PONE-D-22-06449Lifestyle risk factors and metabolic markers of cardiovascular diseases in Bangladeshi rural-to-urban male migrants compared with their non-migrant siblings: a sibling-pair comparative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mumu,

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 04 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,

Samantha Frances Ehrlich

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that 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.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 reviewed manuscript is based on original data, very actual and includes results of very interesting research topic. As indicates the title of the manuscript, the results of the manuscript are based only on the examination data of male sibling-pairs. Therefore I recommend indicate in the aim of the manuscript that only male sibling-pair data were analyzed and exclude from the Method section text and other parts of the manuscript, in which female sibling-pair selection, numbers of female sibling-pairs the exclusion criteria (for example, pregnant women) (line 153) and so on, were mentioned. You mention in the text of the manuscript term "CVDs risk factors": physical inactivity, smoking, overweight and obesity, abdominal obesity, low HDL. I did not find in the section Methods described how those factors were determined and classified. The only definition of hypertension and diabetes are presented (lines 329-330). So, please include the description of the methods of the examination and classification of the CVDs risk factors into the Methods section. Maybe you presented the mentioned description of the determination and classification of the CVDs risk factors in your previous publications: so, you could indicate such publication in the list of the references instead of including of additional paragraph into the section Methods of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting work on male (in-country) rural-to-urban migrants on a major public health issue in Bangladesh, NCD risk factors. This study has shown how exposure of the people to an urban environment (physical and others) gradually develops acquire risk factors to develop CVD in future compared to their rural sibs. This is probably done for the first time in Bangladesh. The authors deserve special felicitation for this milestone piece.

The manuscript is well written and well presented. However, it needs some corrections and revisions for further improvements.

Comments:

1. Line 94: Four STEPS surveys have been mentioned, but two have been cited. Reference to 2006 (Indian Heart Journal) and 2010 (Indian Journal of Public Health) could be made.

2. Line 110: SES has appeared for the first time without giving the full name.

3. Line 118: Share lifestyle has been mentioned, but the issue goes beyond. The environment could be considered.

4. Lines 138-146: Provides 2011 Census data on the population size. Having a projected population close to the survey time could be more informative. I believe BBS has such data, online or otherwise.

5. Line 185: Reference has been made to the Supplementary file about the sampling technique. It could be mentioned briefly here also so that readers can understand it without reading the Supplementary file.

6. Lines 187-242: Variable ascertainment has been given in these lines.

a. PUFA has been mentioned in the Results, Discussion, and Abstract. Therefore, PUFA estimation should be mentioned here.

b. Moreover, the family income data has been presented. How was it determined for the rural sibs? Estimation of income in a rural area is complex and unclear if multiple questions are not included. How valid is the authors’ data on income? How did you classify the economic classes of the study participants: low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high income?

7. Line 142: Friedwald formula could have a citation here.

8. Line 260: “Data presented in tables and graphs” could be dropped.

9. Line 276: Results up to one decimal could suffice without losing any information.

10. Table 1: Treatment history for diabetes and hypertension could be one of the determinants of their blood glucose and blood pressure levels. This has been mentioned by the authors in the Discussion section. Can we have the treatment history data here?

11. Table 2: Given the authors have emphasized their findings on skinfold thickness and PUFA but presented the results in the Supplementary file, that does not come to the readers’ notice immediately.

a. Therefore, PUFA and skinfold thickness should be presented here as has been done for truncated quantitative variables.

b. Lines 318-320: Attenuation of ORs, in fact, became significant for models 3 and 4. These two models include BMI, smoking, tobacco use, and mental disorders. Please revise the stamen.

12. Table 4: It has been inadvertently labeled as Table 1. All ORs and their confidence intervals could be presented up to one decimal point. This will not lose any information, but the Table will appear clear and succinct. Please consider this for Table 2 also.

13. Lines 434 & 436: The official language of Bangladesh is Bangla, not Bengali. Consider revising it.

14. Lines 452: Clear gradient was not observed for adjusted ORs for fruit/veg intake, smoking, and mental disorders in addition to diabetes and hypertension (Table 4). Please revise.

15. Lines 485-487: This statement better suits the Conclusion. Please take it there.

16. References: Kindly use URL for the websites and DOI for journal articles (as much as available), unless it is not a requirement of the journal’s style.

17. Abstract: Please see the comments above about the PUFA, and decimal points.

18. Additional suggestion: Clustering of CVD risk factors is a feature in Bangladeshi people. It would be excellent having such data (>=3 risk factors as an example) in this article.

**********

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: Yes: Professor M Mostafa Zaman, Ekhlaspur Center of Health, Chandpur, Bangladesh

[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.

Lifestyle risk factors and metabolic markers of cardiovascular diseases in Bangladeshi rural-to-urban male migrants compared with their non-migrant siblings: a sibling-pair comparative study

PONE-D-22-06449R1

Dear Dr. Mumu,

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,

Samantha Frances Ehrlich

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I wish to thank the authors for their careful consideration of the reviewers' comments, and to congratulate them on this work.

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: All my questions were answered by authors of the manuscript. Authors of the manuscript modified the text of the manuscript according to all my recommendations. I recommend accept the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all poiys except the final point on clustering. Authors want to report it another article. I still suggest including a brief statement about the clustering. A graph could also be used to depict this. I believe, clustering has strong relationship with rural to urban migration. Therefore, it is very much needed here.

**********

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: Yes: Professor M Mostafa Zaman, Ekhlaspur Center of Health, Matlab North, Chandpur, Bangladesh

**********