Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Early Experience Analyzing Dietary Intake Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey—Nutrition Using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Method

Nutrients 2019, 11(8), 1908; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081908

by Karelyn A. Davis¹, Alejandro Gonzalez², Lidia Loukine², Cunye Qiao¹, Alireza Sadeghpour¹, Michel Vigneault¹, Kuan Chiao Wang¹ and Dominique Ibañez^1,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Nutrients 2019, 11(8), 1908; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081908

Submission received: 18 April 2019 / Revised: 1 August 2019 / Accepted: 9 August 2019 / Published: 15 August 2019

(This article belongs to the Special Issue National Nutrition and Health Surveys, a Platform for Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Nutrients, ID: nutrients-498780

Title: Early experience analyzing dietary intake data from the Canadian Community Health Survey - Nutrition using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) method

Overall

The article is on aspects of analyzing intake data, which is an always interesting as well as important topic.

Overall I find the article interesting and well written, however readability could be improved. Regard my below comments as suggestions for making the text more accessible for the readers.

The text contains many abbreviations and for readers not fully into the area they are hard to remember and relate to although the letter combinations are explained in the text. I suggest a list of abbreviations to make the reading easier.

Abstract

The abstract is good, but may be improved by less details. Make it shorter and draw the big lines.

Introduction

Very good. May improve the whole paper by including a list of abbreviations (se above)

Objective

Focus more on the objective. Also the research questions should be in this paragraph – now they are written in the Material and Methods-paragraph. Ie questions regarding Choice of models, Covariates, Pooling vs Stratification, Outliers and Computation time.

Material and Methods

See above regarding research questions. The choice of macros (MIXTRAN and DISTRIB) might be described.

Results

This paragraph is extremely hard to read if the reader do not keep track of all abbreviations, a list would be very helpful. Check tables so they are all get the same fonts and text sizes.

Discussion

The text is good, but too short. Please add more to make the reader understand. Also a discussion of more results in comparison to more references would be interesting.

Conclusion

The reference to updating a compendium on intake does not belong to the conclusion and should be removed to the discussion. If using suggested research questions, these should be answered in the conclusion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting paper, which is well written, but perhaps has limited audience value.

I have a few queries:

Please try to put each table on a separate page with headings if it overlaps on to two pages. Some of the larger tables might be presented in landscape.

It would be interesting to know how the amounts of folates per group meet the RDI. I know its not the remit of the paper but would be of interest to people using the study.

I am concerned with the addition of two data sets (2004 and 2015) to meet the sample size. Surely this would add other risks of bias - hiding differences in eating patterns between the years??

Author Response

Please see the attachment