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.
In my opinion, this manuscript has been revised with attention to the reviewers' comments and can now be published.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the points I raised in my comments.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the points I raised in my comments.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed the points I raised in my comments.
I have now received the reviewers' comments on your manuscript. They have suggested some revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript is well-written. The introduction provides adequate background and context, with relevant literature cited. The objective is clearly stated. Methods and results are presented in a logical order.
The study design employs appropriate methods to investigate the research question on sleep duration and anxiety symptoms in diabetics. The reasonable sample size and multi-center recruitment increase generalizability. Probability sampling and comparisons between participants helps reduce selection bias. Use of validated scales to assess anxiety and sleep parameters is a strength. The statistical analysis plan is sound, with logistic regression models accounting for relevant confounders. Restricted cubic splines allow flexible examination of dose-response relationships.
Some additional details would further strengthen experimental design.
Discussion of study limitations is currently brief - sample age distribution, self-reported data, cross-sectional design, sleep quality, etc could be expanded. Confounding by sleep disorders (insomnia, apnea, etc) should be considered. Adding 1-2 limitations regarding cultural specificity would also demonstrate thoughtful consideration of external validity.
The results appear internally valid and the authors' conclusions logically follow from the data presented. The higher prevalence of anxiety symptoms with longer sleep duration is convincingly demonstrated overall and within gender/age groups through regression modeling. The figures clearly display the J-shaped relationships. Sensitivity analysis also verifies the association.
The mechanisms underlying the association also require further elucidation. Confounding by sleep disorders (insomnia, apnea, etc) should be considered (sorry for ripetition). Discussion of bidirectional/causal relationships and comorbid depression could be inserted.
Findings are consistent with prior literature and add meaningful evidence on sleep-anxiety interactions in diabetics.
The study addresses a clinically important issue. Anxiety clearly impacts diabetes outcomes while sleep disturbances are highly prevalent in this population. Elucidating connections between these factors can inform holistic diabetes care. The focus on sleep duration, use of restricted cubic splines, and subgroup analysis provides novel contributions to this research area.
- In the abstract section of the article, explain the working method in more detail
- Match keywords in the mesh section
- In the introduction, write the necessity of the study
- In the introduction, explain the reason for doing this study
- At the end of the introduction, you should refer to other similar studies in this field.
- Correct the writing language of the text and it should be checked by someone fluent in English.
-
- The working method should be written first the type of study and then the entry and exit criteria should be written.
- In the statistical analysis section, you must write each test separately for each relationship.
Write the instrument of the study and the method of data collection.
- The results of the study should be checked and approved by a statistician.
In the findings, you should explain each of the tables separately. - At the beginning of the discussion, write the purpose of the study
Then compare with similar studies.
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.