Dear Dr. Yan,

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.

• 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 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,

Redoy Ranjan, MBBS, MRCSEd, Ch.M., MS (CV&TS), FACS

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 Shihezi University High-level Talents Program (RCZK2021B28). The Science and Technology Planning Project of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (2023AB049). The Shihezi University self-funded project (ZZZC202125). Tianshan Young Talent Scientific and Technological Innovation Team: Innovative Team for Research on Prevention and Treatment of High-incidence Diseases in Central Asia (2023TSYCTD0020).”

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

7. 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: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Quite interesting data regarding prevalence and incidence of ischaemic heart disease in a certain population compared to the rest of the world highlighting the complicated nature of this disease and the role of lifestyle and genetics in the incidence and management of ischaemic heart disease. Moreover, the remaining high incidence in the vast Chinese population highlights the need for more measures to be taken.

Reviewer #2: The article is very detailed and well-written. A study utilized Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 data to compare the burden of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in China and the world from 1990 to 2021, with projections extending to 2036. Join point regression was employed to estimate annual changes in burden (Annual Percent Change, AAPC), and Bayesian age–period–cohort (BAPC) modeling was used for forecasts; results indicate that, from 1990 to 2021, the IHD burden in China increased and progressed more rapidly than the global trend. There are a few comments that could potentially improve the manuscript.

1-In the data source section, although the GBD 2021 source is cited, a brief explanation of sample size and data collection methods can aid in assessing generalizability.

2-All articles submitted to this journal require a code of ethics. For more information, visit

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

3-In the data analysis section, a more precise description of how the data from 1990–2021 are synthesized using the Joinpoint and Bayesian age–period–cohort (BAPC) models, together with the key parameters (e.g., the initial joinpoint, the number of joinpoints), would be informative.

4-Some tables (e.g., Table 3) should clearly state in the text when and where statistical differences are significant (significance symbols should appear with all relevant values). It is advisable that the manuscript be written so that the main points are still conveyed through the text if the table is not visible. In addition, the confidence intervals (CIs) are not displayed correctly in some sections; this requires more careful editing, e.g., (3.67, 3.92).

5-The discussion suggests that it be strengthened with additional evidence and appropriate references to support the interpretations and claims. It also points to more practical policies such as targeted screening programs, lifestyle interventions, and gender-specific recommendations in line with the findings.

Reviewer #3: One misspelling in a section title is noted in the attached review. The text in the article is occasionally slightly informal and narrative, but still well constructed. This is very much like other articles now commonly being produced by researchers, due to changes in research resources and support. Reviews of our new databases are essential to the field and should not at all deemed too repetitive by publishers, even though they can be. They are essential to the changes now happening in AI, data analysis and management services in health care. I just reviewed one other item of similar methods, and purpose in this industry.

**********

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:  Afendoulis Dimitrios

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Brian L Altonen

**********

[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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE_D25_41345_China_IschemicHeartDisease.docx

Epidemiological characteristics of ischemic heart disease: a comparative study between China and the world from 1990 to 2021 and prediction to 2036

PONE-D-25-41345R1

Dear Dr. Yan,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Redoy Ranjan, MBBS, MRCSEd, Ch.M., MS (CV&TS), FACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I have carefully reviewed the revised edition of the manuscript. Given the changes made incorporating the reviwers recommendations i suggest upon publication of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: A comprehensive summary. In terms of details and approaches taken, very useful for developing the same sorts of research across different systems. In general I accepted this in its initial submission form, although there were occasional, minor improvements (punctuation and misspelling) that could be made. The most important value of this report/article, is that it provides approaches that are similar across the field, for other articles I reviewed, which should make this article very applicable to my new residency hire serving "review of stats" program.; The increasingly popular population level meta-analysis reviews, is lacking in certain foreign (non-USA, non-Western European) countries studies. Comparing results from different countries or nations' studies is most important in our current health care systems. Searching for places/settings where significant differences do not exist between two very different health care settings, can have important clinical implications for the researchers of those projects. Such a value is very underrepresented and/or not covered effectively in certain kinds of research.

**********

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:  Afendoulis Dimitrios

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Brian L Altonen

**********