Title: The self-care behaviors and health literacy can play important preventive roles in older
female osteoporosis
Version: 8 Date: 14 Jun 2023
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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: I have carefully reviewed the article, and I must express my
disappointment with the authors' response to my previous comments, particularly regarding the
statistical power calculation.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have carefully reviewed your article, and I must express my disappointment with the authors'
response to my previous comments, particularly regarding the statistical power calculation. The
calculation has become even more complicated and appears rather illogical, with the introduction
of two formulas. Furthermore, it seems that the calculation was performed retrospectively,
especially using the new formula, which raises concerns from a scientific integrity standpoint.
One major issue I would like to address is the lack of explanation for the symbols used in the
older formula, as previously mentionned. It is crucial for readers to have a clear understanding
of the variables and their significance in the context of the calculation. I strongly recommend
either providing a thorough explanation of the symbols or considering the removal of this portion
altogether. Indeed, it would be beneficial to acknowledge that this study was exploratory in
nature and that the sample size was determined based on alternative criteria, such as pragmatic
considerations, without relying on precise calculations.
I kindly request that you thoroughly revise the section on statistical power calculation, taking
into account the following suggestions:
- Clearly define and explain all symbols used in both the old and new formulas.
- Justify the use of retrospective calculations and provide a strong scientific rationale for utilizing
the new formula.
- If the statistical power calculation remains ambiguous or overly complex, consider removing
this section entirely and clearly state that the study was exploratory in nature, with the sample
size determined based on other criteria.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No