Next Article in Journal
Landslide Displacement Prediction Based on Multivariate LSTM Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Designing an App to Promote Physical Exercise in Sedentary People Using a Day-to-Day Algorithm to Ensure a Healthy Self-Programmed Exercise Training
Previous Article in Journal
Nurse, Give Me the News! Understanding Support for and Opposition to a COVID-19 Health Screening System
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Recreational Swimming Intervention during the Whole School Year Improves Fitness and Cardiometabolic Risk in Children and Adolescents with Overweight and Obesity
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Resistance Exercise Order on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 1165; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021165
by Crisieli M. Tomeleri 1, Paolo M. Cunha 1, Márcia M. Dib 1, Durcelina Schiavoni 1, Witalo Kassiano 1,*, Bruna Costa 1, Denilson C. Teixeira 1, Rafael Deminice 1, Ricardo José Rodrigues 1,2, Danielle Venturini 2, Décio S. Barbosa 2, Cláudia R. Cavaglieri 3, Luís B. Sardinha 4 and Edilson S. Cyrino 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 1165; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021165
Submission received: 22 November 2022 / Revised: 31 December 2022 / Accepted: 6 January 2023 / Published: 9 January 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 40. The sentence does not make sense.  I believe the word "been" could be removed.

Did the authors use any strategies for participants to attend the exercise sessions?

Were there any differences in the groups once the data were compared after the dropouts?  What are the characteristics of the participants that dropped out?  Is an intention to treat analysis appropriate?

Did participants engage in 100% of sessions over the 12-week program?

Line 211 - the word without is misspelled (whithout)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The design of this study is nota appropriate, not enough to be a RCT.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I believe the paper has good scientific soundness and it is relevant.

However, the introduction section must be extended with more previous works to be cited.

Conversely, the Discussion section is a bit long and not easy to read. I would then suggest shortening it more synthetically.

Minor notes are present in the pdf file.

Best Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for following my suggestions. I believe the paper has now been improved. 

Back to TopTop