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.
Thank you for addressing the reviewer feedback. Your manuscript is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The second version of the manuscript is much better; the main questions the reviewers had were answered.
The research question is well defined, and in the second version, the design is described more clearly.
The findings are interesting and well described.
The second version of the manuscript has improved it very much - my questions were answered, and in my opinion, it can be published now.
The authors have adequately addressed the comment.
-
-
**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.
Interesting and clinically quite relevant study. However, it would be necessary to distinguish between patients with PA treatment and patients with combined PA/betablocker treatment, because the betablocker can influence the results.
Another comment: Glaucoma is one of the leading causes, not the leading cause for blindness (depending on the study you cite)
-
-
The referencing is not in sequential order. The authors should revise the numbering throughout the manuscript for consistency. Additionally, a single referencing style should be used, as APA is cited in the discussion (e.g., lines 261 and 273).
The authors should provide detailed demographic and clinical information about the study participants, particularly those with POAG. Additionally, the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicitly stated to ensure clarity and reproducibility.
A key issue with the findings is the reliance on statistical significance in the discussion rather than focusing on clinically meaningful changes. For instance, a change of 1 mmHg is not clinically significant, which affects the interpretation of the results.
The authors presented an interesting study investigating the effect on intraocular pressure with isometric handgrip strength tasks in healthy individuals and primary open-angle glaucoma patients. The manuscript is with merit and the findings are worth reporting. The English language, grammar and style needs to be improved and the following minor comments should please be addressed before publication can be considered:
Abstract
- Background: please replace “glaucoma” with “primary open-angle glaucoma”
- Methods: please add a statement about the statistical methods used
Methods:
- The demographical information about the study subjects should be moved to the results section
Results
- Please add a section describing the demographic characteristics of the study participants (move it from the methods) with a corresponding table
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
It is a good manuscript but I suggest adding
Prevalence of open glaucoma
Treatment of it
Complications of it
Write aim of the study
Write design of study
Write ethical approval details
Write duration of conducting studied trial
This part is good but add name of statistical analysis program used and its version
Rewrite your Conclusion
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.