Techniques for Measuring the Fluctuation of Residual Lower Limb Volume in Clinical Practices: A Systematic Review of the Past Four Decades
, Nasrul Anuar Abd Razak 1, Noor Azuan Abu Osman 1, Hossein Gholizadeh 2 and Suryani Dyah Astuti 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The cutting-edge and innovative aspects of the discussion section in this article are well written and impressive after reading. But there are still some shortcomings, specifically as follows:
1. This study summarized the according to ability, way, and setting needed to capture the residual limb of the techniques for measuring the fluctuation of lower limb residual volume. And Comparison of the techniques based on cost, time/duration, accuracy and precision, setup and availability, and applications. However, there is a lack of reliability and validity quantitative evaluation of various technology applications. Suggest adding reliability and validity evaluation tests of the techniques in the article.
2. Add published offset analysis.
3. Explain whether the three articles rated as low quality are included in the data analysis.
4. In this paper, descriptive analysis is used based on cost, time / duration, accuracy and accuracy, setting and availability, and applied technology comparison. In order to avoid the subjectivity of researchers, it is suggested to add quantitative evaluation indicators for comparative analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of manuscript -Manuscript ID: applsci - 2520083
The peer-reviewed manuscript is an interesting literature review from the last 4 decades.
The title encourages you to read the content of the article.
The review is well written.
The summary is complete.
The purpose of the publication was clearly defined.
Appropriate review methodology. Documented with data in the diagram and data in tables. Readable tables.
I noticed one inaccuracy in the description of the exclusion criteria, namely in point 2) the authors write: ".....not published in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science or Google Scholar;..." In my opinion, this should be an inclusion criterion, not an exclusion criterion. Already in the abstract, the authors specify where they searched for articles and listed these databases. In the exclusion criteria, this thought should have been worded differently, because I think it meant that there may be other articles on this subject, but the databases mentioned above, have not recorded them.
That's why I suggest making this minor correction.
Also, the topics in the discussion are well described in detail. This allowed them to finally achieve the goal of the work.
Overall, this work can indeed benefit healthcare professionals as well as researchers interested in this topic.
The work requires minor corrections before being allowed for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
