3D Surface Topographic Optical Scans Yield Highly Reliable Global Spine Range of Motion Measurements in Scoliotic and Non-Scoliotic Adolescents
, Howard J. Hillstrom 2, Benjamin Groisser 3, Kyle W. Morse 4, Don Li 1, Matthew E. Cunningham 4, M. Timothy Hresko 5 and Roger F. Widmann 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper needs some clarifications:
I feel that the authors could rephrase the title including “scoliosis” somewhere.
3D Surface Topographic Optical Scans Yield Highly Reliable Global Spine Range of Motion Measurements “in healthy and scoliotic” Adolescents
1 – in M&M could you clarify why you recommend raising the arms around 45° and not leaving them along the body. This is not very a “natural” position.
2 – For the “evaluation of controls versus patients, patients were included if they had AIS and a lumbar curve with a Cobb angle greater than 25 degrees.” Could you clarify the curves types of your patients : thoracic + lumbar (1C or 3C) and pure lumbar (5C) ? What I understand is that you wanted to compare patients with AIS With a lumbar curve (with or without a thoracic curve) versus healthy subjects. It is unclear in M&M.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Although this study suggests a promising and moreover interesting approach, there are some flaws and inconsistencies
Page 1 line 29 taking the setup of the study into account it is very optimistic/ambitious to say that you were able to distinguish between scoliosis and non scoliosis
Page2 line 64 why is this blacked out in the manuscript – not acceptable, same applies to line 65
Table2 is confusing and needs to be restructured
It remains unclear how the measurements were performed? Software based? The whole process has to be described adequately
Check for typos
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
ad response #1: there were significant differences - according to the setup you can't just state, that you are able to distinguish between scoliotic and non-scoliotic patients.
ad response #2: given that the affiliations were openly documented in the manuscript, this is not much of a surprise
ad response #3: sufficient
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
