Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 4 Date: 27 Mar 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics 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: The authors have addressed most of my comments. However, there
are some remaining issues.
1. The statistical model is still problematic. The removal of energy intake is not reasonable. In
nutritional epidemiological studies, adjustment for energy intake is commonly used. I suggest
the adjustment for energy, fat and fiber intake in the model.
2. In the results and method sections, it was mentioned that a weighted generalized additive
model (GAM) was used to assess the non-linear association. However, in the rebuttal, the authors
mentioned using RCS instead of GAM. Please revise the text.
3. The new Figure 2 did not show a significant negative correlation but a trend of inverse
association. Figure 2 legend is not informative. What are the variables adjusted? What is the p-
value? Is it p for the overall trend?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Minor revision is needed.
Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 4 Date: 27 Mar 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics 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: The authors have addressed most of my comments. However, there
are some remaining issues.
1. The statistical model is still problematic. The removal of energy intake is not reasonable. In
nutritional epidemiological studies, adjustment for energy intake is commonly used. I suggest
the adjustment for energy, fat and fiber intake in the model.
2. In the results and method sections, it was mentioned that a weighted generalized additive
model (GAM) was used to assess the non-linear association. However, in the rebuttal, the authors
mentioned using RCS instead of GAM. Please revise the text.
3. The new Figure 2 did not show a significant negative correlation but a trend of inverse
association. Figure 2 legend is not informative. What are the variables adjusted? What is the p-
value? Is it p for the overall trend?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Minor revision is needed.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The association between dietary vitamin B1 intake and constipation: a population-based
study
Version: 4 Date: 27 Mar 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics 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: The authors have addressed most of my comments. However, there
are some remaining issues.
1. The statistical model is still problematic. The removal of energy intake is not reasonable. In
nutritional epidemiological studies, adjustment for energy intake is commonly used. I suggest
the adjustment for energy, fat and fiber intake in the model.
2. In the results and method sections, it was mentioned that a weighted generalized additive
model (GAM) was used to assess the non-linear association. However, in the rebuttal, the authors
mentioned using RCS instead of GAM. Please revise the text.
3. The new Figure 2 did not show a significant negative correlation but a trend of inverse
association. Figure 2 legend is not informative. What are the variables adjusted? What is the p-
value? Is it p for the overall trend?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Minor revision is needed.
assistant