PONE-D-24-10912Effects of Body Weight-supported Tai Chi Yunshou training on upper limb motor function in stroke patients: A three-arm parallel randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Domiziano Tarantino, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

This study was founded by the Shanghai Municipal Health and Health Commission Chinese Medicine Research Project (Grant No. 2020LP004), Fujian Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for First Aid and Rehabilitation in Orthopaedic Trauma(Grant No. 2020Y2014), Medical Discipline Construction Project of Pudong New Area Commission of Health and Family Planning (Grant No. PW2022A-71), Pudong New Area “National Traditional Chinese Medicine Development and Reform Pilot” Construction Project (Grant No. PDZY-2022-0702) and Excellent Young Medical Talents Training Program of Pudong New District Health Commission (Grant No. PWRq2020-13).

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

please revise the manuscript according to the suggestions provided by the Reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This randomized control study evaluated the efficacy of BWS-TCY, RAT, CRT among subacute (within 6 months after onset) stroke patients. The rater was blinded to give an unbiased rating. The physicians and patients were not blinded, but this was reasonable when the nature of the protocols were considered. As authors mentioned in the introduction, enhance recovery after stroke is of importance. There is no question in the rationale of this study, and the impact of the results is more than huge. However, the reviewer has to pose a question regarding the robustness of the study and cannot accept all the data because this manuscript contains a lot of inconsistencies represented as follows:

1. Abstract Results. "The AAE of the BWS-TCY group showed no statistical difference (P<0.05) when compared to the CRT group and RAT group (P>0.05)." Is P<0.05 not significant?

2. Abstract Results. "However, there was a statistical difference (P>0.05) in MBI between the two groups (P<0.01)." Is P>0.05 significant?

3. 3.2.1 Comparison of the basic conditions of the three groups before intervention. "indicating that the baselines were comparable in terms of sex (refer to Table 1)." Table 1 is not showing the baselines across sexes.

4. 2.4 Sample size. "Sample size calculation was conducted for the main objective, which focused on the treatment effect 4 weeks after surgery." The reviewer cannot figure out why the sample size was estimated using patients after surgery although this study targeted patients with stroke.

5. 3.6 Results of Daily living ability. "As shown in Table 17, there was a significant time effect and a time × group interaction effect (P<0.001) on the MBI scores of the three groups," In table 17, GroupxTime has Significance of 0.169?

6. 3.7 Quality of Life. "The results of the analysis of variance indicated (see Table 22) that both the time effect and the interaction effect of time × group were statistically significant (P<0.001)."In table 22, GroupxTime has Significance of 0.072?

Reviewer #2: This is a well-written report of a clinical trial of tai chi on limb function in stroke patients. The study is well-designed and obviously is cannot be double masked, but some thought has been put into ascertainment bias, and the study's limitations are outlined. Some statistical comments:

1. The randomization procedure is not described. Stating that the data are "randomly split by a statistician" is meaningless. Permuted blocks? Random blocks? Complete randomization?

2. Sample size is based on a single primary outcome in 4 weeks, and yet it seems you are much more interested in longitudinal assessment, and multiple, possibly correlated outcomes. Your "significance is set at 0.05" of course has no meaning when you are testing so many hypotheses. You either should be doing a Holm's adjustment or giving a long laundry list of exploratory analyses for which the study is not powered. You can't have it both ways.

3. CONSORT no longer recommends p-values for baseline characteristics for two reasons: multiple testing means that 1/20 will be out of balance just by chance; failure to reject the null does not prove they are similar.

4. The conclusions should state whether the extensive sample size assumptions you made based on a pilot of 15 patients were actually realized in the trial.

Reviewer #3: I congratulate the authors for the rigorous and well applied statistical analysis and the study design. However, I advise some revisions and suggestions in order to publish this article

Introduction

These sentences are repeated in very similar way and are very near; it could be possible that at least this paragraph was AI generated

128-134 Previous studies have demonstrated that body weight supported Tai Chi gait training, using a suspension device within a balance bar, can enhance lower limb motor function and balance in early-stage stroke patients. However, this type of training typically requires the assistance of two therapists simultaneously, which can be time-consuming and labor-intensive. Rehabilitation robots, equipped with exoskeletons and robotic arms, have the capability to provide auxiliary, resistance, and passive training

142-149 By incorporating Tai Chi with suspension devices, patients who are unable to fully bear weight can initiate training promptly. However, this training method requires the presence of at least two therapists simultaneously, resulting in time and labor consumption. Rehabilitation robots, on the other hand, offer gravity compensation and are user-friendly[40]. Rehabilitation robotic exoskeletons and joysticks not only provide gravity compensation but also offer power-assisted training, esistance training, and passive training.

Study method

Some references are clearly wrong: ie

"The diagnostic standards for stroke in Western medicine refer to the

192 'Cerebrovascular Disease Diagnostic Criteria' of the 1995 National Cerebrovascular

193 Disease Academic Conference[43], which require confirmation through CT or MRI

194 examination. On the other hand, the diagnostic standards for stroke in Traditional

195 Chinese Medicine are based on the 'Standards for Diagnosis and Treatment of

196 Diseases' formulated by the traditional Chinese medicine industry of the People's

197 Republic of China (1995 edition) [44]."

"[43] THOMAS L, COUPE J, CROSS L, et al. Interventions for treating urinary incontinence

910 after stroke in adults [J]. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019, 2(2):

911 CD004462.

912 [44] YEH G, CHAN C, WAYNE P, et al. The Impact of Tai Chi Exercise on Self-Efficacy,

913 Social Support, and Empowerment in Heart Failure: Insights from a Qualitative Sub-Study

914 from a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. PloS one, 2016, 11(5): e0154678."

Refering to sample size the authors wrote "o. Sample size calculation

245 was conducted for the main objective, which focused on the treatment effect 4 weeks

246 after surgery." It is not clear which surgery they refer to

Results

I suggest to include baseline NIHSS in order to evaluate the severity of stroke among the partecipant and their comparability

Conclusion

BWS-TCY is clearly better than CRT only but I think that the affirmation “Furthermore, the improvement effect surpasses that of RAT is not supported by the data” (i.e. there are not any difference in SSQOL between BWS-TCY and RAT and the mBI after 12 weeks is more than 60 in all the three groups)

Supporting information

In trial protocol parts of the text is clearly copied from the article (or viceversa) with the same mistakes in the references

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Andrea Plutino

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-10912R1Effects of Body Weight-supported Tai Chi Yunshou training on upper limb motor function in stroke patients: A three-arm parallel randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by the Sep 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Domiziano Tarantino, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: There are still some minor problems. The statistician who did the randomization needs to read a book on randomization, perhaps "Randomization in Clinical Trials, Theory and Practice, 2016", to understand the difference between complete randomization and random blocks. Change "complete randomization scheme" to "randomization procedure", because complete randomization is not the same thing as random blocks. For random blocks, you must state the random blocks sizes that were selected. Was the selection of random sizes equally likely?

In Section 5, just copying my suggestion into the text does not answer the question. WHAT specific assumptions from your pilot of 15 were actually made (e.g., variability, coefficient of variation), and what values were realized in the study? These are simple questions that any biostatistics students would be able to answer.

Reviewer #3: Despite the positive response by the authors my first comment was not addressed:

"Introduction

These sentences are repeated in very similar way and are very near; it could be

possible that at least this paragraph was AI generated

128-134 Previous studies have demonstrated that body weight supported Tai Chi gait

training, using a suspension device within a balance bar, can enhance lower limb

motor function and balance in early-stage stroke patients. However, this type of

training typically requires the assistance of two therapists simultaneously, which can

be time-consuming and labor-intensive. Rehabilitation robots, equipped with

exoskeletons and robotic arms, have the capability to provide auxiliary, resistance,

and passive training

142-149 By incorporating Tai Chi with suspension devices, patients who are unable to

fully bear weight can initiate training promptly. However, this training method

requires the presence of at least two therapists simultaneously, resulting in time and

labor consumption. Rehabilitation robots, on the other hand, offer gravity

compensation and are user-friendly[40]. Rehabilitation robotic exoskeletons and

joysticks not only provide gravity compensation but also offer power-assisted training,

esistance training, and passive training.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminder and sorry for our carelessness, we have

removed the duplicate content (Line 128-134)."

Furthermore I kindly ask why the founding and the grant numbers were changed from the previous text

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Andrea plutino

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-10912R2Effects of Body Weight-supported Tai Chi Yunshou training on upper limb motor function in stroke patients: A three-arm parallel randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Huanxia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Domiziano Tarantino, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: I have to repeat my previous responde because it was not addressed despite your positive response

"Introduction

These sentences are repeated in very similar way and are very near

128-134 Previous studies have demonstrated that body weight supported Tai Chi gait

training, using a suspension device within a balance bar, can enhance lower limb

motor function and balance in early-stage stroke patients. However, this type of

training typically requires the assistance of two therapists simultaneously, which can

be time-consuming and labor-intensive. Rehabilitation robots, equipped with

exoskeletons and robotic arms, have the capability to provide auxiliary, resistance,

and passive training

142-149 By incorporating Tai Chi with suspension devices, patients who are unable to

fully bear weight can initiate training promptly. However, this training method

requires the presence of at least two therapists simultaneously, resulting in time and

labor consumption. Rehabilitation robots, on the other hand, offer gravity

compensation and are user-friendly[40]. Rehabilitation robotic exoskeletons and

joysticks not only provide gravity compensation but also offer power-assisted training,

esistance training, and passive training.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this article.

The comments by previous reviewers have been addressed.

I just have one more comment: could the authors please include the effect size and correlation coefficient they used in the sample size calculation?

Please also explain in the article how this effect size was calculated.

Thank you!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Andrea Plutino

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Effects of Body Weight-supported Tai Chi Yunshou training on upper limb motor function in stroke patients: A three-arm parallel randomized controlled trial

PONE-D-24-10912R3

Dear Dr. Huanxia,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Domiziano Tarantino, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been adressed in the last revision so I believe that this article could be published

Reviewer #4: Thank you for addressing my comments.

One last thing, based on your G*Power screenshot, the correlation is 0.5, not 5% as mentioned in your article.

If this paper gets accepted, please correct this before final publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Andrea Plutino

Reviewer #4: No

**********