Hamstring Torque, Velocity and Power Elastic Band Measurements during Hip Extension and Knee Flexion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

This is an interesting manuscript regarding the quantification of hamstring torque and velocity by means of a self-produced device.

I believe the rationale of this paper is somehow interesting since the authors aim to provide a solution for the measurement of an interesting parameter of hamstring injury and rehab. However, serious flaws are present.

Methodology description is confusional, no clear description of devices and methodology is provided.

Results are too long and not clearly presented.

Figures and tables are helpful to the general understanding but should be better referenced in the text and in the caption

English language is a big concern and should be carefully checked through all the sections. I strongly suggest a revision from a native speaker.

I encourage the authors to do a massive revision of their paper, including a more detailed explanation of the study purpose and coherent methodology, results, and discussion. Specific comments can be found below.

 

 

Specific Comments

Abstract

• No clear distinction between methodology and results. Please rephrase
• Conclusions should be rephrased. The last sentence should be much more bounded to your findings and less amplified.

 

Background

• Too long. Reduce sensibly, and be more focused on your topic
• No need to mention ACL injury, stay focused on hamstrings
• Why directly describe the last phase of hamstring rehab? What’s there before? Briefly introduce, if really needed
• Do not mix your methodology and introduction (e.g., DINABANG description).
• Clearly state your purpose, primary and secondary outcomes, and hypotheses, if you have some.

Methods

• Do not repeat table info. For example, add a column to table 1 to avoid reporting the overall data (male+female) in the text
• Precisely describe your tool, how it works, how was your data collection conducted
• Statistical methods should report to your main outcomes (see comment above)

 

Results

• Shorten the written part. Rely more on tables and figures. No need to write "figure XX report this or that", use descriptive captions.

 

Discussion

• you are providing a sort of normative data and feasibility study, can’t this be your primary endpoint? Did you define secondary outcomes? Are these differences statistically significant?
• Do not use sub-headings in the discussion section
• Do not use bold characters

Conclusion

• Please shorten to a couple of informative sentences.

Tables and Figures

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much or the time and for the quality of your review, very detailed indeed and full of helpful advice.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Please, see attached file.

Thanks!

Kind Regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you very much or the time and for the quality of your review, very detailed
indeed and full of helpful advice.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the quality of review.

Minor revision (Statistical Analysis):

Please, include: software IBM SPSS Statistics, and the version.

Kind Regards

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2, second round:

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your kind and concise review. All statistical calculations were originally carried out using the "R" statistical calculation software, as mentioned in our paper. The results have been double checked with version 20.0 of IBM SPSS software, as you requested (lines 338).

We have rephrased a sentence in the abstract (line 28) for enhanced clarity and we have corrected 8 minor typos throughout the text (line 44 and seven others).

Best regards,

Prof. Franco Simini and Darío Santos