[Experimental] List of manuscripts available for review volunteers
2 manuscripts available for review volunteers
April 4, 2017

Background. To compare the urinary incontinence (UI) symptoms and pelvic floor structure changes during pregnancy between nulliparous and multiparous.

Methods. A cross-sectional survey was performed among pregnant women between July 2016 to January 2017. A total of 340 pregnant women were included for an interview and pelvic floor transperineal ultrasound assessment from two hospitals. A questionnaire for sociodemographic, and gynecological and obstetric features and the International Consultation on Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) were used for the interview. Imaging data sets were analyzed offline to assess for bladder neck vertical position, urethra angles (α, β and γ angles), and hiatal area at rest and at maximal Valsalva maneuver.

Results. After excluding 16 women with invalid data, 342 women were included. The prevalence, frequency, usual amount of UI during pregnancy and scores of interference with daily life in multiparous were higher than those in nulliparous (χ2=9.15, P=0.002; t=2.52,P=0.014; t=2.23, P=0.029; t=2.03, P=0.045, respectively). A larger bladder neck descent, Larger HA, α, β, and γ angles at VM were discovered in pregnant women with UI than pregnant women without UI (t=4.398, P<0.001; t=6.977, P<0.001; t=2.178, P=0.030; t=4.404, P<0.001; t=2.54, P=0.011, respectively). Comparing to nulliparous, multiparous had significantly higher BND, larger α, β and γ angles at VM (t=2.269, P=0.024; t=2.894, P=0.004; t=2.473, P=0.014; t=3.255, P=0.001, respectively).

Conclusion. Multiparous experienced more obvious UI symptoms and pelvic floor structure changes during pregnancy than nulliparous.

April 4, 2017
Background.Wii Fit was originally designed as a health and fitness interactive training experience for the general public. There are, however, many examples of Wii Fit being utilized in clinical settings. The present review aims to identify the contribution of Wii Fit in the field of health promotion and rehabilitation by: 1) identifying the health-related domains for which the Wii Fit series has been tested, 2) clarifying the effect of Wii Fit in those identified health-related domains, and 3) quantifying this effect. Method. A systematic literature review was undertaken. The MEDLINE database and Games for Health Journal published content were explored using the search term “wii-fit”. Occurrences resulting from manual searches on Google and material suggested by experts in the field were also considered. Included articles were required to have measurements from Wii Fit activities for at least one relevant health indicator. The effect of Wii Fit interventions was assessed using meta-analyses for the following outcomes: activity-specific balance confidence score, Berg balance score, and time-up-and-go test. Findings. One-hundred-fifteen articles highlight that the Wii Fit has been tested in numerous healthy and pathologic populations. Out of these, only a few intervention studies have focused on the prevention of chronic diseases. A large proportion of the studies focus on balance training (N=55). This systematic review highlights several potential benefits of Wii Fit interventions and these positive observations are supported by meta-analyses data (N=25). For example, the Berg balance score and the time-up-and-go test respond to a similar extend to Wii Fit interventions compared with traditional training. Conclusions.Wii Fit has the potential to be used as a rehabilitation tool in different clinical situations. However, the current literature includes relatively few randomized controlled trials in each population. Further research is required.


Is this open peer review?

No, peer review is still single-blind and all recommendations are private between the authors and Academic Editor. However, any reviewer has the option to sign their report, and once accepted for publication then that review can be shown publicly - again this is optional.

Will I be guaranteed to review if I volunteer?

No. Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. This is for many reasons. For one, reviewers must have relevant qualifications for any manuscript and void of any conflicts of interest. Additionally, it could be that enough reviewers have accepted an invitation to review already, in which case we would not invite any more.

Why aren't there more manuscripts available?

Manuscripts are shown when authors have opted-in for obtaining reviewers through the reviewer-match service. Additionally, there may already be enough reviewers found through other means, for example, invitations sent by the Academic Editor in charge.

What are the editorial criteria?

Please visit the editorial criteria page for initial guidance. You will also be given additional information if invited to review.