Static Foot Hyperpronation Monitoring in Asymptomatic Young Individuals During Level and Sloped Gait Using an Instrumented Treadmill

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the authors present an interesting research question in aiming to understand the effects of hyperpronation on foot kinematics and kinetics during various gait related conditions. The manuscript is well written and detailed. My comments are minor in nature.

1) Please review the manuscript for typos (Line 135 "waking" should be "walking", Line 231 "normilized" should be "normalized")

2) Was this a split belt treadmill? If so, please note that information in the Instrumentation section

3) How was leg length measured?

4) In Figure 1b, please define the abbreviation %LL within the figure caption.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, “Static Foot Hyperpronation Monitoring in Asymptomatic Young Individuals during Level and Sloped Gait using an Instrumented Treadmill”

The aim was to investigate the spatial, temporal, and dynamic characteristics of gait in uninjured individuals with foot hyperpronation across various slopes and speeds, utilizing the benefits provided by an instrumented treadmill.

In general, the article is well written and easy to follow despite its complexity. The original proposed theme provides a new system for evaluating the effects of gait on the hyperpronated foot. It is also a way to monitor patients' progress and effectively adjust rehabilitation programmes.

The manuscript addresses a new field of research: treadmills instrumented for gait analysis. Most studies focus on conventional treadmills, so this study is novel in this line.

The methodology used is correct and presents an adequate statistical analysis.  However, the authors should start the methods section by describing the study's typology.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be better identified in the manuscript.

It presents a correct discussion noting the study's limitations and the manuscript's strengths.

The conclusions are concise and in line with the research conducted.

The references used are extensive, with 85 up-to-date references without self-citation. Only in the Introduction are slightly older references presented.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reports on a study about the gait analysis of foot pressure distribution using an instrumented treadmill system for overground walking assessment. By comparing the biomechanical performance of individuals with neutral feet and those with hyperpronated feet under various walking conditions, the paper reveals how differences in foot structure affect gait patterns and plantar pressure distribution, providing scientific basis for understanding foot dysfunction and related clinical interventions. This manuscript is well written and organized, and it can be considered to be accepted for publication upon addressing the following questions.

1. The paper should strengthen the discussion on the clinical application value of the research findings, specifically indicating guidance for treatment or prevention strategies for individuals with hyperpronated feet.
2. Future research should consider including subjects from different age groups and with varying degrees of hyperpronated feet severity to improve the representativeness and applicability of the results. The study participants were limited to college students, which restricts the generalizability of the findings.
3. The study only examined the gait differences between hyperpronated feet and neutral feet in the short term (during the experiment). There is insufficient discussion about long-term gait changes and their potential impacts (such as joint pathology, muscle adaptation, etc.).
4. The description of foot region division and measurement methods lack details, especially regarding the specific method for "vertically dividing the forefoot and metatarsal regions into three equal parts." More detailed measurement protocols and foot division standards should be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf