Use of Sample Entropy to Assess Sub-Maximal Physical Load for Avoiding Exercise-Induced Cardiac Fatigue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1. The authors have done a good analysis of classic studies, but the reference list contains few sources from the last 5 years. It is recommended to update the data and add recent studies.

2.            It is recommended to improve the structure of materials and methods section.

3.            Is the sample size of 30 people sufficient? How was the sample size determined?

4.            It is recommended to expand the information about the persons included in the study. What were the inclusion criteria? What was the age of the patients? Were they patients or healthy volunteers? What medical conditions did the patients have? Were they athletes? Were they smokers?

 

5.            Why were other more advanced methods of assessing clinical data not used, including echocardiography? These data could have been evaluated at the beginning of the study, including when describing the clinical characteristics of the patients. Were patients given spirometry? Was physical activity monitored with ECG monitoring? Were rhythm and conduction abnormalities detected during the experiment?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Thank You for opportunity to revise  manuscript  entitled “Use of sample entropy to assess sub-maximal physical load for 2 avoiding exercise-induced cardiac fatigue”

Manuscript is very interesting, however authors should considered following comments:

1.Introduction is too long. Four pages are definitely too much. Introduction should be more concise (max pages).

2. Results. Authors should add number of subjects into columns (Table 1). Authors divided subjects into 3 groups, however the number of participants is very small. There is limitation of the study.

3.Results. In table 3 authors presented Pearson correlation analysis. Did all parameters have normal distribution?

4. Discussion should be shortened, without tables. Please transfer tables into Results paragraph. This is not  PhD thesis.

Line 428-430 should be rewritten. Authors should mention the other papers, instead of put in into brackets only. This suggestion refers to all discussion paragraph.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made changes to the article that improved its quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for Your Response. In My opinion the introduction paragraph is still to long. It should be more concise. Please delete figures from discussion section

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no additional comments