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.
Authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments and manuscript is ready for publication.
The quality is good enough that the authors preserve the main characteristics of the manuscript throughout the review process.
It has been enhanced with the changes implemented by the authors.
Their results have been good validated through the review process.
In the opinion of this reviewer can be published in its current form.
No further comments.
No further comments.
No further comments.
Thanks for submitting. Please review the reviewers' comments carefully and address all their points. R2 has provided their review in their attached PDF
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The manuscript is clear and concise. The language is professional and easy to understand. The scientific background in the introduction section is enough to understand the basic principles of BIA, body composition, phase angle, and its relationship with health and disease status in different clinical scenarios.
The references and articles cited are of good quality and have a recent scientific basis, which permits the support of the findings presented by the authors.
In general terms, the manuscript presents relevant, clinically applicable, and essential data.
The methodologic design is well presented and adequately delimits the population and selection of research subjects. The authors show respect for ethical and scientific guidelines and describe in a comprehensive way the statistical issues implicated in the analysis of data and their interpretation.
The authors realize and exercise analysis and data contrast with other authors and similar health conditions, explaining to the reader the importance of their findings, giving excellent scientific support to the presented information, and how they interpreted the statistical results.
It is an excellent way to present the problem to be investigated and the results. The only comment is that authors can enhance the comprehension of the paper if they describe the way to get subrogate variables as Phase Angle in the material and methods section instead of the discussion section.
See review report
See review report
See review report
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.