Dear Dr. Alnuaimi,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: -->-->- the introduction dosen't clearly include the justification for conducting this study in Qatar nor the rate of Diabetes in Qatar-->-->Method: please mention clearly under clear subheading; the study design, sample size calculation, number of participants-->-->=========================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2025 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Omnia S. El Seifi, M.D., Ph.D.

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 Primary Health Care Corporation will cover the publication fees incurred by the journal.”

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing contact details for the third party, such as an email address or a link to where data requests can be made. Please update your statement with the missing information.

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.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: REVIEWER’S COMMENTS: Prevalence and determinants of inadequately controlled diabetes in Qatar’s public primary care settings: A five-year cross-sectional review of health

records (2018-2022)

Dear Editor,

Thank you for inviting me to reviewer manuscript by Sameer et al on Prevalence and determinants of inadequately controlled diabetes in Qatar’s public primary care settings: A five-year cross-sectional review of health records (2018-2022).

Title and Abstract

Title: Clear and concise

Abstract: The abstract summarizes the study well, highlighting research problem and gaps clearly.

However, background should be summarized further and conclusion should be revise to include policy implication of findings, while deleting the recommendation as subheading.

Introduction: Well written and conceptualizes the research problem effectively. Nonetheless, there is need for revision to include literature review on prevalence of uncontrolled T2DM in middle east and other parts of the world.

Methodology: Methodology is generally sound and this will allow repeatability of the study and readers to quickly understand the study protocol. This helps establish validity and reliability of findings.

Results: The results are well presented and supported by appropriate statistical analysis. Moreover, there is need to revise first paragraph where the sentence starts with Of the eligible….. to maintain academic tone. HbA1C>=7% should be replace with standard abbreviation of ≥.

Tables and figures: Tables are well organized and figure caption described the information clearly however, correct the HbA1C>=7% to standard abbreviation of HbA1C ≥7%.

Discussion: The discussion is well structured and effectively compares the findings with previous research, highlighting limitations and recommendations.

Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the study results effectively, including policy implication of the study.

References: The references are appropriate and relevant \, Moreover, ensure compliance with the journal guidelines.

Remarks: The study will contribute valuable scientific data considering a robust sample size from population-based study. Findings from this study may guide policy on relevant interventions to address the burden of uncontrolled DM and minimized complications.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Thank you for the study on this topic of global relevance

Please find below my opinion and recommendation on your next review:

Ln1-3: Good topic with enough clarity but somehow too clumsy. Consider below suggestion or review to your own satisfaction:

"Prevalence and determinants of inadequately controlled diabetes in Qatar’s public primary care settings, a cross-sectional study."

Ln 19: Rather put " therefore is one of the ways"

Ln 20: Replace with "This"

Ln 22: Replace with " the risk of uncontrolled"

Ln 24: Replace with "review"

Ln 37: T2DM

Ln 40-42 : This is part of the conclusion of the study .

Proper recommendations may go to the body of the study. Thanks

Ln 55: put a comma. , followed by " as well as"

Ln 61/62 : These are not risk factors of T2DM but rather complications of untreated / poor glyceamic control in T2DM... Please review

Ln 62 :T2DM is a risk factor for coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular injury AND not the other way round... please review

Ln 79 -84 : Good descriptions of the study settings without ambiguity.. Thank you

Ln 85/86: Any particular reason why age is a criteria in this study, judging from the introduction where it was stated that the prevalence of T2DM is increasing in children and young adults and also it is a review of the records?

Please justify this.

Ln 121/122 : This is not in keeping with the earlier period of data extraction ( From 01/01/2018 to 31/12/2022)

Ln 144/145 : Was the data collection done before the ethical approval?

Ln 146 : It is always good to state if the extraction tools used have an implied consent that the patient information could be used for research purposes or if the patient registering with PHCC automatically consent to their records being used for research purposes.... if the later is applicable , please add to the study settings.

Ln 208/209 : This is interesting to see that there is a better glyceamic control during the Covid 19 pandemic.

Ln 228-231 : This study was actually conducted during the COVID19 Pandemic and most studies reported decline in the general control of chronic medical conditions, including poor glyceamic control in the T2DM due to multifactorial factors e.g inadequate drug dispensing resulting from "Lock downs" and cancelled clinic appointments due to movement restrictions .

This study seems not to be affected by Covid 19 pandemic despite the fact that it was conducted from 2018 till 2022.......What do you think about this?

Ln 279 : There are lot of limitations to this study . Look carefully into the methodology and the research question.

Also of note is the fact that comorbidities- outcome relationship in T2DM is routinely bidirectional cause/effect relationship in clinical medicine.

Reviewer #3: A generally well-written manuscript but methodologic questions as below. Could be considered for review by PLOS Global Public Health.

General:

--Beyond precedent in prior manuscripts, why was an A1c cut-off of 7% chosen? Higher A1c goals can be clinically considered in geriatric populations.

--Were individuals with anemia excluded since anemia can cause a falsely high A1c?

--Were pregnant individuals excluded since A1c levels generally decrease during pregnancy?

--any review of pharmacotherapy or diabetes incidence? if not, why not?

--some literature prefers T2D to T2DM; defer to authors preferences

--abstract and throughout (lines 175-176): While acknowledged in lines 280-285, inadequately controlled T2D is a clinical risk factor or predictor of retinopathy, not vice versa.

--throughout: ≥ rather than >=

--How does the study extend: https://www.gavinpublishers.com/article/view/factors-associated-with-glycemic-control-among-type-2-diabetic-patients-attending-primary-health-care-centers-in-qatar-a-cross-sectional-study ?

Lined:

--line 65: prefer adults with diabetes

--line 152: (Table 1)

--line 107: What is the rationale for "mean annual A1c" instead of categorizing as possible into newly controlled, newly uncontrolled, or persistently uncontrolled, or persistently controlled cohorts?

--lines 247-253: unclear with the distinctions here that seem to require dedicated statistical review of the models as they contribute to confusion throughout (e.g., lines 168-170 and Table 1 describe risk reduction but Table 2 shows increased ORs of inadequately controlled A1c; "Aging increases the risk of having inadequately controlled T2DM, but this was attributed to comorbidities. Adjusting for those comorbidities will show that younger ages are the ones at higher risk.")

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Zainab AbdulkadirDr Zainab Abdulkadir

Reviewer #2: Yes: Adeloye Amoo Adeniji (MBBS; MMed; FCFP; FACRRM)Adeloye Amoo Adeniji (MBBS; MMed; FCFP; FACRRM)

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWERS PLOS One Qatar 2.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Prevalence and determinant of ....pdf

Dear Dr. Alnuaimi,

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 Mar 28 2026 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Omnia S. El Seifi, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Thank you for your efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. I believe the significant changes have been made to the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript should consider for publication.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Thank you for prompt attention to my concerns in the first round of review

I think the study is now clear and well structured.

The data, strongly support the outcome of interest and the context, even though, most research at the same period of the study seems not to agree completely.

I think your study satisfy the minimum criteria for publication and it will provoke further studies on glyceamic control in type 2 DM. Good luck

Reviewer #3: The authors did not respond to many of the further below reviewer comments. Defer data availability appropriateness to editorial team.

--line 97: is there statistical rationale for this comorbidity score approach?

--line 107: acknowledge use of <7% as general A1c goal, but <7.5 or <8% can often be used as a goal in geriatric populations. 33% of this cohort was greater than or equal to 70 years old. can you complete any analyses in this demographic for goal A1c <7.5% or <8%? Fine for supplemental here..

--line 122: capitalization?

--line 296: T2DM

--line 297: no need to capitalize calendar

From prior (with updated line numbers):

General:

--Were individuals with anemia excluded since anemia can cause a falsely high A1c?

--Were pregnant individuals excluded since A1c levels generally decrease during pregnancy?

--any review of pharmacotherapy or diabetes incidence? if not, why not?

--abstract and throughout (lines 180-185): While acknowledged in lines 285-290, inadequately controlled T2D is a clinical risk factor or predictor of retinopathy (and chronic kidney disease and coronary disease), not vice versa.

--How does the study extend: https://www.gavinpublishers.com/article/view/factors-associated-with-glycemic-control-among-type-2-diabetic-patients-attending-primary-health-care-centers-in-qatar-a-cross-sectional-study ?

Lined:

--line 63: prefer adults with diabetes

--line 155: (Table 1)

--line 109: What is the rationale for "mean annual A1c" instead of categorizing as possible into newly controlled, newly uncontrolled, or persistently uncontrolled, or persistently controlled cohorts?

--lines 252-258: unclear with the distinctions here that seem to require dedicated statistical review of the models as they contribute to confusion throughout (e.g., lines 173-175 and Table 1 describe risk reduction but Table 2 shows increased ORs of inadequately controlled A1c; "Aging increases the risk of having inadequately controlled T2DM, but this was attributed to comorbidities. Adjusting for those comorbidities will show that younger ages are the ones at higher risk.")

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Zainab Abdulkadir (MBBS,MSc PH, FMCFM, MD)Dr Zainab Abdulkadir (MBBS,MSc PH, FMCFM, MD)

Reviewer #2: Yes: Adeloye Amoo Adeniji (MBBS; MMed; FCFP; FACRRM)Adeloye Amoo Adeniji (MBBS; MMed; FCFP; FACRRM)

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Dear Dr. Alnuaimi,

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 Apr 18 2026 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Omnia S. El Seifi, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

2. 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.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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 #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3:  Appreciate the authors' thoughtful responses that clarify. Some minor comments as below. Appreciate the authors' thoughtful responses that clarify. Some minor comments as below.

--Would suggest mentioning negligible effects in analyses of higher geriatric A1c goals in the discussion

--Pharmacotherapy and T2D incidence (and newly controlled, newly uncontrolled, or persistently uncontrolled, or persistently controlled cohorts) were suggested to clarify as able if "inadequately controlled T2D" was related to newly diagnosed uncontrolled diabetes that subsequently became controlled rather than chronically uncontrolled diabetes.. Fine not to include per authors' response; fine to include in limitations or future directions if authors think helpful..

--For participants with three or more A1c values in a year, were A1c values normally distributed in each of the five years? This seems that it would most best justify the role of the mean annual A1c ("three or more values" to allow a limited within-participant normality test)

-line 66: six

-line 96 and Table 1: "comorbidity score" description could be deleted and Table 1 just state "number of comorbidities" to more directly describe approach but fine to defer to authors' preferences

-line 147: why highlighted?

-line 156, 298: T2DM

Defer 1) data availability appropriateness and 2)statistical review of the below to the journal editorial team.

--lines 254-260: unclear with the distinctions here that seem to require dedicated statistical review of the models as they contribute to confusion throughout (e.g., lines 172-174 and Table 1 describe risk reduction but Table 2 shows increased ORs of inadequately controlled A1c; "Aging increases the risk of having inadequately controlled T2DM, but this was attributed to comorbidities. Adjusting for those comorbidities will show that younger ages are the ones at higher risk.")

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Prevalence and determinants of inadequately controlled diabetes in Qatar’s public primary care settings: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-25-42745R3

Dear Dr. Alnuaimi,

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  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,

Omnia S. El Seifi, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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 #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: All comments have been thoughtfully addressed.

As prior, defer 1) data availability appropriateness and 2) statistical review of the below to the journal editorial team.

--lines 254-260: unclear with the distinctions here that seem to require dedicated statistical review of the models as they contribute to confusion throughout (e.g., lines 172-174 and Table 1 describe risk reduction but Table 2 shows increased ORs of inadequately controlled A1c; "Aging increases the risk of having inadequately controlled T2DM, but this was attributed to comorbidities. Adjusting for those comorbidities will show that younger ages are the ones at higher risk.")

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #3: No

**********