Get help from the best in academic writing.

[Revision] Chronic Effect of Citrulline supplementation on Aerobic Performance: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Show moreLatest revision comment[March 31, 2022 09:29] Please, work in the file ‘to revise’ and amend the following:

1) Aim and RQ2 are the same – rewrite, add ROs

2) The chief assumption of the researcher in this study was that chronic and acute ingestion of l-citrulline improves the aerobic performance… – unclear what this paragraph is, assumptions, purpose, and significance are mentioned – organise it properly as per the provided documents

3) Philosophy, method etc are not needed for SLRs, research design would be enough, remove them and focus on results (see further for details)

Pare and Kitsiou (2017) note that contentions arise continuously over whether SLR and meta analysis are qualitative or quantitative studies – meta analysis is quantitative

4.1) Fir eligibility criteria

Studies published between 1990 and 2022 – there are no such old studies in the work

Relevant peer-reviewed scholarly articles were selected because contained critiqued, moderated and verifiable findings. – rationale is provided only here

4.2) Data analysis is incorrect, not cited

The qualitative data were analysed using a meta-synthesis strategy while the quantitative articles were analysed based on a meta-analysis

The scope delimitations of this study were adults and aerobic performance aspects. – unclear

5) PRISMA states that 13 studies were picked for each SLR and meta analysis, total = 26

Results present Matrix that has only 13 quantitative studies and Figure 4: Descriptive statistics of study findings, where the amount is 16

There are also two studies under one category? So 14 – Trexler et al., 2019/Trexler et al., 2020

Fix this by first picking the correct amount of sources and adjusting all tables

6) Analysis is absent (results specifically), the content is not critical, barely any visual representation to support the findings are present (only the figure mentioned above) – rewrite the whole chapter

7) Quality of Studies and Bias Assessment – move this to method and elaborate a bit, cite this too

8) Qualitative analysis seems to be absent (see above) – you need to adjust and provide it

9) Rewrite discussion after all of the above is done

10) Provided documents mentioned that eligibility criteria should be PICO – amend

11) Add CASP

Please, review the initial files and adjust the work, any improvements necessary are welcome