Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The work concerns a very important problem regarding food consumption in terms of current and distant health of children.

Considering the difficulties in obtaining data on food consumption among young children, I find the work interesting. Methodically, the work raises no objections. The authors used the basic statistical methods to analyze the results, but in the future the results could be developed as nutrition patterns, which would give a broader picture of the problem. It would be good to include the flowchart of the study, which significantly increases the readability of the work.

The work is of great importance in the aspect of social health and can be used to develop preventive programs to improve diet quality of preschool children.

Author Response

We appreciate the enthusiasm from both reviewers. We have re-reviewed the manuscript for language and number consistencies and have made some minor changes.

 

Changes:

Table 1: In the first column we have removed "n (%)" and we have kept "%" when appropriate. Decimals in Tables 1, 2 and 3: In some places we had included the numbers with decimals and other places we had not. We have reviewed the tables to be consistent with decimals. Symbol ±: to be consistent with spaces, we have reviewed that always “±” have a space. References: We have checked all the references, as we have detected that some of them were incomplete.

Reviewer 2 Report

These researchers studied the essential micronutrient intake of a diverse group of children attending 118 FCCH in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. They found that micronutrient density intakes were adequate for the majority of preschoolers enrolled. However, vitamin D, E and K, potassium and sodium are nutrients of concern that should be the target of further scrutiny and intervention to improve diet quality of preschool children cared for in FCCH, especially in the transition from young to older preschool age. They also provided the comments how to improve the diet quality of those cared for in these settings.

This manuscript was well organized and written.

Author Response

We appreciate the enthusiasm from both reviewers. We have re-reviewed the manuscript for language and number consistencies and have made some minor changes.

 

Changes:

Table 1: In the first column we have removed "n (%)" and we have kept "%" when appropriate. Decimals in Tables 1, 2 and 3: In some places we had included the numbers with decimals and other places we had not. We have reviewed the tables to be consistent with decimals. Symbol ±: to be consistent with spaces, we have reviewed that always “±” have a space. References: We have checked all the references, as we have detected that some of them were incomplete.