Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 8, 2022
Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor

PONE-D-22-06890Binary cutpoint and the combined effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular disease mortality: a community-based cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

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 Jun 30 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,

Tariq Jamal Siddiqi

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 amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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 authors presented a manuscript evaluating the combined effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular disease mortality. The analysis is well done and the manuscript has been drafted in an intelligible manner. Figures and tables are presented appropriately. However, there are a few issues which need to be addressed:

1. The authors should consider adding numbers and percentages to provide a comprehensive view of the mortality and morbidity burden in the introduction.

2. Kindly mention the full form of Fig as figure, and report table citations as Table S2 instead of S2 table.

3. The authors should report the p values associated with results mentioned within the text of the manuscript.

4. Kindly ensure that all HRs are reported along with their 95% confidence intervals.

**********

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

[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

May 19, 2022

PONE-D-22-06890

Binary cutpoint and the combined effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular disease mortality: a community-based cohort study

Dear editor and reviewers

We appreciate reviewers’ constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered these, and enclose a revised version of the manuscript which incorporates the reviewer’s comments. Our point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below. If you have any question, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to a favorable decision from the Journal. Thank you for your time for this revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Sue K Park, MD, PhD

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors presented a manuscript evaluating the combined effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular disease mortality. The analysis is well done and the manuscript has been drafted in an intelligible manner. Figures and tables are presented appropriately. However, there are a few issues which need to be addressed:

Authors’ response: We appreciate reviewer’s comment. We carefully addressed all issues and our point-by-point responses to the comments are listed below.

1. The authors should consider adding numbers and percentages to provide a comprehensive view of the mortality and morbidity burden in the introduction.

Authors’ response: We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comment. Numbers and percentages to provide a comprehensive view of the mortality and morbidity burden has been added in the introduction section per reviewer’s opinion.

In the revised manuscript (p3. Lines 48-52)>

It was reported that county‐level hypertension‐related CVD mortality increased from 362.1 per 100,000 in 2000 to 430.1 per 100,000 in 2019 among adults aged ≥65 years. Elevated BP-related CVD mortality during 2010 to 2019 was found to increase 86.2% among patients aged 35 to 64 years, and 66.1% for patients aged ≥65 years.

2. Kindly mention the full form of Fig as figure, and report table citations as Table S2 instead of S2 table.

Authors’ response: We appreciate reviewer’s helpful comment. We followed the PLOS ONE's style requirements including those for file naming (such as Fig 1 and S1 Table). We appreciate reviewer for giving us the opportunity to check the journal style again. For convenience, the journal style requirements are posted at the bottom. If reviewer strongly wants to change the naming, we are willing to consult with the editor's office.

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

3. The authors should report the p values associated with results mentioned within the text of the manuscript.

Authors’ response: We appreciate reviewer’s helpful comment. We provided p values for all results mentioned within the text per reviewer’s opinion.

In the revised manuscript (p10. lines 187-192)>

The risk of death from total stroke and hemorrhagic stroke was shown to be higher in the DBP-combined group (HR for stroke: 2.34, 95% CI 1.07-5.11; HR for hemorrhagic stroke: 4.11, 95% CI 1.40-12.06) than in the SBP-combined group (HR for stroke: 1.77, 95% CI 1.24-2.53; HR for hemorrhagic stroke: 1.97, 95% CI 1.05-3.68) (P trends <0.001). In the highest combined group, the risk of death from all types of stroke was increased. There was no significant difference in the risk of death from IHD or AMI between the combined BP groups (P trend =0.13 and 0.90, respectively).

4. Kindly ensure that all HRs are reported along with their 95% confidence intervals.

Authors’ response: We appreciate reviewer’s helpful comment. We added 95% CI to all HRs in the results section.

In the revised manuscript (p10. lines 187-192)>

The risk of death from total stroke and hemorrhagic stroke was shown to be higher in the DBP-combined group (HR for stroke: 2.34, 95% CI 1.07-5.11; HR for hemorrhagic stroke: 4.11, 95% CI 1.40-12.06) than in the SBP-combined group (HR for stroke: 1.77, 95% CI 1.24-2.53; HR for hemorrhagic stroke: 1.97, 95% CI 1.05-3.68). In the highest combined group, the risk of death from all types of stroke was increased. There was no significant difference in the risk of death from IHD or AMI between the combined BP groups.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: rebuttal letter_plosone.docx
Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor

Binary cutpoint and the combined effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular disease mortality: a community-based cohort study

PONE-D-22-06890R1

Dear Dr. Park,

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,

Tariq Jamal Siddiqi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor

PONE-D-22-06890R1

Binary cutpoint and the combined effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular disease mortality: a community-based cohort study

Dear Dr. Park:

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. Tariq Jamal Siddiqi

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 .