Relationship between Eye Frailty and Physical, Social, and Psychological/Cognitive Weaknesses among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Japan
, Masahiro Ishizaka 1, Yoshikazu Uchikawa 2, Yoshiaki Takahashi 3, Takahiro Niida 2, Tamaki Hirose 1, Akihiro Ito 1, Akihiro Yakabi 1, Yoshiaki Endo 1, Yohei Sawaya 1, Tatsuya Igawa 1, Kaoru Kobayashi 1, Tsuyoshi Hara 1, Miyoko Watanabe 1, Akira Kubo 1 and Tomohiko Urano 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their time and effort to review this manuscript. Please consider the attached manuscript that has been revised according to the reviews. Response to each reviewer's comments follows the attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I congratulate the authors for an interesting study and a new approach of frailty. Eye frailty is a less known concept and the tools for its diagnose less known.
The introduction is extensive, with relevant information.
In materials and methods section
- the new proposed tool (questionnaire) - i cannot find the explanation for determining frailty; on which score / questions we consider a person with eye frailty? Please elaborate
In results section, the data is extensively described, with relevant tables.
In discussion section please accentuate the fact that the results are only on female population. It can only be speculate on men. There are some normal physiological differences between men and women and the results may differ.
The bibliography may benefit from some more updated data.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their time and effort to review this manuscript. Please consider the attached manuscript that has been revised according to the reviews. Response to each reviewer's comments follows the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors' responses and the changes that have been made are satisfatory.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our paper.
We believe that the quality of our paper has improved thanks to your kind remarks.
In the abstract, there was no mention of women being included in the analysis.
We have corrected a part of the abstract as follows
Please check it.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
