Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Journal: Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417)

Manuscript ID: applsci-3715867

Type: Review

Title: Prosthetic devices for adaptative sport in pediatrics: a narrative review

Authors: Clàudia Bigas Vila * , Giulia Stella , Marco Tofani , Federica Pauciulo , Caterina Delia , Loredana Canzano , Paola Luttazi , Cecilia Cerretani , Gessica Della Bella

Section: Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering

Special Issue: Assistive Technology for Rehabilitation

 

 

This paper focuses on an essential and understudied topic: prosthetic devices for adaptive sports in the pediatric population. The topic is timely and important; yet, the paper lacks clarity in its uniqueness, has broken references, and has various grammatical and formatting errors. The literature review is descriptive but not analytical, and the distinction between pediatric-specific and adult findings is frequently obscured. With concerted revision—particularly enhancing structure, fixing typographic errors, and strengthening mechanistic insight—the manuscript has the potential to make significant contributions to pediatric rehabilitation and prosthetic research. I recommend a thorough revision.

 

 

1: The abstract does not explain what this review's unique contribution is.
Clearly identify the exact gap that is being addressed as well as what is new or synthesized.

 

2: The abstract's conclusion section is ambiguous and lacks a firm assertion or meaning. Include a closing statement summarizing the review's significance and potential areas for further work.

 

3: Line 144: Misclassification of review types.
Although labeled as a narrative review, the presence of PRISMA features suggests a conflation with systematic reviews. Either strictly follow PRISMA, or delete it and clearly identify the scope as narrative.

4: The study examines stiffness variability between RSPs as well as changes in energy return, but no quantitative investigation of juvenile gait dynamics is presented. Because juvenile runners differ from adults in terms of body mass, stride, and ground force, understanding this mechanical connection is crucial for safe and effective prosthetic performance.

How does the stiffness gradient in pediatric running-specific prosthesis (RSPs) affect energy return and ground reaction force (GRF) at different speeds in children aged 6 to 12 years?

 

5: Lines 321-337: Lack of Age-Specific Evidence in the Prosthetic Fit Section .
Recommendations are offered without mentioning quantitative studies or clinical age thresholds.
Cite age-appropriate fitting data or developmental milestone studies.

 

6: Lines 530–574: Rather of focusing on pediatric prosthesis, this section delves deeply into general 3D printing technologies.
Reduce unnecessary technical details and concentrate on application, outcome, and limitations in youngsters.

7: No Clear Difference Between Pediatric and Adult Findings (Throughout):
Some of the studies cited appear to treat adult populations uniformly.
Clearly state when evidence is extrapolated, and justify its relevance to pediatrics.

 

 

8: Lines 654–664: Insufficient Technical Detail in the Biomechanics Section.
The discussion uses the terms "forces" and "compensation" without providing numerical or pictorial backing.
Include figures, graphs, or numbers (such as GRF and stiffness) to back up your biomechanical claim.

 

Line 26:

“Inclusion criteria focused on amputation…” is an incomplete clause.

Write: “We included studies focusing on…”

 

Spelling Error – Line 223:

“seeked” is not correct English.

 Use “sought”.

Grammar – Line 303:
“payed” is incorrect.
Correction: Use “paid”.

Spelling – Line 292:
“scoket” should be “socket”.
Correction: Fix the typo.

Awkward Construction – Line 61:
“to offer to children the possibility…” is clumsy.
Correction: Use “to offer children the opportunity…”

Repetitive Phrasing – Lines 103–104:
“without providing separate analyses for the pediatric subgroup” echoes previous sentence.
Correction: Merge or streamline for conciseness.

Stylistic Clarity – Line 211:
“capacity of performance” is an awkward phrase.
 Correction: Use “ability to perform”.

  Line 401:
“recreational activities having grown” is incorrect.
Correction: Use “have grown”.

Unclear Verb – Line 280:
“will often adapt well” is vague.
Correction: Use “tend to adapt well”.

Incorrect Word – Line 252:
“intrinsical” is not standard.
Correction: Use “intrinsic”.

Bad Hyphenation – Line 607:
“sensi-tivity” is wrongly split.
Correction: Avoid incorrect line breaks.

Typo – Line 198:
“transradaial” should be “transradial”.
Correction: Fix spelling.

Word Choice – Line 281:
“prosthetic wear” may confuse.
Correction: Use “prosthetic use”.

Invented Word – Line 174:
“represtination” does not exist.
 Likely meant “restoration” or “reinstatement”.

Ambiguity – Line 274:
“upper extremity prostheses due to…” lacks clarity.
 Correction: Rephrase: “Problems associated with upper extremity prostheses, such as…”

Grammar – Line 188–189:
“might not be possibile” – spelling error.
 Correction: Use “possible”.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires substantial English language editing to correct grammatical errors, typos, and improve overall clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The reviewer's comments can be found in pages 1-6.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Only 11 articles were included after screening, which is a small number for a 20-year span. This may reflect a true gap in the literature, but the review should discuss this more explicitly.

Some references (e.g., [56] on shoe drop in able-bodied children) are tangential and could be omitted or better justified.

The review could more explicitly state whether any key recent studies were missed, and whether the included studies are the most relevant and high-quality available.

The review could better highlight controversies or conflicting findings.

Overly long sections should be split with more subheadings for clarity.

The flow between sections could be improved; for example, some technical details in the introduction could be moved to methods or results. The “Results” section mixes background, device descriptions, and study findings; clearer separation would help.

The search terms and strategies should be presented in a table. Include a full search strategy (search strings, date of last search).

The review does not specify how disagreements in study selection were resolved beyond “consensus.”

No meta-analysis or quantitative synthesis is attempted, which is reasonable, but this should be justified more clearly.

A significant shortcoming of this review is the complete absence of graphics, figures, or visual aids, other than the PRISMA flow diagram. The review discusses intricate topics such as prosthetic device components, types of limb deficiencies, and the design and function of activity-specific prostheses. Without diagrams or illustrations, readers—especially those unfamiliar with prosthetics—may struggle to visualize these concepts, limiting the review’s accessibility and educational value.

The review states that it performed a "qualitative synthesis" of the 11 included studies, aiming to identify recurring themes, patterns of use, technological approaches, and barriers to adoption in pediatric sport and recreational settings. However, upon close inspection, the review does not present a structured or rigorous qualitative analysis as defined in research methodology. There is no description of qualitative analytic methods (such as thematic analysis, coding, or framework analysis), nor is there evidence of systematic identification or reporting of themes. Instead, the review provides a narrative summary of the included studies, restating their main findings without applying formal qualitative analysis techniques. Therefore, the manuscript should not claim to have conducted a qualitative analysis anywhere in the text, including the flow chart. The synthesis should be described as a narrative summary or review, not as a qualitative analysis.

Add a section or table summarizing the main reasons for exclusion at the full-text review stage, and, if possible, indicate how many articles were excluded for each reason.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The reviewer's comments can be found in pages 7-15.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly addressed all of the comments and suggestions made during the previous round of review. The revised manuscript has been improved accordingly and now meets the required standards. I recommend that the manuscript be accepted in its current form.