Sedentary Time, Physical Activity, and Sleep Duration: Associations with Body Composition in Fibromyalgia. The Al-Andalus Project
, Alberto Soriano-Maldonado 3,4, Milkana Borges-Cosic 1,2, Virginia A. Aparicio 5, Manuel Delgado-Fernández 1,2 and VÃctor Segura-Jiménez 6,7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached document for comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper, well written and well structured. The authors explored associations between physical activity, sedentary time and sleep duration and body composition in people with fibromyalgia.
I would like to provide the following comments:
In the Discussion section (lines 207 – 208), the authors wrote:
‘Unfortunately, the present results cannot be compared to those of other studies in patients with fibromyalgia: the literature contains no such reports.’ If this is the case, thier study is filling a research gap, which should be flagged in the Introduction section.
On line 66, they mentioned that ‘ST, PA and sleep are co-dependent behaviours’, but this was not discussed in the Discussion section. It would be valuable to have a discussion about the potential of using compositional data analysis (CoDA) approaches to deal with this co-dependency in the future. In Section 2.1, please clarify when the study data were collected. Could you please add a sentence to explain why patients were excluded if they were >65 years old? Could you add a sentence to explain why 9 days of data were collected but only 7 days of data were used, please? Could you please explain in the paper what individual and independent associations are, so that a lay person could understand? The sentence on lines 206-207 is a repeat from the paragraph above it. There is a typo on line 64: ‘Inadequate sleep duration has been also been connected …’.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I praise the authors for their thorough and open approach to the initial review. I have some relatively minor comments that remain.
Line 48- inadequate is still not appropriate, unfavourable as used in subsequent lines is acceptable.
Line 122- as well as defining the accelerometer cut point for sedentary time you should clarify that this is irrespective of postural information.
Line 201 and table – Age is still expressed to 1 decimal place, this should be expressed as a whole number.
Line 335 – The lack of energy intake information is the biggest weakness of this work – yet this limitation is buried in the section on limitations. It should be given greater prominence within this section and the authors should consider including measurement of this aspect as a future direction in the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
