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.
Authors have addressed all the reviewers' comments and now the manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No futher comment
No futher comment
No futher comment
No futher comment
No comment
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PeerJ’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
I invite the authors to revise the paper, taking into careful consideration the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Globally the English used throughout is clear and the authors reported adequate literature references.
The structure of the article is well organized as well as the figures and tables. Raw data are shared.
The manuscript contains relevant results to hypotheses, despite, as reported in the limitation, the sample size is small and heterogeneous.
Authors described methods with sufficient detail and information to replicate and the research question is well defined.
Line 117-121: Please explain the sequence of the test and the rest given to the patients between the different trial (the handgrip strength test, the bilateral isometric bench press test, and the one-repetition maximum on the bench press exercise). Comment on whether according to the authors performing the strength tests on the same day may have affected the performance of one of the tests.
Line 126: Please specify in the inclusion criteria that were included patients with different type of surgery.
All underlying data have been provided they are consistent despite the limitations.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Thank you for this valuable work. There are a few parameters that I think would strengthen the study if organized on behalf of basic reporting.
Information on where participants were referred from
The method by which the physical activity level specified in the tables was determined
No comment
The contribution of the study to the literature and the clinic has been mentioned, but its extension would be more enlightening for the readers.
Some of the descriptive data such as marital status and education level of the participants were not used in the analysis. I think that there may be variables that may not give an idea about the clinical status of the participants.
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.