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.
Dear Dr. Liu and Dr. Zheng,
Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. After a thorough review of the changes by the reviewers and myself, I am pleased to inform you that all the reviewers' comments have been adequately addressed. Therefore, your manuscript is ready for publication in its current version in PeerJ.
I thank all reviewers for their efforts in improving the manuscript and the authors' cooperation throughout the review process.
Sincerely yours,
Stefano Menini
No comment
No comment
No comment
I have read the new version of the article with the changes made by the authors, which address all the questions and suggestions from my initial review. Therefore, I propose the publishing of the article in the revised form.
Dear Dr. Liu and Dr. Zheng,
Your manuscript entitled “Association between risk factors and bone mineral density and development of a self-assessment tool for early osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes", which you submitted to PeerJ, has been reviewed by the editor and 2 external reviewers.
The reviewers have raised significant concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further. However, since the reviewers see merit in your work, I am open to reconsidering the manuscript if you undertake the suggested revisions and resubmit.
If you decide to resubmit the revised version, please summarize all the improvements made in the new version and give answers to all critical points raised in the reviewers’ report in an accompanying letter. Copy and paste each and every reviewer's comment above your response.
Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance. The revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review by the same reviewers. I must emphasize that the acceptability of the revision will depend upon the resolution of the points raised by the reviewers.
Sincerely yours,
Stefano Menini
You have proposed two main objectives for your study. Please define better the second one (line 40)- who is going to use this "tool", how and when . What is the meaning and the aim for "early osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women with T2D"?
Regarding lines 46 and 52 you are speaking about the same "screening tool"?
Please define clearly how to use the" two straight lines with equations of BMI=0.56*age-4.12 and BMI=0.56*age-10.88".
What is the general message of your paper regarding osteoporosis in T2D population vs general population?
You have collected and analyzed a large amount of data.
In my opinion, the value of article would increase if you will try to present them organized in respect to the proposed main objectives:
- the significance of the analyzed variables in relation with BMD;
- which is the practical value for the two proposed equations for the patients and for general practice in the field of rheumatology, endocrinology and general practice.
There are differences between your data and those coming from general population?
Please define "atherosclerosis" in your study. The T2D is often associated with subclinical atherosclerosis.
There is rigorous approach to the collected data.
Please explain clearly how the "two straight lines with the same slope k and
different values of c can divide patients into three risk regions with low-, moderate- and
high prevalence of osteoporosis". lines 158-160
Please detail how do you intend to use the proposed tool in T2D population .There are differences vs general population?
It is very hard to follow the ideas in this articles. The literature review is ambiguous in respect to the objectives of the study (type 2 diabetes population and osteoporosis).I think that minor changes in the manner of define and present the data would increase the value of the article, which is evidently based on a hard work of the team mentioned.
See below
See below
See below
Thank you for asking my opinion about the manuscript entitled "Association between risk factors and bone mineral density and development of a self-assessment tool for early osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes".
I believe that this manuscript should be major revision:
Q1. It is very important to change and modify the title. the title is not appropriate.
Q2. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study clearly stated?
Q3. In the abstract, the research gap was not clearly stated. In addition, the authors need to rewrite the study objectives to be more academic writing
Q4. In the introduction, include the study's significance and novelty. What makes the study different from the rest and what does it add to the current knowledge?.
Q5. In the introduction, the authors should have explained the purpose of this study and the existing gaps in this field and explained why this study was conducted.
Q6. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the results presented to match the methods described?
Q7. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study provide an advance in the field? Is the data plausible?
Q8. References are relevant, correct, and not recent. The number of references should be increased. please add some references. since this is a scientific review, all the sentences need to be supported with references.
This study is very beautiful. I liked the sequence and enjoyed reading. Please add more references on similar studies.
Q9. There are a lot of grammatical errors. This must be taken care of and addressed.
Q10. What are the limitations of the study? A description of limitations is missing at the end of the discussion section.
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.