAA for adults undergoing ADP assessments! Your findings and insights provide great depth of understanding as to why body positioning within the BodPod chamber is critical – especially for serial assessments of body composition." We thank Reviewer #2 for this encouraging comment! Comment 2: "To conform to the conventions and grammar of the English language, this reviewer suggests enlisting services of a native English speaker to help clarify your otherwise well-written report. Suggestions for both grammar, clarity, and content are below. If the journal provided editing services, this list would be much shorter." We appreciate the constructive criticism and the proposed improvements of English grammar and style! Line 48 – "“compartment” should be “component”" Done. Line 67 – "by “softer” do you mean “less dense”? Please clarify" The revised sentence states explicitly that “softer” refers to “more compressible”. Line 70 - "change to read “as well as is a …”" Done. Line 72 - "change to read “hair be completely…”" Done (line 73 in the revised manuscript). Line 84 – "this reviewer did not see the definition of BSA and TGV prior to their use in the BV formula" The acronym of the body surface area (BSA) is defined in the revised text on line 71, whereas that of the thoracic gas volume (TGV) appears on line 77. Line 113 – "change to read “positions that concern”" The corresponding sentence was revised to state explicitly that the investigated positions differed in the surface area artifact, while being in accord with the manufacturer’s instructions. Line 128 – "use “lower and upper bounds” instead of “range” in table title" Done. Line 125 – "move “, including scale calibration,” to follow “procedure in line 134" Done (line 135 in the revised manuscript). Line 138 – "indicate if participants were barefoot for standing height" Done (line 140 in the revised manuscript). Line 141 – "change to read “wore dry, minimal….”" Done (line 142 in the revised manuscript). Line 153 – "be sure the sequence of posture in Fig 1 matches specifics of the figure title." Yes, the caption of Figure 1 is correct: panels A and B represent the subject in relaxed position, whereas panels C and D depict the subject in compact position, in which a significant part of her/his body surface area is hidden from the surrounding air. Line 154 – "would be helpful to identify if participants exited the chamber between trials in Tucker’s study." Yes. they did exit the measurement chamber after every trial (line 161 in the revised manuscript). Line 158 – "even though you are most interested in SAA, indicated if TGV was estimated or measured? If estimated, mention that as a limitation." The TGV was predicted by the BOD POD’s software, as stated on line 144. Line 163 – "change to read “In the compact…”" Done (line 163 in the revised manuscript). Lines 185-189 – "is “VTG” supposed to represent “TGV”? The latter is a more common term, Be sure to define the term prior to its use." We thank Reviewer #2 for noticing this typo! The correct acronym is defined before its first use (line 77). Line 193 – "insert a space before ±" Done. Line 255 – "references to SI figures no longer follows ascending numbering sequence. Reference to S Fig 3 occurs on line 170, but no reference to S figures 4 -6 found prior to reference to S7 figure. Reference to S44-S6 comes on line 274. See below for comments regarding clarity of the figure titles/legends." We chose to group the BA plots derived from the entire sample, and then, figures S7-S11 represent the BA analysis of data obtained for women, whereas figures S12-S15 refer to men. This option is explained in lines 252-253. Line 277 – "Is it not more appropriate to indicate that it is “The results from this study are in accord…”?" We revised the sentence accordingly (line 275 in the revised manuscript). Line 282 – "consider changing to read “positions that concern the fraction…”" Done (line 280 in the revised manuscript). Line 293 – "consider using “Peeters and colleagues [18]” instead of “ref [18]” as the subject of your sentence" The revised sentence is, hopefully, more straightforward and legible (line 291 in the revised manuscript). Line 303 – "change “ref [13]” to the first author’s name followed by [13]." Done (line 300 in the revised manuscript). Line 307 – "change to read “in close vicinity to the”" Done (line 304 in the revised manuscript). Line 313 – "consider clarifying who/what is being referred to aby “Both of them”. It seems you are referring to techniques, but it is not clear as written." The revised sentence opening avoids the pronoun: “Both the Lund and Browder chart and the “Rule of Nines” have been revisited ...” (line 309 in the revised manuscript). Line 316 – "by “This study” are you referring to “The present study” meaning your study? Not clear as written." Indeed, it is clearer to write “The present study” (line 312 in the revised manuscript). Comment 3: "This reviewer did not see a reference to S13 or S16." Supplementary figures S7-S11 show the BA plots obtained for women, whereas S12-S15 refer to men. These sex-specific plots are mentioned on line 253 and the corresponding BA parameters are listed in Table 3. Comment 4: "In reference list, check format for journal title for #19. It seems to be the only one that spells out the complete journal title." The revised reference contains the abbreviated journal title (Int J Exerc Sci). Comment 5: "My primary concern is with the figure titles/descriptions of the Bland and Altman SI plots using both red and black line colors. Some of the SI figures have two solid red lines with 95% LOA dashed lines, but no indication I found as to what they were indicating. While this suggestion may be perceived by the authors as adding redundancy, it would clarify some confusion for readers like me who have extensive experience with Bland & Altman plots. It would also help with the concept about each figure being able to stand alone." The revised caption of S4 Fig. provides a detailed presentation of the notations and the elements displayed on each BA plot (lines 473-478). Furthermore, to guide a reader interested in another supplementary figure, the captions of S5-S15 Figs. were supplemented with the sentence “Notations are explained in the caption of S4 Fig.”. Comment 6: "Another concern was the inability to understand “the numbers displayed …” aspect of the title for SI Fig. Providing an example would go a long way in providing clarity of what you are trying to say." The explanations given in the caption of S4 Fig. address this problem, too. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ADP_posture_Response_to_reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267089.r002
4 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Carla Pegoraro, Editor The impact of subject positioning on body composition assessments by air displacement plethysmography evaluated in a heterogeneous sample PONE-D-21-15286R1 Dear Dr. Neagu, 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, Carla Pegoraro Staff Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Very fun to read again! Nice job on addressing grammatical issues and providing additional clarity. Please check line 243 and change "SSA" to "SAA" if it is indeed a typo. Good job, and congratulations! ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267089.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Apr 2022 Acceptance Letter - Carla Pegoraro, Editor PONE-D-21-15286R1 The impact of subject positioning on body composition assessments by air displacement plethysmography evaluated in a heterogeneous sample Dear Dr. Neagu: 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 Carla Pegoraro Staff Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267089.r004

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 .