Development and validation of predictive workable weight equations for Brazilian older adult residents in long-term care institutions

Marcos Felipe Silva de Lima; Natália Louise de Araújo Cabral; Larissa Praça de Oliveira; Laura Camila Pereira Liberalino; Severina Carla Vieira Cunha Lima; Lucia de Fátima Campos Pedrosa; Kenio Costa de Lima; Clélia de Oliveira Lyra

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280541

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 25, 2021
27 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Marianne Clemence, Editor PONE-D-21-13956DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF PREDICTIVE WORKABLE WEIGHT EQUATIONS FOR ELDERLY RESIDENTS IN LONG-TERM CARE INSTITUTIONSPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lima, 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. The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below. The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. They request additional information on methodological aspects of the study (such as details of the study setting and statistical methods), and revisions to analyses. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised? Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 10 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: 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, Marianne Clemence Associate 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 (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. 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. 4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: 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: No 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: 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 study is really necessary study since the authors address a very important aspect of health of older people. I have few concerns with this study. 1. Better to exclude the 55 individuals who participated for the study at 1st time from the 2nd stage and re analyze the data. 2. There should be a coherence in the writing specially the methods, data analysis, results and discussion. 3. Methods – study design, period of data collection, stage I and 2, way of taking anthropometry information, data analysis and ethical clearance. 4. Data analysis – how did you present the descriptive data, removing outliers, comparing the characteristics of two group (development and validation groups; there should not be difference), stratification, correlation analysis (between weight and anthropometry), regression analysis to choose the model/equations, Bland-Altman plots, comparing with previous study equations etc. 5. Results should be arranged in the same sequence of results analysis. 6. Discussion – summary of findings, reasons for observations, similarities and discrepancies with the existing literature, reasons for similarities and discrepancies, applications of these findings, strengths and limitation, recommendations. 7. Need language improvement. Reviewer #2: This is a relevant topic since in older adults’ weight is the anthropometric measure that best relates to malnutrition, especially if there are changes from baseline weight. Furthermore, weight must be known in order to use tools such as body mass index (BMI) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment test (MNA) for nutritional screening. However, in hospitalized or institutionalized older adults, it is not always possible to determine weight on a conventional scale. Therefore, it is important to find equations that could serve to perform screening for malnutrition. The goal of the work is clearly described. The work presented is ethically sound. Authors have submitted the research protocol for approval by an University ethics committee. Older individuals become more heterogeneous with age, a specific descriptor such as elderly is inaccurate and misleading thus authors should consider the replacement of “elderly” by “older adults” in all the manuscript . Title: The title should mention “older adults” Introduction: In the 3th paragraph last sentence “As such,……” should be rewritten Methods: Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the patients should be presented Results Table2- Authors should correct the legend in order to consider the arm circumference (AC) In the last paragraph of the discussion the abbreviations ICC and CI should be described: (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)………..) Discussion: Authors might hypothesise about the concordance of their models with those of Chumlea et al. (1988) and Rabito et al. (2008) . Considering the above comments, I recommend that manuscript could be accepted with minor revisions ****** 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.0280541.r001
Revision 1
15 Feb 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: The study is really necessary study since the authors address a very important aspect of health of older people. I have few concerns with this study. 1. Better to exclude the 55 individuals who participated for the study at 1st time from the 2nd stage and re analyze the data. A: Done. Results did not change. 2. There should be a coherence in the writing specially the methods, data analysis, results and discussion. A: Sections were adjusted. 3. Methods – study design, period of data collection, stage I and 2, way of taking anthropometry information, data analysis and ethical clearance. A: Sections were adjusted. 4. Data analysis – how did you present the descriptive data, removing outliers, comparing the characteristics of two group (development and validation groups; there should not be difference), stratification, correlation analysis (between weight and anthropometry), regression analysis to choose the model/equations, Bland-Altman plots, comparing with previous study equations etc. A: Sections were adjusted. 5. Results should be arranged in the same sequence of results analysis. A: Done. Sections were adjusted. 6. Discussion – summary of findings, reasons for observations, similarities and discrepancies with the existing literature, reasons for similarities and discrepancies, applications of these findings, strengths and limitation, recommendations. A: Section was adjusted. 7. Need language improvement. A: Language improvement was done. Reviewer #2: This is a relevant topic since in older adults’ weight is the anthropometric measure that best relates to malnutrition, especially if there are changes from baseline weight. Furthermore, weight must be known in order to use tools such as body mass index (BMI) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment test (MNA) for nutritional screening. However, in hospitalized or institutionalized older adults, it is not always possible to determine weight on a conventional scale. Therefore, it is important to find equations that could serve to perform screening for malnutrition. The goal of the work is clearly described. The work presented is ethically sound. Authors have submitted the research protocol for approval by an University ethics committee. Older individuals become more heterogeneous with age, a specific descriptor such as elderly is inaccurate and misleading thus authors should consider the replacement of “elderly” by “older adults” in all the manuscript . A: Done. It was replaced “elderly” by “older adults” in all the manuscript. Title: The title should mention “older adults” A: Done. Title has the term “older adults”. Introduction: In the 3th paragraph last sentence “As such,……” should be rewritten A: Done. Methods: Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the patients should be presented A: Done. Results Table2- Authors should correct the legend in order to consider the arm circumference (AC) A: Done. Thanks for attention. In the last paragraph of the discussion the abbreviations ICC and CI should be described: (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)………..) A: Done. Discussion: Authors might hypothesise about the concordance of their models with those of Chumlea et al. (1988) and Rabito et al. (2008) . A: Done. Considering the above comments, I recommend that manuscript could be accepted with minor revisions Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280541.r002
5 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor PONE-D-21-13956R1Development and validation of predictive workable weight equations for older adults brazillian Long-Term Care residentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lima, 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. Specifically, the reviewer still has a could pf concerns including language usage. Please note that PLOS ONE does not provide copyediting or proofs of accepted manuscripts. We therefore recommend that you carefully review your manuscript and correct any errors at this time. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 18 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, Jianhong Zhou Staff 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Authors have respond to all the questions adressed. Moreover they have improved the language in order to accomplish the concerns of the reviewers. Considering the above manuscript should be accepted. Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents an interesting topic, with relevance for clinical practice. However, there are still issues that need to be clarified: - Methods: please provide the range of values for the technical error of measurement. - Results: please explain the sentence: "The characterization of the study population showed that the anthropometric measurements taken differed in the groups studied". - The conclusion should contain an objective response to the aim of the study. - A general review of the English language is suggested throughout the text. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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.0280541.r003
Revision 2
28 Sep 2022 Author Response . Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Authors have respond to all the questions adressed. Moreover they have improved the language in order to accomplish the concerns of the reviewers. Considering the above manuscript should be accepted. Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents an interesting topic, with relevance for clinical practice. However, there are still issues that need to be clarified: - Methods: please provide the range of values for the technical error of measurement. Done. - Results: please explain the sentence: "The characterization of the study population showed that the anthropometric measurements taken differed in the groups studied". The sentence was changed for “The characterization of the study population showed that the anthropometric measurements were different for each studied group”. - The conclusion should contain an objective response to the aim of the study. Done. It was added to conclusion “A set of five equations for estimating weight were developed and validated”. - A general review of the English language is suggested throughout the text. Done. Language was improved by translate review. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280541.r004
2 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor PONE-D-21-13956R2Development and validation of predictive workable weight equations for older adults brazillian Long-Term Care residentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lima, 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. Specifically, please specify the range of values for the technical error of measurement as requested by the reviewer. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 16 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, Jianhong Zhou Staff 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 #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: The authors addressed the comments raised in the previous review, except the following comment: "Please provide the range of values for the technical error of measurement". This reviewer could not find the values in the manuscript text. ****** 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 #3: 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.0280541.r005
Revision 3
16 Nov 2022 Author Response We've checked your submission and before we can proceed, we need you to address the following issues: 1. Please amend the title either on the online submission form or in your so that they are identical. Title changed on the online submission form for “Development and validation of predictive workable weight equations for Brazilian older adult residents in Long-Term Care Institutions” according to manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers(3).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280541.r006
4 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor Development and validation of predictive workable weight equations for Brazilian older adult residents in Long-Term Care Institutions PONE-D-21-13956R3 Dear Dr. Lima, 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, Jianhong Zhou Staff Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280541.r007
Formally Accepted
8 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Jianhong Zhou, Editor PONE-D-21-13956R3 Development and validation of predictive workable weight equations for Brazilian older adult residents in Long-Term Care Institutions Dear Dr. Lima: 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 Jianhong Zhou Staff Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280541.r008

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 .