Title: Sarcopenia Is Associated with Prognosis in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell
Cancer after Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy
Version: 4 Date: 19 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Response to the comments
The authors have addressed the changes requested in the previous review.
Changes in the manuscript
The authors have highlighted the changes in the manuscript in red, which are clearly visible.
Overall impression of the revised manuscript
The manuscript has been improved and is suitable for publication, after extensive English
editing.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The definition of sarcopenia used is not an actual definition, even though it has been used in
a previously published study. The authors should state that this is simply a measure of muscle
mass that is used to identify sarcopenia in the absence of tests of physical function and muscle
strength.
Although the contents of the article have been improved, it still requires extensive editing
to improve written expression and formatting throughout before it would be suitable for
publication."
Title: Sarcopenia Is Associated with Prognosis in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell
Cancer after Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy
Version: 4 Date: 19 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Response to the comments
The authors have addressed the changes requested in the previous review.
Changes in the manuscript
The authors have highlighted the changes in the manuscript in red, which are clearly visible.
Overall impression of the revised manuscript
The manuscript has been improved and is suitable for publication, after extensive English
editing.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The definition of sarcopenia used is not an actual definition, even though it has been used in
a previously published study. The authors should state that this is simply a measure of muscle
mass that is used to identify sarcopenia in the absence of tests of physical function and muscle
strength.
Although the contents of the article have been improved, it still requires extensive editing
to improve written expression and formatting throughout before it would be suitable for
publication."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Sarcopenia Is Associated with Prognosis in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell
Cancer after Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy
Version: 4 Date: 19 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Response to the comments
The authors have addressed the changes requested in the previous review.
Changes in the manuscript
The authors have highlighted the changes in the manuscript in red, which are clearly visible.
Overall impression of the revised manuscript
The manuscript has been improved and is suitable for publication, after extensive English
editing.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The definition of sarcopenia used is not an actual definition, even though it has been used in
a previously published study. The authors should state that this is simply a measure of muscle
mass that is used to identify sarcopenia in the absence of tests of physical function and muscle
strength.
Although the contents of the article have been improved, it still requires extensive editing
to improve written expression and formatting throughout before it would be suitable for
publication."
assistant