Figure 1

Matjaž, Vogrin

and 2 more

Context: It has been recently demonstrated that tissue flossing around the ankle joint can be effectively used to improve ankle range of motion, jump and sprint ability. However, there is a lack of studies investigating the acute effects of tissue flossing applied around the thigh. Objective: The study aimed to investigate the acute effects of tissue flossing, and the degree of floss band pressure, around the upper-thigh on Active straight leg raise test, knee extensor and flexor maximum voluntary contraction and associated thigh muscle tensiomyography parameters. Design: Cross-over design in 3 distinct sessions. Setting: University laboratory. Participants: 19 recreationally trained volunteers (age 23.78 ± 4.85). Intervention: Active knee extension and flexion performed for 3 sets of 2 minutes (2 minutes rest between sets with wrapped upper-thigh. Individualized wrapping pressures were applied to create conditions of high (HIGH) and moderate (LOW) vascular occlusion, while a loose band application served as a control condition (CON). Main Outcome Measures: Participants were assessed for Active straight leg raise test (ASLR), tensiomyography displacement (Dm) and contraction time (Tc) for rectus femoris (RF), vastus medialis (VM) and biceps femoris (BF) muscles, maximum voluntary contractions for knee extensors (extMVC) and flexors (flexMVC) for pre (PRE), after (POST) and 30 minutes after (POST30) applying the floss band. There was a statistically significant increase in extMVC and a significant shortening in rectus femoris Tc for the LOW condition, which was associated with small to medium effects in favor of the LOW condition. There were no statistically significant changes observed between CON and HIGH conditions. The ASLR test was unaffected regardless of intervention. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that tissue flossing around the upper-thigh might have a localized as well as pressure-sensitive response, thereby improving neuromuscular function of the knee extensors.
Dear Editor,Herein is my response to manuscript ID XXXXX, entitled [“Why Hermione was better than Harry in almost every respect”] [by Ronald Frump and colleagues] to the [Journal of Squirrel-Puppy Relationships].The authors present [insert general overview of research and key findings]. This research is [well-suited/not-suitable] for the remit of the journal.[Insert any comments regarding potential conflicts of interest, or about areas of relevant expertise that you feel you are lacking].I recommend [accept/minor revisions/major revisions/oblivion], pending x, y, and z.Basic reportingFiguresAre the figures legible, relevant, and integrated into the textDataAre the supporting data included in the manuscript or in a relevant repositoryAre the data presented in a way that is consistent with the FAIR principles (https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples)Experimental designWas the way in which the research was conducted the best way to answer the relevant questionsValidity of the findingsAre the conclusions supported by the resultsDo the results contribute to the research field, irrespective of whether they are ‘negative’ or a replication studyGeneral commentsIs the language used appropriate for a scientific publicationIs the structure appropriateAbstractIs the abstract concise, and does it convey the main research findingsAre any key points of context or conclusions missingIntroductionDoes this cover the published literature sufficientlyDoes it provide enough context in which to place the current researchAre any key citations missingIs the history of the research conveyed at all for historical significanceDoes it finish with a paragraph summarising the relevance of the current researchMaterials and methodsAre the methods clear and easy to followCan the methods be replicated if neededAre the source materials/data openly available, and is appropriate justification provided if notWere any statistical analyses applied performed appropriatelyResultsAre the results presented in a coherent fashionAre the results reported in a way that is supported by the dataDiscussionAre the new results placed into context of the relevant literatureIs a balanced argument providedAre the full implications of the new results discussed in sufficient detailConclusionsAre the conclusions supported by the resultsAre they concise and written in an impactful way (not over-embellished)Additional commentsAnything else you want to add that doesn’t fit aboveCongratulations to the authors on a great piece of work, and I look forward to seeing their research [published/rejected/re-written with all of the references to my own tangentially-relevant work included.]Sincerely,[Ralph Lauren]ReferencesAny additional papers you have cited within your report