Next Article in Journal
Comparing Two Methods of Acute: Chronic Workload Calculations in Girls’ Youth Volleyball
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Concurrent High-Intensity and Strength Training on Muscle Power and Aerobic Performance in Young Soccer Players during the Pre-Season
Previous Article in Journal
Heat Acclimation Knowledge among Recreational Runners
Previous Article in Special Issue
Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Loaded Jump Variations in Resistance-Trained Women
 
 
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

A Systematic Review of Dynamic, Kinematic, and Muscle Activity during Gymnastic Still Rings Elements

by Roman Malíř *, Jan Chrudimský, Michal Šteffl and Petr Stastny
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Submission received: 19 December 2022 / Revised: 17 February 2023 / Accepted: 20 February 2023 / Published: 22 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strength and Power Training in Individual and Team Sports)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented a good revision of the literature about the gymnastics ring performance and training studies. This review has been well structured and presented interesting results and conclusions. However, several aspects must be accomplished, mainly related to the PRISMA requirements to do a systematic review:

INTRODUCTION

1.       Lines 81-83: The aim of the study has to refer explicitly to Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS).

2.       Lines 84-85: These lines reflect the possible practical applications of the review but seem to go further from the aim of the review.

3.       Lines 85-89: Hypotheses are not related with the aim presented in the study. In addition, they are not used to discuss later in the manuscript.

METHODS

1.       Did the authors create a review protocol previously to conduct the systematic review? If that is the case, please, indicate the web address and the registration number.

2.       Figure 1: The authors did not conduct a meta-analysis. Please, in order to avoid misunderstandings, delete “(meta-analysis)” from the last box of the flowchart.

3.       Lines 96-100 and Table 1: Complete information of the search strategy presenting as a supplementary file the full electronic search strategy for at least one database (PubMed, for example).

4.       The authors did not include a “Risk of bias of individual studies” and it is also an important part of the systematic review to evaluate the findings robustness of the review. Please, include it and describe the method used.

RESULTS

1.       Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if it possible, across studies.

 

I also recommended to include the PRISMA checklist (https://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_checklist.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1) as a supplementary files

Here you have a recent Systematic Review published in the same journal (MDPI Sports) that can be used as an example:

Riquelme-Hernández, C.; Reyes-Barría, J.P.; Vargas, A.; Gonzalez-Robaina, Y.; Zapata-Lamana, R.; Toloza-Ramirez, D.; Parra-Rizo, M.A.; Cigarroa, I. Effects of the Practice of Movement Representation Techniques in People Undergoing Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. Sports 202210, 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10120198

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop