The Impact of PAPE Protocols on Barbell Velocity During the Bench Press in Trained Individuals: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMany thanks to the Editor for the opportunity to revise the systematic review entitled “The impact of PAPE protocols on barbell velocity during the bench press in trained individuals: a systematic review”, in which the Authors have specifically investigated the effectiveness of PAPE on bench press performance in trained subjects. In the complex, the review is well-structured and well-written. However, I pointed out some issues that need attention, as follows:
Could you just insert the search keywords once? You wrote before that were searched in these four journals (lines 118-119).
Please, may I suggest dividing your Table 2 Characteristics of the Studies Included in the Systematic Review? As it is very hard to read due to the reduced space in the colums and the huge amount of interesting information. This Table needs to be made easier to read, as it is the foundation of your paper.
Can you also indicate the 1 RM bench press to body weight ratio? It could be an easy variable to look at when searching for the “level” of the population described in the studies.
Can you also indicate the number of repetitions performed in these studies? For example, in 283-285, “Regarding the intensity range of the CA, it was shown that loads between 70–80% of 1RM, applied in short sets (e.g., 1–3 sets), were most often associated with significant increases in movement velocity in subsequent sets.” Someone, you wrote, used a VBT threshold, but, in practice, how many repetitions were performed by these individuals? This will increase the practical application of your research, saying that 1-3 sets of maximum X repetitions have to be performed at a relative load between 70–80% of 1RM and so on.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “The impact of PAPE protocols on barbell velocity during the bench press in trained individuals: a systematic review” was evaluated. The study presents interesting information; however, adjustments need to be made so that it can be designated for publication.
I kindly ask the authors to highlight all changes made to the text in a different color or in yellow so that the reviewer can identify where the adjustments were made.
Below are the suggestions for the authors.
Abstract
1- I did not find the objectives and the question of the study in the abstract, please add them.
2- Present in the abstract how many studies were found and then mention that only seven remained.
3- Try to present the search words in the abstract; this is important for the reader to have a better understanding of the study.
4- Reduce the conclusions, focusing on the objectives and the hypothesis of the work.
Introduction
5- The introduction has very long paragraphs, please adjust.
6- Try to explain in the introduction, at the cellular, molecular, and biochemical level, the reasons why PAPE provides modulations in the body to the point of having positive effects on practitioners. You can replace the redundant information in paragraph three to include these issues.
Methods
7- Please clarify whether there were restrictions on the search for articles regarding the language and year of the studies investigated.
8- You mentioned using the PEDro scale to analyze the quality of the articles, however, I did not find anything about PICO to evaluate the eligibility criteria of the articles. Please include the PICO strategy presenting the population, interest, context, and outcome.
9- Why did you choose to use the PEDro scale instead of the Newcastle Ottawa scale?
10- Apparently, I noticed that you did not perform the search in an important database: National Library of Medicine (Pubmed). It is important to run the search in this database as well.
11- In lines 160 to 165, you mention that the data extraction was performed by a single researcher, however, in systematic reviews it is common to use two researchers for the extraction and a third for the consensus. Please explain why this was not followed.
12- Explain how you deleted duplicates, for example, did you use the RAYYAN system?
Results:
13- Table 2 would be more didactic if you presented the data with the page in landscape instead of portrait.
14- Please organize the results in the same direction as the discussion, this makes it easier for the reader to follow the linearity of the study in the discussion.
Discussion:
15- As mentioned in the introduction, please include information at the molecular level to explain the findings. For example, talk about bioenergetics and neural activation mechanisms in more depth.
Conclusions
16- Focus on completing the objectives, from what I understand, at the end of the introduction you suggest some.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have solved every issue, I have no further recommendations.
Author Response
Thank you for your time devoted to the review process and for your valuable suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for sending the revised version of the manuscript. I was able to verify that almost all the demands were met.
The only issue I need you to include is PUBMED in the methodology. It was only cited in the abstract.
Author Response
We have included the name of the PubMed database in the Methods section, as suggested. Thank you for your time devoted to the review process and for your valuable suggestions.
