Next Article in Journal
Factors Associated with Vaginal/Cesarean Birth Attitudes among Medical Students
Previous Article in Journal
Support and Empowerment for Older Adult Spousal Caregiving of People with Mild and Moderate Dementia: A Participatory Action Research
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Using Pressure Biofeedback on Pelvic Floor Muscle Contraction and Trunk Muscle Activity in Sitting in Healthy Women

Healthcare 2022, 10(3), 570; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030570
by Min-Joo Ko 1, Min-Suk Koo 2, Eun-Joo Jung 3, Won-Jeong Jeong 4 and Jae-Seop Oh 5,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Healthcare 2022, 10(3), 570; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030570
Submission received: 25 January 2022 / Revised: 13 February 2022 / Accepted: 11 March 2022 / Published: 18 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

This manuscript is an interesting study analyzing new training methods for pelvic floor muscles.

I think it is necessary to revise this manuscript with reference to the following opinions.

 

Major revision

 

 

  1. Please elaborate on the participant's profile and recruiting method. If possible, use a follow chart to illustrate.

 

 

  1. Please show me how to calculate the sample size. The number of people in one group is as small as 10. If the sample size is not enough, for example, "Pilot Study" would be good.

 

 

  1. Do the two groups have a normal distribution? Also, have you conducted a homoscedastic test? If these two do not hold, then you may need to use a nonparametric test.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have two questions for you.

1. Please check the English translation below again. (Have you submitted an English translation certificate?)

"Wulf and Lewthwaite[21] argued that internal focus instructions or feedback promote a focus on the self, leading to concerns and worries about one’s performance, and, subsequently, “micro-choking” events."

2. Is it possible to modify Table 1 and Table 2 into a table containing p values?
Tables represent the results in an easy-to-understand way instead of explanations, but they are difficult to see.

3. This is a human experiment. Have you obtained an IRB for this study? If not, please explain why.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been much improved and is in a nice condition now.

Back to TopTop