Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Outstanding and meticulous novel study based on a hybrid approach. The attention of cognitive demands as well as the power of peer involvement are highly relevant and much needed in tetraplegia UE research.

The paper is well-written and straight-forward. Patient number is sufficient for the study design chosen. Data are presented in a sound scientific way.

Discussion is easy to follow and relevant.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you reviewer 1,

I am delighted by your comments - as a doctoral student it was a great privilege to undertake this piece of work. Thank you for your time and interest. Happily, I see there are no required edits to the manuscript.

Gratefully,

Anne

Reviewer 2 Report

Very well written and constructed paper about a very specific and highly specialized and complicated topic.

could you add in line 64 that also excessive expectations about surgery results are also a contraindication to surgery.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your positive comments and feedback. And for your time spent. Regarding your request for line 64, I am not sure I agree that patient expectations are a contraindication. Rather I see unrealistic expectations as a contradiction. Therefore line 62-64 now reads:

It is well established that hope is a priority and an important facilitator of adjustment following SCI [18]. Equally hope provides a sense of inconsistency, contradiction (in terms of expectations of surgery) and even paradox [19]. 

 

I trust you are satisfied with this. 

Gratefully,

Anne Sinnott Jerram