All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I am pleased to inform you that the remaining reviewers have agreed that your manuscript is worthy of publication in PeerJ. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
acceptable structure and adequate adaptations.
well performed
meets the standard of the journal
acceptable for publication
The text has been revised and embellished to use clear and unambiguous professional English. The supplementary literature references provided demonstrate the context of the study adequately. The structure of the article, figures and tables are largely standardised, and relevant data is shown in the supplementary material. I consider the manuscript acceptable for publication.
The experimental design was strictly adhered to the standards of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
The manuscript provides an excellent overview of a systematic exposition of the issues in the field. The paper provides all the underlying data; these are robust, statistically sound and controlled. The conclusions of the study are clearly stated and closely related to the original research question.
I recommend that the editor-in-chief accept and publish this manuscript.
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ. Three reviewers with expertise in this area have now given feedback on your manuscript and highlighted several minor edits that would strengthen the manuscript. I look forward to reading a resubmission of your article in due course.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
no comment
I think the authors need to explain
Before conducting this study subgroup analyses were performed according to the GMFCS, MACS, weekly treatment minutes treatment period, and Rob-2
It seems not logical to create all these subclasses. Please introduce why these are relevant and needed.
One important factor is the time spent on training and improving motor skills/activities.
Based on the amount of time for training the authors should discuss the number of minutes per week in very detail. In the discussion it is not presented and discussed
I would like to see more in-depth discussion on all parameters and compare these with other motor learning studies outside the field of VR
I think the authors can answer these questions and would like to see the result back
best
no comment
Q1: Line 47, you mention that "Various intervention methods have been used in clinical practice to improve ADL in children with CP", please add what methods are available? How do these methods relate to the methods involved in this study? Please explain.
Q2: In the Survey methodology section, how was the dispute resolved in the literature search? Please add.
Q3: Line220, you mention that “according to previous studies, an effect size of g0.5 is considered clinically significant”, please add the source of the study?
Q4: Line274, you mention that “the number of included literature was insufficient”, why? How to explain this limitation? Is this flaw to negate your research process?
Q5: The language in this paper is noteworthy for its extensive use of the pronoun "therefore"(Line45, 53,57,64,71).
Accuracy
Accuracy
The aims and methods of the study are described thoroughly. It was easy to understand what the authors did, how they did it, and what they found.
Everything is as clear as it can be.
There is one issue that the authors didn't mention the year range of their database results. I thought they searched only 2023 papers but the tables told me the opposite. It would be beneficial to write this detail to the manuscript.
Written in detail, and left no questions for the reader. I have nothing to add
This study is a systematic review of VR interventions' effects on the ADL skills of children with CP. As a researcher in the VR area, I read a lot of articles, and I think this study was written extremely well.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.