[Experimental] List of manuscripts available for review volunteers
3 manuscripts available for review volunteers
December 29, 2017
In a typical clinical gait analysis, the gait patterns of pathological individuals are commonly compared with the typically faster, comfortable pace of healthy subjects. However, due to potential bias related to gait speed, this comparison may not be valid. Publicly available gait datasets have failed to address this issue. Therefore, the goal of this study was to present a publicly available dataset of 42 healthy volunteers (24 young adults and 18 older adults) who walked both overground and on a treadmill at a range of gait speeds. Their lower-extremity and pelvis kinematics were measured using a three-dimensional (3D) motion-capture system. The external forces during both overground and treadmill walking were collected using force plates and an instrumented treadmill, respectively. The results include both raw and processed kinematic and kinetic data in different file formats: c3d and ASCII files. In addition, a metadata file is provided that contain demographic and anthropometric data and data related to each file in the dataset. All data are available at Figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5722711). We foresee several applications of this public dataset, including to examine the influences of speed, age, and environment (overground vs. treadmill) on gait biomechanics, to meet educational needs, and, with the inclusion of additional participants, to use as a normative dataset.
December 25, 2017
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether long-term highly physical activity affects inhibition control ability among postmenopausal women by evaluation Go/Nogo tasks from behavioral and neuroelectric perspectives. Method: This prospective trial included 251 postmenopausal women. Subjects were screened by both physical and psychological tests and grouped into a long-term highly physical activity group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30) according to their physical activity level and insisting time. A Go/Nogo task was used to assess the inhibition. Results: The long-term highly physical activity group had faster Go RT than the control group, and no significant differences were found in the accuracy of the Nogo task between two groups. The N2 amplitude was largest at FC2, and the N2 latency in the long-term highly physical activity group was shorter than that in the control group. The P3 amplitude under Go condition was smaller than Nogo condition and a significant interaction was observed in condition, electrode and group. The P3 latency under Go condition was significant shorter than under Nogo condition. Conclusion: Long-term highly physical activity group increases the efficiency of the inhibitory control system by increasing the activity of response monitoring processes. Also, the right frontal-center region plays a sensitive role in this inhibitory process.
December 14, 2017
Background: Little is known about how to achieve enduring improvements in physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB) and sleep for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to: 1. identify what people with COPD from South Australia and the Netherlands, and experts from COPD- and non-COPD-specific backgrounds considered as important to improve behaviours; and 2. identify areas of dissonance between these different participant groups.

Methods: A four-round Delphi study was conducted, analysed separately for each group. Free-text responses (Round 1) were collated into items within themes and rated for importance on a 9-point Likert scale (Rounds 2-3). Items meeting a priori criteria from each group were retained for rating by all groups in Round 4. Items and themes achieving a median Likert score of ≥7 and an interquartile range of ≤2 across all groups at Round 4 were judged important. Analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc tested for statistical differences between groups for importance ratings.

Results: 73 participants consented to participate in this study, of which 62 (85%) completed Round 4. In Round 4, 81 items (PA n=54; SB n=24; sleep n=3) and 18 themes (PA n=9; SB n=7; sleep n=2) were considered as important across all groups concerning: 1. disease management, 2. targeting behavioural factors, and less commonly 3. adapting the social/physical environments. There were few areas of dissonance between groups.

Conclusion: Important to our Delphi participants is a multifactorial approach to improve PA, SB and sleep. Recognising and addressing important factors may provide a basis for developing interventions to improve these behaviours long-term.

FAQs

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.