Assessing and Monitoring Physical Performance Using Wearable Technologies in Volleyball Players: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

This manuscript aims at examining and summarizing the current research about wearable technology used to assess and monitor physical performance in volleyball players and providing perspectives for future research in volleyball. Due to some specific and minor issues detailed below, authors manage to fulfil barely their aims.

 

Specific comments

There is not any reference to specificity, sensitivity and ROC analysis. Study limitation?

Are volleyball players allowed to use wearables during official matches?

 

Minor comments

(line 19) Please, do not start sentences with figures;

(l35-6 and elsewhere throughout MS, as well [viz., regarding citing ref at sentence’s end) … performance [4].

(l48-9, 237÷9 and 241÷5) Please, re-phrase;

(l69-70) Supplementary Materials Table S1 is not available (“Error 404 - File not found”);

(l82 and Figure 1 in addition to elsewhere throughout MS) different from what stated in Abstract (i.e., eight studies were considered);

(Table 1, 2^nd page) 2 of 17?

(Table 1) GPSport (GPSports Systems Pty Ltd., Fyshwick, Australia);

(l114) GPSport is an accelerometer, as well;

(l173 and 254) … Mitrzyk…

(l226 and elsewhere throughout MS, as well) please, do not use acronyms in headings;

(l245÷8) sentence not relevant to VERTEC;

(l254) … the Blast Athletic…

(l255÷8) the two sentences are in contrast each other. At the end is Blast Athletic Performance Monitor Device accurate (valid) and/or precise (reliable)?

(l283) GPSport is…

(l287) positive hops?

(l288-9) As regarding the previously considered device…

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments/suggestions and also for the opportunity to let us improve our manuscript. The revisions can be found in the attached document... let's hope that the improvements have gone as intended.
For any further questions about the manuscript, we will be at your complete disposal.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

DEAR AUTHORS

The text is a systematic review of the technology used in volleyball to analyse and measure variables. It is a text developing along the lines of the reviews but it needs some considerations that should be adjusted to the scientific criteria of a systematic review.

A) For example, in the abstract include the closing date of the review.

B) The PICOS strategy is not described.

C) I think that the search formula should be more precise with the medical terms MSEH. 

D) The sections on data extraction and inclusion and exclusion should be more developed.

E) In these methodological sections you should always include the acronyms of the authors who have carried out each step and in case of disagreement also include the third author.

F ) Check the FLOW, the asses in the numbers 15 full text excluded do not match.

G) In TABLE 1: Put Sample/Age (years) in the column and then again the years appear in each study, (delete it).

H) Throughout the subject text, it is better to include the term participants.

I) You should also include a scale of study quality (Oxford or Pedro).

J) In general in the tables, although they are complete, the results should be more synthetic, especially those in numerical value.

K) Line 56, the purpose of this systematyc review, no studio

L) Line 100. The review 100 manager software. Correct and include record in superindex.

M) I think that in the discussion you should include in each section a final sentence on whether there is a degree of recommendation for each of the technologies analysed.

You should also include a paragraph with practical applications and strengths.

N) The bibliography should be revised deeply, For exmple: citation 30 in small letters.

King Regards

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments/suggestions and also for the opportunity to let us improve our manuscript. The revisions can be found in the attached document... let's hope that the improvements have gone as intended.
For any further questions about the manuscript, we will be at your complete disposal.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Specific comments

I keep believing that eventual literature references to specificity, sensitivity and ROC analysis should be considered. If there are not any, it should be highlighted their lack. If there are any, they should be considered. If there are any and they are not considered, this should be at least mentioned as a study limitation.

I keep believing acronyms should not be used in heading. The fact this practice is common in literature does not justify its perpetration.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. The response to the comments follows in the attached document.

Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

DEAR AUTHORS:

 

Congrats for you article. After check this second review and reconsider all comments, in my opinion is accepted.

Please, last final detail, in line number 78, PICOS, no PICO

KING REGARDS

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. The response to the comments follows in the attached document.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf