PONE-D-24-19056Associations between the Global Diet Quality Score and risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Tehran Lipid and Glucose StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hosseini-Esfahani,

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.

plosone@plos.org. Please submit your revision by Aug 29 2024 11:59PM , 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,

Meisam Akhlaghdoust, M.D., M.P.H.

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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363627658_Diet_quality_indices_and_the_risk_of_type_2_diabetes_in_the_Tehran_Lipid_and_Glucose_Study

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.891111/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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [This work was supported by the Research Institute for Endocrine Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science (Tehran, Iran) under Grant number. 43003733].  

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.

5. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: 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: I would like to thank the authors to design this valuable study. However, there are some comments as follows:

Please revise the manuscript in terms of English language and grammar.

Abstract:

Background: Please use association instead of relation. Please revise it in the whole manuscript.

Methods: In this secondary analysis, we included elective adult participants (n=5948) from 28 the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study. Please mention the Phase of the TLGS you used the data.

Please mention the components of GDQS score.

Results:

Please report mean(SD) instead of mean±SD

Please report the 6 year risk of T2DM through K-M method, as well.

Line 36: The healthy components of

Line 37: 1 for what?? I think it is 0.91

Line 39: 1, 0.86� 0.86 0.93

Please recheck all the numbers you reported.

Keywords: please write them based on MeSH database.

Methods:

This section has been written well. However, please write this section according to the STROBE writing standard in terms of headings and subheadings.

Results:

Please report mean(SD) instead of mean±SD and consider in the whole manuscript.

Please report the 6 year risk of T2DM through K-M method, as well.

Line 228-233: please recheck the numbers you reported in this paragraph.

Reviewer #2: Comments for the authors:

Thank you for your efforts. There are some major points that need improvement:

Abstract

1.The background of abstract provides no background, but just objective of the study.

Introduction

1.Line 48, the sentence “with a T2D incidence rate of 36.3% per 1000 person-years”: Incidence rates are typically expressed as the number of new cases per person-time (e.g., per 1000 person-years), not as a percentage. Percentages are usually used to express prevalence or risk, not incidence rates.

2.Line 54, the sentence “Current meta-analysis studies suggest”: You are talking about studies while citing only one.

3.While the GDQS is introduced, a bit more detail on its composition and why it is considered a robust measure would be beneficial.

4.The examples of Ref. 7&9 are not related that much to the topic, as of different study population. You must provide relevant example to highlight result of similar studies.

5.The transition from definitions and known areas to the specific focus of the current study could be smoother, emphasizing the novelty, the unknown aspects and importance of the research.

Method

1.Not a common format to start the method section by ethics statement. Please provide details of study design.

2.Line 77, the sentence “this study was set up in district no.13 of Tehran to prevent non-communicable disease risk factors and their consequences”: I do not think that the study was directly designed to prevent NCDs.

3.How did you choose to select 8048 participants? Please also explain more about randomization.

4.You mentioned that total of 7268 individuals were selected as the baseline population, of whom 597 participants were excluded. Finally, you mentioned 5948 subjects remained for analysis, which is not logical. Also, please recheck all numbers mentioned in Figure 1. The summation of numbers included and excluded must be rechecked.

5.I do not understand why the manuscript “Issues in analysis and presentation of dietary data” should be cited in the method section while explaining about inclusion of cases of your study (Ref. 10). I also doubt the necessity of citing your previous published work (Ref. 11&12) in method section.

6.Line 100: Please define USDA.

Result

1.Better to include percentage of each frequency.

2.Consider providing more detailed subgroup analyses. For Table 1, post hoc analysis are recommended.

3.Include p-values for the differences in baseline characteristics to demonstrate statistical significance.

4.The approach to handling missing data is not discussed.

Discussion

Overall discussion section lacks logical flow and smooth transitions.

1.Line 256, the sentence “It seems that this association can help us to consume proper healthy food groups and limit unhealthy foods in excessive amounts”: Please provide more details, how it seems to help. Not a good beginning for discussion. Please elaborate more on the important findings and then turn to the application.

2.The third paragraph of discussion contains listing many references that have used GDQA index without providing any comparison with your results.

3.Line 262: I do not understand why the sentence begins with “however”. What contrast dose it show?

4.Line 274&276: The reference 8 should be mentioned as He et al. not Fang et al.

5.Line 273-5, the sentence “Based on our knowledge the relationship between GDQS and T2D has been studied only in the American population by Fang et al in 2021..”: This is incorrect. Other references:

https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxab195

https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzaa061_029

https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy183

6.Lines 283-290: Lacks coherence and smooth transitions between different indexes.

7.The discussion could benefit from a more detailed comparison of GDQS with other indices, specifically highlighting why GDQS might be more effective or accurate.

8.Lines 295-304: Seems more like dietary recommendation for diabetics, rather than discussion.

9.Provide clearer public health implications if the results.

10.In limitation, mention the generalizability and the need for further studies in diverse populations.

Thank you for addressing these points in advanced. I look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

**********

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: Mahin Nomali, Epidemiologist

Reviewer #2: Yes: Noosha Samieefar

**********

[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.

Associations between the Global Diet Quality Score and risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study

PONE-D-24-19056R1

Dear Dr. Hosseini-Esfahani,

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,

Meisam Akhlaghdoust, M.D., M.P.H.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for your efforts in preparing the revision.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Noosha Samieefar

**********