Aquatic Therapy versus Standard Rehabilitation after Surgical Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Prospective Study

Reviewer 1

Comments

Answers

Lines

The abstract is very informative and concise. The authors provide sufficient background on the presented problem and the procedures carried out in the study are properly explained. They thoroughly presented that the initial hypothesis of the study was not supported by the discussed results. But, the conclusion of this article should be re-done. It is a two-line conclusion that has been previously stated. The authors should extend and emphasize the obtained results on their conclusions. For instance, by using the shown limitations at the end of the discussion and some of the information from the text above.

Conclusion re-done.

288-290

There are extra breaks along with the text. Is the journal’s template like this? 
Please consider starting Section 2 with an introductory paragraph, instead of starting with “a title”. 

Title deleted

80

Line 75 replace “The hypothesis was…” with “The hypothesis is…“.

Corrected.

75-76

Line 89 consider replacing “All patients gave written informed consent…” to “All patients were asked to fill an informed consent…”

Corrected

92-93

Line 129: “Patients were protected for four weeks in a universal sling”? Please consider rephrasing this.

Rephrased.

132-133

Paragraph on lines 167-173 needs to be reformulated. The authors showcase detailed and important characteristics of the studied patients that could be in a form of a table (easier to read) and it is what enables them to create a cohort.

Reformatted in a new table. (Table 1)

179-181

Table 1 makes no sense to be over three pages. There are two many breaks. Must be changed.

Table 1 reformatted to become Table 2.

192

Figures are not centered.

Figures centered.

Table 2 needs to be changed as well.

Table reformatted to Table 3.

199-204

Sentence on lines 212-213 “Aquatic-based therapy is a good avenue to explore to facilitate rehabilitation 212 with its protective benefits on avoiding stress on the tendon repair. ” needs to be rephrased.

Re-phrased.

222-224

In the paragraph formulated on lines 65-72, the authors could provide more insight if there is any work related to the one that they are proposing (e.g., has there been any previous study similar to this?). Later, the reader finds that they compare their study with others on the discussion.

Added

Line 70-73

In my opinion, the paragraph on lines 228-239 doesn’t belong in discussion but on related work or the introduction.

Deleted. It is better to focus the paper on aquatic vs land-based therapies and not on early mobilization.

Lines 228-38

Or even, claims such as “Burmaster et al. [6] has suggested that hydrotherapy provided additional benefits of well-being.“ on lines 252-253 shouldn’t be here as well.

Deleted since it is already in the introduction

Reviewer 2

Please take a picture of figure 1 and replace it so that you can see it clearly.

Corrected

There is absolutely no information about the participants. Please add basic information such as gender, no, height, and weight. Also, there should be no difference in basic information between the two groups. This is because, if there is a difference, it is likely that the results have been affected.

Done. Created in Table 1.

179-181

Check the references.

Done.

Reviewer 1

Comments

Answers

Lines

The abstract is very informative and concise. The authors provide sufficient background on the presented problem and the procedures carried out in the study are properly explained. They thoroughly presented that the initial hypothesis of the study was not supported by the discussed results. But, the conclusion of this article should be re-done. It is a two-line conclusion that has been previously stated. The authors should extend and emphasize the obtained results on their conclusions. For instance, by using the shown limitations at the end of the discussion and some of the information from the text above.

Conclusion re-done.

288-290

There are extra breaks along with the text. Is the journal’s template like this? 
Please consider starting Section 2 with an introductory paragraph, instead of starting with “a title”. 

Title deleted

80

Line 75 replace “The hypothesis was…” with “The hypothesis is…“.

Corrected.

75-76

Line 89 consider replacing “All patients gave written informed consent…” to “All patients were asked to fill an informed consent…”

Corrected

92-93

Line 129: “Patients were protected for four weeks in a universal sling”? Please consider rephrasing this.

Rephrased.

132-133

Paragraph on lines 167-173 needs to be reformulated. The authors showcase detailed and important characteristics of the studied patients that could be in a form of a table (easier to read) and it is what enables them to create a cohort.

Reformatted in a new table. (Table 1)

179-181

Table 1 makes no sense to be over three pages. There are two many breaks. Must be changed.

Table 1 reformatted to become Table 2.

192

Figures are not centered.

Figures centered.

Table 2 needs to be changed as well.

Table reformatted to Table 3.

199-204

Sentence on lines 212-213 “Aquatic-based therapy is a good avenue to explore to facilitate rehabilitation 212 with its protective benefits on avoiding stress on the tendon repair. ” needs to be rephrased.

Re-phrased.

222-224

In the paragraph formulated on lines 65-72, the authors could provide more insight if there is any work related to the one that they are proposing (e.g., has there been any previous study similar to this?). Later, the reader finds that they compare their study with others on the discussion.

Added

Line 70-73

In my opinion, the paragraph on lines 228-239 doesn’t belong in discussion but on related work or the introduction.

Deleted. It is better to focus the paper on aquatic vs land-based therapies and not on early mobilization.

Lines 228-38

Or even, claims such as “Burmaster et al. [6] has suggested that hydrotherapy provided additional benefits of well-being.“ on lines 252-253 shouldn’t be here as well.

Deleted since it is already in the introduction

Reviewer 2

Please take a picture of figure 1 and replace it so that you can see it clearly.

Corrected

There is absolutely no information about the participants. Please add basic information such as gender, no, height, and weight. Also, there should be no difference in basic information between the two groups. This is because, if there is a difference, it is likely that the results have been affected.

Done. Created in Table 1.

179-181

Check the references.

Done.