Next Article in Journal
The Use of Samsung Health and ECG M-Trace Base II Applications for the Assessment of Exercise Tolerance in the Secondary Prevention in Patients after Ischemic Stroke
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of the COVID-19 Italian Lockdown on the Physiological and Psychological Well-Being of Children with Fragile X Syndrome and Their Families
Article
Peer-Review Record

Functional Constipation and Anorexia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study (KFACS)

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(11), 5754; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18115754
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Nadim Haboubi
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(11), 5754; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18115754
Received: 24 March 2021 / Revised: 21 May 2021 / Accepted: 24 May 2021 / Published: 27 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Aging)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction should be based a little more to place the context of the investigation and the state of the question The conclusions should indicate the specific contribution of this study compared to other research and improvement actions. Indicate the ethical issues in relation to the anomization of the participants and the ethical procedure or protocol (Declaration of Helsinki, etc.)

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with your recommendations. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is properly designed and the study is scientifically sound.  It is a longitudinal study involving many Centres.  The tools that have been used to assess anorexia and cognition and bowel habits, are perfectly validated and appropriate.  The statistical analyses are clear and easy to understand.  I have no hesitation in accepting this study for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for this interesting work. I only have a few minor suggestions:

 

Line 75: Specify and explain the questionnaire mentioned.

Line 91: can you be more clear about what difficulty of giving opinion entailed and how it was measured?

Figure 1: add the date to the follow-up  2018?

Line 99: should general be generally or in general?

Line 132: was there a questionnaire used to acquire the weekly activities that was then sed to determine METs?

Section 2.4: What were the methods of the clinical factors? For example the blood draws (fasting? Equipment?). Can you organize it as Sociodemographic factors then Clinical factors (so they are separate)?

Section 2.5: Were assumptions of the models checked?

Line 155: should specify the direction of the p value – example: statistical significance was determined as a p < 0.05.

Lines 159-161: can you add some of the data numbers here?

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with your recommendations. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop