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.
The authors have addressed all comments. I recommend that the authors consider whether 100 grams vs 100 ml is the right terminology to be used for the drinker's weekly consumption.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: After discussions between PeerJ staff and the authors, for clarity, the first part of Section 2.1 should be replaced with the following text:
"This is a single-center retrospective study of patients diagnosed with essential hypertension and treated at the Department of Cardiology, First Affiliated Hospital of 90 Xinjiang Medical University from December 2018 to September 2020. This is a sub-study of a larger study aimed at elucidating the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. We retrospectively analyzed data from that study to determine whether there is an association between insulin resistance and the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in hypertensive patients."
Note: This is a condition of the Accept decision #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher and Stefano Menini, PeerJ Section Editors covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed all the reviewer comments. I recommend that the authors make some additional clarifications as follows.
1. in the methodology section, the authors refer to participants being admitted for an overnight stay and all investigations as part of this study. Further explanation about what this 'admission' refers to needs to be provided (particularly in the setting of a retrospective analysis).
2. The authors state that informed consent was obtained from all participants but the ethical approval and consent form appears to relate to a different study. If the current manuscript is a sub-study of another study, this should be declared.
3. Proofread the manuscript for any typographical errors. For instance, In line 40 of the abstract, what does OR stand for or is it IR? In line 128-129- There appears to be a typographical error which makes it difficult to understand the sentence. Do the authors mean "Drinker" who is consuming 100ml of alcoholic beverage and not grams? Line 311, it should be a RAS pathway and not RAAS as this is a commonly explored pathway.
No further questions
No further questions
No further questions
The current manuscript has potential to be improved and would be of interest to the journal's readership. Please address the reviewer's comments especially providing more details on the methodology to ensure repeatability and detailed discussions.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Shan et al. have performed a retrospective study on the association of TyG index and HFpEF in patients with hypertension. The study topic is novel and the findings are interesting. I have some comments to add:
- Authors should define abbreviations in their first use and make sure they are using only abbreviated forms after the definition (BMI and SBP in the abstract).
- The introduction section is rather long in its current form. The authors should focus on the main ideas related to the topic and try to emphasize the gaps in knowledge and the rationale for performing this study.
- The first paragraph of the discussion should focus on the main findings of the manuscript.
- Authors should add the strengths of their study to the discussion section.
no comment
1- Line 63 reference is above the line
2- In the methods it’s important to include the duration of fasting.
3- According to American Diabetes Association, diabetes diagnose can be made by different ways. Why you didn’t include the diagnosis made by A1C of greater than or equal to 6.5% or 2-h PG ≥200 mg/dL (≥11.1 mmol/L) during OGTT?
4- You need to specify the method used to calculate ejection fraction.
5- You only consider hypertension diagnose in office. Why didn’t you consider the diagnose out of office? We can have masked hypertension that can be only diagnose out of office.
6- Also, regarding the diagnose of hypertension, whenever possible, the diagnosis should not be made on a single office visit. Usually 2–3 office visits at 1–4-week intervals are required to confirm the diagnosis. You didn’t explain this in your methods.
7- “The analysis revealed that the TyG index had a positive correlation with LVMI (rs = 0.200, p < 0.001), MVE/e’ (rs = 0.163, p < 0.001), and NT-pro BNP (rs = 0.163, p < 0.001), and a negative correlation with LVEF (rs = -0.087, p < 0.018)” This result is contradictory with your conclusions. A negative correlation with LVEF means that higher TyG index correlate with lower LVEF, but HFpEF patients have the higher LVEF. Can you please discuss this?
8- Line 317 “Heart HFpEF”
9- Your population had a greater proportion of males than females and a higher proportion of younger patients. We know that HFpEF is more prevalent in older females. You should refer that in the limitations of the study
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Please elaborate on the measures for mitigating ethical risks including detailed plans for participant privacy and data security. A more detailed assessment of potential risks and their management strategies would significantly improve the protocol's robustness.
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.