Paralympic Powerlifting as a Sustainable Way to Improve Strength in Athletes with Spinal Cord Injury and Other Disabilities
, Stefania Cataldi 5, Georgian Badicu 6, Ana Filipa Silva 7,8, Filipe Manuel Clemente 7,8,9, Francesca Latino 5, Gianpiero Greco 5,* and Francesco Fischetti 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- This is an excellent paper about evaluating Paralympic Powerlifting as a sustainable way to improve strength in athletes with spinal cord injury and other disabilities.
- The main purpose of this study is to analyze the strength, dynamic and static indicators at different intensities and tied and untied in athletes with spinal cord injury and other disabilities.
- I would recommend deleting the word “evaluation” on the title.
- In the abstract, information about the sample is needed.
- Information about who conducted the assessments is needed. Did any control over the quality of data?
- Did you control any covariate that may affect the results in the statistical analyses? This is something that deserves to be briefly discussed.
- Would you please clarify the gap in the literature and what this study adds? Which conceptual gaps in the literature are addressed?
- The authors may want to discuss the conceptual and applied implications of the findings in more detail.
- Physiological processes explanations should be provided to support the results in the discussion.
- How can the findings observe support training programs?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please clearly describe your methods in the abstract. Define tethered and untethered, tied and untied.
Introduction: The purpose and rationale of the study is not clear. Are you comparing the conditions (attached vs non-attached) among SCI patients, PP performance of SCI patients vs OD people? Why is the study important? Who will benefit from your study?
Truncated sentence on line 88.
Methods: Please provide brief description for Line 137 & 149 ("as described elsewhere"). You have to describe the methods there so that your readers can understand the methods.
In table 2, please make the a b c d (effect size) as superscript.
Discussion: Some parts of the discussion are not related to the results. Maybe can edit that and put those in the Introduction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved. I don't have further considerations.
Reviewer 2 Report
no comment
