Using Homemade Pressure Device to Improve Plantar Pressure—A Case Study on the Patient with Lower Limb Lymphedema

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The study presents the results of original research.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. It would be convenient to review the bibliography so that it is in accordance with the regulations of the journal.

Author Response

Many thanks for the positive support for the manuscript.  To make a better shape of the manuscript, we did rewrite the whole article and make the article in accordance with the regulations of the journal.

 

Other efforts to make the manuscript better shape are described as the following:

1. We have strengthened the correctness and grammar checking of English writing in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers.
2. We rewrote the entire section in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewer, especially adding a few references about lower extremity swelling. In addition, in terms of the motivation and purpose of this article, we have further revised and removed inappropriate parts.
3. We divide this section into four sub-sections according to the recommendations: subject, equipment, data collection methods, and experiments. At the beginning of the whole section, we added a paragraph about the entire experimental model.
4. We have moved some of the statements that were originally in the "Results" section to the "Discussion" section. At the same time, we have rewritten the entire "Conclusion" section as suggested, and removed the narrative that is not suitable for this section ("Research Purpose"). Finally, we strengthen future research and possible other application areas. The entire section has been completely rewritten as suggested.
5. We added a description of the limitations of this study, including equipment, subjects, etc. This study adds a text to explain that the situation of each patient with lower extremity edema is different, and most of the methods are discussed in a case-by-case method. In this case, it is difficult to compare current data with international literature. The entire section has been reorganized and written as suggested.
6. Finally, we strengthen future research and possible other application areas. The entire section has been completely rewritten as suggested.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to detect plantar pressure in an overweight patient with lower extremity edema through a homemade pressure sensor insole. In this study, the patent was provided with insoles specially designed with twelve pressure-resistance sensors. This sensing system was mainly used to detect the subtle changes in the plantar pressure before the surgery and after the surgery performed with the patient. On the other hand, insoles of different texture heights and arches were designed to have a better understating of their effect on the patient’s foot pressure.

English language should be carefully checked.

The introduction section should be improved. Although the authors presented the thematic, they missed inserting several references: for example, in the paragraph about “Lymphoedema”, no references were reported. Moreover, the study's aims should be improved.

In the material and methods section, I suggest inserting a figure summarizing the experimental model. It could be useful for the readers. Moreover, I suggest subdividing the section into subsections, describing better all methods. This section is very important: it should allow repetition. Please, improve it.

The result section should be improved. The authors insert several considerations that should be transferred in the discussion section. Moreover, the authors re-insert the study’s aims: this is formally incorrect.

The discussion section should be improved. The authors missed comparing their data with the international literature. Moreover, it is important to insert the section limitation. Please, improve this section.

Finally, I suggest improving the conclusion, inserting new ideas for future studies.

Author Response

1. We have strengthened the correctness and grammar checking of English writing in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers.
2. We rewrote the entire section in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewer, especially adding a few references about lower extremity swelling. In addition, in terms of the motivation and purpose of this article, we have further revised and removed inappropriate parts.
3. We divide this section into four sub-sections according to the recommendations: subject, equipment, data collection methods, and experiments. At the beginning of the whole section, we added a paragraph about the entire experimental model.
4. We have moved some of the statements that were originally in the "Results" section to the "Discussion" section. At the same time, we have rewritten the entire "Conclusion" section as suggested, and removed the narrative that is not suitable for this section ("Research Purpose"). Finally, we strengthen future research and possible other application areas. The entire section has been completely rewritten as suggested.
5. We added a description of the limitations of this study, including equipment, subjects, etc. This study adds a text to explain that the situation of each patient with lower extremity edema is different, and most of the methods are discussed in a case-by-case method. In this case, it is difficult to compare current data with international literature. The entire section has been reorganized and written as suggested.
6. Finally, we strengthen future research and possible other application areas. The entire section has been completely rewritten as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Following the reviewer's suggestion, the authors have improved the manuscript. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.