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. Gao,
Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. After a thorough evaluation of your revisions by Reviewers and me, I am pleased to inform you that all reviewer comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Accordingly, your manuscript is now accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Sincerely,
Stefano Menini
The authors have taken cognizance of the suggestions/recommendations made by this reviewer and implemented the same satisfactorily.
Looks more robust and objective, in comparison to the preliminary version of this manuscript.
The validity of the findings has been enhanced, following the Reviewer Comments.
The manuscript looks more well rounded and comprehensive. Deemed fit for Publication.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
More literature references are needed to cite the nexus between impedance analysis and biochemical considerations. The quality of the language used offers scope for further improvement
The methods did not specify the gender and age of the study subjects included
Whereas de Souza Francisco, D et al in their paper, BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 16, 34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-024-00825-5, have indicated that phase angle is an important determinant with reference to all-cause mortality in CKD. Why did the authors not consider this (Phase angle)?
Various factors such as Adipose Tissue, Body Composition, Fluid intake, Type of food, and menstrual cycle affect the impedance analysis. Did the authors take special care while recruiting the study subjects?
The authors have mentioned in the Exclusion criteria that they had excluded subjects based on (1) incomplete data, (2) presence of other kidney diseases, and (3) severe liver disease. Were there subjects with muscle disorders, and if so, were they excluded?
A publication by Janis M Dionne et al https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.1669 has highlighted the role of mean arterial pressure in Chronic kidney disease progression.
Did the authors of the present manuscript consider this at all? Measurement of systolic and diastolic blood pressure has its inherent limitations.
The authors have mentioned under limitations:- “Secondly, while BIA offers the advantages of simplicity and high repeatability, its accuracy can be affected by the patient’s condition (e.g., oedema)”. The authors could have done lab investigations such as CBC, serum electrolytes, LFT, and Total protein, Albumin, which could have provided insight into the aspect of oedema.
Insulin resistance is a major determinant of chronic kidney disease. Why did the authors not take cognizance of the same?
A recent publication, namely “Association between triglyceride-glucose index and chronic kidney disease: results from NHANES 1999–2020,” published in Int Urol Nephrol. 2024 Jun 10;56(11):3605–3616. doi: 10.1007/s11255-024-04103-8, has indicated the role of Triglyceride Glucose index(TyG) in CKD. Had the authors included this component, namely TyG, in their study, it would have fortified the results obtained from the impedance analyser
The conclusions could have been more robust had the authors used their kind discretion in enhancing the validity of the methods.
The study is an earnest attempt that needs to be complemented, as CKD is an important consequence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and the authors have used impedance analysis to document changes in the body water as a function of the biomarkers. However, had a few more important biochemical analytes been included, the validity of the endeavor would have been stronger still
The language needs improvement in a few areas. The comments have been included in the PDF attached.
The research is novel in exploring a newer marker using BIA in predicting albuminuria, in other words, the progression from incipient nephropathy to overt nephropathy in T2DM. Limitations may include the generalizability of the ECW/TBW as ethnicity differences are known to exist (Davenport A, Hussain Sayed R, Fan S. The effect of racial origin on total body water volume in peritoneal dialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011 Oct;6(10):2492-8. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04130511).
-
There are redundancies noticed: lines 213 and 225 are the same
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, and tables. Raw data shared.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Original primary research within the Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods are described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question & limited to supporting results.
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.