Physiological Response and Sports Injury Risk Relevant Biomechanics in Endurance Obstacle Course Races

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors and colleagues,

It is great to see studies in this field from other regions of the world. From my perspective, it is of great importance to fully understand the physiological and biomechanics changes related to sports injury prevention in every sports, not only limited to obstacle race. There are several concerns need to be improved and/or corrected before we can proceed to the next stage.

1. The title might looks better if it changed as 'Physiological response and sports injury risk relevant biomechanics in endurance obstacle course races'.

2. The effect size was presented as Cohen's D test, meanwhile, though, authors found that there are so many significant correlations been observed, some p-values of cohen's tests are greater than 0.05 regardless of only observing its single correlation either between pre- and the variables or between post- and the variables. Therefore, we would recommend the authors to conduct a further correlation analysis between the mean changes (MD) of the variables (mean difference equals post-value minus pre-value) starting from table 3 to table 6, so that we can have a global overview of the correlation between the changes.

3. The order of references being inserted in the mainbody text are not in sequence starting from the 1st citation to the end, please confirm with the journal guide.

4. Line 214-217 and other sections of the entire study. The expression of correlation association can be better presented as (r=   , p=  ), other than simply presented as (p=   ) without its correlation coefficiency r. The abstract can be improved if the correlation coefficiency r and p-values can be presented if the words are not exceeding the abstract word count maximum limit.

5. There are some minor spelling mistakes, please double check the entire manuscript when you submitting the revised version. e.g.  Abalakov jum or Abalakov jump.

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor spelling mistakes, please double check the entire manuscript when you submitting the revised version. 

Author Response

Dear authors and colleagues,

It is great to see studies in this field from other regions of the world. From my perspective, it is of great importance to fully understand the physiological and biomechanics changes related to sports injury prevention in every sports, not only limited to obstacle race. There are several concerns need to be improved and/or corrected before we can proceed to the next stage.

1. The title might looks better if it changed as 'Physiological response and sports injury risk relevant biomechanics in endurance obstacle course races'.

Modified

 

2. The effect size was presented as Cohen's D test, meanwhile, though, authors found that there are so many significant correlations been observed, some p-values of cohen's tests are greater than 0.05 regardless of only observing its single correlation either between pre- and the variables or between post- and the variables. Therefore, we would recommend the authors to conduct a further correlation analysis between the mean changes (MD) of the variables (mean difference equals post-value minus pre-value) starting from table 3 to table 6, so that we can have a global overview of the correlation between the changes.

We rewrite results section

 

3. The order of references being inserted in the mainbody text are not in sequence starting from the 1st citation to the end, please confirm with the journal guide.

Corrected

 

4. Line 214-217 and other sections of the entire study. The expression of correlation association can be better presented as (r=   , p=  ), other than simply presented as (p=   ) without its correlation coefficiency r. The abstract can be improved if the correlation coefficiency r and p-values can be presented if the words are not exceeding the abstract word count maximum limit.

corrected

 

5. There are some minor spelling mistakes, please double check the entire manuscript when you submitting the revised version. e.g. Abalakov jum or Abalakov jump.

Corrected

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a comprehensive set of human performance data for what appears to be a well-planned clinical trial spanning several different versions of Obstacle Course Races (OCR). Overall the manuscript is fairly clear and steps in the research efforts, materials, devices, and protocol are well described so that reproducibility could be realized.  There are significant and minor opportunities to improve the manuscript the Authors may consider in a revised version of the manuscript.

 An abundance of data if provided in Tables 1-5, but the data is spread over 2 pages in most cases, and this makes it difficult to have a sense of the data. Is there any prioritization (sorting) that would be of interest to the reader – possibly the outcomes of the effect size?  It is also hard to know if the Table legend, say, Line 170, is to be linked to Lines 171-176.  This fragmentation seems to interrupt the reader’s flow, and thus deciphering what is important is challenging. It is unclear if the spacing might be changed for conciseness.

 The manuscript title points to an important aspect of OCR, “injury risk” and this is a very important aspect of OCR given the rapid emergence of the sport. The level of discussion of data that supports injury risk assessment appears to be somewhat modest, though Line 281 on  “… injury tests, we observed that lower limb stability…” and then Line 317 do provide insight.  It may help build a more compelling if more narrative supported by the unique data collected could be discussed.

 Some elaboration on the actual calculation would be helpful.  The formula is straightforward, of course, but expressing it in terms of the variables in the charts would be helpful. A positive value means that one mean is higher, and the control versus the study group has bearing.  Possibly a small detail but it impacts on a more complete understanding of the calculations used in the report.  Consider defining the difference (numerically) between a small and large effect within Section 2.4

 Lines 22-23: It requires re-reading to fully interpret this sentence and possibly adding some adverbs (“before” “during” or “after”) could clarify exactly when the data is taken. This seems to be clarified on Line 99, but a consistency check will help the reader.

Line 55: Please define or clarify the term "probe."

 Lines 119-120: It is unclear why the best repetition was chosen and an average not used.

 Table 3 has a slightly confusing format; it is unclear is some column labels are missing.

 Lines 246-253 provide very valuable information, but the significance is slightly masked by lack of clarity.  For instance “… in this line …” (Line 250) the data of interest is not obvious.

 Section 4 provides a discussion of significant outcomes, and the entire section could benefit from subtitles that guide the reader. Some concern that the impact of the study is lost since the narrative is “dense” and the reader can be lost on what is most important.  Indeed, Lines 337-341 are significant in that this summary alludes to “injury” that is implied in the title of the paper.

 It is unclear why the Data Availability Statement indicates “Not Applicable.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall good but in places some re-evaluation and re-write would improve clarity.

Author Response

The manuscript offers a comprehensive set of human performance data for what appears to be a well-planned clinical trial spanning several different versions of Obstacle Course Races (OCR). Overall the manuscript is fairly clear and steps in the research efforts, materials, devices, and protocol are well described so that reproducibility could be realized.  There are significant and minor opportunities to improve the manuscript the Authors may consider in a revised version of the manuscript.

 An abundance of data if provided in Tables 1-5, but the data is spread over 2 pages in most cases, and this makes it difficult to have a sense of the data. Is there any prioritization (sorting) that would be of interest to the reader – possibly the outcomes of the effect size?  It is also hard to know if the Table legend, say, Line 170, is to be linked to Lines 171-176.  This fragmentation seems to interrupt the reader’s flow, and thus deciphering what is important is challenging. It is unclear if the spacing might be changed for conciseness.

We rewrite results section

 

 The manuscript title points to an important aspect of OCR, “injury risk” and this is a very important aspect of OCR given the rapid emergence of the sport. The level of discussion of data that supports injury risk assessment appears to be somewhat modest, though Line 281 on  “… injury tests, we observed that lower limb stability…” and then Line 317 do provide insight.  It may help build a more compelling if more narrative supported by the unique data collected could be discussed.

Corrected

 

 Some elaboration on the actual calculation would be helpful.  The formula is straightforward, of course, but expressing it in terms of the variables in the charts would be helpful. A positive value means that one mean is higher, and the control versus the study group has bearing.  Possibly a small detail but it impacts on a more complete understanding of the calculations used in the report.  Consider defining the difference (numerically) between a small and large effect within Section 2.4

Described.

 

 Lines 22-23: It requires re-reading to fully interpret this sentence and possibly adding some adverbs (“before” “during” or “after”) could clarify exactly when the data is taken. This seems to be clarified on Line 99, but a consistency check will help the reader.

Corrected

 

Line 55: Please define or clarify the term "probe."

Corrected

 

 Lines 119-120: It is unclear why the best repetition was chosen and an average not used.

Corrected

 

 Table 3 has a slightly confusing format; it is unclear is some column labels are missing.

We rewrite results section

 

 Lines 246-253 provide very valuable information, but the significance is slightly masked by lack of clarity.  For instance “… in this line …” (Line 250) the data of interest is not obvious.

It was discussed

 

 Section 4 provides a discussion of significant outcomes, and the entire section could benefit from subtitles that guide the reader. Some concern that the impact of the study is lost since the narrative is “dense” and the reader can be lost on what is most important.  Indeed, Lines 337-341 are significant in that this summary alludes to “injury” that is implied in the title of the paper.

We made subsections in discussion for better understanding

 

 It is unclear why the Data Availability Statement indicates “Not Applicable.”

It was an erratum

Best Regard.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Thank you for re-submitting your study. I am glad to see that you have made a lot of corrections. Meanwhile, there are still some of my concerns.

1. In the mainbody of your updated paper, you are only presenting the table 1 and table 2, while, probably leaving table 3-6 in the supplement materials (or, still presenting table 3-6 in the mainbody like your first version) for better reference if possible.

2. As I mentioned before, some of the cohen's test effect size p-values are not significant in table 1 and 2 as a global overview. The specific post-hoc correlation analysis is very important for this specific study, and can directly reflect the correlation between different pre- and post- variables, and it is better to start with the tables/figures rather than only describing the correlation in the results and discussion section.

3. In the discussion section and where necessary, you can add the cohens' test p-values and effect size for describing the significant responses to OCR. e.g. line 359 'The observed decrease in leg strength (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ) and urine pH (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ), coupled with increased blood lactate (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ) and perceived exertion (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ), highlights the significant.....', etc.

I have no more questions, and congratulations to your study.

Best regards, 

Author Response

 

1. In the mainbody of your updated paper, you are only presenting the table 1 and table 2, while, probably leaving table 3-6 in the supplement materials (or, still presenting table 3-6 in the mainbody like your first version) for better reference if possible.

There were included in text and full tables as a supplement material

 

2. As I mentioned before, some of the cohen's test effect size p-values are not significant in table 1 and 2 as a global overview. The specific post-hoc correlation analysis is very important for this specific study, and can directly reflect the correlation between different pre- and post- variables, and it is better to start with the tables/figures rather than only describing the correlation in the results and discussion section.

It was included

 

3. In the discussion section and where necessary, you can add the cohens' test p-values and effect size for describing the significant responses to OCR. e.g. line 359 'The observed decrease in leg strength (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ) and urine pH (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ), coupled with increased blood lactate (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ) and perceived exertion (the effect size or the mean difference, p= ), highlights the significant.....', etc.

It was included in discussion

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for undertaking manuscript modifications to enhance quality and clarity of the research effort.

Author Response

Thank you for undertaking manuscript modifications to enhance quality and clarity of the research effort.

Thank you for your support

Author Response File: Author Response.docx