PONE-D-24-06446Association between family income to poverty ratio and nocturia status: a study from NHANES 2005-2010PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jia,

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 May 16 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,

Sairah Hafeez Kamran, PhD

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for this article: This work was supported by the  Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo Municipality (2021J281), the Key Cultivating Discipline of LihHuiLi Hospital (2022-P09) and Ningbo Key Clinical Speciality Construction Project (2023-BZZ) X”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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:

Please ensure that the manuscript meets the journal requirements. 

Submission Guidelines | PLOS ONE

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 discusses an important topic in the field of public health. It is well written. The data was appropriately analyzed and results were well presented and discussed. Relevant literature was covered.

Reviewer #2: a) Please provide more details on the specific NHANES survey cycles used and the handling of missing data.

b) The rationale for the categorization of PIR into three groups (PIR <1, PIR 1-4, PIR > 4) should be better explained and supported by relevant literature or guidelines.

c) The authors should consider discussing the potential clinical implications of their findings, such as the potential use of PIR as a risk marker for nocturia or the importance of addressing socioeconomic disparities in the management of nocturia.

Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting and well-conducted analysis of the relationship between PIR and nocturia using a nationally representative dataset. With some additional clarifications and discussions, the manuscript could provide valuable insights into the socioeconomic determinants of nocturia and inform future research and clinical practice in this area.

Reviewer #3: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FAMILY INCOME TO POVERTY RATIO AND NOCTURIA STATUS: A STUDY FROM NHANES 2005-2010

The manuscript titled, “Association between family income to poverty ratio and nocturia status: a study from NHANES 2005-2010”. Overall, using data from NHANES, the publication presents a study examining the association between the occurrences of nocturia in adults aged 20 and above and the Poverty Income Ratio (PIR). This is a criticism based on the given standards.

1. Originality Of Research:

The study aims to answer a particular research question on how wealth inequality affects nocturia, which is a common health problem. Utilizing NHANES data to investigate this relationship seems like a novel method that adds to the existing body of knowledge available on the topic. It was well drafted and the results are original but I suggest a modification in the title to include the age range utilized in the study.

2. Results Publication Status:

The results have not been published elsewhere. A closely related article assessed the “Association of socioeconomic status and overactive bladder in US adults” has been done. The work complies with the criteria of presenting unique research findings because it does not mention that the results have been published anywhere previously.

3. Technical Standard of Experiments and Analyses

The analysis conducted is detailed since it goes to the extent of stratifying to know the effects the study variables on the outcome of the dependent variable. The association between poverty ratio (PIR) and nocturia is examined using multivariate logistic regression models in the study, which account for several variables. Replication of the procedures and statistical analysis is possible because of the detailed descriptions provided.

4. Data Supported Conclusion:

The results of the statistical analysis validate the inferences made from the data. Regardless of the model or variable categorization, there is a constant negative correlation between PIR and nocturia.

5. Clarity Of Language

The background, methods, results, and discussion are all presented in a structured manner. The manuscript clearly conveys the study's findings and is written in Standard English. The conclusions are presented in appropriate fashion.

6. Ethical Standards of Research

Approval of the NHANES study by the Research Ethics Review Board of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is mentioned in the manuscript. It also says that written informed consent was given by each participant.

7. Adherence To Reporting Guidelines and Data Availability

The manuscript adheres to reporting guidelines by clearly outlining the methods, results, and discussion sections. Data availability is ensured through the utilization of publicly accessible NHANES data. Overall, the manuscript meets the specified criteria for critique. It provides valuable insights into the relationship between poverty and the prevalence of nocturia, contributing to the understanding of socioeconomic factors influencing health outcomes.

Suggestions for improvement however, will be to include further discussion on potential mechanisms underlying the observed correlation and addressing limitations such as the cross-sectional nature of the study and the need for additional prospective research.

Additionally, clarification on potential biases and their mitigation strategies would enhance the manuscript's robustness. From the manuscript, it adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and therefore suitable for publication with minor changes.

**********

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: Yes: Abubakr Abdelraouf Alfadl

Reviewer #2: Yes: ISAAC OKOH ABAH

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-06446_reviewer.pdf

Association between family income to poverty ratio and nocturia in adults aged 20 years and older: a study from NHANES 2005-2010

PONE-D-24-06446R1

Dear Dr. Jia,

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 Editorial Manager® 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,

Sairah Hafeez Kamran, PhD

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 #3: 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 #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: (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 #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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FAMILY INCOME TO POVERTY RATIO AND NOCTURIA STATUS: A STUDY FROM NHANES 2005-2010

The manuscript titled, “Association between family income to poverty ratio and nocturia status: a study from NHANES 2005-2010”. This study examined the association between the occurrences of nocturia in adults aged 20 and above and the Poverty Income Ratio (PIR) using data from NHANES.

Further discussion on potential mechanisms underlying the observed correlation have been discussed briefly and some limitations and recommendations have been outlined. In all, comments have been addressed and hence manuscript suitable for publication.

**********

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: Yes: PAULINE BOACHIE-ANSAH

**********