Effects of Various Foot Wedges on Thigh Muscle Activity during Squatting in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the manuscript with ID applsci-2862679 entitled “Effects of various foot wedges on thigh muscle activity during squatting in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. This is a great systematic review with a high research quality. English grammar is suitable and minor changes are required. Congratulations to the authors for this fantastic review.

  0.- Title: Is a great title composed by the aim of the research.

1.- Abstract: Is well structured and consider each section with a great description.

2.- keywords: It reflect the aim of the review.

3.- Introduction: Author wrote a great intro exposing the principal research and advances in the recent literature about different foot wedges and the effect in the musculoskeletal system. Authors included the objectives and hypothesis.

4.- Material and methods: This section is well structured and explained with a great flow chart.

5.- Results: Results are very well explained with suitable tables. Authors must review the letter size in text. Regarding to the figure 2, 3 and 4, authors must rewrite or replace the figure because it is blurred.

6.- Discussion. Is a great discussion but some limitations should be added, above the influence of the wedge material. All the wedge in the research were made with the same material and the same thickness? All were made with polypropylene, ethylene-vinyl-acetate?? Can influence this in the research outcomes?

7.- Conclusion. Ok

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 1:

Comments to the manuscript with ID applsci-2862679 entitled “Effects of various foot wedges on thigh muscle activity during squatting in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. This is a great systematic review with a high research quality. English grammar is suitable and minor changes are required. Congratulations to the authors for this fantastic review.

Thanks for your consideration. We checked the entire text again and made minor corrections related to spelling and grammar (highlighted in red within the manuscript).

0.- Title: Is a great title composed by the aim of the research.

Thanks.

1.- Abstract: Is well structured and consider each section with a great description.

Thanks.

2.- keywords: It reflect the aim of the review.

Thanks.

3.- Introduction: Author wrote a great intro exposing the principal research and advances in the recent literature about different foot wedges and the effect in the musculoskeletal system. Authors included the objectives and hypothesis.

Thanks.

4.- Material and methods: This section is well structured and explained with a great flow chart.

Thanks.

5.- Results: Results are very well explained with suitable tables. Authors must review the letter size in text. Regarding to the figure 2, 3 and 4, authors must rewrite or replace the figure because it is blurred.

Letter size was revised and highlighted throughout the text and Figures 2-5 were revised for clarity.

6.- Discussion. Is a great discussion but some limitations should be added, above the influence of the wedge material. All the wedge in the research were made with the same material and the same thickness? All were made with polypropylene, ethylene-vinyl-acetate?? Can influence this in the research outcomes?

Thanks for this important comment. The limitation section has been improved to include potential influence of material/thickness (P12, L 301-302).

7.- Conclusion. Ok

Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented a well written systematic review and meta-analysis paper.  As a reviewer I have no major concerns with the contents and quality of the work presented here. It is very informative and will appeal to the readership. Whilst the quality of the work is to a high standard there are some minor issues that need addressing. 

P2. L46. Change to appropriate font size. Why are the Figure titles within the text in a different font size? i.e. the wording Figure 1 - Figure 5. Also Table 2 and Table 3 in the text are of a different font size. 

L74-L75: The searches covered all available literature data up to July 2023 but in L16 (Abstract) you indicate that searches  were conducted up to December 2023. Please update and insert the correct date.

Also why do your figures (Figures 2-5) have a shade of yellow in them. Some data appears missing too. Please justify why this is the case and correct accordingly.

In Figure 1, looking at the PRISMA flow chart there is no record breakdown of database searches i.e. where is the evidence that you used the six different electronic search engines reported in your methods section.

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 2:

The authors have presented a well written systematic review and meta-analysis paper.  As a reviewer I have no major concerns with the contents and quality of the work presented here. It is very informative and will appeal to the readership. Whilst the quality of the work is to a high standard there are some minor issues that need addressing.

Thanks for your consideration.

P2. L46. Change to appropriate font size. Why are the Figure titles within the text in a different font size? i.e. the wording Figure 1 - Figure 5. Also Table 2 and Table 3 in the text are of a different font size.

Font size has been revised and changes highlighted throughout the text.

L74-L75: The searches covered all available literature data up to July 2023 but in L16 (Abstract) you indicate that searches were conducted up to December 2023. Please update and insert the correct date.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The correct date, December 2023, was revised and highlighted in P2. L75.

Also why do your figures (Figures 2-5) have a shade of yellow in them. Some data appears missing too. Please justify why this is the case and correct accordingly.

Figures 2-5 have been revised for greater clarity. The yellow row (grey in the new version) in Figures 2-5 indicated the overall effect of foot wedges on each muscle in meta-analysis. We first conducted a meta-analysis (without a sub-category) to see if a foot wedge has an overall effect on thigh muscles (information reported in the text of the result section, not figures). Subsequently the meta-analysis was conducted with muscles as a sub-category to see which muscle(s) were influenced by particular foot wedges (information reported in figures 2-5 and text). We also checked the result section and figures again to ensure that no data or information was missed.

In Figure 1, looking at the PRISMA flow chart there is no record breakdown of database searches i.e. where is the evidence that you used the six different electronic search engines reported in your methods section.

The required information has now been added to the manuscript (Figure 1, P3).