All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
As all the comments from the reviewers were addressed to their satisfaction, the new version of the manuscript was significantly improved.
The authors have successfully addressed all issues
The authors have successfully addressed all issues
The authors have successfully addressed all issues
The authors have successfully addressed all issues
-
-
-
No remarks.
The selection criteria for the study should be presented in more detail. Please, also, address the reviewers' comments.
Reviewers have directed your attention to or requested that you cite specific references. You may add them you believe they are especially relevant. However, I do not expect you to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
no comment
no comment
Authors should measure the sensitivity of the analysis.
This study aimed to determine urine cadmium levels and their link to albuminuria as an early sign of renal disease in the Kepong community. In general, this plan is an interesting and well-written manuscript. Therefore, I recommend the publication after minor revisions as the following:
1- Please, update the prevalence of chronic kidney disease.
2- Please, refer to B40, M40, and T20 categories.
3- Is the range of age in this study similar to Adnan et. al., (2012)?
4- Could authors add sections for inclusions and exclusions criteria for this study.
5- Authors should measure the sensitivity of the analysis.
6- Authors should discuss is there any relationship between albuminuria and metabolic diseases in this study.
7- Please mention age as having a substantial influence on nephrotoxicity in the discussion section.
Reference: El-Arabey AA. Sex and age differences related to renal OCT2 gene expression in cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Iran J Kidney Dis. 2015 Jul;9(4):335-6.
-
-
-
This is an interesting study. I have no significant objections. Some parts of the manuscript were repeated unnecessarily. Please consider deleting them, particularly in the Abstract. The part concerning cadmium must be much more strongly written (line 60, 61); I suggest the authors to carefully consider the papers of Stojsavljević et al., Jagodić et al.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.