An Overview of Mathematical Methods Applied in the Biomechanics of Foot and Ankle–Foot Orthosis Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have elaborated a compelling document that describes different model for the AFO. 

The structure and writting is very clear. My only concern or suggestion would be to add a section that describes the overall conclusions derived from the systematic review for the future of the field. 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and suggestion regarding our paper. We appreciate your insightful comment and have carefully considered your recommendation.

In response to your concern, we acknowledge the importance of providing a section that outlines the overall conclusions derived from our review and its implications for the future of the field. We agree that such a section would enhance the completeness of our paper. We incorporated it with the conclusion of this paper as follows:

''In summary, this review of the literature on mathematical methods applications in the biomechanics of the foot and ankle-foot orthosis models has uncovered several crucial insights, shaping the future of this field. Regarding the non-linear optimization and Cartesian coordinates, it is found that employing non-linear optimization in fully Cartesian coordinates enhances our understanding of AFOs' kinematic and dynamic aspects. This opens avenues for more advanced and effective AFO designs. In terms of robotic rehabilitation with two-degree-of-freedom AFO, the exploration of a two-degree-of-freedom AFO for robotic rehabilitation stands out as a promising approach. Considering the interplay between foot and orthosis models, this innovation has the potential to significantly impact rehabilitation strategies. Regarding the shape memory alloy (SMA) elements in AFOs, the review underscores the growing trend of incorporating Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) elements in AFOs. This suggests exciting possibilities for further research and development, offering potential benefits in AFO functionality. Additionally, the diversity of constitutive models, including linear elastic, viscoelastic, and hyperelastic models, emerged as a key finding. Understanding these models is crucial for tailoring AFO designs to individual patient needs, providing a more personalized approach to orthotic interventions.

Building on these insights, future research in AFOs should prioritize: 1. Innovative Mathematical Models: Explore new mathematical models and optimization techniques to enhance precision in AFO design; 2. Clinical Implications of Novel Designs: Investigate the long-term clinical implications and patient outcomes associated with innovative AFO designs, especially those incorporating SMA elements; 3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Encourage collaboration between orthotists, engineers, and clinicians to bridge the gap between theoretical advancements and practical applications in patient care.''

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a review of mathematical methodologies used in evaluating ankle-foot orthoses. Superficially, it appears they may have conducted a systematic or scoping review, but they are missing most of the elements specified by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The authors used the PRISMA flowchart, but there are many other items that need to be included. It is important to follow PRISMA as fully as possible to ensure transparency and repeatability. While mathematical methodologies are outside my area of interest, it appears the authors have an otherwise strong paper. This reviewer encourages the authors to undertake suggested revisions and looks forward to reading their revised manuscript.

There are some minor issues that appear to be mostly typographical errors.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your careful reading and reviewing of our paper.

Indeed there are several types of literature reviews: Narrative Literature Review, Systematic Literature Review, Meta-Analysis, Scoping Review, Rapid Review, Mini Review, Integrative Review, and Thematic Review.

It is worth mentioning that the type that we adopted in our paper was a Narrative Literature Review, which is a traditional, comprehensive summary and synthesis of the available research on a particular topic, and in our case is overviewing the mathematical methods applications in the biomechanics of foot and ankle-foot orthosis models, as it highlighted the AFO based on a non-linear optimization function in terms of fully Cartesian coordinates, kinematic, and dynamic prospects. In addition, the two-degree-of-freedom AFO for robotic rehabilitation, taking into consideration the foot and orthosis models. SMA-element-based AFO and the different constitutive models (Linear elastic, Viscoelastic, and Hyperelastic) are also highlighted in this review.

The protocol type that is used in this study is the ''Search Protocol''. This protocol outlines the search strategy used to identify relevant studies for this narrative review. It includes the databases searched, search terms used, and inclusion and exclusion criteria, which all have been included in our revised manuscript.

Regarding some minor issues that appear to be mostly typographical errors. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and enhance the manuscript, therefore, we thoroughly reviewed the document and made the necessary corrections. We hope that the revised version has addressed these minor issues.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have submitted a revision of their AFO mathematics modeling manuscript proposal. While the authors assert in their response to this reviewer that they undertook a narrative or so-called traditional review and are therefore not subject to PRISMA guidelines, it is noted by this reviewer that they used the PRISMA flowchart template. This reviewer strongly suggests they revise their methods section to include the PRISMA elements, including a search strategy. All review types can benefit from including relevant PRISMA elements, which improve transparency and repeatability, which are core aspects of all scientific writing. This reviewer looks forward to seeing a newly revised manuscript proposal incorporating as many elements as apply.

This reviewer did not carefully review English but believes careful proofreading is always warranted.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful insights on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to the review process.
We have carefully considered your comments, and we acknowledge the importance of adhering to standardized guidelines for transparency and repeatability in scientific writing. 
In response to your suggestions, we committed to revising our methods section (highlighted in green) to explicitly include PRISMA elements, along with a detailed search strategy. We recognize the benefits that these elements bring to the overall rigor and transparency of the study, and we fully understand their significance in all types of reviews.
Your guidance is appreciated in this matter and we assure you that our revised manuscript proposal incorporates as many PRISMA elements as are applicable to our study. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our research, and we are pleased to submit the revised version that aligns more closely with the standards you have outlined.

Once again, thank you for your constructive comments, and we value the opportunity to improve our manuscript based on your insights.

Best regards,

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

While this reviewer appreciates that the authors express their sincere understanding and commitment to clearly communicating their methodology in keeping with the best scientific traditions, the authors still have significant work to do in improving their methods section description. The authors should describe who did what and how for each stage of the review. The first sentence in the methods section appears meaningless or is perhaps lost in translation. The reviewer urges the authors to once again carefully review the PRISMA elements and use the elements from the PRISMA checklist as subheadings (available here: http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx). Please note, the search strategy is not how the search was carried out, it is the electronic algorithm created by the review staff (a medical librarian, other trained personnel, or a trained author) for searching an abstracting service or search engine. This needs to be included in the text or as a table or file attachment. For an example searching PubMed: "((Freeman-Sheldon syndrome[Text Word]) AND (distal arthrogryposis type 2a[Text Word])) OR (Freeman-Burian syndrome[Text Word])"

This reviewer looks forward to reviewing a more carefully revised manuscript proposal and appreciates the authors' efforts in revising it to this point. This reviewer encourages the authors to keep going to continue to make their work even better.

This reviewer did not carefully review English but believes careful proofreading is always warranted.

Author Response