PONE-D-24-21453First validity testing of GluciQuizz, a French self-questionnaire evaluating carb-counting for patients with type 1 diabetesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Joubert,

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. You can find below the reviewers comments that must be addressed before reconsidering pubblication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 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,

Andrea Da Porto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. 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

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

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: No

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: 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: I reviewed the article untitled "First validity testing of GluciQuizz, a French self-questionnaire evaluating carb-counting for patients with type 1 diabetes" which addresses the need for a French questionnaire to assess carbohydrate counting skills in French adults with T1D.

The cultural adaptation of such a questionnaire is a thorough work that requires several stages and participants. Overall, the manuscript is well written, and each step is well described. Therefore, most of my comments are minor.

A small note, I was not able to access the supplementary material, therefore some of my comments might have been addressed if I had access to it.

1. In the introduction, line 60, the authors state that HCL allows optimal glycemic control at night and between meals. I would rephrase this to say that HCL provides better overall glycemic control (compared to other modes of insulin delivery), especially control at night and between meals.

2. In the introduction, line 64, the authors refer to meals and carbohydrate quality. Do they mean meal composition and carbohydrate counting (according to the reference)?

3. In the methods (page 7, first paragraph), the cut-off to decide whether clarity/consistency/relevance... is acceptable is not defined a priori.

4. In Table 1, last row, some text seems to be missing "Correlation between GluciQuizz" and?

5. On page 8, step 8, one could say that assessing post-meal TIR would have been even more sensitive. Just a comment.

6. On page 8, line 150, I do not clearly understand why there are only 5 domains in the French version versus 6 domains in the US version. Were two domains combined and why?

7. In Table 2, it would have been more readable to have the full domain title in the heading instead of the numbers. Same for AE/N/A. I think this could be done by changing the table to a landscape layout and putting the range on the same row as the mean, thus reducing the height of the rows.

8. In Table 3, it would have been nice to show the educational level of the patients who answered the questionnaire, since carbohydrate counting skills are associated with socioeconomic and education background. Especially since the authors found 9 items to be non-discriminatory due to a high rate of correct answers.

9. On page 13, line 187-188, sorry if this sounds silly as I am not a questionnaire expert, but would it make sense to calculate the Cronbach separately for each group of domains assessed? Or is only the overall Cronbach important?

Reviewer #2: Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript “First validity testing of GluciQuizz, a French self-questionnaire evaluating carb-counting for patients with type 1 diabetes.

The article is presented in simple language and is easy to follow. The authors have done a comprehensive validity testing process including, translation, adaptation, back translation, testing face validity, testing with target group and experts for the content and reliability testing in a systematic way.

Reliability coefficients of 0.738-0.826 indicates high internal consistency. I believe predictive validity is not required as it is an adapted version for lanuage and minor cultural preferences.

I am not proficient in French and cannot comment for any language error in the Gluciquizz.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

This French-speaking self-administered GluciQuizz validation study questionnaire is essential to French patients. Studies show that carbohydrate counting is a valuable tool for better glucose control and reduced hypoglycemia, and it is crucial to evaluate carbohydrate knowledge and cross-cultural adaptation to help patients learn the carbohydrate count appropriately. The authors followed all the steps recommended for a validation study. However, the manuscript deserves writing revision due to some grammar, punctuation, and spelling mistakes.

**********

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

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.

First validity testing of GluciQuizz, a French self-questionnaire evaluating carb-counting for patients with type 1 diabetes

PONE-D-24-21453R1

Dear Dr. Michael Joubert

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,

Andrea Da Porto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE