Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1)The protocol is perfectly written according to the standard check list . I'd like the AA to justify the use of JBI quality checklist instead of NOS or STROBE checklists frequently recomended in methodological literature.

2) heterogeneity: i agree that stratification for possible confounding variables, study design included, is necessary. I suggest, if more than 10 papers wil be available, to take into account the use of a metaregression

Author Response

1. “The protocol is perfectly written according to the standard check list. I'd like the AA to justify the use of JBI quality checklist instead of NOS or STROBE checklists frequently recommended in methodological literature”.

1.1. Our response: We are grateful for your willingness to review our manuscript and for providing some insightful comments and thought-provoking. Indeed, many guidelines are proposed for the assessment of the methodological quality of observational studies, as Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and STROBE. However, these tools were not considered appropriate for assessing the quality of studies specifically of prevalence data, justified by the nature of the data that will be extracted, it requires different quality criteria (doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054). Moreover, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is a reputed institute specialized in the development of critical appraisal tools to assess the methodological quality and guidance for conducting systematic reviews of various methods.

2. “Heterogeneity: I agree that stratification for possible confounding variables, study design included, is necessary. I suggest, if more than 10 papers wil be available, to take into account the use of a metaregression”.

2.1 Our response: Thank you for the important suggestion. We will be paying attention to this during the conduct of the review and will be conducting metaregression when necessary. The details are described below.

MODIFICATIONS

Methods section

Text added in line 185-186: “Besides, in case of heterogeneity in the included studies, we will perform sensitive analysis or meta-regression to explore potential sources”.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors attempt to summarize the evidence of the prevalence of osteoporosis in adult people with CKD. they will perform a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and LI LACS databases, without date or language restrictions from inception until January 2021. They will include cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies that report prevalence data of osteoporosis in adults aged ≥18 years with CKD in stages 3a-5, including those receiving kidney replacement therapies. The qualitative and quantitative results will be synthesized and presented in tables, figures or graphs. In general, this protocol is well written and provides a structural and contextual understanding for the connection between CKD and osteoporosis, as well as the theories. This is a thoroughly prepared protocol, which may deserve publication after minor revision.

 

Some comments and suggestions:

1. I would only ask the authors (in accordance with the rules of writing reviews) to add to the article a figure with information about what scientific databases will be reviewed, what keywords will be adopted and what are the criteria for including and excluding articles for review. If the authors deem it possible, it would also be good to keep a space for how many articles will be found in the databases, how many are rejected and how many are eventually included in the review.
2. In the abstract, the full name of CKD should be listed when it is first mentioned.

Author Response

1. “I would only ask the authors (in accordance with the rules of writing reviews) to add to the article a figure with information about what scientific databases will be reviewed, what keywords will be adopted and what are the criteria for including and excluding articles for review. If the authors deem it possible, it would also be good to keep a space for how many articles will be found in the databases, how many are rejected and how many are eventually included in the review”.

1.2. “In the abstract, the full name of CKD should be listed when it is first mentioned”.

• Our response: We are grateful for the careful reading of our manuscript. Your suggestion is attractive, however, all solicited information were already added in the methodology section. Also, it is stated that we will use the PRISMA flow diagram to document the screening process, therefore, we believe it is not necessary to insert a new figure per instance in the manuscript. Moreover, the search terms are provided in Appendix 1.
• Thank you for noticing this little misunderstanding. The authors did the correction, detailed below.

MODIFICATIONS

Abstract section

Text added in line 17: “Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)”.