Assessment of Limb Imbalance in Professional Soccer Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We deeply appreciate the attention and involvement shown in the review of our article. We hold each and every one of your suggestions in the highest regard, and have therefore substantially modified the manuscript accordingly. There is no doubt that these new implementations will help to significantly raise the quality of the final article.

 

Comments 1: At the beginning of Section 2, one short paragraph to present the correlation between the five sub-sections could be given. Similar revision should be applied for Section 3

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your contribution. For the sake of contextualization for the potential reader, an introductory paragraph has been included in section 2.

However, although we greatly appreciate your comment, the authors have decided not to include an introductory paragraph in section 3, based on some articles of this nature published in this journal, among which we highlight the following: https://doi.org/10.3390/app14209301 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146218 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093872.

 

 

Comments 2: At the beginning of 3.3. Study characteristics, why twelve articles were analyzed, more/less than 12 would be better could be further explained

Response 2: Although we understand your query, we believe that the information you request can be found sufficiently developed and explained in the previous sections “2.2. Screening strategy and study selection (where Table 1 is included)” and “3.1. Identification and selection of studies (where the process of screening and selection of studies is justified)”.

 

 

Comments 3: For Table 3, it is too long, could be shorten

Response 3: In response to your appreciation, Table 3 has been shortened, eliminating two of the initial columns, as well as restructuring the information contained therein. However, if, in your opinion, a greater summary of the contents is required, we can consider the possibility of eliminating the “Variables” column. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

 

Comments 4: For discussion, the purpose of this section should be further clarified rather than presenting several sub-section, it is highly suggested, one paragraph with essential highlight is fine.

Response 4: For greater clarification of the discussion section, an introductory paragraph has been prepared to provide a summary of the main findings of the present investigation. However, we have decided to keep the information stratified in subsections, due to the large amount and diversity of information dealt with in this systematic review, in order to organize ideas and make it easier to read. We hope you enjoy it. Thank you very much for your involvement.

 

Comments 5: Similar revision should be applied for 5. Conclusions.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your contribution. Taking into account that the first paragraph of the discussion deals in a synthesized way with the main findings in each of the subsections presented in the discussion, and that the second and third paragraphs deal with issues outside the conclusions (limitations and future lines of research are presented, respectively), we believe that your request is already solved by this explanation.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript did not include sufficient technical content and discussions for publication as review in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. The acronyms used in the abstract must be described. This manuscript has many mistakes in the description of the data reported in the Table 3, which not are relationship with the reported references. This manuscript only incorporates a Figure 1 that is not acceptable for a review. This manuscript must add figures to describe the content of the different sections. In addition, this manuscript must add recent references between 2022 and 2024. Also, the technical discussions of the different sections must be significantly improved. All the content of the Tables must be revised. This manuscript should consider a section of challenges or perspectives.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We are deeply grateful for the attention and involvement shown in the review of our article. We deeply regret your disagreement with respect to the assessment of the other 3 reviewers of this article. However, we hold your effort in high esteem and deeply understand the motivation that led you to evaluate the manuscript in this way. Therefore, and trying to find a middle ground between the evaluations of the other three reviewers, with those provided by you, we have tried to carry out the greatest number of corrections proposed by you, without undermining the assessments of the other reviewers, who have a completely opposite drift.

 

Comments 1: This manuscript did not include sufficient technical content and discussions for publication as review in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal

Response 1: We deeply regret this statement. The authors of this article, unanimously, understand that this manuscript is difficult to read, since the research topic is so diverse that it requires an adequate stratification of the information. Nevertheless, and based on the overall appraisals of the other reviewers, we sincerely believe that the manuscript complies with technical rigor and scientific seriousness with all the content that was intended to be presented.

 

 

Comments 2: The acronyms used in the abstract must be described.

Response 2: As you have indicated, and in response to your proposal, we have proceeded to describe the acronyms presented in the abstract. Thank you very much for your cooperation and we apologize for any inconvenience caused.

 

 

Comments 3: This manuscript has many mistakes in the description of the data reported in the Table 3.

Response 3: We are sorry for the setback. There were problems in the transcription of the table when it was uploaded to the journal platform. This fact has also been emphasized by the other reviewers and, therefore, we have proceeded to correct the errors, in addition to deeply restructuring the content of the mentioned table.

 

 

Comments 4: This manuscript only incorporates a Figure 1 that is not acceptable for a review.

Response 4: We do not understand exactly what you are referring to, since the Figure mentioned is in editable format.

 

 

Comments 5: Also, the technical discussions of the different sections must be significantly improved.

Response 5: We deeply regret your assessment. This fact has not been emphasized by any of the other three reviewers. However, although we have taken the initiative to try to remove irrelevant information, as well as to restructure some of the information contained in this section (as you will see in the resubmitted document), we invite you to elaborate on your comments in this particular section, so that we can meet your demands. Thank you very much for your information.

 

Comments 6: All the content of the Tables must be revised.

Response 6: Due to the defect in the form mentioned above, the information contained in the tables has been thoroughly revised. Thank you very much for the information.

 

Comments 7: This manuscript should consider a section of challenges or perspectives

Response 7: We understand your proposal. However, the information you request is contained in the last paragraph of the “Conclusions” section, in order to have a structure in line with that requested by the journal, and as it is structured in other articles of the journal, such as: https://doi.org/10.3390/app14209301 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146218 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093872.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine tests that have been used to assess limb asymmetry performance of strength, flexibility, power, and function in soccer players. The introduction appeared to show a need for this review and the purpose statement was clear. Methods were well described. The presentation of the results (table) was difficult to follow and some clarification is needed; some results presented did not appear to be related to the study's primary purpose. Likewise, the discussion contained some apparent irrelevant information. It appears that not all references are cited correctly or consistently. See pdf for specific comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Comments: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine tests that have been used to assess limb asymmetry performance of strength, flexibility, power, and function in soccer players. The introduction appeared to show a need for this review and the purpose statement was clear. Methods were well described. The presentation of the results (table) was difficult to follow and some clarification is needed; some results presented did not appear to be related to the study's primary purpose. Likewise, the discussion contained some apparent irrelevant information. It appears that not all references are cited correctly or consistently. See pdf for specific comments.

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback. We have carefully considered all of your observations and made every possible revision to the manuscript in order to address the points you raised. Our aim was to improve the clarity and coherence of the manuscript by strengthening its content in terms of form, language, and meaning. Specifically, we have refined the presentation of the results, ensuring better alignment with the primary purpose of the study, and have addressed the issues regarding irrelevant information in the discussion. Additionally, we have corrected any inconsistencies in the citation of references.

We trust that the changes made will enhance the manuscript's overall quality and provide a clearer presentation of the findings. Should you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be grateful to receive them.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, the authors prepared a review  about the  evaluations of limb imbalance produced in professional soccer players. The manuscript is generally clear and detailed, the procedures and the results from the literature are well described, and the conclusions follow the literature. However, the manuscript could be more attractive to the readers if colorful diagrams are included to demonstrate how the limb imbalance is analyzed. Therefore, it can be considered for publication if the following  revision is considered:

-        Please explain clearly in the introduction presenting schemes demonstrating the meaning of limb imbalance. For example including a diagram of forces that actuated in the body, muscles, tendons … Please explain also with a scheme the lower limb asymmetry.

 

-        The 2.3 and 2.5 sections, The authors personalize the work developed a lot, but nevertheless all the authors are called X.X.X. . Please correct. It will be necessary to customize both the work. This information could come at the end of the article.

 

-        The methods of analyze to measure dynamic balance, flexibility, power with flexibility, and strength also need to be presented briefly and with diagrams so that any reader can understand the experimental part that leads to the analysis of the limb imbalance.

 

-        A table with achieved values in athletes is also welcome since could help those who are measuring the characteristics of the athletes or of normal pacients.

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Please explain clearly in the introduction presenting schemes demonstrating the meaning of limb imbalance. For example including a diagram of forces that actuated in the body, muscles, tendons ... Please explain also with a scheme the lower limb asymmetry.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable input and considerations. We appreciate your suggestion to include a diagram illustrating limb imbalance, as well as the forces acting on the body, muscles, tendons, and lower limb asymmetry. However, following the revisions made by the other three reviewers, we have decided not to include the diagram in this section. The reason for this is that such a diagram would directly conflict with the revisions and structural flow proposed by the other reviewers.

 

Comment 2: The 2.3 and 2.5 sections, The authors personalize the work developed a lot, but nevertheless all the authors are called X.X.X. . Please correct. It will be necessary to customize both the work. This information could come at the end of the article.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions. We truly appreciate your contribution to improving the quality of the manuscript.

 

Comment 3: The methods of analyze to measure dynamic balance, flexibility, power with flexibility, and strength also need to be presented briefly and with diagrams so that any reader can understand the experimental part that leads to the analysis of the limb imbalance.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made every effort to incorporate your suggestions into the manuscript to clarify the experimental methods for measuring dynamic balance, flexibility, power with flexibility, and strength. However, we have encountered certain limitations due to the feedback provided by the other reviewers, which has influenced the extent to which we could include diagrams in the methods section.

 

Comment 4: A table with achieved values in athletes is also welcome since could help those who are measuring the characteristics of the athletes or of normal pacients.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We appreciate your recommendation to include a table with the achieved values in athletes, as it could indeed be helpful for those measuring the characteristics of athletes or normal patients. However, due to limitations set by the journal regarding the number of figures and tables that can be included, we are unable to add this additional table to the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for all the contributions made in the first round of review. Undoubtedly, all the modifications made based on your proposals have raised the quality and thoroughness of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the second version of their manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for all the contributions made in the first round of review. Undoubtedly, all the modifications made based on your proposals have raised the quality and thoroughness of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision has improved the manuscript; however, several grammatical, word choice, and word tense errors remain. Also, some additional revision is needed in the methods section. See specific comments in the PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: The revision has improved the manuscript; however, several grammatical, word choice, and word tense errors remain. Also, some additional revision is needed in the methods section. See specific comments in the PDF.

 

Response 1: 

• Thank you for your valuable feedback and for highlighting the areas that required further refinement. We have carefully addressed all grammatical issues, word choice, and tense errors throughout the manuscript. Additionally, we have made the necessary revisions to the Methods section to enhance its clarity and precision. We have carefully considered and implemented the specific comments provided in the PDF. We appreciate your insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Please let us know if any further modifications are needed.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some points need attention.

a) The score parameters are to be better defined.

b) Many abbreviations ar not defined.

c) Discussion part has to be more rigrous.

d) Likewise, conclusion need to be more strong.

e) Reason behind emphasizing lower limb assymetry

f) The sample space seems to be too narrow with only 12 articles. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for all your considerations.

Regarding the appreciations derived from the language, we have included the language revision certificate, carried out by a native professional.

Below we respond to all your observations:

 

1. Point 1: The score parameters are to be better defined.

Response 1:We do not know the scoring parameters it refers to. Please, we need you to specify more about it.

 

1. Point 2: Many abbreviations ar not defined.

Response 2: All abbreviations have been checked and well defined.

 

1. Point 3: Discussion part has to be more rigrous.

Response 3: None of the authors who have contributed to the elaboration of the article understands exactly what he means with this comment. As a consequence, and taking into account the reviewer's observation immediately after this, we have proceeded to develop more precise, in-depth, and rigorous conclusions.

If you have to further modify the article in this regard, please, we request greater precision and specificity in the comments.

Thank you for your participation.

 

1. Point 4: Likewise, conclusion need to be more strong..

Response 4: This observation has been answered as a whole, in the observation immediately preceding this one.

Thank you so much

 

1. Point 5: Reason behind emphasizing lower limb assymetry.

Response 5: Said appreciation is defined throughout the introduction (to which we have also added a brief allusion to its relationship with gestures of great incidence and repercussion in football).

Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

1. Point 6: The sample space seems to be too narrow with only 12 articles.

Response 6: Being aware of this fact, the authors have unanimously decided to include this aspect within the limitations section (within the "Conclusions" section) of the article.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction:

Most asymmetry research followed a similar flow. The authors also achieved a similar flow. Authors often cited references older than 10 years. Asymmetry has been a very popular topic in recent years and many studies have been published. I recommend that the authors refer to more recent publications in this section.

 

Line 40- A distinction is also made between bilateral and unilateral asymmetry.

 

Lines 47-55 - Football is a sport with many changes of direction (COD), and the concept of asymmetry has also been explored in COD. Here I suggest using the underlying research that explores asymmetry in COD.  (https://doi.org/10.2478/bhk-2022-0009)

 

Materials and Methods

Screening strategy and study selection

The authors should elaborate on the process of data extraction. How were the conflicts that arose during data extraction resolved? Please provide more here.

 

Quality of studies

Were there conflicts between the two authors here? If so, how were they resolved?

 

Results

in line 99 - The authors state that the duplicates were removed by two authors, while in line 128 they emphasize that the duplicates were removed automatically. Please revise line 99.

 

Emphasize the limitations of the research. For example, the authors only used English articles, which is one of their limitations.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Introduction:

Point 1: Most asymmetry research followed a similar flow. The authors also achieved a similar flow. Authors often cited references older than 10 years. Asymmetry has been a very popular topic in recent years and many studies have been published. I recommend that the authors refer to more recent publications in this section.

Response 1: In response to their recommendations, the section on the introduction to the complete has been updated.

Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

Point 2: Line 40- A distinction is also made between bilateral and unilateral asymmetry.

Response 2: Said information has been added, along with its respective citation.

Thank you very much for your active participation.

 

Point 3: Lines 47-55 - Football is a sport with many changes of direction (COD), and the concept of asymmetry has also been explored in COD. Here I suggest using the underlying research that explores asymmetry in COD.  (https://doi.org/10.2478/bhk-2022-0009)

Response 3: Said information has also been added in the quoted extract from the manuscript.

Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

Materials and Methods

Screening strategy and study selection

Point 4: The authors should elaborate on the process of data extraction. How were the conflicts that arose during data extraction resolved? Please provide more here.

Response 4: The requested information has been added.

Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

Quality of studies

Point 5: Were there conflicts between the two authors here? If so, how were they resolved?

Response 5: There were no discrepancies in the inclusion and exclusion of the articles. Such information has been added to the manuscript.

Thank you very much for your attention.

 

Results

Point 6: in line 99 - The authors state that the duplicates were removed by two authors, while in line 128 they emphasize that the duplicates were removed automatically. Please revise line 99.

Response 6: The phrase has been reformulated to give consistency to that statement.

Thank you so much.

 

Point 7: Emphasize the limitations of the research. For example, the authors only used English articles, which is one of their limitations.

Response 7: Based on their recommendations, a paragraph has been included referring to the limitations of the study.

Thank you very much for your help.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Were any studies identified using bilateral vertical jumps on force platforms or unilateral jumps? The reason that I ask is there is a fairly large amount of data on asymmetries during these tasks. As it appears the goal of this review was to identify useful measures of lower limb symmetry this was neglected and should be added in the future.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: Were any studies identified using bilateral vertical jumps on force platforms or unilateral jumps? The reason that I ask is there is a fairly large amount of data on asymmetries during these tasks. As it appears the goal of this review was to identify useful measures of lower limb symmetry this was neglected and should be added in the future.

 

Response 1: Dear reviewer, one of the main purposes of this systematic review was focused on the search and analysis of articles that used tests with low-cost materials, offering more practical and economical alternatives to force plates or other high-cost materials that are hardly transportable, equally valid and reliable for all kinds of sports clubs and sports performance professionals applied to football.

However, based on your appreciation, we have tried to influence this justification throughout the introduction, and we would have no problem adding some allusion to the title of the article.

Thank you very much for your active participation.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thee  revised MS is stil unclear in the following points.

a. How are the scores evaluated based on the 11 items? it remains completely elusive.

b. "There were also no discrepancies in the evaluation criteria of the select-ed articles-two by the two authors responsible for said task." what is meaning of this statement?

c. Authors did not provided  strong arguments regarding the their selection of 12 articles only.  As such, the data set is really inadequate for comping up with the inferences cliamed by authors.

 

 

Author Response

Thee  revised MS is stil unclear in the following points.

Point 1: How are the scores evaluated based on the 11 items? it remains completely elusive.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for the appreciation.

For further clarification and development of the PEDro scale, more information has been provided in this regard.

Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

Point 2: "There were also no discrepancies in the evaluation criteria of the select-ed articles-two by the two authors responsible for said task." what is meaning of this statement?

RESPONSE: The statement to which it refers has been expanded to facilitate its understanding.

We are sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Point 3: Authors did not provided  strong arguments regarding the their selection of 12 articles only.  As such, the data set is really inadequate for comping up with the inferences cliamed by authors.

RESPONSE: We clearly understand your concern.

To clarify and keep in mind their appreciation, we have developed this statement in the paragraph devoted to limitations of the study.

Thank you very much for your help.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your resubmission 

Author Response

Point 1: Thank you for your resubmission

 

RESPONSE: Thank you very much for your active participation. If you feel that the manuscript needs further improvement, please do not hesitate to let us know.