Next Article in Journal
Vitamin D Status and Health Outcomes in School Children in Northern Ireland: Year One Results from the D-VinCHI Study
Previous Article in Journal
Types and Aspects of Front-of-Package Labeling Preferred by Parents: Insights for Policy Making in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/nu14040801
Review Report
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Impact of Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index and Modified Creatinine Index Combination on Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients

Nutrients 2022, 14(4), 801; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040801
by Hayato Fujioka 1, Tsutomu Koike 1, Teruhiko Imamura 1,*, Fumihiro Tomoda 2, Kota Kakeshita 1, Hidenori Yamazaki 1 and Koichiro Kinugawa 1
Reviewer 1:
Antoine Chatrenet
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nutrients 2022, 14(4), 801; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14040801
Submission received: 20 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 10 February 2022 / Published: 14 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Nutrition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Additional discussion is awaited, especially regarding the different aspect of these two measurements. Interestingly, you showed that the two scale are not parallel. However, you didn’t discuss the reason of these differences, and possibly the different pathophysiological aspect of either measurements.

 

Please use a citation to support the formula, like to Bouillanne O et al., (2005) for GNRI and Arase H et al., (2020) regarding sCr index.  

 

In table 1, please clarify the units. For example, regarding: « Male, % - 98 (53.6) ». The two values are not percentage but a count with the respective percentage. Prefer « Males, n (%) ».

 

For the shake of clarity, the table 3 deserve percentage

 

Line 190 and in the conclusion, the term “aggressive” and the meaning of the sentence should be reworded.

 

An English proofreading is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Concerning reviewed paper I have some serious notes.

  1. In the characteristics of the patients, it is necessary to add the information regarding

the concentration of cholesterol (also the nutritional marker in dialyzed patients) and PTH (secondary hyperthyroidism is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular complications).

  1. It is also worth analyzing the relationship between cholesterol and PTH levels and mortality.
  2. Cholesterol and PTH level should also be used in multivariate analysis models.
  3. It is worth objectively assessing patients' comorbidity (e.g. Charslon index) and fragility score
  4. It seems necessary to evaluate the impact of comorbidity, fragility score on mortality, GNRI and the Modified Creatinine Index Combination values.
  5. Were the patients on a special diet and whether it was assessed at all?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend to add the conclusion :

The prospective study based on bigger population is necessary to confirm the usage the analyzed parameters.

 

 

Back to TopTop