Title: Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on the prevention of sarcopenia in
menopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Version: 1 Date: 08 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations to the authors for conducting this systematic review, I have few comments to
make about the article. Below are the suggestions made and questions I had while reading.
INTRODUCTION:
There is not a good connection between the first two lines of the paragraph, which contains the
definition of sarcopenia, with what is written ahead. Therefore, I suggest that this definition be
added after the sentence on line 65: “These factors contribute to the loss of muscle mass and
strength”
I miss references after the sentences in lines 85-86 and 88.
The acronym IU appears several times in the text, but I don't see the meaning. What exactly
would be UI?
Method:
Is it necessary to repeat “meta-analysis” in “This systematic review and meta-analysis systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.”?
In an excerpt from the introduction, the authors state that there is inconclusive evidence on the
subject in menopausal women, and considering this, the aim of the study was to evaluate non-
pharmacological interventions in menopausal women aged 40-60 years. Therefore, I did not
understand why the terms chosen in relation to menopause are based only on the menopausal
transition period and perimenopause.
Results:
The excerpt from lines 265-267, which brings the reason for the exclusion of the articles, could
be removed, in my opinion, in order to reduce the number of characters and the duplication of
information, since the same information already exists in figure 01.
As a suggestion, information such as the years of publication of articles can be removed, as it
is already in table 01.
Discussion:
The discussion contemplates all the points highlighted in the results, however, I think it is worth
thinking about two important topics that may perhaps explain the lack of significance of their
findings:
1. An important point that was discussed is about the intervention time, however, I see that
the results of this study are in line with what was seen in Nascimento et al, However, when
reading the cited reference, it is not clear the age range of the population. Therefore, I suggest
using a reference that has made comparisons in women with the same age group as the
population studied in your article, especially with regard to younger women, who have different
impairments than older women.
2. Within the limitations of the study, it may be important to mention once again the lack of
studies with this age group, thus strengthening the reason why this study is important. In addition,
I saw that the authors used in the discussion many studies with elderly women (over 60 years
old) to justify some of their results. One suggestion would be to search the literature for studies
with a similar age range.
3. Another doubt I had while reading the discussion was whether studies were considered in
which postmenopausal women were using hormone replacement therapy, which can influence
the improvement of the musculoskeletal system.
Sometimes it says randomiZation and at other times randomiSation...standardize writing.
There are no comments regarding the conclusion or clinical implications.