Title: The associations between modifiable risk factors and constipation: A comprehensive
Mendelian randomization study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jul 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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the review of the manuscript titled " The associations between
modifiable risk factors and constipation: A comprehensive Mendelian randomization study",
which was previously titled "The associations between modifiable risk factors and constipation:
A comprehensive Mendelian randomization study". In this study, authors have used MR analytic
framework to dissect causality of the effects of the genetic predisposition to various modifiable
factors on constipation.
This study is essentially a NEW paper after revision, as the results have changed dramatically.
In fact, there are many news findings, and the Discussion section has improved substantially.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In order to make this MS perfect, please do the following. 1) in Abstract, please phrase results
part in such a way that significant results and suggestive associations would be listed in separate
phrases. 2) every time, especially in the beginning of the results and discussion sections, authors
should stress that they are evaluating effects of the genetic components predisposing individual
to being positive for certain exposure instead of effects of the factor as such. For example,
genetic predisposition to elective or prescribed use of aspirin, or genetic predisposition to use of
atorvastatin. 3) there are many small errors, necessitating a proof read throughout. i.e in abstract
say "our objective was..." instead of "our objective is". Also please delete "in domestic and
foreign countries " in Introduction.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Great job on revision.
Title: The associations between modifiable risk factors and constipation: A comprehensive
Mendelian randomization study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jul 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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the review of the manuscript titled " The associations between
modifiable risk factors and constipation: A comprehensive Mendelian randomization study",
which was previously titled "The associations between modifiable risk factors and constipation:
A comprehensive Mendelian randomization study". In this study, authors have used MR analytic
framework to dissect causality of the effects of the genetic predisposition to various modifiable
factors on constipation.
This study is essentially a NEW paper after revision, as the results have changed dramatically.
In fact, there are many news findings, and the Discussion section has improved substantially.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In order to make this MS perfect, please do the following. 1) in Abstract, please phrase results
part in such a way that significant results and suggestive associations would be listed in separate
phrases. 2) every time, especially in the beginning of the results and discussion sections, authors
should stress that they are evaluating effects of the genetic components predisposing individual
to being positive for certain exposure instead of effects of the factor as such. For example,
genetic predisposition to elective or prescribed use of aspirin, or genetic predisposition to use of
atorvastatin. 3) there are many small errors, necessitating a proof read throughout. i.e in abstract
say "our objective was..." instead of "our objective is". Also please delete "in domestic and
foreign countries " in Introduction.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Great job on revision.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The associations between modifiable risk factors and constipation: A comprehensive
Mendelian randomization study
Version: 1 Date: 17 Jul 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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This is the review of the manuscript titled " The associations between
modifiable risk factors and constipation: A comprehensive Mendelian randomization study",
which was previously titled "The associations between modifiable risk factors and constipation:
A comprehensive Mendelian randomization study". In this study, authors have used MR analytic
framework to dissect causality of the effects of the genetic predisposition to various modifiable
factors on constipation.
This study is essentially a NEW paper after revision, as the results have changed dramatically.
In fact, there are many news findings, and the Discussion section has improved substantially.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In order to make this MS perfect, please do the following. 1) in Abstract, please phrase results
part in such a way that significant results and suggestive associations would be listed in separate
phrases. 2) every time, especially in the beginning of the results and discussion sections, authors
should stress that they are evaluating effects of the genetic components predisposing individual
to being positive for certain exposure instead of effects of the factor as such. For example,
genetic predisposition to elective or prescribed use of aspirin, or genetic predisposition to use of
atorvastatin. 3) there are many small errors, necessitating a proof read throughout. i.e in abstract
say "our objective was..." instead of "our objective is". Also please delete "in domestic and
foreign countries " in Introduction.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Great job on revision.
assistant