Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your submission and contribution.

This is a very important study that aligns well with the sustainable development goals related to health and well-being of persons with disabilities. Such studies is much needed to further enhance the quality of life of wheelchair users and empower their overall mental and physical health. 

I have only few review comments, recommendations, and suggestions for your consideration as follows.  

Abstract

keywords: it is recommended to arrange keywords in an alphabetical order. 

Introduction 

You have provided a nice and comprehensive list of tools that provided an overview of existing assessments of physical quality for manual wheelchair users in table 1. If you could elaborate more on this into introduction and talk more about the different types of assessments used/available out there, this would enrich the introduction section. 

Materials and Methods

Data synthesis 

in Table 1: Summary of all studies identified on physical quality measurement. In addition to Assessment tool, Measurement properties, Measurement and material, Outcomes, for better readability, I suggest adding two columns (type of assessment tool; subjective (i.e., self-proxy) or objective (i.e., observation-based, machine-based), and time required to perform/conduct the test). 

Discussion

As one more limitation in the current study, there were some wheelchair related outcome measures that were not included ans measure physical qualities/competencies, such as the Wheelchair Skills Training test (WST), Self-Efficacy in Assessing, Training and Spotting wheelchair skills (SEATS), Wheelchair outcomes Assessment Tool for Children (WATCh), Wheelchair Physical Functional Performance (WC-PFP), Wheelchair Users Functional Assessment (WUFA), Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair (FEW) Tools, the WheelCon, and Timed Up and Go test. These tools could be integrated into a future study for potential future research direction. 

I hope that helps. 

Wishing you all the best in your current and future scholar work.

Many thanks. 

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 this interesting paper. Some improvements to the depiction of the background literature; increased clarity on your choice of model; and further work on limitations, are recommended to reach a publication -worthy manuscript.
Introduction - literature mainly drawn from spinal cord injury, and i note that 'disability' is much wider than SCI.
Many of the citations in the introduction lack specificity: that is, are cited to support a broad point such as physical activity for disability, yet the article pertains to a certain population or aspect of physical activity. these are marked in the text and I suggest you revise for improved clarity regarding the evidence base. 
In one paragraph of the introduction you have an excellent, clear set of arguments supported by appropriate references (page 2 line 67 -76)- this is the calibre of presentation required throughout the introduction

You refer to Weineck's model in the abstract and in the introduction and have structured your article around it. You have not provided a rationale as to why you would use a model that is cited as German, dated 1992. I am unfamiliar with this model. You do acknowledge this point in the Limitations section, and state it is a valuable model, but without specific rationale. I checked on google scholar and it has 1287 citations so it seems to have strong uptake. however, you need to add a rationale for its use in contrast with other models, for example WHO ICF body structures and functions, or other physical taxonomies. 

Page 2 line 79 you state you will use the term physical quality will be used instead of physical competencies, thus privileging Weineck's model and language. Then on page 2 line 80 you state: In this study, it was considered 8 physical qualities because endurance was separated into muscular endurance and cardio-vascular endurance. So, here you have altered Weineck's model from 7 to 8 qualities. It is unclear why you have done this- further rationale required, and a comment on the implications for adjusting a model. Also you will need to acknowledge in Table 1. Definition of physical qualities according to the Weineck's model - in Table 1 you list 8 qualities and cite them all as from Weineck (in fact, you have split endurance into two). 

Search strategy: this is presented in very abbreviated format - often we would see an appendix with entire search stings. At a minimum, can you explain why would you not include physical competency if it is a relevant term in the broad literature? 
Data extraction: you are using Covidence, can you explain why you used Excel instead of covidence for the data?. 

Table 1. Definition of physical qualities according to the Weineck's model

Conclusion
Line 290 you state: This work represents the first step in creating tools aimed at enhancing physical qualities and then facilitate participation in LTPAs for MWC users - can you clarify this statement in light of reference 42? It is not possible to view this website ('bandwidth exceeded') so a more stable reference is required? 

APPENDIX
I note the Table in the appendix is also called Table 1 (as is the only table in the Manuscript itself) and this is somewhat confusing. 
Table 1 in the Appendix contains 97 physical quality assessment tools with population studied, name of assessment, validity and reliability of the assessment (if documented), material and equipment required to conduct the assessment, reference of assessment tools and complete description of outcomes. 
This Table has a lot of information combined within it. 
- why are the initials WPA used for a term which one would expect to be WBA (Wheelchair basketball athletes)?
- some cells state Re yet your codes below the Table only indicate an R (for reliability).
- R and V denote reliability and validity. I note you have not ascertained the extent of validity / reliability other than the presence of at least one measurement property pertaining to reliability / validity. So, the reliability / validity could have been poor, yet because it was measured, it was included?  I suggest it is worth adding this limitation to your limitations section. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

there are multiple English language phrasing and typological errors in the manuscript, i have marked many of these and made suggestions for improvement

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Looks great! Thank you for making all required edits.

Best wishes, 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your comprehensive review which has addressed the feedback provided.

The rationale for Weineck is much clearer, as is your handling of reporting according to this model.  I am satisfied that the OVID search strategy is in the text and is appropriate and useful.