Comment on “Acute Sarcopenia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Its Incidence and Muscle Parameter Shifts During Hospitalisation” by Aldrich et al.

IF 9.4 1区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Paulo Eugênio Silva, Gerson Cipriano Jr
{"title":"Comment on “Acute Sarcopenia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Its Incidence and Muscle Parameter Shifts During Hospitalisation” by Aldrich et al.","authors":"Paulo Eugênio Silva,&nbsp;Gerson Cipriano Jr","doi":"10.1002/jcsm.13767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We are writing to address a misrepresentation of our study, Silva et al. [<span>1</span>], in the recently published article titled ‘Acute Sarcopenia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Its Incidence and Muscle Parameter Shifts During Hospitalisation’ [<span>2</span>]. Specifically, the authors state on page 11 that Silva et al. [<span>1</span>] did not measure knee extension strength. This statement is incorrect.</p><p>In our study, knee extension strength was assessed using a dynamometer to measure peak force evoked by neuromuscular electrical stimulation. This methodology was a fundamental part of our research design and is thoroughly detailed in the published manuscript [<span>1</span>] as well as in other related manuscripts [<span>3, 4</span>]. Please refer to Figure 1 and method section below described.</p><p>Methods section from Silva et al. 2019 [<span>1</span>].</p><p>Additionally, we would like to clarify a discrepancy regarding the sample size reported for our study. The correct sample size was 60 participants (Figure 2), not 30 as might be inferred from the tables and figures in our manuscript, specifically Figures 1 and 2.</p><p>It appears that the authors may have considered only the control group, but this is not explicitly stated. It is important for readers to have accurate information about the study design and sample size to properly interpret the findings.</p><p>We kindly request that these inaccuracies be addressed to ensure the integrity of the scientific record and to prevent potential misinterpretations by readers and researchers relying on this review.</p><p>The authors have nothing to report.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":48911,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle","volume":"16 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcsm.13767","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcsm.13767","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We are writing to address a misrepresentation of our study, Silva et al. [1], in the recently published article titled ‘Acute Sarcopenia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Its Incidence and Muscle Parameter Shifts During Hospitalisation’ [2]. Specifically, the authors state on page 11 that Silva et al. [1] did not measure knee extension strength. This statement is incorrect.

In our study, knee extension strength was assessed using a dynamometer to measure peak force evoked by neuromuscular electrical stimulation. This methodology was a fundamental part of our research design and is thoroughly detailed in the published manuscript [1] as well as in other related manuscripts [3, 4]. Please refer to Figure 1 and method section below described.

Methods section from Silva et al. 2019 [1].

Additionally, we would like to clarify a discrepancy regarding the sample size reported for our study. The correct sample size was 60 participants (Figure 2), not 30 as might be inferred from the tables and figures in our manuscript, specifically Figures 1 and 2.

It appears that the authors may have considered only the control group, but this is not explicitly stated. It is important for readers to have accurate information about the study design and sample size to properly interpret the findings.

We kindly request that these inaccuracies be addressed to ensure the integrity of the scientific record and to prevent potential misinterpretations by readers and researchers relying on this review.

The authors have nothing to report.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle
Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
12.40%
发文量
234
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle is a peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to publishing materials related to cachexia and sarcopenia, as well as body composition and its physiological and pathophysiological changes across the lifespan and in response to various illnesses from all fields of life sciences. The journal aims to provide a reliable resource for professionals interested in related research or involved in the clinical care of affected patients, such as those suffering from AIDS, cancer, chronic heart failure, chronic lung disease, liver cirrhosis, chronic kidney failure, rheumatoid arthritis, or sepsis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信