Title: Association Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, and Physical Fitness of Female
College Students in China
Version: 0 Date: 07 Oct 2022
Reviewer:  Emmanuel Biracyaza
Reviewer's report:
Report
Dear authors,
The studies on the « Association Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, and Physical
Fitness of Female College Students » not only in developped and developed countries are frankly
needed, that is why I thank you for this interesting study in which you conducted in the area
which has still concerns in public health domains. So, I believe that this manuscript is of great
interest to the topic. However, to be a publication in BMC women’s Health, the manuscript must
pass a large number of adjustments and improvements.
1. The abstract needs some improvement becasue its results and conclusion sections are too long.
For the methods; please, include the information about analysis.
2. Overall, the manuscript needs to be reported in accordance with the items of the STROBE
checklist (http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home).
3. The paragraphs of background also still some improvements. First, I suggest that the
background needs further literature about « Association Between Physical Activity, Sedentary
Time, and Physical Fitness of Female College Students » in developped countries and try to
compare them with China.
Some parts needs the references. For example; on page 4; the sentence « Given the importance
of PF, most countries have established their own PF measurement systems, such as the
FITNESSGRAM in the United States, EUROFIT in Europe, and the CNSPFT in China ».
4. The objectives written in the abstract and in introduction are not similar. The Authors need to
adjust. In addition; you can replace the word « to explore » by one of the following terms « to
determine, or examine or assess » because your study is quantitative not qualitative. The term
explore or understand are often used in qualitative study design.
5. About the recommendation of physical activity for health, I suggest the authors use the WHO
publication.
6. About the methods section; there are some missing parts such as study deisign, study
participants (inclusion and exclusion criteria), study settings, data collection. Also, the first
paragraph of methods should be the last paragrapgh of methods with the subheading of ethics. In
the ethics; was the study conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration? If ues, please,
include it in this part and remember to provide some information about confidentiality, assent
or consent forms.
In methods, you also used some psychometric instruments such as IPAQ-SF and CNSPFT.
It is recommended to administer the validated instrument in that population. So, provide the
psychometric properties of these instruments (ex. internal Cronbach) and remember to include
the references for each instrument.
In the analysis, you said that you computed independent sample t-test to compare the items;
which assumptions did you respect? I think that this statistical analysis is used to compare the
means of the groups. More clarifications are needed.
7. About the discussion, an important observation. The manuscript shows evidence that have
been evaluated in different parts of the world. To improve the discussion I suggest that you can
compared your results to the similar studies conducted in HICs and LMICs.
8. Some abbreviates need to be written in full before writing them in abbreviations. Example;
SPSS on page 16,  FITNESSGRAM and EUROFIT on page 4. Indeed, in all the tables where
you indicated (1) and (reference); please, use one of them. I can recommend you to use 1.
9. Some references need to be improved. For example; the reference 1 needs the link to access
it; reference 17 and 54 should be in English rather than the other language that can complicate
the readers. I think you can provide their translation since you generally used English.