Reviewer's report
Title:Associations of Cardiorespiratory Fitness with Cardiovascular Disease Risk
Factors in Middle-aged Chinese Women: A Cross-sectional Study
Version:1Date:12 March 2014
Reviewer: G. William Lyerly
Reviewer's report:
To the authors:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
General Comments:
1. The authors state a slightly different purpose in the Introduction than in the
Discussion. In the Introduction, the purpose is aimed at a comprehensive CVD
risk factor profile, while the Discussion’s purpose is aimed at several CVD risk
factors. The manuscript does give a brief reason why the authors chose the three
main risk factors, but this was done later in the discussion and never addresses
the risk factor of Prediabetes. The purpose needs to accurately reflect what was
done in the manuscript and the rationale needs to be explained in the
Introduction, not solely in the discussion.
Abstract:
1. Results Section: In the last sentence, the authors state that ST depression and
QT interval was higher in women with low CRF, but do not state which other
category (moderate or high) these results were compared. Also, the authors did
not provide a p-value as they did for other results presented in this section.
Please clarify.
Methods:
1. Page 5 (CVD Risk factor measurement section): The authors state two
different methods for measuring blood pressure, one using AHA guidelines and
one using a volume-plethysmographic apparatus. Please clarify which method
was used to determine the BP values used for data analysis, as one method
used an upright-seated position and the other used a supine position. Also,
clarify the procedure for measuring BP (i.e., how many measures were taken,
were reported values an average or highest recorded value, etc.).
2. Page 5 (CVD Risk factor measurement section): The authors state that “Kit
production manufactured by Beijing Lead-man….were used for testing.” Please
clarify which measures this was used to test, as other measures are stated
above with their respective methods.
Results:
1. Page 8: paragraph one: The authors state there were differences in total
weekly PA energy expenditure among the three groups and then state, later in
the same paragraph, differences also existed between the high and low CRF
group for total weekly PA. The authors only state in the methodology that total
weekly PA was being measured and how it was measures. The term “total
weekly PA energy expenditure” seems to be a different measure using the PA
information collected that “total weekly PA.” Please clarify the differences
between “total weekly PA energy expenditure” and “total weekly PA.” How were
each calculated and explain how one can have different results than the other.
2. Page 8: paragraph one: The authors state there were differences in total
weekly PA energy expenditure among the three groups, but do not state in which
order (i.e., H>M>L?). Please clarify which group experienced the greatest
differences.
Minor Essential Revisions:
General Comments:
1. There minor grammatical/spelling issues that need a final proofing in addition
to the comments below.
Methods:
1. Page 6: Exercise Test section: second paragraph: Please clarify which RPE
scale was used (6-20 or 1-10).
Results:
1. Page 9: last paragraph: The authors state “The QTC interval…..lower potential
incidence of MI in high fitness groups.” It is unclear if this difference was only
between the low and high CRF groups or between the low and collectively the
moderate and high CRF groups. Please clarify.
Tables:
1. Please fit all tables on one page. Currently, the table legends continue onto a
second page. If this is due to the journal, I am making the same comment to the
editor.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.