PONE-D-24-37293Effects of Taekwondo Intervention on Balance Ability: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ju,

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 Jan 23 2025 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,

Artur Kruszewski

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

“This study complies with the current laws of the country/region where it was conducted, and there are no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Talent Introduction Project of Sanya University (USYRC24-07).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 

4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 3 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: 

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 6 and 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

7. As required by our policy on Data Availability, please ensure your manuscript or supplementary information includes the following: 

A numbered table of all studies identified in the literature search, including those that were excluded from the analyses.  

For every excluded study, the table should list the reason(s) for exclusion.  

If any of the included studies are unpublished, include a link (URL) to the primary source or detailed information about how the content can be accessed. 

A table of all data extracted from the primary research sources for the systematic review and/or meta-analysis. The table must include the following information for each study: 

Name of data extractors and date of data extraction 

Confirmation that the study was eligible to be included in the review.  

All data extracted from each study for the reported systematic review and/or meta-analysis that would be needed to replicate your analyses. 

If data or supporting information were obtained from another source (e.g. correspondence with the author of the original research article), please provide the source of data and dates on which the data/information were obtained by your research group. 

If applicable for your analysis, a table showing the completed risk of bias and quality/certainty assessments for each study or outcome.  Please ensure this is provided for each domain or parameter assessed. For example, if you used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, provide answers to each of the signalling questions for each study. If you used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence, provide judgements about each of the quality of evidence factor. This should be provided for each outcome.  

An explanation of how missing data were handled. 

This information can be included in the main text, supplementary information, or relevant data repository. Please note that providing these underlying data is a requirement for publication in this journal, and if these data are not provided your manuscript might be rejected.  

[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

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: Yes

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: Dear Authors,

thank you for the opportunity to perform a review of your article “Effects of Taekwondo Intervention on Balance Ability: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review”. The article is correctly divided into sections. The article is written according to current PRISMA standards for review. The authors performed an objective review in leading science databases. But I suggest two corrections that, in my opinion, will contribute to a better perception of your work.

1. Change the keywords to something other than in the title - this will allow your work to be better identified in the databases.

2. Expand the discussion to include a reference of the established state of knowledge about balance in Taekwondo to several works from other combat sports, karate, judo, etc. By comparison, this will highlight the significant size of your review and contribution to the current state of knowledge of Taekwondo.

In tek, consider referring to: Maslinski J et al. Original methods and tools used for studies on the body balance disturbance tolerance skills of the Polish judo athletes from 1976 to 2016. Arch Budo 2017; 13: 285-296.

Reviewer #2: Review for research paper "Effects of Taekwondo Intervention on Balance Ability: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review" by Han Zhengfa and Ju Hanyu

Dear Editor,

The paper "Effects of Taekwondo Intervention on Balance Ability: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review" presents a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of the effects of Taekwondo interventions on balance ability. The study is well-structured, with a clear objective, detailed methodology, and thorough quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The findings indicate that the data supports the proposed optimal intervention protocol of 60-70 minutes per session, once weekly for 12 weeks.

The paper is well-structured and comprehensive, but a few areas could be improved. I recommend publishing the manuscript "Effects of Taekwondo Intervention on Balance Ability: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review" after a major review. The following issues should be improved or clarified (the pages were numbered starting from the manuscript's page 9):

1. P 9. Line 27: To add the results of bias for studies. Was it low or high?

2. P 10. L 33. What kind of training do you mean in this sentence: for and a times length of 60-70 minutes? Taekwondo or balance training?

3. P 12. L 60. What kind of intervention? Explain in more detail.

4. P 12. L 73. Specify what PRISMA stands for.

5. P 13. L 79. Add the starting date as well.

6. P 13. L 90. Write the full name for PICOS.

7. P 13. L 94. My suggestion is, instead of Taekwondo Gymnastic, to write Freestyle taekwondo.

8. P 14. L 106. Which version? Write a proper citation.

9. P 14. L 113. Reference it.

10. P 15. L 129 and 130 are redundant and previously repeated. Delete them.

11. P 16. L 157. Explain briefly the moderate intensity of 7 studies. Were they based on heart rate or other factors?

12. P 17. L 159. Explain the test "single-leg stance with eyes closed."

13. P 18 and 19. In Table 1, the Period section specifies whether it is a Week or a Month.

14. P 19. For Pons Van Dijk's (2013) reference, it is unclear whether there are 40 sessions per month or week.

15. P 19. Correct the size of 60 min in Table 1 for Kim (2024).

16. P 21. Do you mean there are in this sentence? I think it’s a typo mistake. Regarding overall bias, the ame four studies.

17. P21. Write RTCs instead of rcts for both Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

18. P 24. Please write the statistical analysis summary in Figure 4.

19. P 24. In this sentence, Visual inspection of the funnel plot, you should write (Figure 5).

20. P 24. Where is the result of Egger's test?

21. P 24. Having the effect sizes per study name inside the funnel plot in Fig. 5 will be great—funnel Plot.

22. P 26. There is a misinterpretation of the results and p-value for Table 5. In the last paragraph of this page, you wrote: Additionally, significant moderating effects were observed for Period, Times per week, and minutes per Time (p<0.05), but not for Sex and Age (p>0.05). The p-values for gender in male and female groups and Ages 4-6 and 18-21 are significant.

23. P 27. You should change and write Table 6 in the text instead of Table 4 in this sentence: for this method. The heterogeneity tests and meta-analysis results are presented in Table 4.

24. P 27. All tables indicate the significant value for p. Is it p<0.05 or p<0.01?

25. P 28. You should change and write Table 7 in the text instead of Table 5 in this sentence: presented in Table 5. The analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity for the "X speed (mm/s)."

26. Table 7 shows the heterogeneity results for length (mm), which show I2 = 57.868 and p =0.050. Isn't heterogeneity marginally significant?

27. P 33. L 102 – 106, revise based on 22—p 26.

28. P 37. L 188. Which study? Write the reference number.

29. P 48. For Fig. 4, the overall estimated effect size and heterogeneity test results are needed.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review for research paper_PONE-D-24-37293.pdf

Effects of Taekwondo Intervention on Balance Ability: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

PONE-D-24-37293R1

Dear Dr Hanyu Ju. 

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,

Artur Kruszewski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: