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.
Dear Authors
Thank you for making all the suggested changes
Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for revising the paper appropriately. No additional comments.
Thank you for revising the paper appropriately. No additional comments.
Thank you for revising the paper appropriately. No additional comments.
It is correct
It is correct
It is correct
The authors have made the changes suggested by the reviewers.
Please respond to the comments from both reviewers. Note: The comments from R2 are mainly in their annotated PDF
The core outcomes of the balance scale are BBS and Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest). Why don't you emphasize in the introduction why PASS was selected for this study? It is recommended that Mini-BESTest be discussed at the limitations of the study.
It is preferable to describe the participant as "in patients with stroke" rather than "stroke patients"
Add information about the participant's ability to walk at the time of admission. If someone had "Community ambulators" from the time of admission, the results may not be valid.
Internal validation of the cut-off value by the bootstrap method is recommended. This enhances the validity of the results.
It would be nice to have True Positive (FP), True Negative (TN), Falles Positive (FP), and Falles Negative (FN) results when other researchers try to validate your cutoff. It is recommended that you add it.
Please add any information on the severity of the stroke in Table 1.
Sufficient information was described.
Some references should be updated
Original primary research within aims and scope of the journal
All underlying data have been provided, they are robust, statiscally sound and controlled.
The additional comment to author are as comments in the attached manuscript
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.