Sensor Positioning Influences the Accuracy of Knee Rom Data of an E-Rehabilitation System: A Preliminary Study with Healthy Subjects
, Christian Bauer 2, Dafne Grimaldo 2, Steffen Tabeling 2, Timo Weber 2, Alexander Ehlert 2, Alexandre H. Mendes 2, Juergen Lorenz 2 and Frank Lampe 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should be commended for this concise and clearly written paper. Although the paper may appear quite simple it is impactful and I can see many clinicians benefiting from this output. Indeed, there are some limitations particularly with the small number of participants. However, this is a preliminary study with a lot of scope for future studies incorporating various patient populations with musculoskeletal and neuromuscular deficits. As a potential rehabilitation tool clinicians would find the outcome of this study very useful and beneficial to their healthcare centres and clinical practices.
There are a few minor spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.
In most sections please refrain from making one sentence paragraphs.
A stronger background supported with a rationale and justification for carrying out the study is needed here. This should build up to possibly highlighting a research question or gap identification in the research. Why is this study important? What's novel about this this study?
Why don't you have a study purpose and hypothesis at the end of your introduction.
Line 60: Spelling 'Preliminary'.
Line 81: Clarity required in the sentence. Change to 'This ensures the progress and recovery of the patient is monitored'.
Good figures. Labe axes in Figure 2.
Line 131: Insert a comma between text ( ...movement, the knee...)
Line 133: Be careful with your abbreviation 'BIOPAC' not 'BIOAC'
Line 203: Insert 'of' in sentence (...regardless of the body composition..)
Line 204: Delete 'visible ' and replace with 'shown'
Author Response
Reviewer #1
The authors would like to thank reviewer #1 for his/her critical feedback, which helped us to improve the manuscript.
There are a few minor spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.
- The authors thank reviewer #1 for the correction tips, which were all implemented.
In most sections please refrain from making one sentence paragraphs.
- Ahead of submission the manuscript was proof read by a native English speaker. We think the paragraphs are written in an understandable way.
A stronger background supported with a rationale and justification for carrying out the study is needed here. This should build up to possibly highlighting a research question or gap identification in the research. Why is this study important? What's novel about this this study?
Why don't you have a study purpose and hypothesis at the end of your introduction.
- We agree with reviewer #1, the rationale for the study was not highlighted in the introduction section of the manuscript. We added a last paragraph to the introduction with the aim of the study. This last paragraph highlights the rationale for carrying out the study.
Line 60: Spelling 'Preliminary'.
- We apology for the typing error that we have corrected now.
Line 81: Clarity required in the sentence. Change to 'This ensures the progress and recovery of the patient is monitored'.
- We have changed the text according to the suggestion of reviewer #1.
Good figures. Labe axes in Figure 2.
- We have labeled the axes of Figure 2 according to the suggestion of reviewer #1.
Line 131: Insert a comma between text ( ...movement, the knee...)
- A comma was added to the sentence according to the suggestion.
Line 133: Be careful with your abbreviation 'BIOPAC' not 'BIOAC'
- Thank you for the hint. The typing error was corrected.
Line 203: Insert 'of' in sentence (...regardless of the body composition..)
- The correction was done according to the suggestion.
Line 204: Delete 'visible ' and replace with 'shown'
- The correction was done according to the suggestion of reviewer #1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Well planned and done. Best wishes.
Please see detailed comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Well planned and done. Best wishes.
The authors would like to thank reviewer #2 for his/her critical feedback.
In the attached pdf-file of the manuscript reviewer #2 made two comments. Both comments concerned the introduction section of the manuscript:
1st comment: We have deleted the words “short term” from the sentence and have added 3 further references to reinforce the importance of physiotherapy and exercise after THA and TKA. The sentence runs now as follows:
“After TKA and THA physiotherapy and exercise lead to improvements in physical function [5-8].”
The three new references added to the manuscript are the following ones:
- Bandholm, T.; Kehlet, H., Physiotherapy exercise after fast-track total hip and knee arthroplasty: time for reconsideration? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 93, (7), 1292-4.
- Di Monaco, M.; Vallero, F.; Tappero, R.; Cavanna, A., Rehabilitation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of controlled trials on physical exercise programs. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009, 45, (3), 303-17.
- Henderson, K. G.; Wallis, J. A.; Snowdon, D. A., Active physiotherapy interventions following total knee arthroplasty in the hospital and inpatient rehabilitation settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy 2018, 104, (1), 25-35.
2nd comment: “(…) seem not to be inferior to standard physiotherapy [12-17].”
Please describe shortly but precisely in which aspects?
- We have added additional information to the sentence. The sentence runs now as follows: “(…) seem not to be inferior to standard physiotherapy in terms of improvements in range of movement and muscle strength, decrease in pain, patient satisfaction and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) [15-20].”
