PONE-D-24-02413Effects of Ankle Kinesio Taping on Knee and Ankle Joint Biomechanics During Unanticipated Jumps in Collegiate AthletesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2024 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,

Fei Yan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: 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 manuscript entitled "Effects of Ankle Kinesio Taping on Knee and Ankle Joint Biomechanics During Unanticipated Jumps in Collegiate Athletes", aimed to investigate the effects of ankle KT application on the kinematic and kinetic characteristics of the knee and ankle joints during unanticipated jump tasks. The authors have conducted motion capture analyses to 18 participants and concluded that KT reduced peak ankle inversion angle, peak vertical ground reaction force, and increased peak knee flexion. While the paper addresses an interesting issue, it is not publishable in its current form. There are several critical concerns about the experiment design that greatly undermine the significance of the research outcomes. In addition, the language quality of the manuscript falls short of publication standards. Many sentences in the content are confusing and several arguments are self-contradictory.

General comments

1. Based on the authors’ introduction, “unanticipated movement tasks” appeared to be an important element of the study and served as a key factor that would preassembly influence the research outcome. However, it is very the participants were considered situated in an “unanticipated” scenario using the current research setup as described in the manuscript. I believe that participants were well aware of the jumping tasks before commencement and they were only required to respond to three alternative conditions. Signals were given to the participants before they kicked off while they had the extra time to prepare for the correct tasks, particularly landing, during running on a 2-meter runway. I wonder how much the “unanticipated” element was included in the research outcome.

2. I think the effects of KT on ankle kinematics are well established, that is why it is widely applied in sports and clinics. Without involving other factors in the research setup, the study outcomes added very limited knowledge to the current understanding of the mechanism.

Specific comments

Line 25. I think it should be “anticipated movements” instead of “unanticipated movements”

Line 54-55. “reduced limitations in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion.” What does that mean? Is not KT supposed to constrain ankle motion?

Line 65. Based on the context, it should be “suboptimal position” instead of “optimal position”

Line 81-82. There is insufficient discussion in the introduction to support the authors’ hypotheses. In other words, why did the author hypothesize that KT would reduce peak ankle plantarflexion and inversion angles and moments, and increase peak knee flexion angle?

Line 91. How do you define “engaged”?

Line 110. Based on Figure 1, I think it should be “lateral malleolus.”

Line 135. The speed value (2.7 ± 0.4 m/s) looks like a actual outcome rather than a target value.

Line 138. I would not call it “blinded.” The participants were very well aware of the tasks after signals were given.

Line 156-157. Incorrect punctuation.

Line 198-199. How is the KT method applied in the study able to “reduce gastrocnemius contraction” while also “promote tibialis anterior contraction”?

Line 216-217. Again, it should be “lateral malleolus.”

Line 219. “Poorer function” in what aspect?

Line 229. The authors emphasized many times that lower limb joints were kinematically coupled and the knee joint would supplement restricted ankle motion under intervention conditions. Then here comes a contradictory statement of “Given that the taping did not cover the knee joint, the likelihood of KT improving peak knee flexion angle through mechanical effects is relatively low.”

Line 244. The logic of “limiting a portion of joint ROM while maintaining joint stability[41]” is ambiguous. Suggest to rephrase it.

Line 253-254. How does increased knee flexion “reducing the risk of ACL injuries?”

Line 259. “In addition, the taping retraction from the medial malleolus to the lateral malleolus imparts tension to ankle eversion.” There were no tapes applied in this manner in the study.

Line 267. What is CAI?

All points made in the Limitations sections were off-point. EMG was not the research focus and therefore not supposed to be the limitation. KT is usually not expected to provide sustainable and long-term effects so studying “immediate effects” falls short of being one of the limitations. Non-dominant side also has its own “habitual patterns.” The arguments here are misleading.

Reviewer #2: The article contains a novel and applicable criteria and sounds very good.

Introduction meets the general structure and reflects the importance of the research..

Sampling methods and methodology also are well prepared and well orianted justifications regarding the findings are available.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.

PONE-D-24-02413R1Effects of Ankle Kinesio Taping on Knee and Ankle Joint Biomechanics During Unanticipated Jumps in Collegiate AthletesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2024 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,

Fei Yan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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 authors have addressed all my previous comments properly and sufficiently. The manuscript in its current form has advanced to a status that can be considered for publication, on the condition that the following follow-up questions can be

1. Further to my comments to Line 198-199 in the first-round revision:

Based on the citations provided by the authors as well as the relevant research findings in the literature, a taping method is considered to inhibit muscle contraction only when the tapes are applied with tension across the muscle belly, namely perpendicular to the direction of the muscle fibers. According to the authors’ depictions and the figure’s manifestation, the Kinesio tapes were applied in Y shape along the belly of the two gastronomic heads in the current study, which I hardly agree would impose inhibitory effects on muscle contraction.

I suggest revising relevant content to refrain from emphasizing the “inhibitory effects” of the taps applied on gastrocnemius.

2. Further to my comments to Line 253-24 and Line 283-288.

Please attach references to support the corresponding arguments, for example, increasing knee flexion reduces the risk of ACL injury and evidence of gender differences in knee/ankle biomechanics during unanticipated jumping.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors investigated the effects of ankle kinesio taping on the kinematic and kinetics of knee and ankle joints during jump tasks in athletes.

1. Lines 46-47: Please update the numbers to more recent references as the currently cited references are 40 and 7 years old, respectively.

2. Lines 74-78: These sentences are confusing and should be removed since the present study did not evaluate the ACL property.

3. The objective of the study should be rewrite and included in a separate paragraph at the end of introduction section. Please conclude with a brief statement of the overall aim of the work and a comment about whether that aim was achieved.

4. Please rewrite and reorganize the last paragraph of the Introduction section.

5. Only 18 subjects were included. The sample size is too small, making the results less reliable when extrapolating to a larger population. While G-Power was used to calculate the sample size, it is assumed that gender does not have an impact on the results. However, if gender does indeed influence the outcomes, the current sample size would be considered inadequate. A larger sample size should be considered to enhance the robustness of the results.

6. Furthermore, it is crucial to investigate potential gender effects and whether the same results can be expected across different gender groups. Including an analysis of gender effects is important to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the outcomes. Additionally, it is assumed that gender does not have an impact on the results in the manuscript. However, if gender does indeed influence the outcomes, the current sample size would be considered inadequate.

7. Figure 1: Please include a figure illustrating the three treatments: NT, PT, and KT, to ensure clarity and facilitate understanding.

8. Figure 2: Please include a figure illustrating the three different jump patterns to provide visual clarity and improve understanding of the experimental design.

9. Please clarify whether all participants performed all three different jump patterns using their right leg. Please include the information in the data collection section.

10. Conclusion section should be improved. The authors should provide a concise summary of the main findings and their significance, as well as potential directions for future research.

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[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.

Effects of Ankle Kinesio Taping on Knee and Ankle Joint Biomechanics During Unanticipated Jumps in Collegiate Athletes

PONE-D-24-02413R2

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Fei Yan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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: All my previous comments have been addressed properly and sufficiently. The current form of the manuscript meets publication standards.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous review after a thorough review of the manuscript.

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********