Title: Utility of handgrip strength (HGS) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in the
diagnosis of sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients.
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Hsueh-kuan Lu
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded: "We did agree BIA might not predict sarcopenia in unhealthy people
especially when patients were in the state of fluid retention which led to the exclusion criteria of
more than grade 2 ascites in this study. " Why the exclusion clause adopted by the authors was
"Ascites grade >2 by International Ascites Club grading system"? In other words, why were the
authors screening (recruiting) subjects not "Ascites grade >1" or "Ascites grade >3"? Is there any
reference or basis to support the selection? Was the condition "Ascites grade >2" appropriate?
The authors have added "We added term cirrhosis without significant ascites to the conclusion
of the study." to the revised manuscript. How was "without significant ascites" diagnosed? Or
was it subjectively determined by the authors?
If the authors were unable to demonstrate that "the study has recruited subjects who did not
belong to the exclusion group of the BIA instrument," perhaps, the predictable presentation
of the "conclusion" was of course "inaccurate." And that, this research will not be able to see
specific contributions and highlights. If the above can be proved, this research will have a certain
degree of contribution.
Title: Utility of handgrip strength (HGS) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in the
diagnosis of sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients.
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Hsueh-kuan Lu
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded: "We did agree BIA might not predict sarcopenia in unhealthy people
especially when patients were in the state of fluid retention which led to the exclusion criteria of
more than grade 2 ascites in this study. " Why the exclusion clause adopted by the authors was
"Ascites grade >2 by International Ascites Club grading system"? In other words, why were the
authors screening (recruiting) subjects not "Ascites grade >1" or "Ascites grade >3"? Is there any
reference or basis to support the selection? Was the condition "Ascites grade >2" appropriate?
The authors have added "We added term cirrhosis without significant ascites to the conclusion
of the study." to the revised manuscript. How was "without significant ascites" diagnosed? Or
was it subjectively determined by the authors?
If the authors were unable to demonstrate that "the study has recruited subjects who did not
belong to the exclusion group of the BIA instrument," perhaps, the predictable presentation
of the "conclusion" was of course "inaccurate." And that, this research will not be able to see
specific contributions and highlights. If the above can be proved, this research will have a certain
degree of contribution.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Utility of handgrip strength (HGS) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in the
diagnosis of sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients.
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Hsueh-kuan Lu
Reviewer's report:
The authors responded: "We did agree BIA might not predict sarcopenia in unhealthy people
especially when patients were in the state of fluid retention which led to the exclusion criteria of
more than grade 2 ascites in this study. " Why the exclusion clause adopted by the authors was
"Ascites grade >2 by International Ascites Club grading system"? In other words, why were the
authors screening (recruiting) subjects not "Ascites grade >1" or "Ascites grade >3"? Is there any
reference or basis to support the selection? Was the condition "Ascites grade >2" appropriate?
The authors have added "We added term cirrhosis without significant ascites to the conclusion
of the study." to the revised manuscript. How was "without significant ascites" diagnosed? Or
was it subjectively determined by the authors?
If the authors were unable to demonstrate that "the study has recruited subjects who did not
belong to the exclusion group of the BIA instrument," perhaps, the predictable presentation
of the "conclusion" was of course "inaccurate." And that, this research will not be able to see
specific contributions and highlights. If the above can be proved, this research will have a certain
degree of contribution.
assistant