Title: Waist-to-height ratio and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adults
Version: 1 Date: 22 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Mattias Ekstedt
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript by Sheng and co-workers, data from 14 125 individuals included in the
“human dock” are presented. The main result is that the waist-to-height ratio is strongly
associated with the prevalence of NAFLD. The main strengths of this study are the large sample
size and that the diagnosis of NAFLD is based on ultrasound (a biopsy study of more than 14
000 is unethical).
I have only minor comments:
Why were individuals with diabetes excluded? I would suggest adding individuals with diabetes
and investigate if there is the same association between WHtR and NAFLD in individuals with
and without diabetes.
Table 1, add unit for smoking and drinking. I would suggest using grams/week for alcohol since
that is easier to relate to the exclusion criterion.
There are generally to many decimals for many variables.
-Page 16, row 339, typo.
-Page 9, row 184-187, rephrase as this sentence is unclear.
-Page 6, row 112, is there another font in this row?
-Page 5, row 92, is it correct that height, weight, and WC was self-assessed. If not, describe how
these measurements were performed.
-Page 5, row 89, I do not think that you excluded everyone > 18 years… Obviously a typo.
-Page 2, row 34, should be prevalence, not incidence.
-Page 4, row 76-79, this sentence is unclear to me.
Title: Waist-to-height ratio and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adults
Version: 1 Date: 22 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Mattias Ekstedt
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript by Sheng and co-workers, data from 14 125 individuals included in the
“human dock” are presented. The main result is that the waist-to-height ratio is strongly
associated with the prevalence of NAFLD. The main strengths of this study are the large sample
size and that the diagnosis of NAFLD is based on ultrasound (a biopsy study of more than 14
000 is unethical).
I have only minor comments:
Why were individuals with diabetes excluded? I would suggest adding individuals with diabetes
and investigate if there is the same association between WHtR and NAFLD in individuals with
and without diabetes.
Table 1, add unit for smoking and drinking. I would suggest using grams/week for alcohol since
that is easier to relate to the exclusion criterion.
There are generally to many decimals for many variables.
-Page 16, row 339, typo.
-Page 9, row 184-187, rephrase as this sentence is unclear.
-Page 6, row 112, is there another font in this row?
-Page 5, row 92, is it correct that height, weight, and WC was self-assessed. If not, describe how
these measurements were performed.
-Page 5, row 89, I do not think that you excluded everyone > 18 years… Obviously a typo.
-Page 2, row 34, should be prevalence, not incidence.
-Page 4, row 76-79, this sentence is unclear to me.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Waist-to-height ratio and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adults
Version: 1 Date: 22 Mar 2021
Reviewer:  Mattias Ekstedt
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript by Sheng and co-workers, data from 14 125 individuals included in the
“human dock” are presented. The main result is that the waist-to-height ratio is strongly
associated with the prevalence of NAFLD. The main strengths of this study are the large sample
size and that the diagnosis of NAFLD is based on ultrasound (a biopsy study of more than 14
000 is unethical).
I have only minor comments:
Why were individuals with diabetes excluded? I would suggest adding individuals with diabetes
and investigate if there is the same association between WHtR and NAFLD in individuals with
and without diabetes.
Table 1, add unit for smoking and drinking. I would suggest using grams/week for alcohol since
that is easier to relate to the exclusion criterion.
There are generally to many decimals for many variables.
-Page 16, row 339, typo.
-Page 9, row 184-187, rephrase as this sentence is unclear.
-Page 6, row 112, is there another font in this row?
-Page 5, row 92, is it correct that height, weight, and WC was self-assessed. If not, describe how
these measurements were performed.
-Page 5, row 89, I do not think that you excluded everyone > 18 years… Obviously a typo.
-Page 2, row 34, should be prevalence, not incidence.
-Page 4, row 76-79, this sentence is unclear to me.
assistant