Peer-Review Record
Predictive Validity of Motor Fitness and Flexibility Tests in Adults and Older Adults: A Systematic Review
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(2), 328; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11020328
by
Nuria MarÃn-Jiménez 1,2
, Carolina Cruz-León 1,2, Alejandro Perez-Bey 1,2,*, Julio Conde-Caveda 1,2, Alberto Grao-Cruces 1,2, Virginia A. Aparicio 3,4, José Castro-Piñero 1,2 and Magdalena Cuenca-GarcÃa 1,2
, Carolina Cruz-León 1,2, Alejandro Perez-Bey 1,2,*, Julio Conde-Caveda 1,2, Alberto Grao-Cruces 1,2, Virginia A. Aparicio 3,4, José Castro-Piñero 1,2 and Magdalena Cuenca-GarcÃa 1,2Reviewer 1:
Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(2), 328; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11020328
Submission received: 31 October 2021
/
Revised: 17 December 2021
/
Accepted: 5 January 2022
/
Published: 10 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Epidemiology & Public Health)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the study is relevant. But it is necessary to make a greater synthesis of results since these are very extensive and are not well understood. Put more selective inclusion criteria and obtain new results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment.
Best regards,
APB
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review performed is comprehensive and conclusions drawn are well supported by the review and discussion. Few comments that have to be addressed are as follows:- Could further discussion/review and clarification be included in the discussion section on validity of TUG test for fall-risk assessment?
- Kindly proof read the manuscript. There are quite a few grammatical errors and typos.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment.
Best regards,
APB.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
