After carefully reviewing the article, I would like to point out that the results appear to have been exaggerated to present the findings as more significant than they actually are. While the study shows some improvement in certain parameters, these changes are largely marginal and not statistically significant across most measures.

As such, the results do not justify the overly positive tone in the conclusions.

The rationale for selecting patients using two or more drugs is justified. However, it is unclear why some participants were using GLP-1 agonists while others were not. The authors should clarify the reasons for this variation.

Additionally, why were newer and more potent antidiabetic agents not included in the study?

No mention of ethics approval was provided. Did the authors have any ethics committee approval for the protocol? Were informed consents obtained from participants? Was the study conducted according to the Helsinki Declaration?

The authors should clearly state the limitations of the DM-SAT tool and explain how these limitations could affect the results and their interpretation.

The conclusion is overly exaggerated. The results showed slight improvements that were not significant across most of the measured parameters. The conclusion should more clearly and accurately reflect the findings.

The authors claimed that the participants represent the US population, which is also an overstatement. Given the small sample size and the limited ethnic diversity of the participants, this claim should be reconsidered or removed.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were not clearly listed. The authors should provide a detailed explanation of these criteria.

The authors need to justify the number of participants recruited. What was the rationale behind the sample size? Was a sample size calculation conducted?