Power-Assisted Scissors Reduce Adductor Pollicis Muscle Fatigue: A Comparative Study in Female College Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, we propose the following improvements if you want your interesting article to be published.
Title- Improve the title, simplify the writing
Summary- No statistical analysis, study variables, confidence interval or p-value significance appear. Follow CONSORT criteria
Keywords. Check it because they are not MESH terms
Introduction: Line 68 indicates the hypothesis of the study
Material and methods: Line 76 explains the reason for selecting inexperienced subjects. Wouldn't experienced subjects be better?
Line 83 add objective 2
Line 89 indicates what relationship this carpal tunnel has with the study of the adductor hallux, please explain.
Line 97The calculation of the sample size does not indicate what software was used or what effect size or what beta or alpha error.
Line 115 indicate the prospective registration of a clinical trial, with its number and date
Line 130 indicates whether the scissors instrument used is a patent or a utility model that is registered and the conditions of use, and whether it is marketed.
Add a procedures subtitle with the records made
Line 175 indicates the reliability of the instrument if it is validated with its reference
Discussion is very extensive, you should especially reduce the limitations section of line 338 at the end.
Conclusions- line 370 elimination of the term suggests, use objective language. Rewrite the conclusions, listing the study variables.
Author Response
We sincerely thank both reviewer 1 for careful review and constructive comments, which have helped improve our manuscript. Below, we address each point raised by the reviewers and detail the corresponding changes made to the manuscript.
Reviewer 1
Dear authors, we propose the following improvements if you want your interesting article to be published.
- Title- Improve the title, simplify the writing
Response to Comment 1.
We have simplified the title to: "Power-Assisted Scissors Reduce Adductor Pollicis Muscle Fatigue: A Comparative Study in Female College Students" [Line 1]
- Summary- No statistical analysis, study variables, confidence interval or p-value significance appear. Follow CONSORT criteria
Response to Comment 2.
We have revised the abstract to include key statistical information according to the CONSORT criteria:
- Added sample size (n=20)
- Included confidence interval (95% CI)
- Added significant p-values (p < 0.01)
- Added effect size (η² = 0.01) [Lines 18-20]
- Check it because they are not MESH terms
Response to Comment 3.
We updated the keywords to align with the MeSH terms as follows:
- "Hand Strength" instead of "adductor pollicis"
- "Electromyography" instead of "surface electromyogram"
- "Muscle Fatigue"
- "Equipment Design"
- "Occupational Injuries" [Lines 26-27]
- Introduction: Line 68 indicates the hypothesis of the study
Response to Comment 4.
We have explicitly stated the study hypothesis: "We hypothesized that power-assisted scissors would significantly reduce muscle fatigue in the adductor pollicis muscle compared to traditional scissors." [Line 69-70]
- Material and methods: Line 76 explains the reason for selecting inexperienced subjects. Wouldn't experienced subjects be better?
Response to Comment 5.
We acknowledge this limitation and have added justification for using inexperienced subjects: "Although experienced subjects might yield different results, we selected inexperienced operators to establish baseline effects without the influence of learned compensatory mechanisms." [Lines 77-79]
- Line 83 add objective 2
Response to Comment 6.
Added explicit statement of secondary objective: "The secondary objective was to develop quantitative benchmarks for assessing muscle fatigue reduction in novice operators using power-assisted scissors." [Lines 85-87]
- Line 89 indicates what relationship this carpal tunnel has with the study of the adductor hallux, please explain.
Response to Comment 7.
Added explanation: "CTS screening was included as thumb function and adductor pollicis activity can be affected by median nerve compression, which could confound our results." [Lines 94-95]
- Line 97 The calculation of the sample size does not indicate what software was used or what effect size or what beta or alpha error.
Response to Comment 8.
Added detailed information: "The sample size was calculated using G*Power 3.1.9.7 software (α = 0.05, β = 0.20, effect size = 0.8)." [Lines 103-104]
- Line 115 indicate the prospective registration of a clinical trial, with its number and date
Response to Comment 9.
Added registration information: "This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Saitama Prefectural University (#30069, 2018, registered on October 31). " [Lines 118]
- Line 130 indicates whether the scissors instrument used is a patent or a utility model that is registered and the conditions of use, and whether it is marketed.
Response to Comment 10.
Added patent and commercialization details: "The power-assisted mechanism has been filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) under the application number No. 2020-054533 and is currently in the pre-commercial development phase." [Lines 138-140]
- Add a procedures subtitle with the records made
Response to Comment 11.
Added new subtitle "2.5 Measurement Procedures" with detailed protocol description. [Line 153]
- Line 175 indicates the reliability of the instrument if it is validated with its reference
Response to Comment 12.
Added validation reference: " The reliability of the EMG system was validated (ICC = 0.92) in previous studies [28]. " [Lines 187-188]
- Discussion is very extensive, you should especially reduce the limitations section of line 338 at the end.
Response to Comment 13.
Condensed the limitations section by focusing on key methodological limitations and removing speculative limitations. [Lines 350-365]
- Conclusions- line 370 elimination of the term suggests, use objective language. Rewrite the conclusions, listing the study variables.
Response to Comment 14.
Revised to use more definitive language: "Power-assisted scissors reduced ADP muscle fatigue as evidenced by maintained median frequency (p < 0.01) and decreased muscle activity (16.7% vs 20.6% MVE)." [Lines 382-383]
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript applsci-3317720
Reducing Risk of Hand Overuse Injury: A Comparative Study of Adductor Pollicis Muscle Activity in Female College Stu-dents Using Power-Assisted versus Traditional Scissors
The importance of assistive devices in helping workers during their job performance need not be emphasized.
The current study assessed the possible benefit of powered scissors over standard scissors with surface electromyography.
The design and execution of this investigation are excellent, and few criticisms can be raised.
1. The most important one is that in the information provided to the participants, they were explained that the study was designed “to evaluate whether scissors equipped with a power-assisted mechanism support hand muscle function and alleviate muscle fatigue compared to standard scissors” This statement might have inclined participants to favor power-assisted scissors. A better explanation would have been that the study was designed “to compare the use of standard and power-assisted scissors” This possible source of bias should be commented in limitations of the study.
2. Other criticisms are minor. Abbreviations should be removed from the abstract since they are repeated in the Introduction.
3. The experimental setup, the explanation of the procedure, the statistical analysis and the Figures are excellent. The results are clearly described and Discussion is comprehensive and thoughtful.
Author Response
We sincerely thank reviewer 2 for careful review and constructive comments, which have helped improve our manuscript. Below, we address each point raised by the reviewers and detail the corresponding changes made to the manuscript.
Reviewer 2
Reducing Risk of Hand Overuse Injury: A Comparative Study of Adductor Pollicis Muscle Activity in Female College Stu-dents Using Power-Assisted versus Traditional Scissors
The importance of assistive devices in helping workers during their job performance need not be emphasized.
The current study assessed the possible benefit of powered scissors over standard scissors with surface electromyography.
The design and execution of this investigation are excellent, and few criticisms can be raised.
- The most important one is that in the information provided to the participants, they were explained that the study was designed “to evaluate whether scissors equipped with a power-assisted mechanism support hand muscle function and alleviate muscle fatigue compared to standard scissors” This statement might have inclined participants to favor power-assisted scissors. A better explanation would have been that the study was designed “to compare the use of standard and power-assisted scissors” This possible source of bias should be commented in limitations of the study.
Response to Comment 1.
We acknowledge this potential source of bias and have made the following modifications to the manuscript:
- Added this limitation to the discussion
- Modified the participant information sheet for future studies
- Added the following text: "Furthermore, the way information was presented to participants may have created an expectation bias favoring power-assisted scissors." [Lines 362-363]
- Other criticisms are minor. Abbreviations should be removed from the abstract since they are repeated in the Introduction.
Response to Comment 2.
All abbreviations were removed from the abstract, except for the commonly used terms (EMG). [Lines 9-25]
- The experimental setup, the explanation of the procedure, the statistical analysis and the Figures are excellent. The results are clearly described and Discussion is comprehensive and thoughtful.
Response to Comment 3.
We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback regarding the experimental setup, procedures, statistical analysis, and discussion. No changes were required for these sections.
We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and hope that they adequately address the reviewers' concerns. Please let us know if any additional changes are needed.
