All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
no comment
no comment
no comment
na
na
na
The manuscript has been revised and is now well-structured. All relevant limitations have been addressed in the discussion, and therefore the manuscript could be accepted for publication. Future studies should be conducted to confirm the effects of this intervention.
There were notable concerns with your study justification, experimental procedures, and reporting of results. I will allow the authors the opportunity to respond to the reviewers concerns.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
1. What is your hypothesis in this study? Please explain your hypothesis in Introduction.
2. You have to cite more papers or reports in the first paragraph of Introduction. The widespread popularity of PM should be justified by objective data.
3. Please explain position where the participants were placed in “no-activation control.” Were they in supine or prone position?
4. Please write the method to calculate RSI in Method section.
1. If possible, please cite a paper or report in “recreationally physically active (engaging in physical activity at least twice a week for 30 minutes per session)” in Lines 110-111.
2. Why did you use only AKE as flexibility? In this study, PM and FR were applied to triceps surae, glutes, and quadriceps muscles. I think that the flexibility of these muscles should be evaluated.
3. Why didn’t you measure the outcomes in baseline? You should confirm that the flexibility changed due to the intervention by comparing the flexibility at baseline with that at post-intervention. You can use two-way ANOVA with repeated measures because this analysis can be used for non-parametric data (E.S. Pearson, The Analysis of Variance in Cases of Non-Normal Variation, Biometrika, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 (Nov., 1931), pp. 114-133).
1. In addition to the protocol in this study written in Lines 267-268, please explain FR intervention time (e.g., 5 minutes) used in previous studies.
2. Which muscles’ functions were being assessed by each test? For example, which muscles' function is primarily evaluated in the SLRST? Please write your interpretation in Discussion.
none
All citations are listed in the references. The English used is clear and objective, line 48, I suggest replacing the term “pulses intended to (penetrate) deep into muscle tissues” with “pulses designed to deliver stimuli to deep regions of muscle tissue” or “pulses intended to reach the deeper layers of muscle tissue.”
The AKE test:
Widely recognized for its high reliability in assessing hamstring length, being preferable to the passive straight leg raise test. Furthermore, it offers greater safety, as the participant themselves determines the limit of movement, according to De Weijer, Gorniak, and Shamus (J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003); Gajdosik and Lusin (Phys Ther. 1983); Shepherd, Winter, and Gordon (Physiother Rehabil. 2017). According to McVeigh et al. (J Hand Surg Am. 2016), measuring joint range of motion using a goniometer demonstrates a high degree of accuracy and can serve as a repetitive instrument to replace the more invasive gold standard, which in this case would be radiography. However, the authors did not specify the basic characteristics of the goniometer used.
The power-based single-leg press test:
I suggest referencing the validation of this test.
The power-based single-leg press test :
It is not clear whether the participants performed the 1RM test and the power-based single-leg press test consecutively or separately. If they were performed together, could the 1RM test have interfered with explosive strength and peak power output, given that it requires maximum physical effort from the participant and, in this specific case, they were untrained? I suggest providing a brief explanation regarding the application of the 1RM test, the protocol used, and the interval between the 1RM test and the power-based single-leg press test.
The 30-second side hop test:
I suggest referencing the validation of this test.
It is clear that IBM SPSS 25 was used for verification, which is appropriate. The data were summarized as mean and standard deviation, with the Shapiro-Wilk test applied to assess normality, distinguishing between parametric and non-parametric data, using the ANOVA test and the Friedman test, respectively, with the addition of Bonferroni correction and interpretation through ICC.
No comments.
[1] Title and abstract
-
[2] Introduction
- The introduction lacks clarity regarding the specific physiological mechanisms that differ between percussion massage and foam rolling, which would justify the need for the present comparative study.
[3] Materials and methods
- The authors should cite an appropriate reference to justify the selected washout period, particularly to demonstrate the potential long-lasting effects of massage interventions (percussion massage and foam rolling).
- The CONSORT flow diagram must be included, and the CONSORT checklist should be provided as an attachment.
- No sample size calculation was performed, making it impossible to determine whether the sample was adequate to answer the research question.
- The manuscript does not specify the primary and secondary outcomes, nor does it identify who performed the assessments or the sequence in which the assessments were conducted.
[4] Statistics
- The authors included 22 subjects; however, 4 subjects did not complete the testing protocol. In the analysis, it should be clearly stated whether the data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach or a per-protocol approach.
[5] Results, table and figures
- The authors did not report any baseline characteristics or pre- and post-intervention data.
- The effect size, along with the 95% confidence interval, should be reported.
no comment
no comment
This study lacks novelty and contains several ambiguities in the experimental procedures, which affect the ability to address the stated research hypothesis. For example, in the introduction and the inclusion criteria, it is unclear why the study was conducted in asymptomatic healthy volunteers rather than in participants with pain or muscle tension. The sample size determination is also not adequately justified. In addition, key information is missing, such as the characteristics of the participants, and the reporting of pre-test and post-test values, among other relevant details.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.