Decoding Hip Muscle Activation: A Comparative Electromyographic Analysis of Turn-Out Bent Knee Pulse and Single-Leg Banded Glute Bridge Exercises in Healthy Female Subjects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

General comments

the article by et al, entitled:

“Decoding Hip Muscle Activation: A Comparative Electromyographic Analysis of Turn-Out Bent Knee Pulse and Single-Leg Banded Glute Bridge Exercises in Healthy Female Subjects”

Aimed to analyze the activation level of gluteus massimus during two specific exercises.

 

The study is very interesting and has all the conditions to be published in EJIHPE, but I ask for some suggestions for changes. In general, I ask the authors to reduce the information about core-training, injuries, muscle weakness in the abstract, objectives and conclusions. And keep these speculations and theoretical basis only in the introduction and discussion (take from title, abstract, objectives, conclusions).

The introduction is well done leading the reader to the research problem in the right way.

The materials and methods are generally well explained and allow the reader to understand how the experiments were performed and analyzed.

 

Minor points

 

I suggest to keep a more sober/technical language and replace the terms 'intriguing (line 21), 'interestingly' (line 17).

Indicate in the abstract which gluteus was analyzed, and insert this information in the objective and conclusion of the abstract.

 

Line 55 – iliopsoas instead of rapid psoas

 

Lines 102-103 – please consider stating the simple size found using the Gpower.

 

Line 105 – 2 in superscript

 

Line 117 – remove this phrase

 

Table – consider using body mass instead weight and let 2 in superscript

 

Line 121 – consider including the number of sessions

 

Lines 132-134 - in lines 123-124 it is indicated that 2 electrodes were used but in the following lines it is informed that two muscles were used, so if they used a bipolar configuration, traditional for this type of analysis, there were 4 electrodes (and reference electrode). COnfirm.

In addition, it is only here that it is clear which muscles were analyzed. This should be throughout the paper (already in the abstract) and the results and conclusion should specifically address what was analyzed.

 

Line 135 – rewrite this sentence removing ‘intriguing twist’.

 

Lines 141-142 - I suggest the following redaction for this sentence: Moreover, a 5-minute interval time was given between exercises and repetitions, or until the individuals felt ready for the next exercise bout, avoiding fatigue effects.

 

Line 157 – ICC3,1 ?

 

Lines 160-162 – consider removing this phrase

 

 

while the data collection procedures are somewhat well presented, the data analysis procedures are poorly described. Describe which procedures were used to calculate the amplitude of the EMG signal (iEMG or RMS), which filter (type, order, cut-off). Where was it processed (if in matlab, R, etc or a specific software). What sampling frequency was used in the collection, electrode size).

 

Lines 178-185 – congratulations for the reliability analysis. Good point!

 

 

Discussion

 

Please, consider removing fascinating term, and other terms indicating value judgment about the study. Still in the first paragraph of discussion, please consider informing the two muscles analyzed, something  like that: we aimed to compare the activation level of maximus gluteus and medius gluteus between the turn-out bent knee pulse and the single-leg banded glute bridge exercises.

 

Line 194 – finding instead of discovery

 

Line 200 – remove this first phrase

Line 209 – we instead of researchers

Line 212 – remove captivating and exhciting discovery

 

Lines 215-6 – remove the phrase the results were truly remarkable

 

Lines 218-220 – here you start to re-inform the results. While you can maintain the first phrase, the second indicating p/F, please, remove. If I don’t loose something, here comes the first information on rectifying etc procedures. This info needs to be displaced to methods.

 

Lines 249-252 – please consider removing this paragraphs, because it’s totally speculative or including good references supporting this statements.

 

Reduce the information in the following paragraphs (from line 252), limitations and even in the conclusion. And consider removing all adjectives (immense, fascinating, intriguing).

 

I suggest including these references to connect the emg activation with postural adjustments (PMID: 34803726) and to make relation between gluteus activation and sports performance (PMID: 29561907)

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

The authors sincerely thank you for your observations, for the time given to study our article and for the effort to help us with advice.
In the attachment, you have our answers to your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

outstanding

Outstanding

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

The authors sincerely thank you for your observations, for the time given to study our article and for the effort to help us with advice.
In the attachment, you have our answers to your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the paper is interesting and fits the scope of the journal. The study has several important implications for both research and practical applications in the field of exercise physiology and rehabilitation. I have minor comments that may help improve the paper. However, the main limitation of this study is that examined only two exercises. Another major limitation is that the study was conducted on a specific group of individuals, healthy young women aged 19 to 24 years. I think would be very useful if the subjects were people with musculoskeletal disorders.

 

Please check again the affiliations. I think it is Apostolos Pavlos and not Apostolas Pavlos. 

 

Introduction

Lines 81-88. This paragraph didn’t link very well with previous.

 

Please highlight the importance of this study. Are there any other studies similar to this one in the literature?

 

Methods

Please refer more information about the subjects. Were athletes or untrained?

 

Discussion

Although the text refers to previous research in general terms, it does not provide a direct comparison with other studies that might have explored similar exercises or muscle activation patterns. I believe a more extensive review of related literature could strengthen the study.

The topic of the paper is interesting and fits the scope of the journal. The study has several important implications for both research and practical applications in the field of exercise physiology and rehabilitation. I have minor comments that may help improve the paper. However, the main limitation of this study is that examined only two exercises. Another major limitation is that the study was conducted on a specific group of individuals, healthy young women aged 19 to 24 years. I think would be very useful if the subjects were people with musculoskeletal disorders.

 

Please check again the affiliations. I think it is Apostolos Pavlos and not Apostolas Pavlos. 

 

Introduction

Lines 81-88. This paragraph didn’t link very well with previous.

 

Please highlight the importance of this study. Are there any other studies similar to this one in the literature?

 

Methods

Please refer more information about the subjects. Were athletes or untrained?

 

Discussion

Although the text refers to previous research in general terms, it does not provide a direct comparison with other studies that might have explored similar exercises or muscle activation patterns. I believe a more extensive review of related literature could strengthen the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

The authors sincerely thank you for your observations, for the time given to study our article and for the effort to help us with advice.
In the attachment, you have our answers to your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, your proo-of-concept is captivating, but more clarity is needed in the methodology, I recommend avoiding defining your study as "captivating, captivating etc" because it is not fair to the readers. Especially if not legitimized by the data and results, avoid connections with low back pain. The conclusions must maintain a clear thread with the results.

 

L18 exhibit weakness and "stifness"

L19 proprioception

L21 In this intriguing study? describe the design, don't self-appeal the studio with terms like this, please.

L21-23 on the glute fan? or on a specific buttock?

Was only EMG assessment used as an outcome?

L47 remove strong, please

L63 why from this point on there is such a long excursus on low back pain?

L89-93 the study rationale should describe why you chose these two athletic gestures...

L101 Enter a design address first. then define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. move all selection results to the results section

Table1 are results

L124 silver/silver? what probes did you use? "The sEMG was performed with a wireless EMG device (FREE1000 BTS Bioengineering, Milano, Italy) using bipolar surface electrodes (diameter, 0.8 cm; interelectrode distance, 2 cm; pregelled disposable, surface Ag/AgCl Ambu Neuroline 720 electrodes (Ambu, Neuroline, Ballerup, Denmark)" ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31711040/

L128 Have you followed the SENIAM guidelines?

I would say to put procedures such as athletic gestures, outcomes or sEMG, calculations and processing in the statistical analysis section

In the results, start with the description of the selections and definition of the sample, then the ICC of the test and finally the actual data with the results

L187 remove "fascinating", possibly the reader can define it like this. it is inappropriate on the part of the authors.

L193 I don't understand the connection with low back pain? in the methods and above all in the results you have not contemplated it..

L200-201 I think this is the rationale of the study. and that the gluteal fan is often underestimated in performance enhancement and management

L207 "This study not only sheds light on the intricate relationship between gluteus muscle activity and low back pain"

as? I don't think I can do it..

"captivating study" not appropriate.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

The authors sincerely thank you for your observations, for the time given to study our article and for the effort to help us with advice.
In the attachment, you have our answers to your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

the main limitation of this study is that examined only two exercises. Another major limitation is that the study was conducted on a specific group of individuals, healthy young women aged 19 to 24 years. I think would be very useful if the subjects were people with musculoskeletal disorders.

 

Lines 81-88. Please link this paragraph better with the previous paragraph.

Please refer more information about the subjects. Were healthy untrained?

 

Minor editing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

L48-52 not only has not been removed strong.. but honestly from a case series what strong evidence can be found? even the suggestive strong highlighted does not have an adequate bibliographic reference for the affirmation

I still don't understand the long examination of low back pain, when you haven't evaluated the spinal erectors.. or a logistic correlation with an anamnestic evaluation of low back pain? or with a score that evaluates lumbar pain.

L95 EMG analysis to assess their effectiveness in activating gluteus muscles and reducing low back pain in females (?)
You cannot provide the reader with such an objective because you are not assessing the role in low back pain.

L434-L437, I agree with this conclusion. You have made these assessments and obtained this data. Unfortunately, anything that does not fall within these results cannot be deduced as it is not verified

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Please see the attachment

We thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept as it is.

Accept as it is.