All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
There are no further comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
My previous suggestions have beej adressed.
N/A
N/A
No additional comment
No additional comment
No additional comment
Better explanations about the statistical methods and revisions of the figures presenting the main results are needed.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Sarcopenia is linked to nutritional status and nutritional intervention in HD patients was found to result in increases in muscle mass already. Just alike, nutritional status is considered to have a significant effect on muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance.
As per text of this paper I have no significant objections, but_ I think a funnel chart in figure 4 is unnecessary, and as per figs. 6 & 7 – individual effect sizes should be removed, I think that for occasion of publication, forest plots are ok with year & weight only. Additional misgiving is – why are “mean differences” plotted? High P-value and low I2might indicate a problematic sampling (Z values are fine, so the authors are making good point).
As per text of this paper I have no significant objections, but_ I think a funnel chart in figure 4 is unnecessary, and as per figs. 6 & 7 – individual effect sizes should be removed, I think that for occasion of publication, forest plots are ok with year & weight only. Additional misgiving is – why are “mean differences” plotted? High P-value and low I2might indicate a problematic sampling (Z values are fine, so the authors are making good point).
n/a
n/a
The manuscript is well-written and clear. I have only one minor suggestion.
Line 37: “However, the improvement caused by RE on hemoglobin and 38 cholesterol levels was not statistically significant.”
--- Recommend reporting actual numbers for these outcomes, as with the rest of the Results section of the abstract. It would be informative for readers as to the numeric improvement caused by RE.
None
None
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.