Association of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances with constipation: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2005–2010)

Yifan Zhao; Ke Pu; Ya Zheng; Yuping Wang; Jun Wang; Yongning Zhou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301129

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2023
29 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Misbahuddin Rafeeq, Editor PONE-D-23-31213Association between PFAS and constipation: Results from NHANES 2005-2010PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhou, 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 11 2024 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, Misbahuddin Rafeeq 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. 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 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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The authors have addressed an important issue regarding the possible association of PFAS with constipation. The study design, methodology and manuscript draft seems fair enough. However, few minor points need to be addressed. Additionally, a limitation section can be added at the end of the manuscript before the conclusion highlighting the key shortcomings which can be improved in further studies on the subject. [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: I Don't Know ****** 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: This article explores an interesting issue of ‘Association between PFAS and constipation’, and tries to fill the knowledge gap. I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of the authors and research team. My propositions are as below: Minor comments: • It is suggested not to use only abbreviations in the title such as PFAS and NHANES. Years 2005-2010 can also be out in brackets. • The study data timeframe (2005-2010) is mentioned. It can also be informative to share when specifically, it was extracted for this study. • The adverse effects of PFAS on various health issues, including immunological, metabolic, cardiovascular, liver, renal problems, and cancer are mentioned in the introduction section. However, the issue needs to be elaborated in the discussion section to explore and consider the adverse and beneficial roles of PFAS. • For better readers’ understanding, the OR needs to be mentioned in the relevant column titles such as in Table 3 (as mentioned in table captions). • In line 137, it is not clear whether the defined group ABC or groups A, B, and C represent a better level of diet quality. • A similar and consistent logical sequence of major findings in the results and discussion section can be considered. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301129.r001
Revision 1
6 Mar 2024 Author Response Dear editor and reviewers, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have addressed your comments and thoroughly revised the manuscript by providing a point-by-point response as shown below. We hope the revised version satisfy the publishing requirements of Plos One. We look forward to your final decision on this manuscript. Sincerely, Yongning Zhou A point-by-point response to the comments Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have carefully reviewed PLOS ONE's style and file naming requirements and made the necessary adjustments to ensure the manuscript complies with all guidelines. I appreciate your patience and understanding. 2. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. Response: Thank you for your reminder. Corresponding author’s ORCID has been successfully authorized and validated in the Editorial Manager. 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. Response: Apologize for the mistake. We have already provided funding information in "Funding information" part in submission system and verified its accuracy. And we have provided detailed funding disclosures in the cover letter. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. Response: Thank you for your guidance. We have moved the ethics statement to the Methods. This can be found on lines 104-107, page 4. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. Response: Thank you. We have thoroughly reviewed our reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy. Additional Editor Comments: The authors have addressed an important issue regarding the possible association of PFAS with constipation. The study design, methodology and manuscript draft seems fair enough. However, few minor points need to be addressed. Additionally, a limitation section can be added at the end of the manuscript before the conclusion highlighting the key shortcomings which can be improved in further studies on the subject. Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. Limitations have been added before the conclusion. This can be found on lines 386-390, page 20. Comments from Reviewer 1 This article explores an interesting issue of ‘Association between PFAS and constipation’, and tries to fill the knowledge gap. I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of the authors and research team. My propositions are as below: Minor comments: 1. It is suggested not to use only abbreviations in the title such as PFAS and NHANES. Years 2005-2010 can also be out in brackets. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Modifications have been made in accordance with your suggestions to create a more clear title. 2. The study data timeframe (2005-2010) is mentioned. It can also be informative to share when specifically, it was extracted for this study. Response: Thank you for pointing out this. We have specified the precise data extraction time in the first part of the “Method” part. This can be found in line 91, page 4. 3. The adverse effects of PFAS on various health issues, including immunological, metabolic, cardiovascular, liver, renal problems, and cancer are mentioned in the introduction section. However, the issue needs to be elaborated in the discussion section to explore and consider the adverse and beneficial roles of PFAS. Response: Apologize for not having fully elaborated earlier. Thank you for pointing out this. We have further discussed our findings in light of the impact and underlying mechanisms of PFAS on the immune system, metabolism, cardiovascular health, liver and kidney issues, and cancer, respectively. This can be found on line 350-368, page 19. 4. For better readers’ understanding, the OR needs to be mentioned in the relevant column titles such as in Table 3 (as mentioned in table captions). Response: Apologize for this careless mistake. We have made necessary changes to the table 3 as per your recommendation. 5. In line 137, it is not clear whether the defined group ABC or groups A, B, and C represent a better level of diet quality. Response: Apology for confusing. Existing research does not show a significant difference in dietary quality between Group ABC and the other two groups. Thus, we have made corrections to the erroneous portions of the text. This can be found on lines 150-152, page 6. 6. A similar and consistent logical sequence of major findings in the results and discussion section can be considered. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. The title of the section on results: "3.2 Distribution characteristics of PFAS in different subgroups," may have caused some confusion. We have revised it to "3.2 Distribution characteristics of PFAS" to ensure that the narrative in the results section is consistent with that in the discussion section. To further align the structure of the discussion section to make it a similar and consistent logical sequence with the major findings, we have reorganized the first paragraph as a summary of the main findings, the second paragraph discusses population characteristics, the third paragraph delves into the discussion of "Distribution characteristics of PFAS," and we have combined the results from logistic regression, subgroup analysis, and RCS into paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 for a more comprehensive discussion. Paragraph 7 discusses the associations between PFAS and other systemic diseases, as well as future prospects. Finally, paragraphs 8 and 9 are dedicated to discussing the strengths and limitations of this study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301129.r002
12 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Misbahuddin Rafeeq, Editor Association of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances with constipation: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2005-2010) PONE-D-23-31213R1 Dear Dr. Yongning Zhou, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Misbahuddin Rafeeq Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301129.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Misbahuddin Rafeeq, Editor PONE-D-23-31213R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhou, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Misbahuddin Rafeeq Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301129.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .