Sport-Specific Abdominal Wall Muscle Differences: A Comparative Study of Soccer and Basketball Players Using Ultrasonography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The study compares the thickness of abdominal wall muscles between soccer and basketball players. Interesting study, however the document lacks in the identification of practical implications, as well as the interest of comparing this two sports instead of others.

 

Abstract

- change the first four keywords, that must be different from the title.

 

Introduction

- Provides good context but some paragraphs are long and could be subdivided to improve readability.

 

Methods

 - Include information regarding calibration of ultrasound equipment and the operator training to ensure data reliability.

- Introduce information about participants' state of hydration, diet and level of recent physical activity, since they can interfere with results.

- Figure 1 legend should show the meaning of each of the figures (A,B,C).

 

 

Results

- Table 1- present units between brackets and introduce units for shoes size.

 

Discussion

- Could be interesting to explore the biomechanical implications and discuss the practical implications

- Suggest future research

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the feedback and help with the document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Morales et al. explore the difference in abdominal wall thickness between male basketball players and male soccer players. Their use of ultrasonic imaging (USI) is supported in the literature and their observations can contribute to the growing knowledge about the morphology of these muscles in amateur athletes. However, I do have a few major concerns that must be addressed by the authors concerning the presentation of their data.

1. The title suggests that they are looking for adaptations to muscle thickness. However, this is a cross-sectional study that does not allow the researchers to explore 'adaptations'. Adaptations are changes over time that can be attributed to a specific stimulus. Thus, the authors MUST clear all references of observed 'adaptations' or ''sport-specific adaptations' as we are unsure whether any differences are due to the different modalities or other anthropometric predispositions unrelated to the sports themselves. This includes changing the title to highlight 'differences' and not 'adaptations'.

2. There does seem to be quite a large intra-subject difference between left side and right side abdominal musculature for some of the abdominal muscles. Can the authors provide references of other studies that have noted similar discrepancies?

3. Can the authors provide a paired t-test analysis of R vs L side musculature for basketball players and soccer players to see whether this difference is significant (for RA in basketball players for example).

4. Why did the authors choose to only compare L and R side independently. If they take the average (R+L then divide by 2) for each player, do basketball players still have 'thicker' average RA mass? Does this affect any other muscles?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few minor spelling errors were found throughout the text. Pay close attention to incorrect words that do not trigger auto-correct. For example, in the early introduction there is an 'and' that should be 'an'.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the feedback and help with the document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my concerns. In your new Table (table 3), the comparison must be a paired t-test. When comparing L and R sides from the same individual, a student t-test for independent samples is not appropriate. Please revise and fix the analysis to show paired t-test results.

Author Response

In response to "Thank you for addressing my concerns. In your new Table (table 3), the comparison must be a paired t-test. When comparing L and R sides from the same individual, a student t-test for independent samples is not appropriate. Please revise and fix the analysis to show paired t-test results"

 

• Thank you very much for your comment and apologies for the mistake. The paired t test was employed.

Kind regards