Major dietary patterns of community dwelling adults and their associations with impaired blood glucose and central obesity in Eastern Ethiopia: Diet-disease epidemiological study

Berhanu Abebaw Mekonnen; Abdu Oumer; Ahmed Ale; Aragaw Hamza; Imam Dagne; Abdurezak Adem Umer; Dilnessa Fentie; Muluken Yigezu; Zerihun Tariku; Shambel Abate

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283075

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 20, 2022
2 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi, Editor PONE-D-22-28499Major dietary patterns of community dwelling adults and their associations with impaired blood glucose and central obesity in Eastern Ethiopia: diet-disease exploration studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oumer, 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 Mar 19 2023 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, Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi 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 [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: As identified in the manuscript, non-communicable diseases associated with impaired blood glucose and obesity are a public health burden, especially in developing countries. The manuscript provided appropriate background on why the study was conducted, provided significant detail on the research methodology, and used appropriate and validated research instruments. The paper could be strengthened by more clearly delineating throughout the Discussion which quoted statistics/cited references are related to Ethiopia, which are specific to Sub-Saharan Africa, and which may be related to other countries/regions in the world. Such distinctions were made sometimes, but not consistently throughout the Discussion, which sometimes made the Discussion difficult to follow. For example, in the opening paragraph of the Discussion (p. 23) the 1st sentence is specific to Ethiopia, the 2nd sentence seems to reflect a more global view, and the 3rd sentence is based on a scoping review in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, suggest more fully describing in the Discussion the specific strengths and weaknesses of the current study. In the Conclusion and Recommendations suggest editing the section to more clearly identify those statements which are specifically based on results of the study. For example, in the 1st sentence, suggest adding a phrase such as “in this study among randomly selected adults in Eastern Ethiopia” after the word “Overall” and then deleting “among adults” at the end of that sentence. Such edits will help to differentiate statements about the study vs other statements that may be more broad in nature (such as what the last statement in the paragraph appears to be). Also, in the Conclusions and Recommendations section, suggest adding further explanation of how the results link back to one of the stated purposes of the study, which was “to design appropriate context-specific dietary strategies to decrease the risk of central obesity and IBG in Ethiopia.” The paper would benefit from minor English editing to confirm use of appropriate verb tenses and word choice as well as correct any minor spelling errors. Reviewer #2: Pertinent questions, suggestions, and comments: The research consists of noble ideas with great findings that will fill a research gap, particularly in Ethiopia. But, there are a significant number of issues that must be to be addressed by the authors. I mention the issues as follows. 1. The title In the study's title, you wrote as it is an exploration type. Can we consider quantitative study as explorative? I know the explorative type of study are qualitative. 2. Methodological issues. Which particular study design did the authors use? For instance, a cross-section, Cohort, or other. You mentioned “A community-based survey” in the section on methodology. This is not a study design. It is a data collection method. You must state your study design and why you select the specific design. Page 11, section 2.2. Study design and population 3. Result section: Page 17 to 23 Numerous areas need revision. I commented on the track change. You can find it in the attached document. However, I was supposed to ask critical questions. You stated a variable that is not in the section. For example, “(AOR = 1.60; 95% CI: 0.90–2.85) Page 23 line 6” From where you brought this. Table five did not have such findings. This is a serious issue. Another critical issue is the way you interpreted the ODDS result. ODDS are not just numbers. They are the likelihood or the chance of having certain characteristics. You did not do the risk ratio. As a result of this, you cannot interpret it as a risk of obesity or IBG. 4. Section Discussion page 23 to 25 This section, especially the association between dietary patterns and central obesity and IBG in this section, is not adequate. In addition, it is not exhaustive. You need to compare with similar findings and identify similar and unique variables. If this study identifies a unique variable, you need to have a possible justification. 5. Limitation and strength of the study section, page 25 lines 29 to 30 In this section, you need to state the strength and limitations of the study without hesitation. Additionally, how did you try to minimize recall bias? Because it will affect the findings of the dietary pattern. 6. Conclusion and Recommendation, page 26 lines 3 to 11 The recommendation is not plausible. As a result, it lacks a strategy to prevent the problem. Moreover, it was not indicated the specific responsible organ of the entity that can tackle the issue. 7. Section study area and period, page 11 line 8 You mentioned the study period from September to November. It is not correct. Specific dates must be mentioned. Because the dates may be from 30 September to 01 November 2021 or any other dates. It is extremely difficult to know the exact date of the study. 8. There are editorial problems in the whole document. You need to revise the entire document. I make the areas that need to be revised by track change. 9. There are a lot of comments those I am not able to mention here, So. I strongly advise the authors to check the attached documents. ****** 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: PONE-D-22-28499_review er Commented.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283075.r001
Revision 1
3 Feb 2023 Author Response PONE-D-22-28499 Major dietary patterns of community dwelling adults and their associations with impaired blood glucose and central obesity in Eastern Ethiopia: diet-disease exploration study Dear editor, please kindly note that we have added authors which have significant contribution to the current work. We have attached the PLOS One authorship change request form filled for your approval. Dear editor and reviewers Thank you very much for having such detail and valuable comments on our work. We have checked your comments and suggestion in more detail and have included them in the revised submission. All the changes are showed in track changes. Hence, we found it that giving a detail response for each point is not necessary. Thus, we only responded to question which need clarification ad included the requested changes in the revised manuscript simply. On the title, the comment was reasonable and we amended the title accordingly. We also amended the comments on the abstract as it refers to percent based on WHCR cutoff point. These finding is discussed in more detail in the discussion part. We specified the study design as survey or cross-sectional study design and the study period as “September 10 to November 06”. You declared the final sample size as 526 in the section of sample size determination. Why you did you decide on 501? The estimated minimum sample size required for this study was 526. However, the achieved response rate was 95% where a total 25 respondents were non-responders. They were not volunteer to participate in the study. The difference is due to this. A separate multivariable model was done for IBG and central obesity as this is shown in Table 4 and 5. This is also clearly indicated there. The interpretation of the odds ratio had some errors and we accepted the comments from the reviewers. Hence, we thoroughly edited the suggestions in way that the Odds ratio could be interpreted accordingly. Hence, we interpreted it as increased occurrence or odds of IBG or central obesity as it is indicated in the revised version. The comments are well accepted. Computing COR is not conclusive to determine determinants of IBG. Here, we run both the crude and adjusted odds ratio. This could allow us to clearly indicate the statistical analysis and the reader in a very clear and reproducible way. Since we also clearly reported the adjusted association, this is very informative than the crude one. Hence, we made our conclusion and recommendations based on the adjusted associations. Presenting the crude one makes the paper more holistic and reproducible. This discussion about the association between dietary pattern and central obesity and IBG in this study is not adequate. In addition, it is not exhaustive. You need to compare with similar finding and identify similar and unique variables. If this study identifies unique variable you need to have possible justification. Here, as you mentioned the objective of the study is like that and we tried our best to present the discussion in a very clear and sequential manner. We started with IBG and central obesity, then their association with empirical dietary patterns. The major challenge was lack of such evidence in Ethiopia and Africa as well. That is why we mainly used gray literatures and fats to support and explain our results. But we have tried our best to modify the discussion as per the reviewers’ suggestions and authors’ view. These are indicated in revised manuscript. How do conclude that 94% had increased risk for cardiovascular complication? Because, you did not do any statistics test regarding risk for cardiovascular complication. This is based on the WHO cutoff value for WHCR, which is predictive of the increased risk for cardiovascular complications. These has been indicated in many nutritional epidemiological studies and are very predictive for CVD risks. Thanks for having a comment on the limitation of the study. Since mentioning the relevant limitation of the study is important to interpreted the study finding and its implication, we have mentioned and explained these limitations there. Lastly, we have modified the recommendations to be specific to the specific body with a clear message. This is indicated in the conclusion part of the manuscript. .... higher among those who were physically active (AOR = 1.60; 95% CI: 0.90–2.85) (Table 5). This result seems strange when we see the direct relationship between exercise and IBG. However, as studies reported and we tried to discuss in the discussion, majority of the exercisers usually have some sort of non-communicable disease and obesity. In such cases, the individual might have an already IBG despite exercise. We noted this result in more detail there. Thank you very much! Authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Resonse to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283075.r002
16 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi, Editor PONE-D-22-28499R1Major dietary patterns of community dwelling adults and their associations with impaired blood glucose and central obesity in Eastern Ethiopia: diet-disease exploration studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Oumer, 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 Apr 02 2023 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, Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. 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: (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 #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: (No Response) ****** 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: Computing COR is not conclusive to determine determinants of IBG. Row 1 of the table is COR, which denotes for crude ODDS ratio. If it is adjusted, you must write AOR. Except that your justification to include crude odds ratio is acceptable. Line 381. You need to scrutinize the interpretation of the ODDS result in the discussion section. There are couples of mistake there. “Central obesity (AOR = 0.87: p-value 0.174)” Line 420 to 421, from where you brought this finding? Table 4 shows this finding “21.1(2.77-161.4)” the reference population is a physically active group. ODDS ration interpretation. In the discussion and Abstract section. I need a clear-cut interpretation regarding ODDS ratio. If you did Hazard ratio, you can interpret as risk without hesitation. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-28499_R1_reviewer recommented.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283075.r003
Revision 2
16 Feb 2023 Author Response Dear reviewer Thanks for having your second-round revisions. We have corrected the comments as indicated in the revised version. COR and AOR is distinctly different. Response: the COR and AOR are different and that is why we presented them for Central obesity and IBG separately in Table 3. Similarly, we clearly resented the AOR in the next table 4. The one in the table 3 is the unadjusted Bivariable logistic regression out put while the next table presented the adjusted associations. Row 1 of the table is COR which Denotes for crude ODDS ratio. If it is Adjusted you must write AOR. Except that your justification to include crude odds ratio is acceptable. Response: these was due to error and we have corrected this one in the revised version. I need a clear-cut interpretation regarding ODDS ratio. If you did Hazard ratio you can interpret as risk without hesitation. Response: The major comment was ack of consistent interpretation of the odds ratio. Considering this, we have thoroughly addressed these interpretations in well-structured manner as likelihood rather than relative risk or hazard ratio. Reviewer #2: Computing COR is not conclusive to determine determinants of IBG. Row 1 of the table is COR, which denotes for crude ODDS ratio. If it is adjusted, you must write AOR. Except that your justification to include crude odds ratio is acceptable. Line 381. You need to scrutinize the interpretation of the ODDS result in the discussion section. There are couples of mistake there. Response: The major comment was ack of consistent interpretation of the odds ratio. Considering this, we have thoroughly addressed these interpretations in well-structured manner as likelihood rather than relative risk or hazard ratio. “Central obesity (AOR = 0.87: p-value 0.174)” Line 420 to 421, from where you brought this finding? Table 4 shows this finding “21.1(2.77-161.4)” the reference population is a physically active group. Response: as indicated this finding was obtained from ref no 46 as indicated there. ODDS ration interpretation. In the discussion and Abstract section. I need a clear-cut interpretation regarding ODDS ratio. If you did Hazard ratio, you can interpret as risk without hesitation. Response: The major comment was ack of consistent interpretation of the odds ratio. Considering this, we have thoroughly addressed these interpretations in well-structured manner as likelihood rather than relative risk or hazard ratio. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283075.r004
2 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi, Editor Major dietary patterns of community dwelling adults and their associations with impaired blood glucose and central obesity in Eastern Ethiopia: diet-disease epidemiological study PONE-D-22-28499R2 Dear Dr. Oumer, 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, Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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: I Don't Know ****** 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: I have no comments and suggestion. I fully support the publication. The authors addressed all comments given to them. I really appreciate their effort and energy. ****** 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.0283075.r005
Formally Accepted
11 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi, Editor PONE-D-22-28499R2 Major dietary patterns of community dwelling adults and their associations with impaired blood glucose and central obesity in Eastern Ethiopia: diet-disease epidemiological study Dear Dr. Oumer: 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 Professor Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283075.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .