Sprint performance and force application of tennis players during manual wheelchair propulsion with and without holding a tennis racket.

The objective of this exploratory research is to study the impact of holding a tennis racket while propelling a wheelchair on kinetic and temporal parameters in a field-based environment. 13 experienced wheelchair tennis players with disabilities (36.1 ± 8.2 years, 76.8 ± 15.3 kg, 174.8 ± 17.1 cm) classified between 30/8 and first series performed two 20 m sprints in a straight line, on a tennis court: one while holding a tennis racket and the second without a tennis racket. They used their own sports wheelchair. Potential participants were excluded if they had injuries or pain that impaired propulsion. Maximal total force, maximal propulsive moment, rate of rise, maximal power output, push and cycle times and maximal velocity were measured. Sprinting while holding a tennis racket increased the cycle time by 0,051 s and push time by 0,011s. Sprinting while holding a tennis racket decreased the maximal propulsive moment, maximal power output, rate of rise and maximal velocity during propulsion by 6.713 N/m, 151.108 W, 672.500 N/s and 0.429 m/s, respectively. Our results suggest that the biomechanical changes observed associated with racket propulsion are generally in a direction that would be beneficial for the risk of injury. But sprinting holding a racket seems to decrease players propulsion performance. Working on forward accelerations with a tennis racket would be a line of work for coaches.

Introduction

Wheelchair Tennis (WT) was created in 1970 and included in the Paralympic program in 1992 at the Barcelona Paralympic Games [1, 2]. This sport has gained in popularity throughout the world because it positively affects amputees and persons with spinal cord injuries [3-7]. The trajectory of the tennis ball involves the making of intermittent, multidirectional and non-random court movements [7]. Those are subject to intense back and forth movements across the court such as significant sprints and accelerations [8, 9]. Therefore, the ability to sprint from a static position prevails in this sport [10]. WT players propel the manual wheelchair (MW) while holding the racket in their hand, which constitutes the main feature of this sport which impacts in many ways the propelling of the MW.

Several research studies investigated on the impact of holding a tennis racket on MW propulsion [8, 9, 11], showing a reduction in athlete performance. Indeed, Sindall et al. [9] demonstrated that the movement restrictions created by the holding of a tennis racket had a significant impact on the player’s ability to anticipate the trajectory of the ball, to position himself correctly for striking the ball and to coordinate his propelling movements. In a study with 8 high-level WT players performing sprints while holding and without a tennis racket, Goosey-Tolfrey and Moss [8] showed that holding a racket interferes with the grip of the handrim and makes pushing ineffective. The maximal velocity on the first three pushes is reduced by 5.3%, which results in a reduction in the distance covered [8]. De Groot et al. [11], in their study on sprinting tests on a wheelchair ergometer, observed more power loss before and after the push while holding a racket due to a reduced push time, which induces inefficiency of propulsion.

The risk of injury is very present in wheelchair tennis, exceeding even wheelchair basketball in the percentage of injured athletes. According to a 2012 epidemiological study, 17.9% of wheelchair tennis players have injuries [12]. Several recurrent injuries exist in this sport: limb injuries at 72% (tendinopathies, bursitis, ligament, and muscle tension), soft tissue injuries at 30% (blisters, lacerations, abrasions) [13]. However, only one study focused on the impact of the holding of the racket on the risk of injury [11]. In this study, authors compared the right hand holding the racket and the left hand, free, during sprint tests on a wheelchair ergometer [11]. They showed that the holding of the racket induces ineffectiveness in propulsion technique, leading to higher power losses and subsequently higher peak power outputs on the hand holding the racket during the shortest push phase compared to the free hand. The arm that holds the tennis racket must support higher forces during wheelchair propulsion in sprints, compared to the arm without a racket, which is also a criterion of musculoskeletal disorders [14, 15].

The study of the performance and the risk of injury turns out to be important in the case of WT. Although this two areas are related to numerous temporal and kinetic parameters such as the velocity, force rate of rise, power output, total force, propulsion moments, etc. [8, 11, 14–16], only the velocity, push and cycle time, power output and duration of the sprint were measured in the literature according to our knowledge [8, 11]. The analysis of these variables aforementioned could be beneficial for WT. That’s why this exploratory research aims to evaluate the impact of holding a tennis racket on kinetic and temporal parameters in a field-based environment. Specifically, we would like to analyze the impact of the tennis racket during MW propulsion on maximal total force, maximal propulsive moment, rate of rise, maximal power output, push and cycle time and maximal velocity. Our exploratory research hypothesis is that MW propulsion while holding a racket affects the kinetic and temporal parameters in a direction that is coherent with a decreased propulsion efficiency and performance and, an increased risk of injury.

Materials and methods

Study design

Wheelchair tennis players performed two 20 m sprints in a straight line in randomized order: one while holding a tennis racket (WR) and the second without a tennis racket (WOR). The test was performed on the tennis courts of the Antibes club during the tournament. The 20 m sprint test is commonly used by athletes in wheelchairs court sports to test their performance [8, 17–19]. Moreover, this test corresponds to the internal logic of WT since it’s an intermittent sport with a lot of acceleration phases. They held the racket with their dominant hand which was the right hand for all sportsmen. A rest time of 1 min between the 2 sprints was imposed. Biomechanical parameters were recorded for all sprints. The experimental protocol was approved by the Comité d’Ethique pour les Recherches Non Interventionnelles (CERNI) from Pôle Grenoble Cognition to France (certificate #CERNI 2014-02-07-36 obtained on February 7, 2014).

The participants used their own tennis MW. Their tennis MW had wheel sizes ranging from 24 to 26 inches and a minimum wheel camber of 18°. Each MW was equipped with one instrumented wheel of 24 or 26 inches on their dominant side (SMARTWheel. 2013 edition, Outfront LCC). Wheel size was chosen depending on the personal tennis MW size of the participants. Those instrumented wheel have a standard weight about 4.7 kg for each wheel size [20]. In accordance with Mason et al. [21], a weight of 2 kg was added to the hub of the second wheel of the MW to compensate for the additional weight and moment of inertia of the instrumented wheel. These wireless instrumented wheels measure the wheel angle and 3D pushrim kinetics at 240 Hz [22-24].

Thanks to the instrumented wheels, the parameters of Table 1 were calculated and averaged on 5 consecutive pushes immediately following reach of maximal velocity, identified from the average wheelchair velocity curve calculated by the SMARTWheel. The pushes were segmented manually based on the minima of the propelling moment (Mz) as shown in Fig 1.

Table 1

Description and equations for the outcome measures.

Parameters	Description	Equations
Pushrim kinetics
Maximal totale force (Ftotpeak) [N]	Sum of the maximum forces in the 3 planes of space applied to the handrim for each push	sumFxpeak2+Fypeak2+Fzpeak2^0.5(2)
Maximal propulsive moment (Mzpeak) [Nm]	Maximal propelling moment applied to the handrim for each push	peakMz(3)
Rate of rise (RoR)	Rate of rise in maximal total force for each push	averagedFtot/dt(4)
Maximal power output (POmax) [W]	Maximal power output develops by the participant to the handrim for each push	peakdθdt×Mz(5)
Temporal parameters
Push time (PT) [s]	Coupling time between the hand and the handrim for each push	t_endi−t_starti(6)
Cycle time (CT) [s]	Time between the start of first push and next push for each push	t_start2i−t_start1i(7)
Maximal velocity (Vmax) [m.s-1]	Maximal velocity of the participant	Calculates carried out by the SmartWheel software

With Fx: horizontal force, Fy: vertical force, Fz: mediolateral force, r: wheel radius, start: start of a push, end: end of a push, t: time (s), θ: wheel angle.

Fig 1

Manual push segmentation based on the propulsion moments Mz.

With Mzpeak: maximal propulsive moment, PT: push time, CT: cycle time.

All data processing and calculations were performed using Matlab and the Kinetics Toolkit library created by Félix Chénier (2016). Anonymized dataset is available on the public repository Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS; https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xjf-bs8v).

Participants

13 volunteers WT athletes (36.1 ± 8.2 years. 76.8 ± 15.3 kg. 174.8 ± 17.1 cm) took part in our exploratory study. They were recruited during the French WT tournament of the Antibes club (France) from May 31, 2016 to June 5, 2016. Written informed consents were signed and collected for all participants. They all had a good level of tennis and for some a high level. They were included in the study if they were WT players playing in competitions, over 18 years old and had a minimum ranking of 30/8. This classification in WT corresponds to the results of matches made throughout the sporting year. There are 4 distinct categories: unclassified people, 3rd series people (from 30/6 to 15/7), second series people (from 15/8 to -30/8) and, first series people (national rankings). Regardless of the classification, each player belongs to a division among the following three: man, woman, quad which corresponds to a mixed division. Potential participants were excluded if they had injuries or pain that impaired propulsion. The anthropometric characteristics of the participants, who were all right-handed men, are given in Table 2.

Table 2

Individual anthropometric characteristics of the participants.

Subjects	Body mass (kg)	Age (years)	Height (cm)	Disability	Years of practice	Practice level*	Wheel size (inch)
1	73.5	31	169	Acquired amputation	1	30/8	26
2	75	23	183	Acquired paraparesis	3	15/8	26
3	62	32	186	Acquired paraparesis in D12/L1	5	15/8	26
4	46	37	123	Acquired amputation	12	First series	24
5	76	45	171	Acquired paraplegia in D5	25	2/8	24
6	115	40	194	Acquired paraplegia in L1/D12	10	-30/8	26
7	79	45	175	Paraparesis D12/L1	10	First series	26
8	79	27	183	Left leg acquired polio	16	First series	26
9	70	43	183	Acquired paraplegia D12	5	-30/8	24
10	78	27	174	Muscular atrophy left leg	8	15/8	26
11	76	32	184	Paraparesis D12/L1	7	First series	26
12	84	50	176	Ankle/left foot arthrodesis +left elbow prosthesis	8	15/8	26
13	85	37	172	Paraplegia D12	8	0/8	24
Mean ± SD	76.8 (±15.3)	36.1 (±8.2)	174.8 (±17.1)		9.1 (±6.2)

With SD: standard deviation, D: dorsal vertebrae, L: lumbar vertebrae.

*: rankings defined by the federation (https://www.fft.fr/competition/paratennis/le-classement-tennis-fauteuil).

Ethics

All the participants were informed of the possible risks linked to the experiment and gave their informed consent to participate in the experiment, which took place in accordance with the recommendations of the 1975 Helsinki declaration on the experimentation on human subjects.

Statistical analysis

The first statistical analysis carried out concerns the statistical power test to determine the sample size necessary for the study. The article by de Groot et al. [25] was used as a reference for this test. Thus, the calculation of the statistical power gave us an average of 8 participants for the statistical tests that we wanted carried out on our measurements. Based on this average, 13 participants were included in the study. The statistical power was calculated using the G*Power software (G*Power, 2020; g-power.apponic.com).

Each variable was averaged over the participant’s five selected pushes and was reported as mean and standard deviations (SD) across all participants. A total of 7 variables were calculated. The aim of our exploratory study is to analyze the impact of using a tennis racket while propelling a tennis MW. To do this, the parameters presented in Table 2 will be compared according to the award condition: without racket and with racket. Precisely, we compare the same dominant hand propelling with and without racquet. First of all a multivariate test was carried out in order to verify the existence of significant differences between the variables measured without and with racket. Once this test has been carried out and verified, data were compared between both conditions (with and without holding a tennis racket) using a paired t-test. Normality was tested for each participant if deviance was found, we used a non-parametric Wilcoxon test. Only the maximal propulsive moment did not check for normality assumptions and thus, a Wilcoxon test was made on this parameter. For each significant difference, the effect size d was calculated using (Eq 1): The effect size was interpreted according to Cohen et al. [26]: small (d = 0.2), moderate (d = 0.5) and large (d = 0.8) [26]. Statistics were computed using JASP software (JASP Team, 2016; jasp-stats.org).

Results

Results of the different kinetic and temporal parameters measured in WOR and WR condition are exposed in Table 3.

Table 3

Means ± standard deviation of the kinetic and spatiotemporal parameters measured.

Parameters	WOR	WR	Differences (WR—WOR)	P-value	d
Kinetics
Maximal totale force (Ftot peak ) [N]	195,387 (±50.11)	196.531 (±71.790)	-0.429 (±0.809)	0.686 NS	0.120
Maximal propulsive moment (Mz peak ) [N.m -1 ]	39.823 (±8.417)	33.112 (±10.644)	-6.713 (±4.547)	0.012*	0.795
Rate of rise (RoR) [N.s _1 ]	2988.254 (±1119.702)	2315.754 (±1064.331)	- 672.500 (±475.529)	0.033*	0.701
Maximal power output (PO max ) [W]	448.508 (±100.597)	297.400 (±86.287)	- 151.108 (±106.450)	< 0.001***	1.665
Temporals
Push time (PT) [s]	0.183 (±0.028)	0.194 (±0.033)	-0.011 (±0.008)	0.040 *	0.670
Cycle time (CT) [s]	0.442 (±0.053)	0.492 (±0.072)	0.051 (±0.036)	0.001**	1.265
Maximal velocity (V max ) [m.s -1 ]	3.527 (±0.343)	3.098 (±0.368)	-0.429 (±0.303)	< 0.001***	1.432

With NS: Not significant,

*: p < 0.05,

**: p < 0.01,

***: p < 0.001,

WOR: without racket, WR: with racket.

Regarding the kinetics parameters, propelling while holding a tennis racket decreased maximal propelling moment (Mzpeak) (p = 0.012), rate of rise (RoR) (p = 0.033) and maximal power output (POpeak) (p < 0.001) but not Ftotpeak. The differences obtained are classified as moderate to large according to the calculated effect size. Concerning the temporal parameters, propelling while holding a tennis racket increased push time (PT) (p = 0.04), cycle time (CT) (p = 0.001) and decreased maximal velocity (Vpeak) (p < 0.001). The differences obtained are classified as moderate to large according to the calculated effect size.

Discussion

The aim of our exploratory study was to analyze the impact of wheelchair propulsion while holding a tennis racket on kinetics and temporal parameters in field-based environment. We hypothesized that holding a tennis racket affected these parameters in a direction that is coherent with a decrease in propulsion efficiency and performance, and with an increased risk of injury. This hypothesis has been partially verified. Indeed, maximal propulsive moment, maximal power output and maximal velocity, are positively linked to propulsion efficiency and performance, and they decreased with a moderate to large effect size while holding a tennis racket, which confirms our hypothesis. However, propelling while holding a racket decreased rate of rise and maximal power output and increased cycle time which contradicts our hypothesis since it’s considered as protective factors against the risk of injury [15]. Those results suggest that while holding a racket, the biomechanical changes observed are generally in a direction that would be beneficial for the risk of injury, but reduce performance compared to propelling without using the racket.

In our experimentation, we noted a moderate decrease (d = 0.704) in maximal propulsive moment by 6.713 N.m-1 (±4.547). A decrease in this parameter is associated with a reduction in performance since it corresponds to the moment of force propelling the wheelchair. This result can be explained by the fact that the racket prevents the full grabbing of the handrim during propulsion and thus prevents the athlete from effectively applying the forces and the power used for propulsion. Furthermore, a decrease in the maximal propulsive moment was noted while maximal total force showed no significant difference. When propelling while holding a racket, the participants may have to press harder on the handrim to increase friction and improve the coupling between the hand and the handrim: total force is redirected on the radial and mediolateral axes of the wheels and is useless for propulsion. Moreover, the decline in maximal propulsive moment is associated with an increase in cycle time while propelling with a racket for the same distance. This means that the athletes appear to produce less and less often effective force and maximal propulsive moment while propelling holding a racket.

The forces used for propulsion, such as the maximal propulsive moment, are reduced when holding the racket. This has the effect of largely reducing (d = 1.208) maximal velocity by 0.429 m.s-1 (±0.303) which decreases propulsion performance. Regarding maximal velocity, Goosey-Tolfrey et Moss [8] highlighted a significant decrease in this parameter during wheelchair propulsion while holding a tennis racket, which is coherent with our results. As the participant apparently is no longer able to propel efficiently, their maximal velocity is reduced.

The combination of a decreased maximal propulsive moment and maximal velocity impacts the maximal power output developed by the athlete when propelling the wheelchair. Indeed, maximal power output decreases largely (d = 1.617) by 151.108W (±106.450) while holding the tennis racket to propel the manual wheelchair. This parameter is an important determinant in peak performance [16]. Therefore, a decrease in this parameter induces a decline in propulsion performance. Moreover, a decrease in maximal power output means that the arm holding the racket must suffer less force, which is a protective factor against risk of injury according to Boninger et al. [15]. Nevertheless, De Groot et al. [11] observed an increase in power output when sprinting while holding a racket compared to sprints without a racket. This result would be in contradiction with those of our study. However, it is important to note that we are not comparing the exact same parameters. De Groot et al. [11] were interested in the comparison of the right hand carrying the racket and the left hand without a racquet while, in our study, we compare the same hand with and without a racket. They also compared the power output developed by the same hand with and without a racquet but found no significant difference. In addition, their maximal power output per pushes value is much higher than ours. These differences between their results and those of our exploratory study can be explained by their protocol. De Groot et al. [11] performed their sprint tests on a wheelchair ergometer while in our study, the sprints were completed on a tennis court. This can increase the rolling resistance and thus increase the force and power output required to propel the wheelchair. In addition, their measurement method was not the same as ours since we used a SmartWheel and they used an ergometer. Their statistical analysis included several parametric tests performed on a small cohort (n = 8) which may potentially exclude significant results. Finally, the athletes used the same wheelchair for each test while our athletes used their own different wheelchairs [11].

We also observed a moderate decrease (d = 0.616) in the rate of rise by 672.5 N.s-1 (±475.529) while holding a tennis racket which is related to decreased risk of injury according to Boninger et al. [15]. This decrease is seen without significant changes in maximal total force. This means that athletes produce the same maximal total force but in a longer period, hence the decrease in the rate of rise. We can assume that a time delay in the production of the maximal total force is created during the propulsion while holding a racket. As the racket hinders the grip of the handrim, athletes fail to produce maximal total force as quickly as in conventional propulsion conditions. Fig 2 illustrates this idea.

Fig 2

Comparison of the appearance of the peak of the total force for the subject P5.

With WOR: without racket, WR: with racket, Ror: rate of rise of the total force, Ftotpeak: maximal total force.

We noted that push time and cycle time increased respectively by 0.011s (±0.008) and by 0.051 (±0.036). These differences are characterized as moderate for the push time (d = 0.670) to large for the cycle time (d = 1.265) according to the effect size obtained for these parameters. An increase in the cycle time, for the same distance traveled, is associated with a decrease in the push frequency which is a component of the cycle time. A reduction in push frequency is notably associated with a decrease in the risk of injury [15]. Concerning temporal parameters, only one study was interested in comparing the push time and cycle time during repeated sprints with and without holding a tennis racket in the same hand [11]. Our results are similar concerning the pushing time: with a racket, it increases. Conversely, de Groot at al. [11] found no significant difference for cycle time. We can assume that to compensate for the inefficiency of propulsion while holding a racket, athletes increase their push time to apply the forces on the handrim longer which could explain our results. Moreover, the racket being heavier, the propulsion movement is slower. This leads to an increase in push time and thus, in an increase in cycle time for the same distance traveled.

Regarding the limitation of this study, the first one concerns our population. Indeed, the experiment was carried out on the small sample size, with a large variation in playing experience and disability. But we are confident that this does not affect the general conclusions of the present exploratory study since the measured effect size were moderate to large. In addition, the results of the statistical power test made it possible to determine that a population of 8 athletes was sufficient for our study. Finally, the two reference articles in this field of study share protocols made on populations weaker than ours [8, 25].

Another limitation is the use of a single instrumented wheel. Indeed, we don’t know the effect of the racket on the free hand as well as the possible means of compensation developed by this hand to compensate for the ineffectiveness of propulsion while holding a racket. Future studies could explore bilateral propulsion to study the differences between the propelling hand while holding a tennis racket and the free one [11, 27].

It is important to specify that sports wheelchairs have many adjustments that athletes use individually to best adapt their wheelchair to their practice. We can assume that different settings could offer more or less resilience to athletes when using the racquet. The lack of control concerning these settings is a limitation to our exploratory study since they can impact key factors of the athlete’s performance such as his stability, rolling resistance or even propulsion efficiency [28]. However, this allows us to respect the ecological conditions of our exploratory study since our experiments were carried out with players’ sports wheelchairs and their settings used during tournaments.

Our results seem to show that propelling while holding a racket redirects the force in an unoptimized direction and therefore reduces the propulsion efficiency, which inevitably impacts athlete’s performance. In future studies, it would be interesting to investigate changes in the racket handle to overcome this ineffectiveness, such as modifying the texture and material of the racket handle to increase the coefficient of friction. Koopman et al. [29] put forward this idea, but this solution has not yet been tested.

Finally, our exploratory study revealed significant differences during sprints while holding a racket for certain temporal and kinetic parameters. These results were obtained under maximal test conditions. However, Qi et al. [30] have shown that velocity influences temporal and kinetic parameters. Thus, inducing variations in these parameters for higher velocity [30]. We can assume that our results obtained in maximal tests would be different in submaximal tests. Future studies are needed.

Conclusion

Our exploratory study looked at the impact of steady-state wheelchair propulsion at maximal velocity while holding a tennis racket on kinetics and temporal parameters related to performance and risk of injury during sprint propulsion on the field. Maximal propulsive moment, maximal power output and maximal velocity decreased in association with an increase in push time and cycle time when propelling while holding a racket. This means that players seem to produce less propulsive moment, which is the force component responsible for propelling the wheelchair, and less often, leading to a decrease in performance. However a decrease in maximal power output, rate of rise and an increase in cycle time are also associated with a reduced risk of musculoskeletique disorders according to Boninger et al. [15]. This suggests that during the steady state sprint propulsion while holding a tennis racket, athletes seem to be less efficient, performant but this kind of propulsion does not appear to add more risk of injury from a temporal and kinetic point of view. Our exploratory study provides details on the training modalities for coaches: the biomechanical changes observed associated with racket propulsion are generally in a direction that would be beneficial for the risk of injury but reduce performance. Working on forward accelerations with a tennis racket would be a line of work for coaches. Since velocity influence temporal and kinetic parameters, it would be interesting to carry out future studies in submaximal condition. Nevertheless, in a context where the performance of wheelchair athletes is increasingly important, it would be interesting to investigate new materials of handgrips and handrim allowing a better match between the hand/tennis racket couple of the user and the handrim of the manual wheelchair.

6 Sep 2021

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,

Yih-Kuen Jan, PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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. In the method section of your manuscript, please report 1) the date of ethics approval, and 2) the date range of participants' recruitment.

3.Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: This study aimed to study the impact of holding a tennis racket while propelling a wheelchair on kinetic and temporal parameters in a field-based environment.

- The main concern of this study is: the sample size of 13 is very small to provide and generalize the findings.

- The main criteria of the study participants is not clarified in the abstract.

- The design of the study is not demonstrated.

- No clear message or recommendation is demonstrated in the abstract.

- Generally, the abstract needs to be rewritten.

- Introduction: The significance of the study needs more clarification.

- The authors should reframe the methods in accordance with components (SPICES) for methods

1. Study design, setting, sample size

2. Participant

3. Intervention/issue of interest (exposure)

4. Comparison

5. Ethics and endpoint

6. Statistical analysis

- How was sample size determined?

- How and who administrates the data collected?

Reviewer #3: The authors examined differences in hand rim propulsion biomechanics during a steady state sprint between wheelchair tennis athletes with or without a racket in hand. Overall, the study is well written and designed and parallels the structure of previous studies pertaining to the examination of every day propulsion biomechanics. Furthermore, the authors’ general interpretation of findings are reasonable(depending on how they answer comments below). I have only one moderate statistical concern and methodological comments which could be impactful to the overall picture of the study depending on how the authors respond. First, the authors have utilized paired analysis (parametric and non-parametric versions) however it’s unclear if they used a correction for multiple comparison. In essence, they may have conducted numerous independent paired tests (one for each dependent variable ?) which is problematic. If this is the case, they should divide alpha by the # of comparisons (bonferroni correction) or elect to use a multivariate test which has the benefit of auto correction and effect size calculation simultaneously. Finally, the authors state participants used their own manual chairs but didn’t report camber angle or more importantly specify(unless I missed this) if they were tennis chairs or everyday chairs. Tennis chairs typically have large amounts of camber which alters the interface or coupling of the hands with the handrim (hand and wrist angle). This could influence propulsion mechanics adaptability in the presence or absence of a racket. If the study was examined with everyday chairs lacking camber it presents a huge limitation which needs to be discussed. In fact it may be necessary to generalize results only to those using similar set ups. A final limitation would also include lack of control for or reporting of wheelchair configuration elements like rear wheel axle position, seat height, seat drop etc. These metrics are commonly used and exaggerated in tennis configurations which may offer athletes more resilience while holding a racket since they effect propulsion efficiency and trunk balance.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ian M Rice

[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.

4 Jan 2022

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your work and your feedback on this article "Sprint performance and force application of tennis players during manual wheelchair propulsion with and without holding a tennis racket”. Here are the answers I was able to give to each of your comments.

Response reviewer 2:

Thank you for your comments, which help to improve the article, particularly on its methodology.

Regarding the main concern of the study, we have a small population. I added description of this limitation in the discussion. In addition, a statistical power test based on the reference article by de Groot et al. (2017) was carried out and determined that 8 subjects are sufficient in our study and in the statistical tests we carried out. This point was enhanced in discussion and methodology.

Based on your comments, I also incorporated several elements into the summary, including participant criteria, a reference for the study design, and a message of recommendations.

I clarified the meaning of the study in the introduction as you advised me.

Finally, concerning the methodology and the SPICES criteria, our article is an exploratory research article. Consequently, the methodology used during the experiments cannot fully correspond to the SPICES components. In order to incorporate this remark, I have nevertheless modified this part and added elements to best respond to your comment. I hope this will suit you.

Response reviewer 3:

Thank you for your very constructive and motivating feedback.

Regarding the statistical part, it has been corrected according to your advice. After consulting several experts, my choice fell on a multivariate test to ensure that there was a significant difference between the parameters measured depending on the test condition. Once this test was validated, I refined the variable-to-variable analysis with a T-test. I think the combination of these two tests strengthens our statistics and best matches the comparison we want to make based on the data we have. I added the information in the statistical analysis. In addition, due to the exploratory nature of this research and the statistics, I modulated the results to be conditional and not affirmative.

Finally, I added some clarifications. Hence the participants used their own manual tennis wheelchairs. I only have the measurement of the size of the wheelchair wheels of each athlete, but without having everyone's camber angle, we know that athletes all had a minimum angle of 18°. I can add this clarification. Otherwise, I wrote a section in limitations regarding the lack of knowledge of chair measurements. While this is a limitation, it is also a strength to our study. Indeed, we evaluated the athletes into their own wheelchairs with the same settings as those used in competition. We are therefore as close as possible to an experiment in ecological condition.

I hope you find these answers and revisions satisfactory. I remain at your disposal to answer any questions you may have.

Your sincerely,

Ilona Alberca

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

19 Jan 2022

Sprint performance and force application of tennis players during manual wheelchair propulsion with and without holding a tennis racket.

PONE-D-21-16314R1

Dear Dr. Alberca,

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,

Yih-Kuen Jan, PhD

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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: Thanks to the authors,new topic , good article and analysis , the commebts have been addressed correctly

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed. No further comments are required. The publication could be published in the current form.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

26 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-16314R1

Sprint performance and force application of tennis players during manual wheelchair propulsion with and without holding a tennis racket.

Dear Dr. Alberca:

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

Dr. Yih-Kuen Jan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE