Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01677-w (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Epidemiological Survey to Determine the Prevalence of
Cholecystolithiasis in Uyghur, Kazakh, and Han Ethnic Groups in the Xinjiang
Uyghur Autonomous Region of China- 
cross-sectional studies
Version: 
4 
Date: 
26 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revision, the manuscript improved in my point of view.
I still have some comments though:
Results:
2.2.1: Thank you for adding more information to the text. But please provide a
table with baseline characteristics to this results part and refer to it in the text.
All results are presented by ethnic groups and nobody can draw conclusions
without being able to look back at this mandatory information. To be clearer,
here a suggestive template (see attachment):
2.2.7 There is no need to explain the meaning of OR values in the text. If you
want to bring it, put it in foot notes under the respective tables. In the text it
reads weird. 
Discussion:
"We previously [13] found that the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables
was a protective factor against cholecystolithiasis": Please add that it was the
same ethnic groups you were investigating.
"Southern Xinjiang is dominated by Uyghurs and has more solar radiation,
higher temperatures, less rainfall, and experience more drought conditions than
northern Xinjiang. Northern Xinjiang is dominated by Kazakhs and has less solar
radiation, lower temperatures, more rainfall, and more humidity than southern
Xinjiang." You could shorten this part as follows
"Southern Xinjiang is dominated by Uyghurs and has more solar radiation,
higher temperatures, less rainfall, and experience more drought conditions than
northern Xinjiang, which is dominated by Kazakhs."
"According to the World Health Organization recommendations for weight
classifications for Asians [19], BMI was classified as follows: normal range,
18.5-22.9 kg/cm2 ; normal, >23 kg/cm2 ; overweight, 23-24.9 kg/cm2 ; obese,
25-29.9 kg/cm2 ; and extremely obese, ≥30 kg/cm2 ."
Thank you for clarifying, but this part belongs in the methods, part 2.1.2.
"Owing to the low income of the ethnic minorities we studied, many smokers
smoked only small amounts, which may have affected the results of the analysis.
Weight was measured by weighing instruments of different medical units, which
may have varied; however, it did not vary much. Finally, many factors affecting
cholecystolithiasis were not included in this study; therefore, further studied are
necessary."
I would delete the part with the income, it is a speculation. If you have
information about the income, add it to the table 1 I suggested. 
"it did not vary much" is a very vague statement. Can you support this with some
numbers of accuracy? 
There is a typo in the sentence.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes