Remote assessment of pelvic kinematics during single leg squat using smartphone sensors: Between-day reliability and identification of acute changes in motor performance

Valter Devecchi; Michelle Saunders; Sajni Galaiya; Millie Shaw; Alessio Gallina

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288760

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 28, 2023
15 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-23-10433Remote assessment of pelvic kinematics during single leg squat using smartphone sensors: between-day reliability and identification of acute changes in motor performancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gallina, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear Authors, one expert in the field reviewed your manuscript reporting some minor issues you should consider in the revision process.Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The feasibility of using smartphone sensors for biomechanical assessment of pelvic kinematics during a single leg squat (SLS) in ecological settings was investigated. Thirty-three healthy young adults participated remotely on two different days using their own smartphones placed on the lumbosacral region. Pelvic orientation and acceleration data were collected during SLS sets and an endurance task. The reliability of the measurements was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC2,k), Standard Error of Measurement, and Minimal Detectable Change. Results showed good to excellent reliability (ICC2,k ≥ 0.79) for pelvic orientation and frequency features of acceleration signals. Changes in pelvic kinematics during the endurance task were identified, including larger contralateral pelvic drop and rotation. These findings indicate that smartphones can provide reliable measurements of pelvic kinematics remotely during SLS, and also detect changes in motor control during an endurance task. I have completed the review of the manuscript in question, and overall, I find the study to be well-written with an interesting practical application. Despite the use of "commercial" equipment, the methodological approach is robust. The results are clearly presented and comprehensive, as are the accompanying figures. The discussion is well-supported by the results. I have only one point that I believe the authors should address: Was the calculation of the sample size performed? The term "convenient sample" is somewhat ambiguous, and it would be beneficial for the authors to clarify this aspect in the text, if such calculations were indeed conducted. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Christian Doria ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288760.r001
Revision 1
3 Jul 2023 Author Response Reviewer 1 The feasibility of using smartphone sensors for biomechanical assessment of pelvic kinematics during a single leg squat (SLS) in ecological settings was investigated. Thirty-three healthy young adults participated remotely on two different days using their own smartphones placed on the lumbosacral region. Pelvic orientation and acceleration data were collected during SLS sets and an endurance task. The reliability of the measurements was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC2,k), Standard Error of Measurement, and Minimal Detectable Change. Results showed good to excellent reliability (ICC2,k ≥ 0.79) for pelvic orientation and frequency features of acceleration signals. Changes in pelvic kinematics during the endurance task were identified, including larger contralateral pelvic drop and rotation. These findings indicate that smartphones can provide reliable measurements of pelvic kinematics remotely during SLS, and also detect changes in motor control during an endurance task. I have completed the review of the manuscript in question, and overall, I find the study to be well-written with an interesting practical application. Despite the use of "commercial" equipment, the methodological approach is robust. The results are clearly presented and comprehensive, as are the accompanying figures. The discussion is well-supported by the results. I have only one point that I believe the authors should address: Was the calculation of the sample size performed? The term "convenient sample" is somewhat ambiguous, and it would be beneficial for the authors to clarify this aspect in the text, if such calculations were indeed conducted. We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback about our study. Regarding the comment on the sample size, we expanded the section explaining that we adopted current statistical methods relying on the interclass correlation coefficients to identify the required sample size. Line 83: “The sample size was calculated using an online application (17) and the following parameters: alpha = 0.05, power = 80%, minimum acceptable ICC = 0.7, expected ICC = 0.9 (based on other reliability studies of smartphone sensors (13). The calculation resulted in a minimum sample size of 23 participants. However, to account for a potential larger-than-usual dropout rate due to the remote nature of the study, we increased the number of participants to 33.” In addition to the revisions requested by the reviewer, we have also slightly revised the text for grammar and clarity (track-changed). 13. Keogh JWL, Cox A, Anderson S, Liew B, Olsen A, Schram B, et al. Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review. Müller J, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019 May 8;14(5):e0215806. 17. Arifin WN. A Web-based Sample Size Calculator for Reliability Studies. Educ Med J. 2018 Sep 28;10(3):67–76. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288760.r002
5 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor Remote assessment of pelvic kinematics during single leg squat using smartphone sensors: between-day reliability and identification of acute changes in motor performance PONE-D-23-10433R1 Dear Dr. Gallina, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288760.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Emiliano Cè, Editor PONE-D-23-10433R1 Remote assessment of pelvic kinematics during single leg squat using smartphone sensors: between-day reliability and identification of acute changes in motor performance Dear Dr. Gallina: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Emiliano Cè Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288760.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .