A Comparative and Sex-Specific Study of Bio-Electrical Impedance Analysis and Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Estimating Whole-Body and Segmental Body Composition in Healthy Young Adults

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

I would like to express my gratitude regarding the opportunity to review this manuscript.

It is an interesting study, congratulations, but at this stage still requiring improvements. Below suggestions with line indication:

13 –  Please provide phone number.

14-21 – Please review the journal template and instructions for authors. Not only in these lines but throughout the manuscript.

49-50 – And in other lines. Please review the journal template and instructions for authors (line spacing).

106-118 – Please include and describe inclusion and exclusion criteria.

111-113 – Please describe the conditions (space, temperature, humidity, time of data collection, familiarization?)

120-122 – What was the difference between testing the first and last subject? Circadian effect?

161 – Please indicate statistical power.

188 – Please format table content (example: third and fourth column)

189-190 – Please review the legend.

Please consider reformulating text in results section, namely including text between tables 2 and 3.

203 – Please format the table content aiming better interpretation by the readers (for example last column text). The same in tables 3 and 4.

Tables 2- and 3-lines format is different. Please correct considering the journal template.

Legends format in tables do not seem according to journal template. Please review.

237 – Please review the space in the beginning of the paragraph in this line and throughout the manuscript.

261 – “et al” missing. Please carefully review all the text.

240-266 – Please consider changing the paragraph size, too long for readers. Globally, it is suggested to change the format of the entire discussion section. Paragraphs are too long, there aren't many new bibliographic references (only 28, in total).

304 – Please consider including suggestions for future research.

305 – Please consider make the text of the conclusion section more directed and with take-home messages.

References format should be carefully reviewed and corrected. They are not according to the journal instructions (for example signals after year of publication).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled "A comparative and sex-specific study of bio-electrical impedance analysis ad dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for estimating whole-body, segmental body composition in healthy adults" compared sex-specific outcomes for estimating segmental and whole-composition in 83 healthy subjects using S10 BIA and DXA devices. Their results showed that although there are some significant difference for different parameters measured by the two methods, S10 BIA might be a useful alternative to the NE DXA scanner regarding to leg lean mass in men and whole-body bone mineral density in women. 

1. First of all, the language of this manuscript requires significant improvement. A lot of gramma errors were observed.  

2. Table 2 and 3 contains a lot of data points, it would be very helpful  if the author could supply the table with figures to make direct/more straightforward comparison to present the difference among different groups.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for considering my suggestions and incorporating them into the manuscript. Below some more small suggestions regarding details, with line indication.

14-16 – This content normally is presented in the conclusions section, not before the abstract. Please consider.

154 – Please correct space before unit.

Statistical power description should be incorporated in line 158.

A careful review of the tables content (values) is suggested.

202, 212 & 226 – Please review the format of legends below tables according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

202 and 212 – Please review upper and lowercase in the text. The same in 225.

226 – Please consider formatting the column size, aiming “Men” and “Woman” with the same format.

243 – Although the discussion section improved, some paragraphs continue with few text, compared to others. Please consider standardizing paragraphs size aiming to provide readers with the best conditions to reading and comprehension.

295 – “Wingo [28]” – et al. is missing. Please review all citations´ number and format throughout the manuscript. This is very important.

337 – “ – Please correct.

342 – Please correct, more than one space.

350 – Please review the paragraph size in all references according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

350 – Please carefully review all the references format. For example, refs 20 and 21 format does not seem to be correct. Also, for example, ref 25 title in uppercase and others in lowercase. Please standardize.

A final reading is suggested, with special attention to the English.

Congratulations for the research. Keep up the good work.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER’S COMMENTS TO AUTHOR

Applied sciences

Manuscript ID: applsci-1798252

Manuscript Title: A Comparative and Sex-Specific Study of Bio-electrical Impedance Analysis and Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry for Estimating Whole-Body, Segmental Body Composition in Healthy Young Adults

 

REVIEWER 1

Dear authors, 

Thank you for considering my suggestions and incorporating them into the manuscript. Below some more small suggestions regarding details, with line indication.

 

Thank you for appreciating our efforts in revising our original manuscript as well as providing us with some additional useful comments. All suggestions have been incorporated as much as possible in the second version of the revised manuscript. Please find a detailed description of our changes (which have been highlighted in yellow in the main document), referring to the page and line number(s) in the form of a point-by-point response below.

14-16 – This content normally is presented in the conclusions section, not before the abstract. Please consider.

Thanks for pointing this out again. The content of this section is indeed very similar to that of the conclusion. Therefore, we have decided to leave it out of the manuscript. (p. 1, line 13)

154 – Please correct space before unit.

Thank you for noticing. This has been changed accordingly. (p. 4, lines 150-151)

Statistical power description should be incorporated in line 158.

While we understand that it may be relevant to provide the statistical power to the reviewers during the review process, we feel it is not necessary to include the statistical power in the manuscript. Therefore, we have not included the description of the statistical power in this section.

A careful review of the tables content (values) is suggested.

We have carefully reviewed all the tables accordingly. (p. 4, line 184; p. 5, line 197, p.6 line 207, p. 7, line 222)

202, 212 & 226 – Please review the format of legends below tables according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

202 and 212 – Please review upper and lowercase in the text. The same in 225.

226 – Please consider formatting the column size, aiming “Men” and “Woman” with the same format.

Thank you for these three comments. We have reviewed all tables and adjusted them accordingly. (p. 4, line 184; p. 5, line 197, p.6 line 207, p. 7, line 221-222)

 

243 – Although the discussion section improved, some paragraphs continue with few text, compared to others. Please consider standardizing paragraphs size aiming to provide readers with the best conditions to reading and comprehension. 

We have combined the fourth and fifth paragraph and made some small changes in the text to increase the readability of the manuscript.

295 – “Wingo [28]” – et al. is missing. Please review all citations´ number and format throughout the manuscript. This is very important.

Thank you for noticing. All references have been reviewed accordingly. (p. 10, line 291)

337 – “ – Please correct.

This has been changed accordingly. (p. 11, line 332)

342 – Please correct, more than one space.

This has been updated. Thank you for the comment. (p. 11, line 342)

350 – Please review the paragraph size in all references according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

350 – Please carefully review all the references format. For example, refs 20 and 21 format does not seem to be correct. Also, for example, ref 25 title in uppercase and others in lowercase. Please standardize.

Thank you for these comments. The paragraph sizes as well as the format of the references have been revised and updated. In addition, all titles have been changed to lowercase. It should be noted that ref. 20 is a book and therefore has a different format from the other references. (p. 10-11)

A final reading is suggested, with special attention to the English.

Although we have thoroughly reviewed the previous version of the manuscript and have made the necessary efforts to improve the language, we have gone through the entire manuscript another time.

 

Congratulations for the research. Keep up the good work.

 

Thank you for the kind feedback. Hopefully, our efforts will pay off!