Weekend Variation in Ultra-Processed Food Intake of Patients after Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper does not present new evidence. It reproduces known data of the general population in a specific population of obese patients. It would be nice to present any conclusions that can be used in daily practice and might be able to improve patient outcome. Apart from that, it would have been interesting to focus some questions of the used questionnaire on the reasons, why nutrition composition is wore on weekends. General limitations are the self-reporting design of the study and how patients were recruited, which does not resample a cross section of the post bariatric population.

Nevertheless the study focuses on the fact, how important dietary composition in the treatment of obesity is and that there might be a difference in behavior between weekdays and weekends.

Author Response

Comment from the reviewer: The paper does not present new evidence. It reproduces known data of the general population in a specific population of obese patients. It would be nice to present any conclusions that can be used in daily practice and might be able to improve patient outcome. Apart from that, it would have been interesting to focus some questions of the used questionnaire on the reasons, why nutrition composition is wore on weekends. General limitations are the self-reporting design of the study and how patients were recruited, which does not resample a cross section of the post bariatric population. Nevertheless the study focuses on the fact, how important dietary composition in the treatment of obesity is and that there might be a difference in behavior between weekdays and weekends.

Author's response: We appreciate your comments. We have amended the text to include the relevance of these findings in daily practice and directions for future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the review of the article.

Dietary behavior in patients after bariatric surgery is an extremely interesting topic. All the more interesting because it can provide answers to the question about the results of bariatric treatment after procedures performed on people treated for obesity.

 

I have certain suggestions to make to enhance the quality of the manuscript:

Abstract - avoid abreviation, avoid comas in numbers (eg. 50,3%)

Introduction - it is necessary to expand each newly appearing abbreviation.

Aim - is clear explein

Material and methods - good described

Results - very well and explanatory described, tables help with understending topic

Discusion - should be significantly expanded

Conslusions - should be rewritten to better meet the stated work objectives

References - citing works older than 10 years is frowned upon, and works written more than 20 years ago should not be cited unless these works are groundbreaking in the development of the topic

 

 

Author Response

COmment 1: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the review of the article. Dietary behavior in patients after bariatric surgery is an extremely interesting topic. All the more interesting because it can provide answers to the question about the results of bariatric treatment after procedures performed on people treated for obesity. I have certain suggestions to make to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Authors response: Thank you for your thorough review.

Comment 2: Abstract - avoid abreviation, avoid comas in numbers (eg. 50,3%)

Author's response:  We have corrected and checked the entire abstract for possible similar errors.

Comment 3: Introduction - it is necessary to expand each newly appearing abbreviation.

Author's response: We apologize for this error. We proofread all abbreviations throughout the manuscript. 

Comment 4: Aim - is clear explein

Author's response:  Thank you.

Comment 5: Material and methods - good described

Author's response: Thank you for your comment.

Comment 6: Results - very well and explanatory described, tables help with understending topic

Author's response: We're happy with your comment.

Comment 7: Discusion - should be significantly expanded

Author's response: We have expanded the discussion section.

Comment 8: Conclusions - should be rewritten to better meet the stated work objectives

Author's response: We have altered the conclusion so that it better meets the objectives of our study.

Comment 9: References - citing works older than 10 years is frowned upon, and works written more than 20 years ago should not be cited unless these works are groundbreaking in the development of the topic

Author's response: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed and replaced older references with more current ones.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form