Association between prediabetes and depression: A meta-analysis

Yi Yu; Weitao Wan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307428

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 24, 2024
22 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Anselm J. M. Hennis, Editor PONE-D-24-07500Association between prediabetes and depression: A meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wan, 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. ============================== This study contributes to current knowledge about associations between depression and metabolic conditions, in this case, prediabetes. However, as the reviewers indicate clarity is needed on a number of issues including the role of confounding, the interpretation of the potential bidirectionality between prediabetes and depression and whether these findings support causality. A critical interpretation of the relevance of the selected studies to the outcomes would also be helpful, given that they take place in several populations and are cross sectional. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 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, Anselm J. M. Hennis, MBBS, MSc, PhD, FRCP Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1117846/full In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The bases for conducting this review and meta-analysis are clear and solid. To better understand how previous studies on the relationship between prediabetes and depression are inconsistent, it is suggested to expand on the idea that they are inconsistent. Furthermore, considering that references 18-33 are studies with populations from various places and methodologies, this aspect could be briefly mentioned. The objective of the review and meta-analysis is clear. Methodological guidelines for review and meta-analysis are appropriate (PRISMA and Cochrane). It is striking that the manuscript does not detail whether the review protocol was published in Prospero or elsewhere. Presenting the protocol before data extraction promotes transparency of methods and reduces biases, which can be reviewed, and unnecessary duplication of effort between researchers. Regarding the search terms, it is suggested to indicate whether they were compared with the MeSH terms. Recommends that this entire paragraph be part of the “inclusion and exclusion criteria” (not the literature search): “the search was limited to studies in humans. Furthermore, we only considered studies published as full articles in peer-reviewed journals in English. As a complement, references of related original and review articles were manually examined to identify potentially related studies. Publications published from the inception of the databases to December 8, 2023 were examined.” Given the results of the meta-analysis in the conclusions, it is suggested that prediabetes was associated with a slightly higher prevalence of depression. The final statement of the conclusions is risky in light of these results since it suggests a causal relationship that the study has not determined. With these results, it is not possible to conclude that disorders of glycemic metabolism develop symptoms of depression. Reviewer #2: Very useful study. Other confounding factorssuch as family history, the presence of other comorbid condirions that might predispose to depression and life events need to be considered. especially given the cross-sectional nature of the studies included. The time used may have been somewhat restrictive. In the introduction, the need to appreciate the bidirectional relationship of diabetes and depression and how this may have influenced the findings reported in the meta-analysis should also have been included. ****** 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: Olga Toro-Devia 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.0307428.r001
Revision 1
7 May 2024 Author Response Dear Dr. Hennis and the reviewers of Plos One, Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript entitled “Association between prediabetes and depression: A meta-analysis” (PONE-D-24-07500). These comments are valuable for improving the quality of our work. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, with changes highlighted in red font. A detailed response letter has also been attached for your reference. Your further consideration is highly appreciated. Look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Best regards, Corresponding author: Weitao Wan Department of Psychiatry, Tianyou Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology, No. 9, Tujialing, Dingziqiao Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, Hubei, China. E-mail: wwt686@sohu.com Reviewer #1: (1) The bases for conducting this review and meta-analysis are clear and solid. To better understand how previous studies on the relationship between prediabetes and depression are inconsistent, it is suggested to expand on the idea that they are inconsistent. Furthermore, considering that references 18-33 are studies with populations from various places and methodologies, this aspect could be briefly mentioned. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. We have briefly expanded the description of the inconsistent results of the previous studies as suggested in the revised Introduction part as “However, the results of previous studies were not consistent [18-33]. Some of them supported that prediabetes was related to depression [24-27, 29, 30], while other studies did not found a statistically significant association [18-23, 28, 31-33]. In addition, these studies are with populations from various places and of different study definitions and methodologies for evaluating prediabetes and depression [18-33]. It remains unknown whether these factors may influence the association between prediabetes and depression”. (2) The objective of the review and meta-analysis is clear. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. (3) Methodological guidelines for review and meta-analysis are appropriate (PRISMA and Cochrane). It is striking that the manuscript does not detail whether the review protocol was published in Prospero or elsewhere. Presenting the protocol before data extraction promotes transparency of methods and reduces biases, which can be reviewed, and unnecessary duplication of effort between researchers. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. The protocol of the manuscript was not registered prospectively. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript as a limitation of the study. (4) Regarding the search terms, it is suggested to indicate whether they were compared with the MeSH terms. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. The search terms were based on key words of rather than MeSH terms to improve the sensitivity of the database search. However, a comparison with MeSH terms was performed before database search to ensure all relevant MeSH terms are included in the search terms. This has been clarified in the revised Methods part. (5) Recommends that this entire paragraph be part of the “inclusion and exclusion criteria” (not the literature search): “the search was limited to studies in humans. Furthermore, we only considered studies published as full articles in peer-reviewed journals in English. As a complement, references of related original and review articles were manually examined to identify potentially related studies. Publications published from the inception of the databases to December 8, 2023 were examined.” Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. We have removed this paragraph from “literature search” to “inclusion and exclusion criteria” as requested. (6) Given the results of the meta-analysis in the conclusions, it is suggested that prediabetes was associated with a slightly higher prevalence of depression. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the conclusions in the abstract and the manuscript as suggested to emphasize that prediabetes was associated with a slightly higher prevalence of depression. (7) The final statement of the conclusions is risky in light of these results since it suggests a causal relationship that the study has not determined. With these results, it is not possible to conclude that disorders of glycemic metabolism develop symptoms of depression. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. We have deleted this sentence accordingly. Reply to Reviewer #2 (1) Other confounding factors such as family history, the presence of other comorbid conditions that might predispose to depression and life events need to be considered, especially given the cross-sectional nature of the studies included. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. We agreed with the reviewer on that other confounding factors such as family history, the presence of other comorbid conditions that might predispose to depression and life events need to be considered, especially given the cross-sectional nature of the studies included. However, since these factors were generally not reported in the included studies, we could not determine if they may affect the results of the meta-analysis. We have acknowledged this as a limitation of the study in the revised Discussion. (2) The time used may have been somewhat restrictive. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. All studies published from database inception to the last search (December 8, 2023) were screened for possible relevance, which has been clarified in the methods part. With all respect, we believe the time used was not restrictive. (2) In the introduction, the need to appreciate the bidirectional relationship of diabetes and depression and how this may have influenced the findings reported in the meta-analysis should also have been included. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. We have mentioned in the introduction that “Interestingly, subsequent studies suggest that the association between diabetes and depression seems to be bidirectional [9-11]. Besides a high prevalence of depression in patients with diabetes, it is also shown that various measures of depression could be used to predict the risk of type 2 diabetes, such as depression as evidenced by symptom scales, patient diagnosis, face-to-face interviews, and the use of antidepressants [12]”. In addition, we have added some descriptions for the potential bidirectional relationship between prediabetes and depression in the revised Discussion part and to highlight the importance of this hypothesis on the interpretation of the meta-analysis, as “The association between diabetes and depression is considered to be bidirectional. Similarly, it is important to determine if the association between prediabetes and depression is also bidirectional. If the hypothesis is confirmed, this bidirectional relationship could suggest that there may be shared underlying mechanisms linking these two conditions, such as inflammation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation, and lifestyle factors. Furthermore, understanding this bidirectional relationship can inform future research directions and interventions aimed at preventing and managing both prediabetes and depression”. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-07500R1 Reply Letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307428.r002
11 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Anselm J. M. Hennis, Editor PONE-D-24-07500R1Association between prediabetes and depression: A meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wan, 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. ============================== Thank you for reviewing and modifying the manuscript according to the recommendations of the reviewers. There are a few issues that still need to be addressed, chiefly grammatical in nature, and as follows: line 93: ... search terms were based on key words [of - Delete please] rather than MESH terms lines 100-101: Please amend text: studies conducted in adults (18 years and older).... lines 114-115: As a supplementation - this is not grammatical - please amend.. line 121-123: and data collection were independently conducted by two authors. If disagreement occurred, a consultation with the corresponding author was carried out to resolve the disagreement. - There are in fact only two authors, and so following the decision of one author could potentially introduce biases - please clarify. lines 277-278: Please correct 'second' to secondly; The text 'Not registered prospectively which may influence the transparency of the Methods'.... is not grammatical and needs to be amended; Please correct 'third' to thirdly. line 292: please correct text to.... 'if they might have affected' line 303: please correct to 'risk factor for depression'... ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 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, Anselm J. M. Hennis, MBBS, MSc, PhD, FRCP 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. [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.0307428.r003
Revision 2
20 Jun 2024 Author Response Dear Dr. Hennis and the reviewers of Plos One, Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript entitled “Association between prediabetes and depression: A meta-analysis” (PONE-D-24-07500R1). These comments are valuable for improving the quality of our work. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, with changes highlighted in red font. A detailed response letter has also been attached for your reference. Your further consideration is highly appreciated. Look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Best regards, Corresponding author: Weitao Wan Department of Psychiatry, Tianyou Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology, No. 9, Tujialing, Dingziqiao Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, Hubei, China. E-mail: wwt686@sohu.com line 93: ... search terms were based on key words [of - Delete please] rather than MESH terms Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised accordingly. lines 100-101: Please amend text: studies conducted in adults (18 years and older).... Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised accordingly. lines 114-115: As a supplementation - this is not grammatical - please amend.. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised as “In addition, the references of related original and review articles were also manually screened for identifying potentially related studies”. line 121-123: and data collection were independently conducted by two authors. If disagreement occurred, a consultation with the corresponding author was carried out to resolve the disagreement. - There are in fact only two authors, and so following the decision of one author could potentially introduce biases - please clarify. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. We apologize for the inaccurate expression in this sentence. In case of disagreement, the two authors discussed it to reach a consensus. This has been revised in the manuscript. lines 277-278: Please correct 'second' to secondly; Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised accordingly as “Secondly, the meta-analysis protocol was not registered in advance, which could affect the transparency of the methods” The text 'Not registered prospectively which may influence the transparency of the Methods'.... is not grammatical and needs to be amended; Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised accordingly as “Secondly, the meta-analysis protocol was not registered in advance, which could affect the transparency of the methods” Please correct 'third' to thirdly. Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised accordingly. line 292: please correct text to.... 'if they might have affected' Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised accordingly. line 303: please correct to 'risk factor for depression'... Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. This sentence has been revised accordingly. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307428.r004
5 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Anselm J. M. Hennis, Editor Association between prediabetes and depression: A meta-analysis PONE-D-24-07500R2 Dear Dr. Wan, 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, Anselm J. M. Hennis, MBBS, MSc, PhD, FRCP Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for responding to the concerns raised. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307428.r005
Formally Accepted
10 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Anselm J. M. Hennis, Editor PONE-D-24-07500R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wan, 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. Anselm J. M. Hennis Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307428.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 .