Evaluation of Neuromuscular Fatigue According to Injury History in a Repeat Sprint Ability Test, Countermovement Jump, and Hamstring Test in Elite Female Soccer Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper " Evaluation of neuromuscular fatigue according to injury history in a Repeat Sprint Ability test in elite female soccer players” is interesting, and the authors deserve merit. This study is relevant, specially nowadays, and it can be replicated with other type of exercise training protocols as well and other sports. However, the manuscripts can be improved.

Please see the following comments:

Title – I think title is accurate to the methods and assessments used in the work. For instance, after reading introduction, CMJ and hamstrings tests were also used, and they are not reflected in the title. Maybe it will be better if you include them.

Abstract

L19-20 - This sentence is the same as in lines 36-37. Please change it.

L22 - Instead of conducted, replace by participated. The researcher conducted the study, not the players

L23 -24 - The participants were divided into two groups, but only one was described. Please check

L24-25 - Please check the English writing. It is not proper. In addition, if a pre to post analysis was done, please describe it.

L26-30 - Abstract should present some statistical analysis. In addition, conclusions are missed

Keywords - please avoid words that are present in the title.

Introduction

General comments – from this point forwards, the formatting of the file seems not be in line with journal guidelines (space between lines).

Although I recognized the information of this paragraph, the introduction in too big and this paragraph make me questioning why is it needed? Please try to reduce information about hamstrings. There are too many paragraphs. Introduction should me 1,5 page or 2 pages at max. Please check the entire section.

Moreover, after reading the entire section, maybe it is the title that is not accurate enough.

Even so, this section is too long. Please reduced it.

L41-42 - a ref is required here

L85 – “Muscle” - use minor case

L88 – EMG - please define abbreviations for the 1st time they are used

Participants

L138 – “conducted” - Check my comment in the abstract

Design

what was the phase of the season, what training of the week?

L164-166 - This sentence is not clear. The figure provides a better explanation. Maybe it is the English writing that is not proper, but I don't have a suggestion.

Moreover, is this protocol based on some study? Can you support it?

RSA test

L210-211 - Please provide a ref to support the protocol test and the calculations

Statistical analysis

L260-264 - Why two different interpretations were adopted? Can you explain? The paper you cited does not support it. Please check

Results

Results section contains all information, however the reading it is too difficult. I suggest simplifying writing, add more table of figures. The present description is too hard to follow. 

Discussion

L325 - check the writing.

L355-356 - with such a small sample size, I'm not sure if the authors can make such a statement. I suggest changing the sentence.

In addition, sample size ou statistical power should be added to the work.

L370-371 - How did your data do that?

L391-392 - Until now, no information about this was provided in the methods. Please add

Conclusions

L396 - If this is the main finding of the study. How can coaches use the information for field training? What is the practical application from this study?

For instance, how this study can contribute for a better management for the ones who got a previous hamstring injury? In my point of view this should one of the main goals of the work. In addition, did the authors consider using this design to predict higher injury risk or a fatigue mark? At least should be mentioned as a limitation.

References - Despite there are no limit to the number of references, 79 for an original study is too much. Please consider reducing for at least 60 or less

Thank you.

Best regards

Author Response

REVIEWER 1 ANNOTATIONS.

Estimated reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript with your revision and useful suggestions. We hope that we have been able to adequately resolve all your comments.

Thank you again for your time and kind regards,

On behalf of all the authors of the manuscript.

"Title – I think title is accurate to the methods and assessments used in the work. For instance, after reading introduction, CMJ and hamstrings tests were also used, and they are not reflected in the title. Maybe it will be better if you include them."

Thank you for the suggestion. The title has been modified.

"L19-20 - This sentence is the same as in lines 36-37. Please change it."

L 19-20: Thank you for the suggestion. It has been changed.

"L22 - Instead of conducted, replace by participated. The researcher conducted the study, not the players"

Thank you. It has been changed.

"L23 -24 - The participants were divided into two groups, but only one was described. Please check"

L 23-25: Thank you for the suggestion. Both groups have been described, however they are now better marked.

"L24-25 - Please check the English writing. It is not proper. In addition, if a pre to post analysis was done, please describe it."

L 24-25: Thank you for your comment. The English writing was revised, and the study protocol defined.

"L26-30 - Abstract should present some statistical analysis. In addition, conclusions are missed"

L 25-33: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added some statistical data to the abstract.

"Keywords - please avoid words that are present in the title."

Thank you for the suggestion. Modifications have been made on this basis.

"General comments – from this point forwards, the formatting of the file seems not be in line with journal guidelines (space between lines).

Although I recognized the information of this paragraph, the introduction in too big and this paragraph make me questioning why is it needed? Please try to reduce information about hamstrings. There are too many paragraphs. Introduction should me 1,5 page or 2 pages at max. Please check the entire section.

Moreover, after reading the entire section, maybe it is the title that is not accurate enough.

Even so, this section is too long. Please reduced it."

Thank you for the suggestions. The Word document we worked on did not recognize the modifications, for which we apologize. The format of the document and the spacing between lines has been modified in accordance with that of the journal.

On the other hand, the extent of the introduction has been reduced 10 lines.

"L41-42 - a ref is required here"

Thank you for your comment. A reference has been added.

"L85 – “Muscle” - use minor case"

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been changed.

"L88 – EMG - please define abbreviations for the 1st time they are used"

Thank you for the suggestion. The abbreviation has been defined.

"L138 – “conducted” - Check my comment in the abstract"

Thank you. It has been changed.

"what was the phase of the season, what training of the week? Moreover, is this protocol based on some study? Can you support it?"

L 161-162: Thank you for your suggestions. The required information has been added.

"L164-166 - This sentence is not clear. The figure provides a better explanation. Maybe it is the English writing that is not proper, but I don't have a suggestion."

L 166 - 168: Thank you. The definition of the protocol has been modified. We hope it will be more understandable.

"L210-211 - Please provide a ref to support the protocol test and the calculations"

L 216-217 (Table 1): Thank you for your comment. The references used to calculate the different variables has been added.

"L260-264 - Why two different interpretations were adopted? Can you explain? The paper you cited does not support it. Please check"

L 235-239: Thank you for your comment. Partial eta-squared were used to observe the effect size of the main effects of the ANOVA. Partial eta-squared were used to compared more than two means ±SD. In addition, Cohen´s d was used to calculate the effect size of the pairwise comparisons because it is not possible to calculate partial eta-squared to compare two means ±SD. We hope that the explanation of the statistical methodology solves your doubts. Thank you again for your comment.

"Results section contains all information, however the reading it is too difficult. I suggest simplifying writing, add more table of figures. The present description is too hard to follow."

Thank you for the suggestion. The text has been shortened and simplified.

"In addition, sample size ou statistical power should be added to the work."

L 281-286: Thank you for the suggestion. Statistical power text has been added.

"L325 - check the writing."

L 299: Thank you for your suggestion. The writing has been corrected.

"L355-356 - with such a small sample size, I'm not sure if the authors can make such a statement. I suggest changing the sentence."

L 330-332: Thank you for your suggestion. The wording has been modified to focus on the sample.

"L370-371 - How did your data do that?"

Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been removed.

"L391-392 - Until now, no information about this was provided in the methods. Please add"

L 140-141: Thank you for the suggestion. The information has been added.

"L396 - If this is the main finding of the study. How can coaches use the information for field training? What is the practical application from this study?

For instance, how this study can contribute for a better management for the ones who got a previous hamstring injury? In my point of view this should one of the main goals of the work. In addition, did the authors consider using this design to predict higher injury risk or a fatigue mark? At least should be mentioned as a limitation."

L 367-369, 373-377 and 132-134: Thank you for the suggestions. The information has been added in different sections.

"References - Despite there are no limit to the number of references, 79 for an original study is too much. Please consider reducing for at least 60 or less"

Thank you for the suggestion. References has been reduced.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript will be revised a few points.

１）It was hypothesized that after the RSA the ・・・

Could you this sentences before purpose of the present study?

2) 2.2.3. RSA test, these explanations are very confuse for readers, so could you revise these using table or figure?

3) Figure 1 and 2 will need to change each other, could you revise these?

4) Is this manuscript base on the INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS?

If NOT, could you revise this based on the instruction to authors?

Author Response

REVIEWER 2 ANNOTATIONS.

Estimated reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript with your revision and useful suggestions. We hope that we have been able to adequately resolve all your comments.

Thank you again for your time and kind regards,

On behalf of all the authors of the manuscript.

"4) Is this manuscript base on the INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS?

If NOT, could you revise this based on the instruction to authors?"

Thank you for the suggestions. The Word document we worked on did not recognize the modifications, for which we apologize. The format of the document and the spacing between lines has been modified in accordance with that of the journal.

"１）It was hypothesized that after the RSA the ・・・

Could you this sentences before purpose of the present study?"

L 128-130: Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been moved.

"3) Figure 1 and 2 will need to change each other, could you revise these?"

Thank you for the suggestion. The figure numbers have been modified correctly in description and text.

2.2.3. RSA test, these explanations are very confuse for readers, so could you revise these using table or figure?"

Thank you for your suggestion. The variables have been set out in a table as suggested for better understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper was improved, and I only detect minor flags. Please check the following comments:

Please see the following comments:

L165 – “depending on match load”. Depending how? In addition, I would suggest replacing “load” by “intensity” according to a recent publication. Please check:

https://www.jsams.org/article/S1440-2440(21)00212-7/fulltext

L169-172 – The authors described well the time between trials for the RSA test, however, how many time after and before did the authors apply hamstring test and CMJ? Please add the time between tests and time for rest between trials.

L238-242- In the previous round, I asked the authors: Why two different interpretations were adopted? Can you explain? The paper you cited does not support it. Please check" and the authors answered: “Thank you for your comment. Partial eta-squared were used to observe the effect size of the main effects of the ANOVA. Partial eta-squared were used to 4 compared more than two means ±SD. In addition, Cohen´s d was used to calculate the effect size of the pairwise comparisons because it is not possible to calculate partial eta-squared to compare two means ±SD. We hope that the explanation of the statistical methodology solves your doubts. Thank you again for your comment.”

I feel that authors did not understand my question. So, my original question was related to the different thresholds applied:

"small, moderate, and large effect corresponded to values equal or greater than 0.001, 0.059, and 0.138, respectively" and “d < 0.5 as small, d < 0.8 as moderate and d > 0.8 as large.

Please provide explanation and add references to support the use of both thresholds”. Could please check and explain this? Thank you

Author Response

Thank you very much for the review. We really appreciate your comments, the answers and the different modifications have been included in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf