The Effect of Traditional and Stabilization-Oriented Exercises on Deep Stabilization System Function in Elite Futsal Players
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article, as well as its subject is pertinent and current, is well written, presents important results for training, prevention and academic research.
The objective abstract and presents the most important research results. Since the abstract is one of the most important parts of the work done, it presents an adequate and objective.
In the introduction, the state of the art on the subject studied was carried out with current and pertinent references for the purpose of the research. Ending with the main objective of the work.
Regarding the description of the sample and the results obtained, they have objectivity, well described and with very interesting results. The methodology presents a small sample, but of a high level, where it is compared with a control group, with an adequate physical performance. The variables and parameters studied are well described and even the authors were careful to present the program for a correct assessment of the proposed objectives. The statistical treatment used is adequate to the proposed objectives, demonstrates the degree of relationship between the variables, as well as their significance.
The presentation of the figure 3, in relation to the studied, brought us new and pertinent information (page 4).
The discussion is very well written, where the authors reflect very well in relation to the studies carried out previously and in comparison with the results of this study. At the same time they expected that the presented program was in accordance with recommendations for developing dynamic balance in futsal players, including exercises for hip and knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion ROM and dynamic core stability in the frontal plane.
Therefore, they could state that this program has the potential to increase players’ conditioning for field performance as well as injury prevention. Moreover, since this program is based on a selection of exercises focused on core training.
The authors end the discussion with the possible limitations of the work, where they really present important results and conclusions for practice, training and research. Has very important results for documented that the absence of preventive strength exercises decreases the effectiveness of whole conditioning programs and might cause muscle imbalances, the importance of its study.
The bibliography is well done and current and in accordance with the studied theme.
The relevance of this study is due to its importance in the application of both the used sample and the relevance of the studied theme. As the authors mentioned, although the sample is small, it is of a high level and at the same time with many hours of practice performed both in training and in competition itself.
It would be interesting to carry out similar studies in females and in training levels. Mainly, because in women's futsal, your posture has been bringing about a change that is not very suitable for everyday life and this must be changed and evaluated, especially in women's futsal and in the training levels.
Another aspect to take into account if the authors have available specific positions in futsal, such as fixed, pivot, goalkeeper, it would be interesting to make this comparison, because they can have different results and with different prescriptions for training depending on the positions where they play.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The article, as well as its subject is pertinent and current, is well written, presents important results for training, prevention and academic research.
Answer: Thank you for positive evaluation according to your comments, we tried to improve the manuscript.
The objective abstract and presents the most important research results. Since the abstract is one of the most important parts of the work done, it presents an adequate and objective.
Answer: Thank you, we improved abstract according to other reviewers, so now it is even more informative.
In the introduction, the state of the art on the subject studied was carried out with current and pertinent references for the purpose of the research. Ending with the main objective of the work.
Answer: We added little more references and objective for the aim of the study.
Regarding the description of the sample and the results obtained, they have objectivity, well described and with very interesting results. The methodology presents a small sample, but of a high level, where it is compared with a control group, with an adequate physical performance. The variables and parameters studied are well described and even the authors were careful to present the program for a correct assessment of the proposed objectives. The statistical treatment used is adequate to the proposed objectives, demonstrates the degree of relationship between the variables, as well as their significance.
Answer: Thank you for this point of look, the elite sample is always hard to manage in large sample size.
The presentation of the figure 3, in relation to the studied, brought us new and pertinent information (page 4).
Answer: This figure has been even improved.
The discussion is very well written, where the authors reflect very well in relation to the studies carried out previously and in comparison with the results of this study. At the same time they expected that the presented program was in accordance with recommendations for developing dynamic balance in futsal players, including exercises for hip and knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion ROM and dynamic core stability in the frontal plane. Therefore, they could state that this program has the potential to increase players’ conditioning for field performance as well as injury prevention.
Answer: We think that that the program improve the stability also in other directions, which we now added into the discussion. However, we have deleted the ROM statement, which was not directly associated to our programme.
Moreover, since this program is based on a selection of exercises focused on core training. The authors end the discussion with the possible limitations of the work, where they really present important results and conclusions for practice, training and research. Has very important results for documented that the absence of preventive strength exercises decreases the effectiveness of whole conditioning programs and might cause muscle imbalances, the importance of its study.
Answer: We slightly enlarge the limitation section, which includes also the playing positions.
The bibliography is well done and current and in accordance with the studied theme.
Answer: Even more references has been added according to other suggestions
The relevance of this study is due to its importance in the application of both the used sample and the relevance of the studied theme. As the authors mentioned, although the sample is small, it is of a high level and at the same time with many hours of practice performed both in training and in competition itself.
Answer: Thank you for this point of look, the elite sample is always hard to manage in large sample size.
It would be interesting to carry out similar studies in females and in training levels. Mainly, because in women's futsal, your posture has been bringing about a change that is not very suitable for everyday life and this must be changed and evaluated, especially in women's futsal and in the training levels.
Answer: We agree and now we are citing the women futsal article in introduction.
Another aspect to take into account if the authors have available specific positions in futsal, such as fixed, pivot, goalkeeper, it would be interesting to make this comparison, because they can have different results and with different prescriptions for training depending on the positions where they play.
Answer: Due to our sample size we are not able to make playing position comparison, how ever we have put this into the limitation section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor wording issues throughout, incorrect prepositions, etc. minor English phrasing.
Some of the abstract, etc. seems cut/paste as opposed to well-thought out in its own regard. For example, I am not sure why it would start off with 'therefore'. Similarly there is a bit of confusion in the abstract where multiple 'interventions' are referred to as opposed to intervention/control. Line 27- mention that this is 'post' test results. Line 31- awkward inclusion of the term 'asymmetrical loading' in the sentence without lead in.
Line 41- spell out mm. multifidi; otherwise, the introduction is well done and a highlight of the manuscript.
Between lines 70-73 and line 77. please confirm that the intervention/control is on top of 280 minutes of conditioning/tactical-technical training? While it is clear that these are elite athletes, this is an awful lot of volume for an additional intervention on top, and it may be worth giving an idea of the details of this training for clarity.
While the article mentions 'strength/endurance loading parameters, it is interesting that the tempo of the different interventions is so vastly different. Is it fair to call this a straight comparison of stability? Also, there is (to the detriment of the work) no clear comparison of the 'effort' involved with the alternative v. traditional exercises... when the stability is reduced, this makes the exercise more difficult (and likely more productive)... was there any attempt to match effort by increasing resistance/load in the traditional versions? This might be the true test, and often overlooked in the exercise comparisons.
Figure 1 caption is out of order (i.e., alternative exercises are shown at the top) and this should be clearer. Also, what actually differs? COG? Equipment?
The statistics are clearly described, another strong point; however, the figures (3) are not logically presented for the average reader. Is there a cleaner way to show all of this? For example, why 1, 2, 3 and not B (baseline), 5, 10? With such clear advantages to the DSS exercises, you would think that this would come out in the figures.
Discussion is well done, overall. Line 153- this is not logical to mention 'unstable surfaces' as it appears that 3/5 of your 'stability-focused' exercises involve the use of an unstable surface.
In all, this is a very nice article that could be improved with some increased clarity, eye-catching figures, and minor edits in some of the wording/logic. Very interesting data.
Author Response
Minor wording issues throughout, incorrect prepositions, etc. minor English phrasing.
Answer: We let native speaker to check the language issues. Thank you for your valuable comments, which helped to improve our manuscript.
Some of the abstract, etc. seems cut/paste as opposed to well-thought out in its own regard. For example, I am not sure why it would start off with 'therefore'.
Answer: The “therefore” has been deleted.
Similarly, there is a bit of confusion in the abstract where multiple 'interventions' are referred to as opposed to intervention/control. Line 27- mention that this is 'post' test results.
Answer: We have reduced the use of term intervention, which cleared out the text. The specification of posttest has been added.
Line 31- awkward inclusion of the term 'asymmetrical loading' in the sentence without lead in.
Answer: We replace the term asymmetrical loading to overloading.
Line 41- spell out mm. multifidi; otherwise, the introduction is well done and a highlight of the manuscript.
Answer: Done
Between lines 70-73 and line 77. please confirm that the intervention/control is on top of 280 minutes of conditioning/tactical-technical training? While it is clear that these are elite athletes, this is an awful lot of volume for an additional intervention on top, and it may be worth giving an idea of the details of this training for clarity.
Answer: The intervention has been included in the regular part of conditioning time, which is now stated in this section. We also reworded the “additive training” from discussion.
While the article mentions 'strength/endurance loading parameters, it is interesting that the tempo of the different interventions is so vastly different. Is it fair to call this a straight comparison of stability?
Answer: It is, because we control the total time under tension also by the time. We originally put the number of reps 10-20, which was higher for faster exercise tempo. We now added this information to the program description by showing full table of both programs loading parameters including their progress. The stability exercise group had a longer time under tension at the end of the program, but they were allow to shorten the isometric hold to 1s, which even the time under tension.
Also, there is (to the detriment of the work) no clear comparison of the 'effort' involved with the alternative v. traditional exercises... when the stability is reduced, this makes the exercise more difficult (and likely more productive)... was there any attempt to match effort by increasing resistance/load in the traditional versions? This might be the true test, and often overlooked in the exercise comparisons.
Answer: The load was for each individual the same, but we did effort to maintain the time under tension. We now added the tables in Figure 1 and 2, which includes also the time under tension, which was similar in both programs
Figure 1 caption is out of order (i.e., alternative exercises are shown at the top) and this should be clearer. Also, what actually differs? COG? Equipment?
Answer: We have put the exercises on the right order and added into figure caption, that there was difference in the position of COG, thus the stability.
The statistics are clearly described, another strong point; however, the figures (3) are not logically presented for the average reader. Is there a cleaner way to show all of this? For example, why 1, 2, 3 and not B (baseline), 5, 10? With such clear advantages to the DSS exercises, you would think that this would come out in the figures.
Answer: Thank you for this feedback, we now added much more clear figure showing median, upper a lower quartiles. We also put weeks in the figure axis.
Discussion is well done, overall. Line 153- this is not logical to mention 'unstable surfaces' as it appears that 3/5 of your 'stability-focused' exercises involve the use of an unstable surface.
Answer: We have change to singular according to suggestion.
In all, this is a very nice article that could be improved with some increased clarity, eye-catching figures, and minor edits in some of the wording/logic. Very interesting data.
Answer: Thank you for this positive evaluation. We tried to clear out also other parts.
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract:
Line 18: Therefore, the aim of this study was... delete Therefore
Line 19: Replace DSS with deep stabilization system (DSS)
Introduction:
Lines from 45 to 48: Reference must be included in this paragraph.
Line 55: "However, their effectiveness in futsal is sufficiently recognized only in adolescent futsal players". It must be more explained due to only one reference is cited for admited that is sufficiently recognized. Mabye this reference could help (Lago-Fuentes, C., Rey, E., Padrón-Cabo, A., Sal de Rellán-Guerra, A., Fragueiro-Rodríguez, A., & García-Núñez, J. (2018). Effects of Core Strength Training Using Stable and Unstable Surfaces on Physical Fitness and Functional Performance in Professional Female Futsal Players. Journal of human kinetics, 65, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2018-0029)
Materials and Methods (It must be reorganized. More information is needed: when the intervention sessions were held; test session requirements; diet and drink uncontrolled variables...)
Line 69-70: "No relative age effect was considered during randomization" Why not? It could influence the results... More explanation is needed.
Line 71: Replace "their current habitual training cycle met the following criteria at minimum" with "their current habitual weekly training cycle met at least the following criteria"
Line 71-73: These criteria are the same as those used by Stastny, et al. (2019). It must be explained and referenced.
(Stastny, Petr1; Lehnert, Michal2; De Ste Croix, Mark3; Petr, Miroslav1; Svoboda, Zdenek2; Maixnerova, Eliska2; Varekova, Renata2; Botek, Michal2; Petrek, Martin4; Kocourkova, Lenka4; Cięszczyk, Pawel5,6 Effect of COL5A1, GDF5, and PPARA Genes on a Movement Screen and Neuromuscular Performance in Adolescent Team Sport Athletes, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: August 2019 - Volume 33 - Issue 8 - p 2057-2065
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003142)
Line 77: Replace "Additive training intervention" with "Design and Procedure" including study design
Lines 83-92: How the workload (internal and external load) was monitored to balance the training load?
Line 96: Replace with "Measures"
Add an intervention program section
Results
Figure 3 shows the comparison between week 1, 5 and 10. However, this is not explained in the methodology section. It must be added.
It is recommended to use other graphs that allow a better identification of the results.
Discussion (Add the above recommended reference Lago-Fuentes, et al. (2018) in the Discussion. It allows you to discuss the results).
Lines 140-141: No test has been carried out in relation to the improvement of the field players' performance (agility, endurance, strength, etc.). So it must be better explained to affirm this and add it to the limitations sect.
Conclusions (This section must be improved. The results obtained in the study are not reflected).
Why those exercises should have priority over traditional strength exercises in training programs?? It is certainly unknown if they improve the performance of players...
"The use of stabilization-oriented exercises might compensate for asymmetrical loading and possible overloading." It must be more explained.
Author Response
Line 18: Therefore, the aim of this study was... delete Therefore
Answer: Done
Line 19: Replace DSS with deep stabilization system (DSS)
Answer: Done
Introduction:
Lines from 45 to 48: Reference must be included in this paragraph.
Answer
Line 55: "However, their effectiveness in futsal is sufficiently recognized only in adolescent futsal players". It must be more explained due to only one reference is cited for admited that is sufficiently recognized. Mabye this reference could help (Lago-Fuentes, C., Rey, E., Padrón-Cabo, A., Sal de Rellán-Guerra, A., Fragueiro-Rodríguez, A., & García-Núñez, J. (2018). Effects of Core Strength Training Using Stable and Unstable Surfaces on Physical Fitness and Functional Performance in Professional Female Futsal Players. Journal of human kinetics, 65, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2018-0029)
Answer: Thank you for this suggestion, we have added this reference, which strengthen our statement to introduction and discussion.
Materials and Methods (It must be reorganized. More information is needed: when the intervention sessions were held; test session requirements; diet and drink uncontrolled variables...)
Answer: We have added the information about the intervention place, testing session (rest) requirement and that the diet was not controlled (besides avoiding supplements).
Line 69-70: "No relative age effect was considered during randomization" Why not? It could influence the results... More explanation is needed.
Answer: We have used the reference to support this approach, which found that players that initially experienced maturity disadvantages in major sports, can have a second chance to emerge in professional minor sports (i.e. futsal vs. soccer). We now justifying this approach by unknown mechanism in the reversal relative age effect occurrence in futsal (which is referenced).
Line 71: Replace "their current habitual training cycle met the following criteria at minimum" with "their current habitual weekly training cycle met at least the following criteria"
Answer: Thank you for suggesting this correction. We change the wording according to your suggestion.
Line 71-73: These criteria are the same as those used by Stastny, et al. (2019). It must be explained and referenced.
(Stastny, Petr1; Lehnert, Michal2; De Ste Croix, Mark3; Petr, Miroslav1; Svoboda, Zdenek2; Maixnerova, Eliska2; Varekova, Renata2; Botek, Michal2; Petrek, Martin4; Kocourkova, Lenka4; Cięszczyk, Pawel5,6 Effect of COL5A1, GDF5, and PPARA Genes on a Movement Screen and Neuromuscular Performance in Adolescent Team Sport Athletes, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: August 2019 - Volume 33 - Issue 8 - p 2057-2065
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003142)
Answer: This minimal training load is typical in team sport games in elite Czech clubs, since this model is typically recommended in coaching education system, and thus repeatably used (as baseline). And we have cited this previous research.
Line 77: Replace "Additive training intervention" with "Design and Procedure" including study design
Answer: Done
Lines 83-92: How the workload (internal and external load) was monitored to balance the training load?
Answer: The condition coach monitored the intervention load by time under tension, which is now very well described in Figure 1 and 2. However we did not monitored the external load in whole training and match other the intervention. The players has in general the similar workload schedule.
Line 96: Replace with "Measures"
Answer: Done
Add an intervention program section
Answer: We have added the figures which includes the loading parameters. Thus this section would be too short. Therefore we left the heading design and procedure.
Results
Figure 3 shows the comparison between week 1, 5 and 10. However, this is not explained in the methodology section. It must be added.
Answer: The measure during 5 week was sort of control and not included in statistics, however it provides a good overview in the program effectivity. We want to doublecheck whether the program brings any change already in 5 weeks. The measurement in 5th week is now stated in testing sub-section.
It is recommended to use other graphs that allow a better identification of the results.
Answer: Thank you for this suggestion, we have added the graph clearly showing median and quartiles.
Discussion (Add the above recommended reference Lago-Fuentes, et al. (2018) in the Discussion. It allows you to discuss the results).
Answer: We have added the reference to the discussion.
Lines 140-141: No test has been carried out in relation to the improvement of the field players' performance (agility, endurance, strength, etc.). So it must be better explained to affirm this and add it to the limitations sect.
Answer:
Conclusions (This section must be improved. The results obtained in the study are not reflected).
Why those exercises should have priority over traditional strength exercises in training programs?? It is certainly unknown if they improve the performance of players...
Answer: We have to admit that you are right, therefore we changed the statement to be specific for the injury prevention oriented programs.
"The use of stabilization-oriented exercises might compensate for asymmetrical loading and possible overloading." It must be more explained.
Answer: We explain this statement by one more sentence.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear
You have written an interesting paper. However, there are some areas that need to be addressed.
The introduction is to short, and it does not cover all of the essential topics of your research. There is no mentioning of the most efficient exercises that target the DSS (only squats are mentioned). Also, there is no mentioning od the testing-monitoring methods to do that.
Additionally, what are the traditional exercises for DDS and what are stability-oriented? What are the definitions of those two types of exercise, which are those exercises, where have they been used in the literature, etc?
You just jump to the aims of your research without finding-identifying the gap in the research and back it up with references.
Amend the introduction accordingly.
2.1.Participants
Line 69 – strengthening / change to strength training
Inclusion criteria – what about their status of injury – was this considered as an in/exclusion criteria? Amend
You wrote ‘’ 160 min of conditioning work, 120 min of technical-tactical training, 190 min of game time and 130 min of warm-ups’’ Was this meant per week? Add the information
What were their playing positions? Did you include goalkeepers (I am asking as some of the research out there excludes them)? Add the information
How did you calculate the sample size?
2.2. Additive training intervention
This section needs to be additionally addressed:
How long was the warm-up?
How many trainings per week? Add info
Strength endurance using 10 – 20 reps / How did you come to this number – is this backed up on any of the previous research? Elaborate and ADD references
The range 10 to 20 is large and especially the lower range of 10 repetitions does not hit the target of strength endurance as 20 reps. Does that mean that some participants had 12 reps and 4 sets and some 20 reps with 3 sets? Your study is hard to replicate. Elaborate
The same for sets – did they have 3 or 4 sets?
I would suggest adding a table with exact training for both groups.
The same for the break between sets? 30 or 60s is a huge difference. Could the participants choose for themselves? Report
Were all of the 25 training sessions the same or did they include the progressive overload principle?
In Figure 1 add numbers in each exercise and name them in the caption of the picture as they are not in the same order as described in the training intervention paragraph.
Single leg squat with an aqua bag does not look like a squat (more as an around the head circle ) – Change Figure 1 and add starting and finishing position in all exercises.
How deep was the squat? What were the instructions? Add info
How did you determine the load (as you wrote light resistance) in the exercises that involved external load? Per body weight or 1 rep max? Elaborate and add info
What accessories did you use? Add manufacturer and model (sliding pads, bosu, pilates ball..?)
How did you determine the size of the bosu ball as this can largely affect the execution of balance exercises? Elaborate and add info
Who monitored the training? Add info
2.3. Evaluation of the deep stabilization system (DSS)
When did you perform these tests? Add info
What was the order of the tests? What was the break between the tests? Report
Describe each test in a short paragraph. How many repetitions did you perform? What result was taken into account for further analysis?
You used just 1 physiotherapist? What about the reliability of his measurements? Did he performed the test at least twice or just once? Elaborate and report
2.4. Statistical analysis
How was the normality of distribution measured? Add
Discussion
Line 139 / you wrote: ‘’including exercises for hip and knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion ROM’’
Which exercises impacted ankle dorsiflexion ROM? Please elaborate which part of your program increased ROM in dorsiflexion or delete this part.
The discussion is too short. What about in which training period would you suggest the usage of these exercises, how often in which age groups, etc. ADD There is no practical implication
Limitation of the study: add the testing performed by just 1 physiotherapist
Despite the fact that your paper needs to be thoroughly amended, it represents interesting research.
Kind regards
Author Response
You have written an interesting paper. However, there are some areas that need to be addressed.
Answer: We appreciate your time spend on improving our manuscript. We have added suggested details.
The introduction is to short, and it does not cover all of the essential topics of your research. There is no mentioning of the most efficient exercises that target the DSS (only squats are mentioned). Also, there is no mentioning od the testing-monitoring methods to do that.
Answer: We gave the example of quadruped and tripod stability positions for DSS exercises into introduction and the testing has been mentioned and referenced in the introduction.
Additionally, what are the traditional exercises for DDS and what are stability-oriented? What are the definitions of those two types of exercise, which are those exercises, where have they been used in the literature, etc?
Answer: We defined both kinds of exercises in third paragraph and added references.
You just jump to the aims of your research without finding-identifying the gap in the research and back it up with references. Amend the introduction accordingly.
Answer: We believe that we provide a research gap already in first draft, although we agree that that we did not highlight it before the aim. Along other improvement of the introduction, we provided the research gap with references before the aim.
2.1.Participants
Line 69 – strengthening / change to strength training
Answer: Done
Inclusion criteria – what about their status of injury – was this considered as an in/exclusion criteria? Amend
Answer: Yes, only injury free participant were accepted, which is now stated in the participant section.
You wrote ‘’ 160 min of conditioning work, 120 min of technical-tactical training, 190 min of game time and 130 min of warm-ups’’ Was this meant per week? Add the information
Answer: Yes, it is week cycle, which is now stated in this section.
What were their playing positions? Did you include goalkeepers (I am asking as some of the research out there excludes them)? Add the information.
Answer: We included also goalkeepers, thus we added the information that playing position was not the inclusion criteria.
How did you calculate the sample size?
Answer: We did not calculate sample size, we expected the drop of in participant number and we had already determined the participant n by the elite status. However, we ended up with n = 10, which fits to the non-parametric statistics and median testing. This we stated in the statistic section now. We consider this approach obvious, so we did not include the general reference for this such as:
Hopkins, W., Marshall, S., Batterham, A., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine+ Science in Sports+ Exercise, 41(1), 3.
2.2. Additive training intervention
This section needs to be additionally addressed:
How long was the warm-up?
Answer: 10min, which is now stated in the text.
How many trainings per week? Add info
Answer: Two or three times, dependent on periodization week. Now it is exactly stated in the text.
Strength endurance using 10 – 20 reps / How did you come to this number – is this backed up on any of the previous research? Elaborate and ADD references.
Answer: The numbers were quite generalized in the first submission, the range was 10-20, but for both programs different according to keep time under tension. This is now clearly described in the program description. We also added referenced for load progression and using the loads.
The range 10 to 20 is large and especially the lower range of 10 repetitions does not hit the target of strength endurance as 20 reps. Does that mean that some participants had 12 reps and 4 sets and some 20 reps with 3 sets? Your study is hard to replicate. Elaborate
Answer: We have added the exact number per each week for both groups to Figure 1 and 2. Now both interventions are replicable.
The same for sets – did they have 3 or 4 sets? I would suggest adding a table with exact training for both groups. The same for the break between sets? 30 or 60s is a huge difference. Could the participants choose for themselves? Report
Answer: We have added the exact number per each week for both groups to Figure 1 and 2. Now both interventions are replicable.
Were all of the 25 training sessions the same or did they include the progressive overload principle?
Answer: They followed the loading progression principle by Bompa with de-load during 4th and 8th week of intervention. The loading progression is now described inn the detail in the Figures 1 and 2.
In Figure 1 add numbers in each exercise and name them in the caption of the picture as they are not in the same order as described in the training intervention paragraph.
Answer: We are now using two figures with the same orders as in text.
Single leg squat with an aqua bag does not look like a squat (more as an around the head circle ) – Change Figure 1 and add starting and finishing position in all exercises.
Answer: This squat has been done with the aqua bag side switch, which is now showed in the figure 1 and stated in the text.
How deep was the squat? What were the instructions? Add info
Answer: This squat was performed to 80-90°knee flexion during the bag switch, which is now stated in the text.
How did you determine the load (as you wrote light resistance) in the exercises that involved external load? Per body weight or 1 rep max? Elaborate and add info.
Answer: The load was done by individual RPE scale 4-5 allowing to keep exercise technique, which is now stated in the description.
What accessories did you use? Add manufacturer and model (sliding pads, bosu, pilates ball..?)
Answer: Done
How did you determine the size of the bosu ball as this can largely affect the execution of balance exercises? Elaborate and add info
Answer: We have to admit that we did not determine size of bosu ball, we simply used the most unstable one and added aqua-bag to get even more stability requirements.
Who monitored the training? Add info
Answer: The condition coach, this info has been added.
2.3. Evaluation of the deep stabilization system (DSS)
When did you perform these tests? Add info
Answer: At the morning before any activity. This is now stated in the text.
What was the order of the tests? What was the break between the tests? Report
Answer: The order of the test has been reported, as well as rest period.
Describe each test in a short paragraph. How many repetitions did you perform? What result was taken into account for further analysis?
Answer: The therapist performed two test and recorded the result in reported same finding, which is now stated. The testing person was highly experienced and certified for this judgement, so there were not needs for additional evaluators. We have added the test description and the testing is sufficiently referenced now.
You used just 1 physiotherapist? What about the reliability of his measurements? Did he performed the test at least twice or just once? Elaborate and report
Answer: He did the test twice, which is now stated in the text. Reliability is referenced in this paragraph as well.
2.4. Statistical analysis
How was the normality of distribution measured? Add
Answer: Was disrupted by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (now stated in the text), which is another justification of nonparametric testing.
Discussion
Line 139 / you wrote: ‘’including exercises for hip and knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion ROM’’
Which exercises impacted ankle dorsiflexion ROM? Please elaborate which part of your program increased ROM in dorsiflexion or delete this part.
Answer: We delete the dorsiflexion ROM. The squats and bosu and slide board includes dorsiflexion activity, but you are right that not the ROM.
The discussion is too short. What about in which training period would you suggest the usage of these exercises, how often in which age groups, etc. ADD. There is no practical implication.
Answer: We have added direct recommendations to the practice in conclusion. The other age groups were not part of our study, therefore we should make recommendation only for adults. By your opinion the discussion do not raise up artificial discussion just most important points, and we have added also suggestions of other reviewers.
Limitation of the study: add the testing performed by just 1 physiotherapist
Answer: We included this in the limitation section.
Despite the fact that your paper needs to be thoroughly amended, it represents interesting research.
Answer: Thank you for detailed review and suggestions. We think that we resolved all of the mentioned concerns.
Reviewer 5 Report
I enjoyed reading your article, but feel it is quite brief in places; i.e. it could be expanded and more info added. I have made some comments below on items I feel should be included. There are minor spelling issues.
Abstract:
Delete ‘therefore’ as this would be in relation to something you have written before. Or write an opening sentence highlighting an issue / problem. This would be preferrable.
DSS needs to be defined.
‘outcome measures’ should not be capitalized.
The results are not clear. What are ‘DSS’ tests? Were the results pre identical for both groups? Please include some values in addition to the p-values.
How did you reach those conclusions? it isn’t clear.
Introduction:
Line 48 needs a reference to support that statement.
You explain DSS and its role well, but Futsal is not explained. Please include a short description of the sport; i.e. type, length of games, physiological demands etc.
It would be good to see some numbers about injury rates / occurrence in Futsal if possible.
Methods:
The inclusion of photos and descriptions are very helpful.
Did the groups train together? i.e. were they supervised, or did they perform the exercises in their own free time? And did the different intervention groups train in the same facility?
Results:
I’m struggling to understand figure 3. That there were significant differences is clear, but I do not understand symbols and lines. Considering that you have quite a short results section it would be helpful to improve the size and quality of the figures. You could add some written results and / or a table.
Did you collect anything like RPE or ask whether they felt a benefit from the different training methods? It is not a problem if not, but it would be helpful if you did and could display it.
Discussion:
Line 150 it’s just ‘training’ not ‘trainings’
You summarise the findings and conclude that DSS is an effective method for functional strengthening. However, the discussion seems somewhat brief and does not seem to link the findings with Futsal performance per se. You mention that another program (FIFA 11) is not suitable for Futsal, but do not state why. This ties in with my comments about the introduction and the lack of explanation about this sport. As a result, I would like to see some more content on how this is specifically beneficial to Futsal and crossover with other, similar sports.
You also talk about injury rates, but do not show any data. If you could include this it would help justify the new training methods.
Author Response
I enjoyed reading your article, but feel it is quite brief in places; i.e. it could be expanded and more info added. I have made some comments below on items I feel should be included. There are minor spelling issues.
Answer: Thank you for your time to check our manuscript. We improved the manuscript according to your suggestions.
Abstract:
Delete ‘therefore’ as this would be in relation to something you have written before. Or write an opening sentence highlighting an issue / problem. This would be preferrable.
DSS needs to be defined.
Answer: Done
‘outcome measures’ should not be capitalized.
Answer: Corrected
The results are not clear. What are ‘DSS’ tests?
Answer: We have put the specifications of DSS test in outcome measures section.
Were the results pre identical for both groups?
Answer: Yes, this is now on line 25.
Please include some values in addition to the p-values.
Answer: We have added the median change value in the bracket.
How did you reach those conclusions? it isn’t clear.
Answer: First conclusion by the comparison of two training. The second conclusion we re-considered and make less ambitions.
Introduction:
Line 48 needs a reference to support that statement.
Answer: The reference has been added.
You explain DSS and its role well, but Futsal is not explained. Please include a short description of the sport; i.e. type, length of games, physiological demands etc.
Answer: We have now described the futsal requirements with link to injury in the first paragraph of introduction.
It would be good to see some numbers about injury rates / occurrence in Futsal if possible.
Answer: We have added and reference the injury rate in the first paragraph of introduction.
Methods:
The inclusion of photos and descriptions are very helpful.
Answer: Thank you, we now added more detailed photos to even better show the exercises.
Did the groups train together? i.e. were they supervised, or did they perform the exercises in their own free time? And did the different intervention groups train in the same facility?
Answer: The trainings were supervised by condition coach and in the same facility. This is now clearly written in the program description.
Results:
I’m struggling to understand figure 3. That there were significant differences is clear, but I do not understand symbols and lines. Considering that you have quite a short results section it would be helpful to improve the size and quality of the figures. You could add some written results and / or a table.
Answer: Sorry for this confusion. We now made new figure which is easy to understand with well described bars.
Did you collect anything like RPE or ask whether they felt a benefit from the different training methods? It is not a problem if not, but it would be helpful if you did and could display it.
Answer: We did nor collected this information, however we are now stating that RPE (4-5) was used by athletes to select resistance if used.
Discussion:
Line 150 it’s just ‘training’ not ‘trainings’
Answer: Corrected
You summarise the findings and conclude that DSS is an effective method for functional strengthening. However, the discussion seems somewhat brief and does not seem to link the findings with Futsal performance per se.
Answer: We have added the link to the functional performance and enlarged the discussion. In the context of our study meaning we don’t want to overestimate the meaning of our results, therefore the discussion is primarily straight forward.
You mention that another program (FIFA 11) is not suitable for Futsal, but do not state why. This ties in with my comments about the introduction and the lack of explanation about this sport. As a result, I would like to see some more content on how this is specifically beneficial to Futsal and crossover with other, similar sports.
Answer: We made our statement about FIFA more clear, we are suggesting to study the interaction of FIFA and DSS since FIFA itself do not seems to be enough for elite futsal players.
You also talk about injury rates, but do not show any data. If you could include this it would help justify the new training methods.
Answer: We haven’t observed any injury during our 10week period which we compared to general injury rate in futsal in the discussion.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors.
Thank you for taking most of my comments into account.
With these and the other reviewers corrections, the quality of the paper has greatly improved.
Just one more thing. On line 138, the abbreviation DDS should be replaced by DSS, and English should be reviewed.
In my opinion the paper can be accepted for publication.
Good job.
Author Response
We would like to thank you again for you detailed look on our work. We have corrected the abbreviation. Wer did our native speaker laguage check and the English will be check along with aditorial changes.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you for addressing the majority of my comments. Paper and the study with its training program is now much more reproducible. In my opinion, your paper is ready to be published.
Keep up the good work
Kind regards
Author Response
We would like to thank you again for you detailed look on our work. We tried our best to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for addressing the issues raised. I'm happy with the additions, but there are a few spelling errors remaining:
line 88: remains unclear, not 'remain'
Line 138: DDS instead of DSS
line 153, 161, 166, 172, 179, 187: the individual is assessed; remove the 'being'
line 261: re-phrase: one of the limitations is the reliability of the physiotherapy assessment as it has only been performed by a single practitioner.
Author Response
We would like to thank you again for you detailed look on our work. We corrected the spelling by your suggestion.
