Title: Association between weight-adjusted-waist index and gallstones: an analysis of the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Version: 3 Date: 15 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you so much for the great work you have done in preparing the revised version.
Below are a few reviews for your consideration.
Under the legend for Fig 2, the authors wrote,
“Figure 2 Density dose-response relationship between WWI with gallstone prevalence. 95%
confidence interval (Cl) is displayed for the region between the upper and lower dashed lines.
All covariates were adjusted.”
Comment
The authors may consider revising “All covariates were adjusted.” as “Adjusting for all
covariates” for clarity.
Under Table 1 legend, the authors wrote,
“Mean ± SD for continuous variables: P value was calculated by weighted linear regression
model.
% for categorical variables: P value was calculated by weighted chi-square test.
PIR, income-to-poverty ratio; WWI, weight-adjusted-waist index.”
Comment
The authors may consider adding the frequency counts alongside the percentages for categorical
variables, e.g. n (%) instead of only (%).
Under covariates subsection, the authors wrote,
“Dietary data were transformed into categorical variables, with the 50th percentile of the sample
size as the cut-off threshold, dividing them into “low” and “high” categories. Missing data in
the covariates were categorized as “unclear”.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer median thresholds instead of tertiles or other approaches?
Under statistical analysis subsection, the authors wrote,
“We converted the variable “sedentary time” into a categorical variable, dividing it into three
groups based on sample size.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer thresholds based on sample size instead of tertiles or other
approaches?
Generally, why are some variables dichotomized based on the 50th percentile while others have
3 or 4 categories?
Under the results’ subsection, the authors wrote,
“WWI was 11.56 (10.80, 12.32) in the group of participants with gallstones, compared to 11.07
(10.21, 11.93) in the group without gallstones.”
Comment
The authors may consider presenting the statistical significance here.
Under the results subsection, the authors wrote,
“Table 2 shows the association between WWI and gallstones prevalence. In the unadjusted
model, a higher WWI was connected with increased prevalence of gallstones (OR = 1.98, 95%
CI:1.81–2.17).”
Comment
The word “connected” may not be the best to express the intended message. The authors May
consider using the expression "related to" or "linked to" or “associated with” or any other
expression.
Under discussion, the authors wrote,
“Meanwhile, there was no significant dependence of gender, diabetes, sedentary activity, or
hypertension on the correlation, suggesting that higher levels of WWI may contribute to a higher
gallstones incidence”
Comment
The authors may consider cross-checking the expression “gallstones incidence” to confirm
whether that is the intended expression.
Title: Association between weight-adjusted-waist index and gallstones: an analysis of the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Version: 3 Date: 15 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you so much for the great work you have done in preparing the revised version.
Below are a few reviews for your consideration.
Under the legend for Fig 2, the authors wrote,
“Figure 2 Density dose-response relationship between WWI with gallstone prevalence. 95%
confidence interval (Cl) is displayed for the region between the upper and lower dashed lines.
All covariates were adjusted.”
Comment
The authors may consider revising “All covariates were adjusted.” as “Adjusting for all
covariates” for clarity.
Under Table 1 legend, the authors wrote,
“Mean ± SD for continuous variables: P value was calculated by weighted linear regression
model.
% for categorical variables: P value was calculated by weighted chi-square test.
PIR, income-to-poverty ratio; WWI, weight-adjusted-waist index.”
Comment
The authors may consider adding the frequency counts alongside the percentages for categorical
variables, e.g. n (%) instead of only (%).
Under covariates subsection, the authors wrote,
“Dietary data were transformed into categorical variables, with the 50th percentile of the sample
size as the cut-off threshold, dividing them into “low” and “high” categories. Missing data in
the covariates were categorized as “unclear”.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer median thresholds instead of tertiles or other approaches?
Under statistical analysis subsection, the authors wrote,
“We converted the variable “sedentary time” into a categorical variable, dividing it into three
groups based on sample size.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer thresholds based on sample size instead of tertiles or other
approaches?
Generally, why are some variables dichotomized based on the 50th percentile while others have
3 or 4 categories?
Under the results’ subsection, the authors wrote,
“WWI was 11.56 (10.80, 12.32) in the group of participants with gallstones, compared to 11.07
(10.21, 11.93) in the group without gallstones.”
Comment
The authors may consider presenting the statistical significance here.
Under the results subsection, the authors wrote,
“Table 2 shows the association between WWI and gallstones prevalence. In the unadjusted
model, a higher WWI was connected with increased prevalence of gallstones (OR = 1.98, 95%
CI:1.81–2.17).”
Comment
The word “connected” may not be the best to express the intended message. The authors May
consider using the expression "related to" or "linked to" or “associated with” or any other
expression.
Under discussion, the authors wrote,
“Meanwhile, there was no significant dependence of gender, diabetes, sedentary activity, or
hypertension on the correlation, suggesting that higher levels of WWI may contribute to a higher
gallstones incidence”
Comment
The authors may consider cross-checking the expression “gallstones incidence” to confirm
whether that is the intended expression.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Association between weight-adjusted-waist index and gallstones: an analysis of the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Version: 3 Date: 15 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you so much for the great work you have done in preparing the revised version.
Below are a few reviews for your consideration.
Under the legend for Fig 2, the authors wrote,
“Figure 2 Density dose-response relationship between WWI with gallstone prevalence. 95%
confidence interval (Cl) is displayed for the region between the upper and lower dashed lines.
All covariates were adjusted.”
Comment
The authors may consider revising “All covariates were adjusted.” as “Adjusting for all
covariates” for clarity.
Under Table 1 legend, the authors wrote,
“Mean ± SD for continuous variables: P value was calculated by weighted linear regression
model.
% for categorical variables: P value was calculated by weighted chi-square test.
PIR, income-to-poverty ratio; WWI, weight-adjusted-waist index.”
Comment
The authors may consider adding the frequency counts alongside the percentages for categorical
variables, e.g. n (%) instead of only (%).
Under covariates subsection, the authors wrote,
“Dietary data were transformed into categorical variables, with the 50th percentile of the sample
size as the cut-off threshold, dividing them into “low” and “high” categories. Missing data in
the covariates were categorized as “unclear”.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer median thresholds instead of tertiles or other approaches?
Under statistical analysis subsection, the authors wrote,
“We converted the variable “sedentary time” into a categorical variable, dividing it into three
groups based on sample size.”
Comment
Why did the authors prefer thresholds based on sample size instead of tertiles or other
approaches?
Generally, why are some variables dichotomized based on the 50th percentile while others have
3 or 4 categories?
Under the results’ subsection, the authors wrote,
“WWI was 11.56 (10.80, 12.32) in the group of participants with gallstones, compared to 11.07
(10.21, 11.93) in the group without gallstones.”
Comment
The authors may consider presenting the statistical significance here.
Under the results subsection, the authors wrote,
“Table 2 shows the association between WWI and gallstones prevalence. In the unadjusted
model, a higher WWI was connected with increased prevalence of gallstones (OR = 1.98, 95%
CI:1.81–2.17).”
Comment
The word “connected” may not be the best to express the intended message. The authors May
consider using the expression "related to" or "linked to" or “associated with” or any other
expression.
Under discussion, the authors wrote,
“Meanwhile, there was no significant dependence of gender, diabetes, sedentary activity, or
hypertension on the correlation, suggesting that higher levels of WWI may contribute to a higher
gallstones incidence”
Comment
The authors may consider cross-checking the expression “gallstones incidence” to confirm
whether that is the intended expression.
assistant