Podiatric and Stabilographic Examinations of the Effects of School Bag Carrying in Children Aged 11 to 15 Years
, Małgorzata Jekiełek 2, Dariusz Kruczkowski 3, Tadeusz Ambroży 4, Łukasz Rydzik 4,*, Michał Spieszny 4 and Jarosław Jaszczur-Nowicki 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This was an interesting topic to learn about. I have few general comments that I hope can help the researchers to improve the paper.
Throughout the manuscript, especially in the introduction and the discussions some citations are missing or not complete.
The manuscript needs to be proofread for the use of appropriate punctuations. There are some minor grammatical mistakes and typos in the paper that should be corrected. E.g. askdedi, fee,t and some more.
The recruitment needs a better explanation. Who were eligible to participate? How many parents refused to allow their children to participate in the study? Was there any incentives?
It is also not clear whether the children used backpack daily? It seems that data collection only happened once in May 2019 and the researchers asked the children to were the 5K backpack. The paper needs to be organized better with the use of headings and paragraphs. At this stage, finding the information is not easy. There are some indications of another data collection. I believe the authors need to review the paper carefully and provide the information with a better structure and make it easier for the readers to find the information.
The history of using backpack in children is not clear. It’s not clear whether the observed effect are part of the daily use of the backpack for 10 months or just wearing that 5K backpack. Usually children put different tools and books in their backpack, so the weight of the backpack changes daily. I would like to learn more about how authors take these daily changes into account.
There are many missing parts at this point and the paper needs to have a better structure.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments, which all have been considered and incorporated. The detailed list of responses is given below. We hope that the modifications and explanation will be acceptable for you.
Yours sincerely,
Rydzik, corresponding author
Point 1: Throughout the manuscript, especially in the introduction and the discussions some citations are missing or not complete.
A: Thank you for the information, we have improved the text
Point 2: The manuscript needs to be proofread for the use of appropriate punctuations. There are some minor grammatical mistakes and typos in the paper that should be corrected. E.g. askdedi, feet and some more. -
A: Thank you, we have improved the text.
Point 3: The recruitment needs a better explanation. Who were eligible to participate? How many parents refused to allow their children to participate in the study? Was there any incentives?
A: Thank you for your suggestion, we have inserted the appropriate fragment into the text
Point 4: It is also not clear whether the children used backpack daily? It seems that data collection only happened once in May 2019 and the researchers asked the children to were the 5K backpack. The paper needs to be organized better with the use of headings and paragraphs. At this stage, finding the information is not easy. There are some indications of another data collection. I believe the authors need to review the paper carefully and provide the information with a better structure and make it easier for the readers to find the information.
A: As presented in the article, the study was conducted only once in May 2019. The backpack weight was the average of the randomly weighed 20 backpacks belonging to the study participants. A paragraph was inserted on lines 58, 66, 232, 251, 256, 283,
Point 5: The history of using backpack in children is not clear. It’s not clear whether the observed effect are part of the daily use of the backpack for 10 months or just wearing that 5K backpack. Usually children put different tools and books in their backpack, so the weight of the backpack changes daily. I would like to learn more about how authors take these daily changes into account.
A: In their work, the authors did not investigate the changes in the distribution of forces on the plantar side of the foot caused by wearing a backpack 5 days a week for 10 months, but only the effect of one-time wearing of a 5 kg backpack. The research in the article presents the changes that occur when putting on a 5 kg backpack once, which gives a picture of what changes may occur over 10 months. Thank you for paying attention to this topic, we will certainly include this problem in our future research.
Point 6: There are many missing parts at this point and the paper needs to have a better structure.
A: Thank you, we have changed the structure of the text
Reviewer 2 Report
The work presented addresses a relevant theme that highlights one of the most widespread customs that can seriously affect child development. But before considering their publication, authors should reflect on:
The summary should expand the justification of the work, as well as make a better synthesis of the methodology and results.
The introduction is appropriate, but it is necessary to emphasize that we want to answer that question is not already treated in all previously published works. The objective must be clear.
It is not appropriate to include in the manuscript the reflections that the authors present in lines 73-81
In the section that describes the subjects studied, it should be reflected in more detail how I carried out the recruitment process, the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
In point 2.3, you should treat the measurement protocol alone and strictly.
Why was it chosen that the backpack weighed 5kg? This can be considered a limitation whether or not this weight exceeds 10% of the weight of the subject studied.
The conclusions must be reformulated because they do not clearly respond to the objective, this can be due to the objective not being correctly expressed.
The discussion should include reflections of the authors on how could this problem be addressed, the solution is in digitalization?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments, which all have been considered and incorporated. The detailed list of responses is given below. We hope that the modifications and explanation will be acceptable for you.
Yours sincerely,
Rydzik, corresponding author
The work presented addresses a relevant theme that highlights one of the most widespread customs that can seriously affect child development. But before considering their publication, authors should reflect on:
Point 1: The summary should expand the justification of the work, as well as make a better synthesis of the methodology and results.
A: Thank you for the information, we have improved the text
Point 2: The introduction is appropriate, but it is necessary to emphasize that we want to answer that question is not already treated in all previously published works. The objective must be clear.
A: Thank you for your suggestion, we have improved the goal and modified the introduction
Point 3: It is not appropriate to include in the manuscript the reflections that the authors present in lines 73-81
A: Thank you for your suggestion, we have removed the redundant part.
Point 4: In the section that describes the subjects studied, it should be reflected in more detail how I carried out the recruitment process, the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
A: Thank you for your suggestion, we've covered in more detail
Point 5 :In point 2.3, you should treat the measurement protocol alone and strictly.
A: Thank you for your suggestion, We used the heading “2.4. Measurement protocol "
Point 6: Why was it chosen that the backpack weighed 5kg? This can be considered a limitation whether or not this weight exceeds 10% of the weight of the subject studied.
A: The backpack weight was the average of the randomly selected 20 participants' backpacks weighed.
Point 7: The conclusions must be reformulated because they do not clearly respond to the objective, this can be due to the objective not being correctly expressed.
A: Thank you for your suggestion, conclusions have been changed
Point 8: The discussion should include reflections of the authors on how this problem could be addressed, the solution is in digitalization?
A: Thank you, we have made our suggestions
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for revising the manuscripts and responding to my comments. However, there are still several issues that should be addressed:
-
school-age children.. Excessive There are still punctuation errors and grammatical mistakes. I cannot point out to all of them but for examples: "school-aged children.. Excessive load"
Please take your time to read the text carefully and line by line. Having these types of mistakes are reducing the readability and quality of the publications.
- A good portion of the introduction and discussion discussed that the children carry their bag pack in a wrong way. I don't think this is the goal of your research. Your research was focused on the weight and the introduction and the discussion should ONLY stay on that.
- Material and Method: In this section, you should only discuss the method but you provided data here. Your data and result should only be mentioned in the result section and no where else.
- Information about how you planned to recruit students and receive their parents' consent should be part of 2.1 section.
- Participants in your study were not Patients, please avoid using this term.
- How parents gave consents? That sentence needs to be rewritten as of now it seems that parents gave consent to their children not to the researchers.
- Authors need to be very clear about the cross-sectional nature of this study and mention this as one of the limitations of this study. At this point, just wearing a backpack for participating in this research cannot indicate a causal effect, at least not based on this study. This should be clear in the discussion and the implications.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments, which all have been considered and incorporated. The detailed list of responses is given below. We hope that the modifications and explanation will be acceptable for you.
Yours sincerely,
Rydzik & Jaszczur-Nowicki corresponding author
- School-age children.. Excessive There are still punctuation errors and grammatical mistakes. I cannot point out to all of them but for examples: "school-aged children.. Excessive load" Please take your time to read the text carefully and line by line. Having these types of mistakes are reducing the readability and quality of the publications.
A: The language has been corrected in consultation with the Native Speaker
2.A good portion of the introduction and discussion discussed that the children carry their bag pack in a wrong way. I don't think this is the goal of your research. Your research was focused on the weight and the introduction and the discussion should ONLY stay on that.
A: Thank you, the introduction and discussion have been corrected
3.Material and Method: In this section, you should only discuss the method but you provided data here. Your data and result should only be mentioned in the result section and no where else.
A: The figures included in this section are illustrations which do not reflect the test results. The results are presented in the tables in the relevant chapter. If they are deemed unnecessary in the review, we will remove them.
4.Information about how you planned to recruit students and receive their parents' consent should be part of 2.1 section.
A: Thank you, we have corrected the text
5.Participants in your study were not Patients, please avoid using this term.
A: Thank you, we have corrected the text
6.How parents gave consents? That sentence needs to be rewritten as of now it seems that parents gave consent to their children not to the researchers.
A: Information was added that the parents gave their consent by letter in special questionnaires for informed parental consent
7.Authors need to be very clear about the cross-sectional nature of this study and mention this as one of the limitations of this study. At this point, just wearing a backpack for participating in this research cannot indicate a causal effect, at least not based on this study. This should be clear in the discussion and the implications.
A: Thank you, we have corrected the text
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors modified the manuscript taking into account the recommendations made in the previous review.Author Response
Thank you
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
NA
