General comments

1. The language needs to be improved with an expert throughout the article to get readability.
2. Title: The title is not self-explanatory and also the type of study is missing in the title.
3. References should be arranged as per the guidelines of the instruction of authors.

Abstract

1. Mention the background of the study stating the disease and its diagnostic procedures.
2. The type of study and randomization procedure is missing.
3. Include the selection criteria of the participants and the study setting.
4. The blinding statement and the statistical test used was missing.
5. In the results part, discuss the outcome variables with p values and their significance.
6. The conclusion is not clearly stated and its clinical significance was not mentioned.

Introduction

1. The introduction is very superficial and not discussed in detail about Diabetes mellitus and its diagnostic procedures.
2. The references [1-7] in the introduction part have to be mentioned separately.
3. Typographical error – mentioned wrongly M’ instead of DM. Page No 1, Line No 6.
4. The relations between DM and OA have to be explained in detail.
5. The specific characters of the population have not been discussed.
6. The statement of the research problem and its need for this study is lagging justification.

Methodology

1. Mention the Institutional ethical approval number and clinical registration number.
2. The acronym of abbreviation AIC has to be mentioned once.
3. The selection criteria for inclusion in the study have to be mentioned in detail
4. The sample size was not calculated.
5. The reliability and validity of the ultrasound device were not indicated.
6. What about the blinding of assessing doctors and participants?
7. Test for measuring sample homogeneity was not mentioned.

Results

1. In the results part, the demographic variables were not analyzed properly.
2. The gender distribution in the study is not equal; hence the sample group may be heterogeneous.
3. The correlation figures and graphs can be added to the results part.
4. Group comparisons were not mentioned in the results part.
5. Make the interpretation through the obtained results.

Discussion

1. The discussion part has to be reframed.
2. The mechanism behind the positive and negative correlation between the factors has to be discussed.
3. The strengths and limitations of this study are missing.
4. Avoid abbreviations when stating the conclusion.
5. Mention the clinical significance and future recommendations of the study.
6. Table-2 should consist of separate values for males and females.