Association of expenditure on ultra-processed foods and beverages and anthropometric indicators in Mexican children: A longitudinal study

Mauricio Hernández-F; Sonia Hernández-Cordero; Mishel Unar-Munguia; Wilfrido A. Gómez-Arias; Erika Lozano-Hidalgo; Lidia Sarahi Peña-Ruiz; Graciela Teruel-Belismelis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317831

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 29, 2024
29 May 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317831.r001
16 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Shaonong Dang, Editor PONE-D-24-21652Association of expenditure on ultra-processed foods and beverages and anthropometric indicators in Mexican children: a longitudinal studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Teruel-Belismelis, 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 Nov 30 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, Shaonong Dang, 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. 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The authors are grateful for the financial support for this research they received from the Research Institute for Equitable Development (EQUIDE for its Spanish acronym) at Universidad Iberoamericana, within the framework of its Call for Research Project Funding 2022.” 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “NO authors have competing interests” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 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: No ****** 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 study explored the longitudinal association between expenditure on ultra-processed foods and beverages (UPF) and changes in anthropometric indicators of obesity with a representative sample. The study was well designed and the statistical analyses were applied appropriately. In the discussion section, I suggest including more studies that investigated the relationship between UPF consumption and obesity and other indicators of body adiposity than those that evaluated variables that were not the subject of their research, such as lipid profile. Below are some references that I suggest the authors consult to improve the discussion. References Neri, D., et al, Obesity reviews, 2021. 23 Suppl 1, e13387. Canella DS et al. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 25;9(3):e92752 Silva FM et al. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Aug;21(12):2271-2279 Juul F et al. Br J Nutr. 2018 Jul;120(1):90-100 Monteiro CA et al. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):18-26 Reviewer #2: Abstract background of the abstract is too long. Variables must be mentioned in method section. P values must be added to the results. It is better to write the duration instead of round 2. Introduction Introduction is too long and more similar to a literature review. As there are lots of articles on children, it is not logical to mention the works on adults in the introduction. potential mechanisms/justifications for the relation of UPFs intake and obesity must be written. It is more suitable to condense the last paragraph in 2 sentences. Methods please name the study's covariates. Add a reference for calculating the wealth index. Table of UPFs is not compete and lacks a lot of food items. 2 main determinants of weigh status are energy intake and physical activity, without measuring them the results could not be reliable. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317831.r002
Revision 1
30 Nov 2024 Author Response Response to reviewers 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: No Response: Thank you for the comment. The conclusions in lines 367-371 have been revised to ensure consistency with the analyzed data and the results obtained. Although the study does not involve experiments, it was applied a rigorous methodology in conducting this observational study, as detailed in (a) Van Belle G, Fisher L, Heagerty P, Lumley T. Longitudinal Data Analysis. In: Biostatistics: A Methodology for the Health Sciences. In Wiley-Interscience; 2004. p. 728–65, (b) Verbeke, G. & Molenberghs, G. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2000), (c) Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13-22. These references were also included in the original manuscript. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Response: The statistical analysis was conducted appropriately and rigorously. Descriptive analysis was performed using standard methodology. As referred to in the manuscript, association analysis was carried out using two generally accepted methods (random-effects linear regression models and generalized estimating equation models), their assumptions were verified, details of their specifications were provided, and their results were thoroughly compared. ________________________________________ 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 Response: Indeed, all the information used in the study is publicly accessible, and the sources for consultation have been provided. ________________________________________ 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: No Response: Thank you for the observation. The original writing of the manuscript in English was supported by a certified translator. However, the document was reviewed again, with special emphasis on the abstract. ________________________________________ 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 study explored the longitudinal association between expenditure on ultra-processed foods and beverages (UPF) and changes in anthropometric indicators of obesity with a representative sample. The study was well designed and the statistical analyses were applied appropriately. In the discussion section, I suggest including more studies that investigated the relationship between UPF consumption and obesity and other indicators of body adiposity than those that evaluated variables that were not the subject of their research, such as lipid profile. Below are some references that I suggest the authors consult to improve the discussion. References Neri, D., et al, Obesity reviews, 2021. 23 Suppl 1, e13387. Canella DS et al. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 25;9(3):e92752 Silva FM et al. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Aug;21(12):2271-2279 Juul F et al. Br J Nutr. 2018 Jul;120(1):90-100 Monteiro CA et al. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):18-26 Response: We greatly appreciate the references provided by Reviewer 1 to enrich the discussion. We removed the paragraph that mentioned the studies with lipid profile as an outcome (lines 278-285) and we added several of the suggested references throughout the rest of the discussion. Reviewer #2: Abstract background of the abstract is too long. Variables must be mentioned in method section. P values must be added to the results. It is better to write the duration instead of round 2. Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We shortened the background in the abstract, specified the exposure and outcome variables in the methods, added the p-value and the confidence interval in the results, and replaced the mention of rounds with the follow-up period. Introduction Introduction is too long and more similar to a literature review. As there are lots of articles on children, it is not logical to mention the works on adults in the introduction. potential mechanisms/justifications for the relation of UPFs intake and obesity must be written. It is more suitable to condense the last paragraph in 2 sentences. Response: Thank you for the observation. We shortened the introduction, briefly mentioning the studies conducted in adults. We also mentioned the potential mechanisms for the relation between UPF intake and obesity. We condensed the final paragraph as suggested. Methods please name the study's covariates. Add a reference for calculating the wealth index. Table of UPFs is not compete and lacks a lot of food items. 2 main determinants of weigh status are energy intake and physical activity, without measuring them the results could not be reliable. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The study covariates were named in the "Covariates" subsection in a manner consistent with the names appearing in Table 1, which outlines the characteristics of the study sample, as well as with the rest of the document. A reference for the calculation of the wealth index has been added. In Fig. 2, it has been clarified that the classified foods and beverages are those with reported expenditure in the MxFLS. We acknowledge that energy intake and physical activity are two main determinants of weight status; therefore, we transformed the expenditure into an adult-equivalent measure that accounts for differences by age and gender and incorporated the variable of the proportion of time reported watching television to mitigate these potential biases, respectively. While the limitations already acknowledged the issue related to the use of adult-equivalent per capita expenditure, we added a mention of the lack of a direct measurement of physical activity. ________________________________________ Note: We included in the cover letter the requested clarification regarding the funding received, the funder's role, and the declaration of interests, as follows: "I must mention that MHF received a grant (ID 0061) from the Research Institute for Equitable Development (EQUIDE for its Spanish acronym) at Universidad Iberoamericana (https://equide.org/), within the framework of its internal Call for Research Project Funding 2022. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. " Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317831.r003
6 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Shaonong Dang, Editor Association of expenditure on ultra-processed foods and beverages and anthropometric indicators in Mexican children: a longitudinal study PONE-D-24-21652R1 Dear Dr. Teruel-Belismelis, 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, Shaonong Dang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Authors have addressed the comments from all reviewers, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly and improved for publication. 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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.0317831.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Shaonong Dang, Editor PONE-D-24-21652R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Teruel-Belismelis, 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. Shaonong Dang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317831.r005

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 .