Inter-limb asymmetry in youth elite soccer players: Effect of loading conditions.

The presence of inter-limb asymmetries can influence strength performance and represent an injury risk factor for team sport athletes. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of changes in resistance loads using different assessment modalities on the magnitude and the direction of inter-limb asymmetry within the same leg. Fifteen young elite soccer players from the same professional academy performed rear-foot-elevated-split-squat-test at different loading conditions (body mass with no overload, 25% of body mass, 50% of body mass 50%), isokinetic knee flexor (concentric 30°·s-1, concentric 60°·s-1, eccentric 90°·s-1) and extensor (concentric 60°·s-1, eccentric 60°·s-1). The outcomes from the agreement analyses suggested moderate level agreement between body mass vs body mass 25% (Kappa = 0.46), with no agreement or fair agreement for the other between-assessment comparison. Our results demonstrated that the magnitude and direction of within-limb strength imbalances were inconsistent when compared within the same assessment under different resistance load conditions.

Introduction

Soccer performance is characterized by unforeseeable and explosive actions involving sprinting, jumping, tackling, kicking, turning, and changes of pace [1]. The multi-planar and unilateral nature of these soccer-specific actions require the production of force and power in single leg conditions [2, 3]. The involvement in this type of movement patterns renders players prone to the development of strength imbalances, with implications from clinical and applied perspectives [4, 5]. The notion of imbalance refers to inter-limb asymmetry as the difference in performance or function of one limb relative to the other [6].

A number of studies suggested that players with substantial inter-limb asymmetries are at higher risk of injury [7, 8]. In this context, Croisier et al., found players with significant isokinetic knee flexors strength imbalances had a five-time hamstring injury risk [8]. Likewise, consideration of strength imbalances is also relevant to the return to play process [7, 9]. Despite the influence of inter-limb asymmetries on injury risk in soccer, findings on their role on performance are inconsistent [10-12]. Researchers observed no association between strength imbalances in counter movement jump height and linear sprint performance both in male and female youth professional soccer players [10, 11]. In contrast, Coratella et al., found a positive association between strength imbalances in quadriceps and hamstrings isokinetic strength at different angular velocities (30°/s and 300°/s) and performance on change of direction tests [12].

Despite isokinetic strength testing is a very commonly used method to identify strength deficits and associated inter-limb asymmetries in soccer players [5, 7–9, 13], it requires sophisticated procedures and requires costly and non-portable equipment, which limits its use in the daily practice of most soccer teams. Thus, in addition to isokinetic screening, other field-based strength testing protocols are widely implemented in daily practice for assessing unilateral muscular strength, and associated inter-limb asymmetries, to aid in guiding training, rehabilitation and injury prevention. For instance, the rear-foot-elevated-split-squat-test (RFESS) can be regarded as a practical method for measuring unilateral strength in sport [14-17].

While the notion of magnitude remains important, determining the direction of strength imbalances is also relevant to understanding the consistency of the regarding the preference of one side compared the other one [18, 19]. In this regard, inconsistencies in the direction of inter-limb asymmetries with different strength assessments have been previously reported [18, 19]. Recently, Bishop et al. highlighted how the levels of agreement on the same side were low during different isometric and ballistic strength assessments in recreational sports athletes, emphasizing the need for an individualised approach to quantify an asymmetry [20, 21]. Despite the increasing use of different tests to monitor inter-limb asymmetry magnitude and direction, the relationship and interchangeability between their outcomes is not clear. Thus, the present investigation aimed to evaluate the relationship of the magnitude and the direction of inter-limb asymmetries measured with different strength testing modes and/loads in a sample of elite youth soccer players.

Materials and methods

Players were assessed using RFESS, isokinetic knee flexor (IKF) and isokinetic knee flexor (IKE) protocols executed in different loading conditions. Technical coaches gathered information regarding a player’s limb dominance prior to assessment [20]. The inter-limb asymmetries for both tests were determined as [22]:

Test overload was selected according to the subject body mass for the RFESS assessment, whereas use of the lean muscle mass informed isokinetic assessments [23].

Participants

Fifteen, full-time, elite youth male soccer players from Qatar National Team (Doha, Qatar) took part in the study (age: 18.5 ± 0.6 years; height: 174.7 ± 6.3 cm; body weight 66.8 ± 6.8 Kg). Players had ~8 training sessions per week involving strength, aerobic fitness and soccer, with one national league and two international friendlies scheduled weekly and every four weeks during the study period. Of the available sample, five players did not fulfil the eligibility criteria and were excluded due to previous knee or chronic lower limb injures. Signed consent was obtained use data for research purposes, with this study data collection as part of a project was approved by the Qatar Antidoping Lab (E2013000004).

Experimental design

Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) assessed lean limb mass of study participants (Lunar iDXA enCORE 2008 GE Medical Systems Lunar Version12.30.008, 3030 Ohmedo Drive, Madison, WI 53718, USA). Strength assessments were administered on two occasions 72-hour apart as a washout period. Once the body mass of each player was detected (SECA, Hamburg, Germany), the individual values at 25% (BM25%) and 50% (BM50%) of body mass were calculated to define the appropriate external loads to be applied in the RFESS. The extra weight added to reach BM25% and BM50% including the weight of the lifting bar (7.3 Kg). On day 1, after a standardized warm up (5-min cycling, 3 -min ballistic stretching, 1 x 3 trials at BM25% & BM 50% back squat in unilateral condition), subjects performed 3 maximal, unilateral repetitions assessed using the RFESS on the Smith Machine (Multipower, Technogym™, Gambettola, Italy) lifting exclusively the bar (Fig 1). The same test was repeated 5 and 10 minutes after with a total extra load of BM25% and BM50% (Fig 1). A professional goniometer (Baseline® Measurement, White Plains, NY, USA) was used to assess the 90° knee angle which started the maximal ballistic push off (positive phase, upward extension) [24]. The best mean power trials for each load were recorded [24, 25]. All assessments were recorded using a linear encoder (SmartCoach™, EuropeAB, Stockholm, Sweden).

Fig 1

Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat.

On day 2, after a10 min of warm-up cycling at 100 W, the isokinetic peak torque of the knee flexor and extensor muscles was assessed by an isokinetic dynamometer (Fig 2) (CSMi, Stoughton, MA) [26]. All the participants performed three unilateral trials with dominant leg (DL) and non-dominant leg (NDL). The peak torque was observed for knee flexor in concentric actions at 30°·s-1 and 60°·s1 angular velocities, and at 90°·s-1 angular velocities for the eccentric actions. Peak torque of knee extension during concentric actions at 60°·s-1 angular velocities and eccentric 60°·s-1 angular velocities have been analyzed. The range of movement was recorded from 90° to 0° and from 0° to 90°, with 0 defining full knee extension [27], with the hip flexion angle fixed at 90°. The best peak torque trials (N·m) for each angular velocity, was recorded and subsequently normalized for the lean muscle mass of the considered lower limb (N·m·Kg–1) [28].

Fig 2

Isokinetic knee flexion and knee extension.

Statistical analysis

Visual inspection of frequency distributions of the raw strength assessment data suggested assumptions of normality were not violated. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), plus minimum and maximum for descriptive and strength-related variables. The isokinetic peak torque values were normalized (N·m·Kg-1) for each trial. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) determined relative and absolute reliability of the measurements. T-test was used to determine the difference between DL and NLD during RFESS, IKF and IKE. Kappa coefficient was calculated to determine the levels of agreement between asymmetries for a common metric across the same tests in different conditions tests and values were interpreted as follow, 0.01–0.20 = slight; 0.21–0.40 = fair; 0.41–0.60 = moderate; 0.61–0.80 = substantial; 0.81–0.99 = nearly perfect [29]. A pre-defined threshold ≥15% determined a substantial asymmetry between limbs [30]. Scatter plots illustrated the relationship between DL versus NDL asymmetries over the average of the two measurements. Statistical significance was set a priori at p < 0.05. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 25.0.

Results

Descriptive data for the different strength assessments are displayer in Table 1. IKF concentric 30°·s-1 showed moderate reliability (ICC = 0.67). The outcomes for agreement analyses are presented in Table 2, with moderate level agreement between BM vs BM25% (Kappa = 0.46). In the REFFS assessment, players did not show substantial asymmetries irrespective of the condition (Fig 3). Likewise, the direction and magnitude of strength imbalances between limbs was inconsistent in both IKF and IKE assessments (Fig 4).

Table 1

Descripitve information for dominant and non-dominant leg average power and peak torque, level of asymmetry (%) and reliability in Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat (RFESS), Isokinetic Flexor and Isokinetic Extensor.

	Dominant Leg	Non-Dominant Leg	P Value	Asymmetry (%)	ICC (95%CI)
RFESS
AVG Power [W]
BM	682.5 ± 77.9	714.7 ± 78.6	0.02	6.6 ± 3.7	0.89 (0.69–0.97)
BM25%	737.1 ± 85.1	744.1 ± 84.8	0.59	4.8 ± 3.1	0.92 (0.76–0.97)
BM50%	731.4 ± 88.2	729.3 ± 89.7	0.33	5.2 ± 3	0.91 (0.72–0.97)
Isokinetic Flexor
Peak Torque [N·m·Kg –1 ]
Concentric 30°/s	131.5 ± 20.4	125.4 ± 18.2	0.32	12.8 ± 7.3	0.67 (0.02–0.89)
Concentric 60°/s	130.3 ± 19.6	126.9 ± 17.2	0.05	4.5 ± 4.3	0.97 (0.91–0.99)
Eccentric 90°/s	150.4 ± 29.5	145.4 ± 29.5	0.37	7.1 ± 13.2	0.83 (0.51–0.94)
Isokinetic Extensor
Peak Torque [N·m·Kg –1 ]
Concentric 60°/s	190.7 ± 27	196.6 ± 32.3	0.38	6.7 ± 5.6	0.89 (0.69–0.96)
Eccentric 60°/s	251.6 ± 62.5	238.1 ± 72.7	0.31	11.8 ± 10.3	0.94 (0.51–0.94)

BM = RFESS = Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat, Body mass, BM25% = Body mass 25%, BM50% = Body Mass 50%, AVG Power = Average power, ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient.

Table 2

Kappa coefficients and descriptive levels of agreement showing how consistently inter-limb asymmetry favors the same limb within the same assessment.

		Kappa Coefficient	Level of Agreement
RFESS
AVG Power [W]
	BM vs BM25%	0.42	Moderate
	BM25% vs BM50%	0.16	Slight
	BM vs BM50%	-0.72	No Agreement
Isokinetic Knee Flexion
Peak Torque [N·m·Kg –1 ]
	Concentric 30°/s vs Concentric 60°/s	-0.75	No Agreement
	Concentric 30°/s vs Eccentric 90°/s	0.12	Fair
	Concentric 60°/s vs Eccentric 90°/s	0.12	Fair
Isokinetic Knee Extension
Peak Torque [N·m·Kg –1 ]
	Concentric 90°/s vs Eccentric 90°/s	-0.75	No Agreement

RFESS = Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat, BM = Body Mass, BM25% = Body Mass 25%, BM50% = Body Mass 50%, AVG Power = Average Power.

Fig 3

Magnitude and direction of inter-limb asymmetry in Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat, isokinetic flexion and isokinetic extension assessments.

BM = Body mass, BM25% = Body mass 25%, BM50% = Body Mass 50%. Note: above 0 indicates asymmetry favours the dominant leg and below 0 indicates asymmetry favours the non-dominant leg.

Fig 4

Mean power, mean force, magnitude and direction of inter-limb asymmetry in Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat, isokinetic flexion and isokinetic extension assessments.

Empty circles represent players with asymmetry > 15%. BM = Body mass, BM25% = Body mass 25%, BM50% = Body Mass 50%, DL = Dominant Leg, NDL = Non-dominant leg, AVG Power = Average power.

Discussion

This is the first study to explore within-assessment mode inter-limb asymmetries under different loading conditions and the relation between inter-limb. Our main findings revealed that the magnitude and direction of inter-limb asymmetries were inconsistent in our sample of youth soccer players, and the detection of asymmetries presented large variations in the same player depending on the load imposed on the strength test employed. Importantly, studies in this field highlighted that the extent of any potential inter-limb asymmetry can be prone to the protocol selection given the number of equations proposed in the sports performance literature [20]. In our investigation, we used the formula by Schiltz and colleagues [22] since we elected to assume a practical differentiation between the dominant and non-dominant leg given the unilateral and multiplanar nature of soccer performance [2, 3]. Furthermore, the notion of direction interpreted and quantified as any asymmetry favouring the same limb between metrics and/or tasks is another important outcome we described in our report informed by the current knowledge base in this field [18, 19].

With the majority of the players we screened showing heterogeneity of patterns in each loading condition (Figs 1 and 2), performing assessment under different loading schemes (i.e., speed and/or external load) and turned out to be a useful and alternative approach for quantifying asymmetries. This is critical considering that strength asymmetries have been identified as potential performance impairment factor [6, 12] as well as a risk factor for different muscle and joint injuries [8, 31]. Moreover, strength asymmetries are often assessed to guide the rehabilitation and return to play process in different kind of soccer-related injuries 5/12/21 5:24:00 PMk. While the consistency of the magnitude and direction of strength asymmetries have been previously investigated [18], this study adds to the existing knowledge by showing for the first time at individual level a lack of agreement between the asymmetries obtained using the same test but with different external loads. Due to the typical poor agreement observed between the different loads employed here to assess strength asymmetries while using the same test, it appears challenging to use strength measurements derived from a single test and load as a surrogate of overall strength asymmetries in that given assessment.

The limited agreement between the different isokinetic hamstring strength asymmetries is another important finding of the present study. Since hamstring strength deficits have been identified as both risk factors and post-injury consequence [8, 32], the data presented in this study might have implications for coaches and therapists dealing with both injured and non-injured players. Our findings suggest that a strength asymmetry detected using a single load and/or contraction mode in a given test should not be regarded a proxy for inter-limb hamstring asymmetry. Similarly, strength asymmetries and imbalances detected using isokinetic knee extension and RFESS have been suggested as prognostic factors relevant to physical performance, injury prevention, injury rehabilitation and re-injury risk following the return to play process [9, 12, 16, 33, 34]. Thus, according to present findings performance and clinical practitioners should be aware that unilateral strength assessment and associated asymmetries and imbalances appear too complex in nature to be amenable to a single diagnostic assessment [34]. In line with previous investigations [18, 19, 21], our results confirmed how quantifying the presence any potential inter-limb asymmetry requires consideration of different test protocols within a multi-assessment framework relevant to the context under examination. Specifically, the scrutiny of a single strength assessment in isolation is unlikely to result in understanding the true direction and magnitude of any potential inter-limb asymmetry. Consequently, single training approaches to reduce strength asymmetries, as performance enhancement, injury prevention and rehabilitation are unlike to be successful in the long term. Practically, in the worst case, the effect of an intervention could be considered either insignificant or highly appropriate for strength asymmetries correction depending on specific outcomes derived from the chosen test and loading condition.

Despite the context of our study, the small size of the sample of player we examined might be considered as the main limitation of our study. Furthermore, the lack of previous research adopting the same design and procedures, particularly in the selection of loads, limits comparisons with players from other populations. Also, the practical barriers of performing 50%BM assessment for some players in our sample may be relevant to design of future research in this field regarding consideration of this particular assessment condition.

Conclusions

No previous research examined the magnitude and the direction of the inter-limb asymmetry using the same test with different loads. The degree of within-limb strength imbalances under different loading conditions may depend on the assessment mode chosen. The a priori adoption of a single assessment is unlikely to identify the presence of an inter-limb asymmetry being generalizable from a practical standpoint. Accordingly, consideration of different assessment methods relevant to the determination of a potential inter-limb asymmetry is required to obtain information relevant to the development strength and conditioning programs for the individual player.

Assessments database.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

2 Feb 2022

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,

Riccardo Di Giminiani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "The study was approved by the local institutional review boarder.".

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

5. 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.

6. We note that Figure 1 and 2 includes an image of a participant.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: Abstract

“rear-foot-elevated-split-squat-test (body mass, body mass 25% body mass 50%)”. Reading the following part of the article, “body mass 25%” mean “25% of the body mass”. If this interpretation is correct, it could be clearer reported.

Participants

Some information about the nationality of the observed players could be reported to better define the experimental sample, because players’ competitive level could also depend by the national context.

Results

Table 1 and 2 should be better structured and readable, by reporting rows which are able to define the subareas of results.

S3 and S4 Figs could be better visible (higher definition)

Discussion

Line 193. Regardless of the number of participants, repeated measures on the same trials, along different phase of a season, and controlling the players internal training load, could enlarge the point of view on the magnitude and the direction of the inter-limb asymmetry using the same test with different loads.

Reviewer #2: L44: Full stop mark is missing just after the reference.

L55-56: This section requires a more in-depth explanation. Why rear-foot-elevated-split-squat-test (RFESS) can be regarded as a practical method for measuring unilateral strength in sport?

L69: "IKF" and "IKE" acronyms are reported here for the first time. Please explain the meaning within the text.

L92-93: What was the range of movement of knee flexion and how did the authors assessed it during the RFESS? Please report this information.

L98: Warm up is the same on Day 2 as on Day 1? Please report this information.

L100: "DL" and "NDL" acronyms are reported here for the first time. Please explain the meaning within the text.

L100-103: Please report the references to support the choice of the angular velocities that have been used for the isokinetic test.

L103-104: Please report the hip angle or if in an upright position, the backrest angle.

L115-116: Did the authors assumed normal distribution or did they verify it in order to chose the most suitable statistical hypothesis test? Please report this information.

L136: Data in Table 2 look to be inconsistent. Values of Dominant and Non-dominant leg are reported in column 2 and 3 but at L72 the asymmetry was calculated between stronger and weaker limb. Is always dominant leg the stronger and the non-dominant the weaker?

L163-164: Reference is required for this statement.

L151: Discussion section should be largely improved. For instance, the aim of this study is "...to evaluate the relationship of the magnitude and the direction of inter-limb asymmetries measured with different strength testing modes and/loads in a sample of elite youth soccer players". The 1) magnitude is evaluated by the inter-limb asymmetries formula at L72 but it is not clear how do you evaluate 2) the "direction of the inter-limb asymmetries" and 3) the relation between 1) and 2). Please clarify this point.

L174-179: This paragraph does not make much sense and it should be rewritten. It seems more review of the literature about the available methods to assess strength asymmetries and imbalances rather than fully expressing the “whys” of this study. Authors should also focus on better explaining their results by discussing the task-specificity of inter-limb asymmetries and the need that more than a single test should be used to profile muscular imbalances (e.g., Bishop C, Lake J, Loturco I, Papadopoulos K, Turner A, Read P. Interlimb asymmetries: The need for an individual approach to data analysis. J Strength Cond Res, 2018; (May): 1–7)

L179, 182: Full stop mark is missing just after the reference.

L188: This sentence should be rephrased by avoiding negations (e.g., Nevertheless, limitations in our study are...)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Corrado Lupo

Reviewer #2: Yes: Alexandru Nicolae Ungureanu

[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.

6 Apr 2022

I would like to say thanks for the points that the reviewers highlighted on our manuscript.

We have attended to all of the reviewers suggestions.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Apr 2022

3 May 2022

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:

(No Response)

Reviewer #2:

Dear authors,

Your latest review has improved the quality of the manuscript. Please check for consistency when you address to "Non-dominant" within the text. @L120 and Tab1 you report "No-dominant" instead of "Non-dominant". Please check.

Thank you for this comment. We have attended to this suggestion concerning the use of abbreviations in our manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 May 2022

Inter-limb asymmetry in youth elite soccer players: effect of loading conditions

PONE-D-21-30024R2

Dear Dr. Ascenzi,

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,

Riccardo Di Giminiani

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: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Alexandru Nicolae Ungureanu

3 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-30024R2

Inter-limb asymmetry in youth elite soccer players: effect of loading conditions

Dear Dr. Ascenzi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof Riccardo Di Giminiani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE