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.
Authors, thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments in a thorough and timely manner. I am pleased to recommend your amended manuscript for publication. Thank you for choosing PeerJ to disseminate your research findings, we look forward to future submissions from your research group.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors, your systematic review search concluded 5th March 2025, this is now approx 8 months ago, systematic review standards (eg. PRISMAl) consider best practice that database searches are "reasonably current" at the time of submission. Please rerun your database searches, update your manuscript appropriately and ensure you submit your updated search results with your resubmission.
It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - The impact of wearable resistance training on strength, speed, and agility: a systematic review and meta-analysis - that it requires some revision.
My suggested changes and reviewer comments are shown below and on your article 'Overview' screen.
Please address these changes and resubmit. Although not a hard deadline please try to submit your revision within the next 30 days.
Once your article is Accepted, payment will be due before any typesetting can be started. So we advise you to pay the publication fee now (or to start the approval process at your institution). This will lock-in today’s price for your publication and it will eliminate delays once the article is Accepted. Payment can be made at: https://peerj.com/manuscripts/118382/payments/ (any author can pay the fee). Note: PeerJ provides refunds for any authors who have paid in advance, but end up not publishing (for whatever reason).
**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.
The study is pretty well written. Only missing spaces between referring to figures, tables, and references.
The results part is too long and includes interpretation, which should only be done in the discussion part. So move that to there.
The design is good.
The figures should be better. See my additional comments.
The review is well written and has performed a nice job on the analysis. However, I still have some comments that have to be answered before it is acceptable for publication.
The introduction and methods are ok, but the results chapter is too long, and in different parts of the results, also interpretations were performed, which is not appropriate in the results part. These should be moved to the discussion part.
There are a lot of references, figures, and table references placed directly after the text without spaces. These should include a space in the text.
The use of the funnel plots is not clear to me. These should be better explained.
A p-value can never be 0.00. So change that to p <0.001 in the text.
Specify how many studies were in the different categories: speed, strength, and agility.
It seems that strength and power are in the same category. However, in the findings, it is clear that WRT had a positive effect upon power (jump performance) and not upon maximal strength. Perhaps specify this more, and don’t take these two together, as they are two different abilities in my opinion.
The figures should be better.
In Figure 3, the references should be ordered according to outcome, and these should be written as a heading. This gives a better view of what the findings were with the different studies on these outcomes. This will also give a better view of the findings.
The same for Figure 4. Organise this figure according to distance. So all references that studied the effect at 10m, 20, etc. This again gives a better view of the different studies on the different distances. Now not clear. Also, a-j are not easy to follow for readers. So write them fully out.
Figure 5: Which agility tests were used as outcomes? Include them in the figure.
Figure 5 favours WRT is on the right side, while in the other figures, it is on the left side. Change this so that all figures have the favours WRT to the same side.
Include in figure 6-8 which outcomes are used (like CMJ, 10, 20m, etc) and organize the figure according to these outcomes to get a better view of the different studies and the effect upon the outcomes.
**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.
**Language Note:** When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
It is an interesting review, with many analyses. But I have some concerns about the number of studies in the analysis. The number was 19 articles. However, when sub-analyses were performed on strength, the sum of the total number of articles was much higher than the 14 articles on strength. This is really confusing.
The design is good. But I have some concerns about the categories, as strength includes maximal strength and jumping power, which are two different parts, according to me. So this should be divided into two categories.
Many analyses are performed, but I am unsure if the correct number of articles is used in the different analyses, as the number of studies in Tables 1 and 5 is not similar.
Try to avoid too many abbreviations, because these make it difficult for the reader to follow the article. Especially in the tables, many abbreviations are written that are not easy to follow. Write them out fully.
Strength was a combination of maximal strength and plyometrics or power (jump strength). In my opinion, it is not possible to combine these two as one ability called strength. I suggest specifying strength and power (jump) in the analysis.
Due to taking together different strength outcomes, it is difficult to make a proper analysis, which is not correct, because there is a difference in jump performance between strength and maximal strength.
One of the conclusions is that 11-30% of body weight wearable resistance is the best. However, there is no analysis shown in which a difference is made between where the wearable resistance was attached. As these weights of 11-30% were via a vest attached to the trunk, which is much different from attachments to the lower or upper limbs. So I miss this distinction, as this is very important information when you make this conclusion.
My main concern is that the numbers of the studies in the strength category and the sub-analysis do not correspond between tables 1 and 5. This makes it difficult to know if the analyses are correctly performed.
Furthermore, the discussion is a bit long, in which a reason (neuromuscular changes) is given for the changes. However, none of the studies have investigated the reason for the increases in performance. So, in a review, it is difficult to make this statement when no study has investigated the possible mechanisms behind it. Try to shorten the discussion, because now there is some repetition and the flow is not good, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow the points in the discussion.
Specific comments
Abstract.
Line 24: What is SMD? First time writing this fully out.
Line 33-36: repetition from the results part. Delete or rewrite.
Line 144: suggested by Andrade (2019)
Line 248: (Table 5), interventions ….
Table 1: This table contains too many abbreviations. What do ST, SPT, and DT mean? Write these fully out. Also, using a, b, c, etc as outcome variables makes it difficult to understand what was tested as the outcome.
Table 4: p-value can never be 0.00. Write <0.001
Table 5. The number of studies can’t be correct as there are only 14 studies in the strength category and not 16, as 2-3 weeks. When viewing table 1, it shows a different number of studies than shown in table 5. None of the numbers are similar between Table 1 and Table 5. How is this possible?
In Figure 3-6, a to i are used after the year in reference. What do they mean? These should be specified if they are different outcome parameters, because you cannot compare jump performance with maximal strength.
The current manuscript presents a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of wearable resistance training (WRT) on strength, speed, and agility, with additional analysis of training parameters (e.g., duration, frequency, load). While the topic is timely and relevant, several methodological and presentation issues need to be addressed to improve clarity, accuracy, and alignment between the objectives, results, and conclusions. Please find the suggestions below.
Abstract
1. Please include both the databases searched and the time period (e.g., “from inception to March 2025”) in the abstract to strengthen transparency and align the manuscript with best practices for systematic reviews. This addition would help readers better assess the review’s scope and currency.
2. The abstract should briefly mention where wearable resistance was applied (e.g., trunk, lower limbs), as placement significantly affects training outcomes and is discussed later in the manuscript.
Introduction
1. The introduction is written as one long paragraph, which makes it difficult to follow the logical progression of ideas. Consider breaking it into shorter, thematically grouped paragraphs to improve readability and flow.
2. The rationale for choosing strength, speed, and agility as the three performance outcomes could be made more explicit. Please briefly justify why these three were prioritized over other performance metrics.
3. The introduction does not clearly introduce the importance of wearable resistance placement (e.g., trunk vs. lower limbs) or the impact of varying load magnitudes, despite these being key factors explored in the results and discussion.
4. The introduction does not specify how strength, speed, and agility were measured (e.g., 1RM squat, sprint time, T-test), even though these distinctions are important for understanding the scope and validity of the meta-analysis.
5. The introduction provides relevant background but does not clearly summarize the study’s specific focus. Concluding with a summary sentence highlighting the study’s novelty would better guide the reader into the methods.
6. While the introduction provides a general rationale for using wearable resistance training (WRT), it does not clearly explain the physiological or biomechanical mechanisms by which WRT improves these outcomes.
The methods section is generally well-structured and aligned with PRISMA standards. However, it lacks a clear explanation of how load placement (e.g., trunk vs. lower limb) was handled in the analysis, despite its relevance to the study aim.
Results
1. The results section addresses the main objective by analyzing the effects of WRT on strength, speed, and agility, and evaluating key training variables through subgroup and meta-regression analyses. However, the role of load placement, which appears conceptually important, is not reflected in the results. Also, the non-significant outcome for speed should be interpreted more cautiously to maintain consistency with the stated objectives.
2. Figure 3–4 lacks x-axis labels, making it difficult to interpret the subgroup categories. Please add descriptive labels to clarify each group. Additionally, summarize the key findings depicted in this figure within the Results section so readers can understand its relevance to the study outcomes.
3. Figure 5 is an appropriate forest plot summarizing the pooled effect of WRT on agility performance. However, the x-axis is unlabeled, and the figure lacks a clear indication of effect direction. I recommend labeling the x-axis, clarifying which direction favors the intervention to clarify the direction of benefit is essential for correct interpretation.
Discussion
1. The discussion is long and dense. To improve readability and reinforce alignment with the study objectives, I suggest organizing the section using subheadings such as “Effect of WRT on Strength,” “Effect on Speed,” and “Effect on Agility.”
2. The discussion provides valuable context but does not consistently summarize the review’s own findings. The speed and agility sections rely heavily on external studies and overlook that the effects were non-significant or based on limited data. Please restate the key results more clearly within each section to maintain focus.
3. The conclusion mentions mechanisms such as motor unit recruitment and force production capacity, which were not directly measured or synthesized in this review. I recommend removing this sentence or rephrasing it to reflect that such mechanisms are only hypothesized. The conclusion should summarize the key synthesized results from the meta-analysis, including which outcomes showed significant improvements, subgroup/meta-regression findings, and limitations in the current evidence.
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.