Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 5 Date: 24 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The reviewers have addressed my comments satisfactorily. There
are two minor edits to be made.
1. Line 166, “the incidence of constipation” should be “the prevalence of constipation”. It is not
correct to use the word “incidence” in a cross-sectional study.
2. Figure 2, p-value should be ¬p-overall = 0.101. In RCS, there are three p values: p for non-
linear, p for linear, and p for overall.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Some minor edits are needed.
Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 5 Date: 24 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The reviewers have addressed my comments satisfactorily. There
are two minor edits to be made.
1. Line 166, “the incidence of constipation” should be “the prevalence of constipation”. It is not
correct to use the word “incidence” in a cross-sectional study.
2. Figure 2, p-value should be ¬p-overall = 0.101. In RCS, there are three p values: p for non-
linear, p for linear, and p for overall.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Some minor edits are needed.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 5 Date: 24 Apr 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The reviewers have addressed my comments satisfactorily. There
are two minor edits to be made.
1. Line 166, “the incidence of constipation” should be “the prevalence of constipation”. It is not
correct to use the word “incidence” in a cross-sectional study.
2. Figure 2, p-value should be ¬p-overall = 0.101. In RCS, there are three p values: p for non-
linear, p for linear, and p for overall.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Some minor edits are needed.
assistant