Physical Exercise Methods and Their Effects on Glycemic Control and Body Composition in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): A Systematic Review
, Cristian MartÃnez Salazar 3, Jorge Flández Valderrama 4, Luis Valenzuela Contreras 5, Carol Flores-Rivera 6 and Rodrigo Vargas-Vitoria 7,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsL-26 “A systematic review without meta-analysis was performed” why don’t using meta-analysis?
L-75. “Theses and dissertations were included, and reviews with or without meta-analysis were excluded.” ? What’s your purpose?
Table 3. Conclusion section should be more concentrated
Conclusions throughout the text should be categorized and summarized in a logical manner. There is a need to critique the strengths and weaknesses of existing research and conclude with your own recommendations.
What do you think is the significance of your research and what are the implications for clinical and diabetes research?
Author Response
Reply letter
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript
Point 1:“A systematic review without meta-analysis was performed” why don’t using meta-analysis?
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, the objective of the study was to analyze the effects of PE methods on glycemic control and body composition of adults with T2DM. In lines 347-349, we have indicated that the absence of a meta-analysis limited the assessment of the results, mainly of findings from comparative studies.
Point 2: “Theses and dissertations were included, and reviews with or without meta-analysis were excluded.” ? What’s your purpose?:
Response 2: Dear Reviewer, all articles included in our research are original and correspond to primary studies, theses and dissertations. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were excluded. Finally, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated. Please revise lines: 74-76.
Point 3: Table 3. Conclusion section should be more concentrated.
Conclusions throughout the text should be categorized and summarized in a logical manner. There is a need to critique the strengths and weaknesses of existing research and conclude with your own recommendations.
What do you think is the significance of your research and what are the implications for clinical and diabetes research?
Response 3: Dear Reviewer, we have removed some phrases and paragraphs from the conclusions. Additionally, we have modified the wording according to what has been indicated. Please revise lines: 351-369
We appreciate all your comments that we believe will improve the quality and insight of our article.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reading the article, I found the information that the authors expressed to be very interesting. However, I have a suggestion.
1. Please put a concrete conclusion and another perspective section
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Reply letter
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript
Point 1: Please put a concrete conclusion and another perspective section
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, we have modified the wording according to what has been indicated. Please revise lines: 351-369
We appreciate all your comments that we believe will improve the quality and insight of our article.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the present study, the authors endeavored to explore the existing literature examining the impact of varying exercise modalities on glycemic control and body composition among adults with T2DM. Their investigation comprised a systematic review of 25 articles, seeking to discern how exercise composition modulates the management of the disease. I have reviewed the manuscript in depth and would like to share the following constructive remarks:
Major Comments:
1. The themes broached in this manuscript may benefit from further novelty to captivate a broader readership.
2. I would counsel the authors to enlarge their search parameters, which might entail considering a wider array of databases. This could potentially yield a more robust pool of articles and, by extension, results with heightened precision.
3. For Table 3, it might be judicious to highlight pivotal studies within the primary text and relegate ancillary details to the supplementary material.
4. In Section 3.2, the narrative could be enriched with a more nuanced linguistic approach that distinctly elucidates the most efficacious methodologies.
5. Within the discussion segment, it would be beneficial to delve into the underlying rationales for the disparities observed across study outcomes, rather than merely cataloging the variant results.
6. The conclusions drawn appear to lack a discernible synthesis derived from the article's analysis.
Minor Comments:
1. Kindly reassess the articulation of the search strategies.
2. On line 138, it would be prudent to elucidate the comprehensive definition of "controlled patients."
3. Pertaining to line 156, it would be constructive to incorporate metrics elucidating the efficacy of IE.
4. A contradiction surfaces between lines 161 and 164. The former suggests ineffectiveness with 1’ intervals, while the latter indicates improved glycemic control under the same conditions. This discrepancy warrants clarification.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Reply letter
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript
Point 1: The themes broached in this manuscript may benefit from further novelty to captivate a broader readership.
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, we have modified the wording according to what has been indicated. Please revise lines: 150-157; 341-345; 351-369.
Point 2: I would counsel the authors to enlarge their search parameters, which might entail considering a wider array of databases. This could potentially yield a more robust pool of articles and, by extension, results with heightened precision.
Response 2: Dear Reviewer, we have indicated among the limitations of this systematic review is the exclusion of other databases, which could have provided useful scientific articles for the analysis. We agree that this could have improved our research.
Point 3: For Table 3, it might be judicious to highlight pivotal studies within the primary text and relegate ancillary details to the supplementary material.
Response 3: Dear Reviewer, we have tried to highlight this point in the results sections (3.2 to 3.7) and discussions.
Point 4: In Section 3.2, the narrative could be enriched with a more nuanced linguistic approach that distinctly elucidates the most efficacious methodologies.
Response 4: Dear Reviewer, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated. Please revise lines: 150-157.
Point 5: Within the discussion segment, it would be beneficial to delve into the underlying rationales for the disparities observed across study outcomes, rather than merely cataloging the variant results.
Response 5: Dear Reviewer, we have included the analysis in the discussions section.
Point 6: The conclusions drawn appear to lack a discernible synthesis derived from the article's analysis
Response 6: Dear Reviewer, we have modified the wording according to what has been indicated. Please revise lines: 351-369
Point 7: Kindly reassess the articulation of the search strategies.
Response 7: Dear Reviewer, this is indicated as a limitation of the study. Please revise lines: 346-347.
Point 8: On line 138, it would be prudent to elucidate the comprehensive definition of "controlled patients."
Response 8: Dear Reviewer, we have modified the wording according to what has been indicated. Please revise lines: 139-140.
Point 9: Pertaining to line 156, it would be constructive to incorporate metrics elucidating the efficacy of IE.
Response 9: Dear Reviewer, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated. Please revise lines: 173-174.
Point 10: A contradiction surfaces between lines 161 and 164. The former suggests ineffectiveness with 1’ intervals, while the latter indicates improved glycemic control under the same conditions. This discrepancy warrants clarification.
Response 10: Dear Reviewer, we have modified the wording according to what has been indicated. Please revise lines: 180-182
We appreciate all your comments that we believe will improve the quality and insight of our article.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper aimed to seek scientifically the efficiency of Physical Exercise Methods and their Effects on Glycemic Control and Body Composition in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).
The introduction is readable and well-prepared. On the whole, the paper is interesting and novel. Some points should be explained/corrected:
- Why did authors restrict their search to PubMed? There are other databases to perform their search
Author Response
Reviewer 4:
Reply letter
Dear Reviewer 4,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript
Point 1: Why did authors restrict their search to PubMed? There are other databases to perform their search.
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, we have indicated among the limitations of this systematic review is the exclusion of other databases, which could have provided useful scientific articles for the analysis. We agree that this could have improved our research. This point seems very important to us therefore we will use your suggestion in future research.
We appreciate all your comments that we believe will improve the quality and insight of our article.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review is well written, organized, and presented. The concerns are as follows:
· Some designations that are then relied on to drawn interpretations are confusing.
o IE interventions here all appear to be AE. — suggest instead referring to AE and RE as overarching headings of exercise type, with IE or continuous exercise being a subcategory of the AE.
o “High-intensity” shouldn’t be used unless it is a high % of VO2max. ex: ref 11 is not high intensity. It is high % of peak walking speed
o Moreover, using ref 11 as the example again —it sound like the expectation is to see changes in body composition if effective. Short term models <2 weeks are used to limit changes in fitness and body composition. —suggest ensuring these short-term models aren’t lumped into a discussion with respect to body composition results.
o In general, while the study table is clearly laid out. Suggest a careful re-checking of data to ensure accurate presentation, as well as statements regarding body composition changes.
Minor
· “PE” appears in the abstract without being defined. (not defined until the end of the Intro)
· “intervallic” is not the typical term — suggest revising to use simply “interval” (as already appears in the Tables)
· In section 3.4: the use of a 3‘ intervals and 1’intervals is also not typical.— suggest revising to use 3 minute etc. or whatever is meant by the ‘.
· Ln 218-220 set up that there is a controversy, yet there are no articles cited.
Author Response
Reviewer 5:
Reply letter
Dear Reviewer 5,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript
Point 1: IE interventions here all appear to be AE. — suggest instead referring to AE and RE as overarching headings of exercise type, with IE or continuous exercise being a subcategory of the AE.
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, we agree with this comment, that is why we have classified the physical exercise methods in table 2.
Point 2: “High-intensity” shouldn’t be used unless it is a high % of VO2max. ex: ref 11 is not high intensity. It is high % of peak walking speed.
Response 2: Dear Reviewer, we have modified the table according to what has been indicated.
Point 3: Moreover, using ref 11 as the example again —it sound like the expectation is to see changes in body composition if effective. Short term models <2 weeks are used to limit changes in fitness and body composition. —suggest ensuring these short-term models aren’t lumped into a discussion with respect to body composition results.
Response 3: Dear Reviewer, we have modified the wording according to what has been indicated. Please revise lines: 232-233.
Point 4: In general, while the study table is clearly laid out. Suggest a careful re-checking of data to ensure accurate presentation, as well as statements regarding body composition changes.
Response 4: Dear Reviewer, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated. Please check line: 174
Point 5: “PE” appears in the abstract without being defined. (not defined until the end of the Intro)
Response 5: Dear Reviewer, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated. Please check line: 24
Point 6: intervallic” is not the typical term — suggest revising to use simply “interval” (as already appears in the Tables)
Response 6: Dear Reviewer, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated.
Point 7: In section 3.4: the use of a 3‘ intervals and 1’intervals is also not typical.— suggest revising to use 3 minute etc. or whatever is meant by the
Response 7: Dear Reviewer, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated.
Point 8: Ln 218-220 set up that there is a controversy, yet there are no articles cited.
Response 8: Dear Reviewer, we have reviewed and corrected what you have indicated. Please check line: 244
We appreciate all your comments that we believe will improve the quality and insight of our article.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has answered and addressed my concerns
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revision has improved the manuscript.
