Biomechanical Quantification of Children’s Gross Motor Movement: A Systematic Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall this is a well written review on research into movement of children. It is presented in an unusual style, with a different approach to the variables of interest and how the data is presented but I think this makes it a very user-friendly, reader-friendly article. It provides a genuinely practical user-guide to the state of the field in terms of what is being researched, how it is being researched, and how it is being funded. The figures are presented in a novel way which I have seen for other applications, but it works very well for this review as it clearly highlights who the key authors are in the area and what their focii are. 

Some minor points to consider:

I really like the visualisations and the size of the cluster indicates its relative scale, but for those of us who still like having some numbers, could the accompanying numbers be presented in the supplementary information?

You may need to confirm that this is a study of movement in typically developing children as there would be more literature focused on the gait of children with conditions such as cerebral palsy, etc.? You may even have the numbers to back this up. 

I wonder if including the actual article titles in a keyword visualisation might alter it somewhat, you refer to this as a possible limitation but the titles (or even also the abstracts) could give a useful insight.

The top journals listed are primarily 'application' journals, does this indicate that even though it is broadly acknowledged children are not mini adults, there is not as much 'methods' and 'methods development' focused literature focused on them (especially in biomechanics)?

The environment section refers to this also, when mentioning the running IMU work. There is a need to get more real world, out in the wild data and for children especially important, but is the field also needing to look at the methods used to ensure there is still lab-grade accuracy? 

The implications for research section needs a re-read for spelling and grammar as some sentences are starting with 'whilst' and 'and'. 

Author Response

Please see attached document (pages 1-2) for all responses. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The manuscript presents a systematic scoping review on the biomechanical quantification of children's gross motor movement, offering a broad analysis of methodologies, literature sources, and research trends in the field. The review provides valuable insights into movement assessment, highlighting the diversity of approaches, inconsistencies in reporting, and gaps in the literature. However, the manuscript includes an extensive amount of information, some of which may not significantly contribute to the core message. A more concise presentation of findings and a focus on the most critical aspects could enhance readability and engagement for the audience. Additionally, ensuring clear organization and prioritization of key results would improve the overall impact of the review.

 

Introduction

Specific comments

The introduction of the manuscript provides a comprehensive background on the biomechanical quantification of children's gross motor movements, but it is somewhat lengthy and could benefit from a more concise presentation. A clearer justification for the clinical relevance of this study would strengthen its impact, particularly in terms of how the findings can be applied in clinical or rehabilitative settings. Additionally, the general and specific objectives are introduced at different points in the text, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow the study’s focus. To improve clarity, the authors should consolidate and succinctly present the objectives in a dedicated section, ensuring coherence and reducing redundancy.

 

- Justification with Bibliographical References (Page 1, First Paragraph). The statement, "In recent decades, literature quantifying and assessing the movements of children has been growing".

- Clarification of “Ecological Validity” (Page 2, Line 70). The term “ecological validity” should be explicitly defined in the text to ensure clarity for the reader. 

- Justification with Bibliographical References (Page 2, Line 80). The statement, “Different methods and analytical approaches result in a greater wealth of information, but at the cost of incomparable data”

 Revision of Study Objective (Page 3, Lines 102-105). The term “improve” in the general study objective is not precise and may imply an evaluative or intervention-based approach, which is not within the scope of a systematic review. It is recommended to remove this term.

Clarification of “All Contexts” (Page 3, Line 112)
The phrase "the gross-motor movement of typically developing children from all contexts" should be further elaborated to specify what is meant by “all contexts.” It is unclear whether this refers to different environmental settings (e.g., laboratory vs. real-world conditions), diverse populations (e.g., cultural and socioeconomic variations), or methodological variations (e.g., different assessment tools).

1.1. Review Questions

“1. Where does the published research come from and how is it indexed?” Which research? Make this clear in the question

 

 

RESULTS

- Despite a lot of effort, I was unable to understand the relevance of the information cited in item 4.1.3 (Publication and data collection location) as well as table 1.

 

- Figure 7 – The presentation of this figure should be rethought. Overlapping colors did not seem like a good option to me.

 

Conclusion

The authors reiterate the content presented in the introduction. I suggest rewriting this section to emphasize the actual findings of this review study. If possible, highlight the clinical and biomechanical contributions of the review.

Author Response

Please see attached document (pages 3-5) for all responses. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors of the manuscript entitled "Biomechanical quantification of children’s gross-motor movement: A systematic scoping review" for thoroughly addressing the revision requests.
I appreciate the authors' effort and commitment to enhancing their work and for being receptive to the feedback provided.