Title: Cardiometabolic Index as a Predictor of Gallstone Risk: Evidence from NHANES 2017–
2020
Version: 1 Date: 01 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled "Association between
Cardiometabolic index and gallstones: insights from NHANES 2017–2020".
The "Introduction" section does not raise any objections - it effectively introduces the potential
reader to the scope of the discussed issue.
In the methodological section, the reviewer's objections are raised by the following issues:
1) The study used NHANES data (from the USA), while the authors used a cut-off point for
proper and improper BMI dedicated to their country of origin, i.e. 24 kg/m2 - it would be justified
to re-analyze the obtained database using the proper cut-off, or to distinguish different cut-off
values for different races of patients included in the analysis.
2) The authors used mean and standard deviation in the statistical analysis, but did not provide
information on the test used to assess the distribution of variables (and thus, authorizing the use
of tests and parametric data) - this should be supplemented.
The results of the study were presented in an appropriate manner (with the proviso that after
updating the data related to the comments given above, these results may and should change
slightly).
The discussion is conducted in an appropriate manner. There was no use of unjustified citations
or self-citations.
The work does not bear the marks of plagiarism, neither partial nor full.
The manuscript has the potential for publication, but requires some corrections.
Title: Cardiometabolic Index as a Predictor of Gallstone Risk: Evidence from NHANES 2017–
2020
Version: 1 Date: 01 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled "Association between
Cardiometabolic index and gallstones: insights from NHANES 2017–2020".
The "Introduction" section does not raise any objections - it effectively introduces the potential
reader to the scope of the discussed issue.
In the methodological section, the reviewer's objections are raised by the following issues:
1) The study used NHANES data (from the USA), while the authors used a cut-off point for
proper and improper BMI dedicated to their country of origin, i.e. 24 kg/m2 - it would be justified
to re-analyze the obtained database using the proper cut-off, or to distinguish different cut-off
values for different races of patients included in the analysis.
2) The authors used mean and standard deviation in the statistical analysis, but did not provide
information on the test used to assess the distribution of variables (and thus, authorizing the use
of tests and parametric data) - this should be supplemented.
The results of the study were presented in an appropriate manner (with the proviso that after
updating the data related to the comments given above, these results may and should change
slightly).
The discussion is conducted in an appropriate manner. There was no use of unjustified citations
or self-citations.
The work does not bear the marks of plagiarism, neither partial nor full.
The manuscript has the potential for publication, but requires some corrections.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Cardiometabolic Index as a Predictor of Gallstone Risk: Evidence from NHANES 2017–
2020
Version: 1 Date: 01 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled "Association between
Cardiometabolic index and gallstones: insights from NHANES 2017–2020".
The "Introduction" section does not raise any objections - it effectively introduces the potential
reader to the scope of the discussed issue.
In the methodological section, the reviewer's objections are raised by the following issues:
1) The study used NHANES data (from the USA), while the authors used a cut-off point for
proper and improper BMI dedicated to their country of origin, i.e. 24 kg/m2 - it would be justified
to re-analyze the obtained database using the proper cut-off, or to distinguish different cut-off
values for different races of patients included in the analysis.
2) The authors used mean and standard deviation in the statistical analysis, but did not provide
information on the test used to assess the distribution of variables (and thus, authorizing the use
of tests and parametric data) - this should be supplemented.
The results of the study were presented in an appropriate manner (with the proviso that after
updating the data related to the comments given above, these results may and should change
slightly).
The discussion is conducted in an appropriate manner. There was no use of unjustified citations
or self-citations.
The work does not bear the marks of plagiarism, neither partial nor full.
The manuscript has the potential for publication, but requires some corrections.
assistant