[Experimental] List of manuscripts available for review volunteers
2 manuscripts available for review volunteers
December 24, 2017
Background The norms for evaluating the maximum expiratory flow usually are developed according to chronological age and height. However, to date, little research has been conducted using reference values that take into account the temporal changes of biological maturation. The objectives of this study were to a) compare the maximum expiratory flow (MEF) with those of other international studies, b) align the MEF values with chronological and biological age, and c) propose reference standards for children and adolescents. Methods The sample studied consisted of 3,566 students of both sexes (1,933 males and 1,633 females) ranging in age from 5.0 to 17.9 years old. Weight, standing height, and sitting height were measured. Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated. Biological maturation was predicted by using age of peak height velocity growth (APHV). Maximum expiratory flow (MEF) (L/min) was obtained by using a forced expiratory manoeuvre. Percentiles were calculated using the LMS method. Results and Discussion Biological age in males occurred at age 14.77±0,78APHV and for females at age 12.74±1.0APHV. Differences emerged in the MEF for students of the Maule Region and the international references. Biological age allowed us to distinguish differences based on sex. Biological age was more useful than chronological age. The resulting MEF values from this research were less than those reported for international standards. Based on these findings, regional percentiles were created to diagnose and monitor the risk of asthma and the general expiratory status of paediatric populations.
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.