REVIEWER COMMENT: 1.
Abstract: The abstract should be more
structured and concise. Unnecessary headings such as
"Background/objective," "Conclusion," "Results," and "Methods"
should be removed. Additionally, it is advisable to omit p-values, e.g.,
"(p<0.001)."
Author´s response: Thanks for your comment. The summary has been
modified based on your suggestions.
REVIEWER COMMENT: 2. Introduction: The introduction should briefly
situate the study within a broader context, emphasizing its relevance
and significance. The purpose and value of the research should be
clearly articulated. Given the limited existing literature, I suggest
discussing the findings of other authors and organizing them in a
comprehensive manner.
Author´s response: We appreciate your comment. A paragraph has
been included in the introduction section that shows the importance
of the research due to the lack of information on a single study that
encompasses all the variables mentioned. However, if you think we
should modify or add something more specific, please let us know.
REVIEWER COMMENT: 3.Originality: The article needs to underscore
the unique contributions and originality of the study.
Author´s response: We appreciate your comment. In this sense, the
originality and novelty of the study for the scientific field has been
included in the discussion.
REVIEWER COMMENT: 4. Language and Consistency: Please review
the manuscript carefully, as there are sentences written in Spanish.
For instance: "En cambio, los odds ratio de sufrir high cholesterol
(p=0.360) y thyroid problems (p=0.856) de las personas con dicha
situación económica adversa no fueron significativos."
Author´s response: Fixed, sorry for the mistake. We appreciate your
comment.
REVIEWER COMMENT: 5. Methodological Limitations: Clearly
outlining the methodological limitations will enhance the transparency
of the study and improve its replicability.
Author´s response: We have added a section on the limitations of this
study in the discussion section to allow a better interpretation of the
results of the present investigation. We truly appreciate your
comment.
REVIEWER COMMENT: 6. Relevance to Existing Literature: The study
should clearly articulate what it adds to the existing body of research
and how it advances current understanding beyond what has already
been investigated.
Author´s response: Thank you for your comment, the relevance of our
study to the literature provided has been included in the discussion
section.
REVIEWER COMMENT: 7. Future Research: The article should
propose directions for future studies, outlining how subsequent
research can build on the current findings and contribute to the
continuity of the investigation.
Author´s response: Thank you very much for your feedback. As a
result, we have included some guidelines for future studies in the
discussion section.
