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.
Thank you for revising your manuscript to address the reviewers' concerns. Reviewer 1 now recommends acceptance and I am also satisfied with the revisions you have made in response to the earlier comments of reviewer 2. The manuscript is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors,
I have carefully reviewed your detailed responses and the revised manuscript. I am pleased to note that all the points raised in my initial review have been addressed comprehensively and with rigor.
The abstract has been reformulated to include relevant statistical values, abbreviations are now correctly defined and used consistently, and the introduction has been enriched with the most updated diagnostic criteria (EWGSOP2 and GLIS), appropriately framing the knowledge gaps your study aims to address.
Methodological clarifications, including the rationale for selecting the study region, sampling procedures, operational definitions, and detailed descriptions of measurements, have strengthened the reproducibility of the work. Furthermore, the statistical analysis section is now complete, with a clear explanation of tests used, confounding control, and model fit assessments.
The discussion section has been improved to critically interpret findings in the context of the existing literature, emphasizing both clinical significance and limitations. The justification for the study is now clearly articulated, highlighting its novelty and contribution to filling a gap in Malaysian epidemiological data on sarcopenia using updated AWGS 2019 criteria and multifrequency BIA.
Overall, the manuscript now demonstrates methodological robustness, scientific clarity, and relevance to the field. I am satisfied with the revisions and agree with the corrections and explanations provided.
Recommendation: I advise the acceptance of this manuscript for publication in its current form.
Kind regards,
.
.
.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript addresses an important topic in the field of aging and sarcopenia; however, it requires major revision before it can be considered for publication. The abstract should be reformulated to include relevant statistical values that reflect the magnitude of the findings, which are crucial for immediate understanding. Additionally, abbreviations must be properly defined at their first appearance and used consistently throughout the text.
The introduction does not sufficiently contextualize the study within the existing literature. It should better frame the problem and highlight the current knowledge gaps. References to the most updated diagnostic criteria, such as the EWGSOP2 (2019) and the Global Leadership Initiative on Sarcopenia (GLIS), are missing and must be incorporated. Moreover, the hypothesis and the specific rationale for conducting the study in the Selangor population need to be clearly stated.
The discussion section tends to repeat results rather than critically analyze them. It should be simplified, more focused, and linked to comparable findings in the existing literature. The clinical significance of the results must be emphasized, and study limitations—such as gender representation and the cross-sectional design—should be discussed more thoroughly.
The methods section requires significant improvement to meet reporting standards. Some information currently included in the methods, such as the rationale for selecting the study region, should instead be placed in the introduction. A detailed description of all procedures used to assess anthropometry, physical performance, and sarcopenia diagnosis is necessary.
The description of the statistical analysis is currently incomplete. The manuscript must clearly state the statistical tests employed, how confounding variables were managed, and what criteria were used for inclusion in the analyses. Without these details, the reproducibility and reliability of the findings cannot be adequately assessed.
As currently presented, the validity of the findings is limited by methodological shortcomings. The absence of detailed information about the statistical approach, confounding control, and clear operationalization of diagnostic criteria weakens the strength of the conclusions. Furthermore, the terminology used for sarcopenia should be updated to "confirmed sarcopenia" to align with contemporary standards and avoid misinterpretation.
The discussion does not critically interpret the findings against the backdrop of existing literature, which further undermines the perceived impact of the results. Addressing these issues is crucial to enhance the credibility and scientific value of the manuscript.
Although the topic of sarcopenia is highly relevant, the scientific contribution of the study does not appear sufficiently novel in its current form. The authors should work on reinforcing the justification for the study and clearly articulate the added value it provides to the existing body of knowledge.
In summary, the manuscript requires substantial revisions across all sections. Improvements in structure, methodological rigor, critical interpretation, and scientific contextualization are necessary. I encourage the authors to carefully address these points to enhance the quality and impact of their work. I look forward to reviewing a revised version that reflects these improvements.
1. The section is written in mostly clear and professional English. However, there are several minor grammatical issues and typographical errors that need correction to enhance clarity and readability.
2. The background provides sufficient context, including the rising burden of sarcopenia and the lack of population-level studies in Malaysia. However, more references to previous studies—particularly those using AWGS 2019 criteria in any studies in Malaysia—would help strengthen the rationale for the study.
1. Provide age range as part of methodology
2. The Kish grid use is a strength, but the process could be more clearly articulated for reproducibility and provide references
3. Clarify whether validated Bahasa Malaysia versions of the instruments (GDS, ADL, IADL, GPAQ) were used, and whether any cultural adaptation was required and provide references
4. Must state AWGS cut point used in the section: "diagnosis of sarcopenia"
5. State whether any covariates or confounders were adjusted for in the models in statistical analysis
1. The flow and structure of the results section can be improved by using clearer subheadings or visual separators for each risk category (e.g., 3.1 Possible Sarcopenia – Risk Factors, 3.2 Sarcopenia – Risk Factors, etc.) as some transitions between results are abrupt and lack contextual linkage.
2. The authors report adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values, suggesting a robust multivariable logistic regression analysis. However, model diagnostics (e.g., multicollinearity checks, goodness-of-fit statistics) are not mentioned. These should be reported or referenced to assure readers of model adequacy.
3. The results section is too long, I suggest the authors to amend
4. The authors should avoid stating the results from this study in the Discussion section
5. Much of the content repeats numbers and outcomes already shown in tables, sometimes without offering new interpretation or synthesis.
6. The discussion sections jumps between topics — from prevalence, to risk factors, to consequences (falls, dependency) — without clear subheadings or logical order.
7. Most paragraphs describe results without much depth or critical thought. For example, “respondents with primary education or less were identified as a risk factor for severe sarcopenia” is repeated without further exploration.
1. There are recurrent grammar issues
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.