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 Author,
Congratulations, after the good work of revisions in response to the reviewers' comments, I would like to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
All requested changes were performed. The manuscript can be accepted for publication without further corrections.
All requested changes were performed. The manuscript can be accepted for publication without further corrections.
All requested changes were performed. The manuscript can be accepted for publication without further corrections.
All requested changes were performed. The manuscript can be accepted for publication without further corrections.
Dear authors,
The study entitled “Application of composite reference intervals in the diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism in the elderly” demonstrated interesting findings. However, minor revisions must be clarified in the manuscript.
No comment
No comment
No comment
in line 305-307: It was found that TSH showed a downward trend with the increase in age, and the decline rate of TSH in the elderly group was higher than that in the elderly group. This needs rectification
This is good article
I am satisfied with this design
I think this is fair enough accepted finding
No more comments
1) "The thyroid gland, consisting of two connected lobes, is one of the largest endocrine glands in the human body, weighing 20 - 30 g in adults. Thyroid lesions are often found on the gland, with a prevalence of 4%–7%. Most of them are asymptomatic, and thyroid hormone secretion is normal."
I would suggest adding this information in the introduction section
2) I would like a brief discussion on the Bethesda classification system for reporting thyroid cytopathology ( especially for type II and III) and consider citing the recently published articles on Bethesda II and III:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33749812/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734516/
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references (such as those above) suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
What is the percentage of incidental malignancy according to these studies for Bethesda II and III?
Methods
- The methods are sufficiently explained by the authors.
Results
- The results are presented in a very extensive way.
Discussion
- The discussion is of great quality and includes updated data.
Conclusion
From the presented data, the conclusion is complete and represents the work that the authors did.
1. Overall, the manuscript is redundant and hard to read, especially the Results and Discussion sections. In the Discussion section, the authors should summarize their findings, rather than rewriting them.
2. Is data of Figure 1 and 2 in the Materials and methods section cited from ref 3? If the data is original, they should be written in the Results section.
1. If the authors think SCH may lead to renal failure and increase in UA (rather than renal failure and high UA causing SCH), they should use correlation analysis instead of regression analysis.
1. It seems to the reviewer that some necessary data is missing. Where is the result of principal component analysis? If extra data is listed in Supplemental Data, it should be stated accordingly in the manuscript.
2. If the authors want to claim that the two-dimensional composite reference interval they established are more efficient in diagnosing SCH than using the traditional reference interval, they should compare the clinical characteristics of the 4% with “excessive diagnosis” to the rest of the 96% SCH. It is possible that the two-dimensional composite reference interval leading to “underdiagnosis” of SCH.
3. The words in Table 2 are not aligned. Factors affecting UA or S-Cr, such as BMI and glycosylated hemoglobin, should also be compared between SCH group and normal group.
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.