Chronic Effects of Rotational Inertial Devices on Adolescents’ Physical Capacities in Team Sports: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I appreciate the effort the authors have put into their work to enhance the paper. However, I believe there are still some revisions to be made in order to enhance the article's quality. Below are some comments.

The introduction section lacks references supporting the effectiveness of inertial training and its applications. Here are some suggestions.

·       Maroto-Izquierdo, S.; García-López, D.; Fernandez-Gonzalo, R.; Moreira, O.C.; González-Gallego, J.; de Paz, J.A. Skeletal muscle functional and structural adaptations after eccentric overload flywheel resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 943–951.

·       Buonsenso, A., Centorbi, M., Iuliano, E., Di Martino, G., Della Valle, C., Fiorilli, G., ... & di Cagno, A. (2023). A Systematic Review of Flywheel Training Effectiveness and Application on Sport Specific Performances. Sports, 11(4), 76.

·       Fiorilli, G., Quinzi, F., Buonsenso, A., Di Martino, G., Centorbi, M., Giombini, A., ... & di Cagno, A. (2020). Does warm-up type matter? A comparison between traditional and functional inertial warm-up in young soccer players. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 5(4), 84.

In my opinion, it is necessary to extend the systematic review adding at least one more database to the search (PubMed, Cochrane Library or Sage). It is possible that in the rest of the databases the authors can find other studies, e.g.:

·       Raya-González, J.; Castillo, D.; de Keijzer, K.L.; Beato, M. The Effect of aWeekly Flywheel Resistance Training Session on Elite U-16 Soccer Players’ Physical Performance during the Competitive Season. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Res. Sports Med. 2021, 29, 571–585.

Many sentences have not been modified. I understand the authors' desire to avoid excessively changing their contributions; however, the sentence should be modified in a way that avoids plagiarism while still preserving the original meaning. There are still several plagiarized sentences:

·       “Previous studies have applied flywheel eccentric overload in the training of youth soccer players, showing significant improvements in body composition and both concentric and eccentric strength”.

·       “The better adaptations induced by IT are explained by the powerful stretch reflex produced in the eccentric-concentric transition, during flywheel resistance training”.

·       “IT has been shown previously to be useful for enhancing jumping ability, sprint and COD performance. These findings support our study and the same findings have been observed in young athletes”.

·       “That is also supported by previous authors who indicate when multi-exercise programs (including flywheel training) were implemented, no significant improvements in jump ability were seen”.

·       “Resistance programs which incorporate flywheel exercises are one of the most 267 effective methods for improving sport-specific performance in sporting populations”.

The tables are still difficult to understand. The names and the list of tests described in Table 5 are different from those in Table 4; e.g. Gonzalo-skok et al. (2019): in table 5 are mentioned CMJW and in table 4 no. This aspect needs to be reviewed. Some tests in Table 5 are unclear; for example, what is "CODdef10d"? I would recommend that the authors include a legend below the table to explain all the acronyms not previously mentioned.

Author Response

First of all we want to show our grateful for your contribution. We think that this corrections have helped to improve the quality of our study.

We add a pdf answering all your corrections. Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

I want to thank the authors for their contribution in this field of research. 

I think that manuscript can proceed to publication in the present form. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your previous contributions.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The primary purpose of this systematic review was to adopt the PRISMA 2020-based guidelines in reporting the study “ Chronic effects of rotational inertial training on adolescents’ physical capacities in team sports: A systematic review.” Although this study may provide a general overall systematic review, specifically for inertial training's effects on youth's physical capacities, there are several main and minor weaknesses that can be improved as follows:

Major:

1. In line 34, in the introduction section, a better transition word should have been used to link to the ideas related to Inertial Training (IT). The training's effects can be attributed to the stretching-shortening cycle (SSC). However, the specific principles of the IT associated with neuromuscular mechanisms (i.e., stretch reflex or others) could also have been demonstrated to provide further insight into how this training works.
2. In line 49, “However...”, you could replace the word “However...” with “In addition." Also, the optimization of resistance training in relation to a strict regime of eccentric overload training could have been explained as a result of its complexity, as it was not easy to apply technically.
3. In line 136, within the section titled "3.2 Intervention session," it would be beneficial to include visual representations of certain inertial devices such as the conical pulley-versaPulley, K-box, Flywheel D1 Desmote, Flyconpower conical machine, and Ecconomy Byomedic to enhance the presentation of data.
4. The overall effect of inertial training (or eccentric overload training) on the muscles of young athletes in team sports seems intuitive and not difficult to understand at the conclusion of the study. However, if rationales can be provided about the effect of training on the neuromuscular human body system, a systematic review paper will be more comprehensive.

Minor:

1. Line 39~42, the entire sentence is too long and not clear at all.
2. Line 204, Table 4, the unit of inertial load, kg/m2, is not clear for kg per meter squared.
3. Line 204, Table 4, Author Fiorilli et al., 2020, the inertial load is not written, but with a “?” question mark.

Author Response

First of all we want to show our grateful for your contribution. We think that this corrections have helped to improve the quality of our study.

We add a file answering each correction

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Dear authors. 

The article has been improved and I therefore approve its publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for your approval, I think there is a mistake because despite your approval the article is not signed.

Thank for your contribution

 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Line 77~78:  brace related "(”  changed to "]" bracket.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your contribution, it have been modified.

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

Spodná časť formulára

This manuscript in a form of the systematic review analyses the current literature surrounding the chronic effect of inertial training on physical capacities of team sports through functional tests. The authors concluded “the effectiveness of these tools for improving abilities such jumps, sprints, change of directions and power measure”.

This is an interesting review with possible applications of findings in sports practice. There are, however, major concerns which should be addressed.

 

Specify “functional test”.

L13-15: The aim of the current systematic review is to evaluate the current literature surrounding the chronic effect of inertial training on physical capacities of team sports through functional test.

 

The methods used should be briefly described (e.g., databases used, number of relevant articles selected for final analysis, etc.).

L15-16: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA).

 

Please, include main findings. Specify „these tools“.

L16-18: The results revealed the effectiveness of these tools for improving abilities such jumps, sprints, change of directions and power measure.

 

Reformulate the conclusion.

L18-19: In conclusion, inertial training can be an adequate stimulus for the better performance in young athletes on team sports.

 

Consider to include also research questions.

L48-51: Therefore, the aim of the current systematic review is to evaluate the current literature surrounding the chronic effect of inertial training (flywheel or conic-pulley) on physical capacities of team sports through functional test in young athletes.

 

The aim should be removed from the Discussion.

L208-209: The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects after an IT intervention in actions which play a key role on team sports performance in youth athletes.

 

The discussion needs to be revised. Deeper interpretation appears to be missing throughout the discussion. Results presents findings of analysed studies. The discussion should give more consideration to linking these findings rather than simply listing the findings from individual articles. 

 

The discussion needs to present practical applications of findings with respect to athletes of team sports that are not currently addressed in the literature. 

 

Relevant limitations of this review should also be discussed.

 

Please, revise the conclusion. Specify “important abilities”.

284-285: The results of our study showed that IT can be a useful tool to improve important abilities in team sports performance in young athletes.

 

Is this statement based on findings of analysed studies?

L285-287: The methodology of training is quite important to get enhancements, the selection of exercises, volume and load play a key role in the variables that we want to improve

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I would suggest authors to write their articles in their own words. The article is plagiarized, the discussions are full of sentences taken from other articles, and the references are also incorrect. Below an example of a plagiarized sentence written by another author:

·        “The better adaptations induced by IT are explained by the powerful stretch reflex produced in the eccentric-concentric transition, during flywheel resistance training (20)”. In addition, this sentence referred to other authors, not to De keijzer et al.

However, below some major comments.

The introduction section needs to be expanded. In addition, the arguments are not well interconnected, which makes it less coherent.

It is necessary to extend the systematic review. At the very least, Web of Science and Scopus are just two of the databases and it is possible that in the rest of the databases we will find other studies. In addition, in my opinion it is not correct for a systematic include only articles by 2019.

The tables are unclear and are difficult to understand. They miss caption and reference citation (reference number in square brackets). The names and the list of tests described in Table 5 are different from those in Table 4. This aspect needs to be reviewed in all the tables for each article.

Language and grammar are insufficient and the correction of a revised version by a native English speaker is mandatory.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments:

Title : the title is appropriate

Abstract : The title focused on eccentric-overload training, but we didn't find no report on this in abstract. Please report.

Text : You used references number between parentheses. You should replace them by brackets in accordance with the journal style in MDPI.

Introduction :

- I think you should add references when you mentioned the 2 devices : "Flywheel" and "Pulley Conic".

- A small paragraph should be add to highlight the use of eccentric training in the adolescent/young population (you mentioned just ST for youth).

Materials and Methods : 

- Appropriate. However, why you excluded a strength test like "isokietic assesment" ? The IT showed a significant increase in maximal muscle torque of shoulder adductors for example. 

Results : 

- Appropriate.

Discussion + Conclusion : 

- Appropriate

Reviewer 4 Report

I want to thank the authors for their contribution in this field of research. I think that is a well-written manuscript. However, there are some minor comments that need to answer. 

Abstract 

General comment

I think it is well written, however there are some specific comments that need to be answered. 

Specific comments  

L12: I think that is no need to report this sentence in abstract. Please remove it. 

L17: Results: please provide further information. 

Introduction 

General comment 

I think that include all the relative information. However, i propose to separate the second paragraph in two paragraphs. I think that it would be more easy for the readers to understanding the topic. 

Materials and Methods 

I think that all the needed information included. 

Results 

Specific comments 

L147: "Outcome measures" Please provide further information. 

Table 3: Please insert lines to separate the provide information from each included article. 

Table 4: Please insert lines to separate the provide information from each included article. 

Table 5: Please insert lines to separate the provide information from each included article. 

Discussion 

General comment 

I think that it would be more understanding for the readers if you insert headings. For example in the third paragraph that you report the information about "Jumping performance" insert a heading as "4.1 Jumping performance". Please do the same for sprints. 

Conclusions 

In the conclusion please provide some practical advises for coaches.