Title: Mapping of rehabilitation interventions and assessment methods for patients with liver
cirrhosis: A scoping review
Version: 1 Date: 07 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The objective of this scoping review was to map existing evidence and elucidate the detailed
intervention content and assessment methods based on FITT principles for exercise therapy
among patients with liver cirrhosis. This review has merit but needs major revisions before it is
published. The authors provide a strong background for why this review is needed. However,
the authors are suggested to provide more details regarding the methods (e.g., eligibility criteria,
study selection, etc.) and the results section (e.g., results of individual studies). The PRISMA
checklist is also missing. The discussion section is generally fine, but you may need to provide
more information about the limitations in terms of the evidence included in the review and the
review processes used.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
- Please indicate clearly the exact date for the electronic database search.
- It’s better to remove the key terms used for the electronic database search.
- How many participants from the 13 included studies in total should be mentioned.
- How prevalent is the combined aerobic exercise and strength training across the included
studies? Please state clearly the proportion.
- How common the assessment criteria were used? Please clearly specify the percentages.
Introduction:
- Full terms for “FITT” should be stated as it firstly appears.
Materials and methods:
- What scoping review methodology was followed? The authors used the PRISMA-SCr
reporting framework, but this is not a method, rather a flowsheet for reporting results. Common
methods include Arksey-O'Malley and the JBI. A more detailed description of the methods
should be given, and a reference to the framework used (or an explanation as to why a framework
was not used)
- It would be better to provide more information regarding the eligibility criteria (this can be
modified according to the PICO-SD [Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcomes, Study
Design] framework).
- Again, please specify the electronic database search date.
- Please justify why only two databases were used.
- Also, did you refer to previous studies regarding the search terms used for the electronic
database search? It seems the search terms used are too limited. I am afraid many potentially
eligible studies would have been missing.
- How to resolve the disagreements among reviewers if they have inconsistent views, for
example, the results of initial screening and full-text assessment?
- To ensure the breadth of coverage of the subject matter, did you hand-search the reference lists
of the included studies or some relevant systematic/scoping reviews?
- Please provide the PRISMA checklist for scoping review. Please also check if the required
parts of the checklist can be found.
Results
- What were the key findings of the included studies? Please add a summary paragraph to report
the findings of the included studies.
- If there were no effects of the rehab programs, there was nothing important to report the
intervention regimens or dosages in terms of the FITT principle. May you please revise the
intervention FITT based on only the studies which showed significant effects?
Discussion:
- The discussion is generally fine. For the limitations, please discuss: (1) any limitations of the
evidence included in the review, and (2) any limitations of the review processes used.
Title: Mapping of rehabilitation interventions and assessment methods for patients with liver
cirrhosis: A scoping review
Version: 1 Date: 07 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The objective of this scoping review was to map existing evidence and elucidate the detailed
intervention content and assessment methods based on FITT principles for exercise therapy
among patients with liver cirrhosis. This review has merit but needs major revisions before it is
published. The authors provide a strong background for why this review is needed. However,
the authors are suggested to provide more details regarding the methods (e.g., eligibility criteria,
study selection, etc.) and the results section (e.g., results of individual studies). The PRISMA
checklist is also missing. The discussion section is generally fine, but you may need to provide
more information about the limitations in terms of the evidence included in the review and the
review processes used.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
- Please indicate clearly the exact date for the electronic database search.
- It’s better to remove the key terms used for the electronic database search.
- How many participants from the 13 included studies in total should be mentioned.
- How prevalent is the combined aerobic exercise and strength training across the included
studies? Please state clearly the proportion.
- How common the assessment criteria were used? Please clearly specify the percentages.
Introduction:
- Full terms for “FITT” should be stated as it firstly appears.
Materials and methods:
- What scoping review methodology was followed? The authors used the PRISMA-SCr
reporting framework, but this is not a method, rather a flowsheet for reporting results. Common
methods include Arksey-O'Malley and the JBI. A more detailed description of the methods
should be given, and a reference to the framework used (or an explanation as to why a framework
was not used)
- It would be better to provide more information regarding the eligibility criteria (this can be
modified according to the PICO-SD [Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcomes, Study
Design] framework).
- Again, please specify the electronic database search date.
- Please justify why only two databases were used.
- Also, did you refer to previous studies regarding the search terms used for the electronic
database search? It seems the search terms used are too limited. I am afraid many potentially
eligible studies would have been missing.
- How to resolve the disagreements among reviewers if they have inconsistent views, for
example, the results of initial screening and full-text assessment?
- To ensure the breadth of coverage of the subject matter, did you hand-search the reference lists
of the included studies or some relevant systematic/scoping reviews?
- Please provide the PRISMA checklist for scoping review. Please also check if the required
parts of the checklist can be found.
Results
- What were the key findings of the included studies? Please add a summary paragraph to report
the findings of the included studies.
- If there were no effects of the rehab programs, there was nothing important to report the
intervention regimens or dosages in terms of the FITT principle. May you please revise the
intervention FITT based on only the studies which showed significant effects?
Discussion:
- The discussion is generally fine. For the limitations, please discuss: (1) any limitations of the
evidence included in the review, and (2) any limitations of the review processes used.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Mapping of rehabilitation interventions and assessment methods for patients with liver
cirrhosis: A scoping review
Version: 1 Date: 07 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The objective of this scoping review was to map existing evidence and elucidate the detailed
intervention content and assessment methods based on FITT principles for exercise therapy
among patients with liver cirrhosis. This review has merit but needs major revisions before it is
published. The authors provide a strong background for why this review is needed. However,
the authors are suggested to provide more details regarding the methods (e.g., eligibility criteria,
study selection, etc.) and the results section (e.g., results of individual studies). The PRISMA
checklist is also missing. The discussion section is generally fine, but you may need to provide
more information about the limitations in terms of the evidence included in the review and the
review processes used.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
- Please indicate clearly the exact date for the electronic database search.
- It’s better to remove the key terms used for the electronic database search.
- How many participants from the 13 included studies in total should be mentioned.
- How prevalent is the combined aerobic exercise and strength training across the included
studies? Please state clearly the proportion.
- How common the assessment criteria were used? Please clearly specify the percentages.
Introduction:
- Full terms for “FITT” should be stated as it firstly appears.
Materials and methods:
- What scoping review methodology was followed? The authors used the PRISMA-SCr
reporting framework, but this is not a method, rather a flowsheet for reporting results. Common
methods include Arksey-O'Malley and the JBI. A more detailed description of the methods
should be given, and a reference to the framework used (or an explanation as to why a framework
was not used)
- It would be better to provide more information regarding the eligibility criteria (this can be
modified according to the PICO-SD [Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcomes, Study
Design] framework).
- Again, please specify the electronic database search date.
- Please justify why only two databases were used.
- Also, did you refer to previous studies regarding the search terms used for the electronic
database search? It seems the search terms used are too limited. I am afraid many potentially
eligible studies would have been missing.
- How to resolve the disagreements among reviewers if they have inconsistent views, for
example, the results of initial screening and full-text assessment?
- To ensure the breadth of coverage of the subject matter, did you hand-search the reference lists
of the included studies or some relevant systematic/scoping reviews?
- Please provide the PRISMA checklist for scoping review. Please also check if the required
parts of the checklist can be found.
Results
- What were the key findings of the included studies? Please add a summary paragraph to report
the findings of the included studies.
- If there were no effects of the rehab programs, there was nothing important to report the
intervention regimens or dosages in terms of the FITT principle. May you please revise the
intervention FITT based on only the studies which showed significant effects?
Discussion:
- The discussion is generally fine. For the limitations, please discuss: (1) any limitations of the
evidence included in the review, and (2) any limitations of the review processes used.
assistant