Quantifying the External Joint Workload and Safety of Latin Dance in Older Adults: Potential Benefits for Musculoskeletal Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Titled “Quantifying External Joint Workload and Safety of Latin Dance in Older Adults: Potential Benefits for Musculoskeletal Health”, the present study targeted: i) an external workload classification in older people across various anatomical locations during a 60-min Latin dance class and, ii) factors (e.g., music genre, session duration) influencing the workload. The expected workload accumulation pattern was ankle>knee>lumbar region>scapulae. Faster, more rhythmic genres would produce higher impacts than slower songs whereas fatigue would provoke decreased impacts from the first to last songs. Measured as low-to-moderate impact magnitudes, these “collisions” may pose enough osteogenic stimulus without overloading structures.

Although the manuscript topic is significant and worth researching, the study presents some inconsistencies, which should be addressed. Moreover, a balanced, comprehensive, and critical view of the research area is presently missing. Therefore, to improve its rigor and quality specific corrections are needed.

Overall comments:

1.       The general level of English language can be improved. Some minor edits need to be applied (e.g., clarifying some sentences, using a more age-inclusive language).

2.       The study rationale should be strengthened.

3.       Considering this growing research field, the results of the present study need to be compared with a wider literature.

4.       The discussion section has to be improved.

Specific comments:

Abstract

Please provide some basic demographic information such as means and standard deviation for the age and percentage of female participants (XX±YY years; F=ZZ%).

Here and throughout the manuscript, please avoid any terms that could be perceived as patronizing or impolite such as “elderly”, “senior”, and "subjects" substituting them with more inclusive ones like “older adults”, “older people”, “older individuals”, and "participants".

Please indicate the p values (and eventually the range for the effect sizes) for the main reported statistical significances.

L30: consider replacing “programming” with “programmes”.

L32-33: “Ranging from low to moderate, the measured impact magnitudes suggest that the collisions may provide enough osteogenic stimulus without overloading structures.”

Please clarify whether there is a difference between “impacts” and “collisions”. Otherwise, please be consistent with the use of the terms throughout the manuscript.

Introduction

The introduction is clear and enjoyable. Still, the rationale for studying dance in older adults should be strengthened. Please dedicate a whole paragraph for introducing similar or divergent studies covering the present topic, such as:

i) Palumbo, F., Ciaccioni, S., Guidotti, F., Forte, R., Sacripanti, A., Capranica, L., & Tessitore, A. (2023). Risks and Benefits of Judo Training for Middle-Aged and Older People: A Systematic Review. Sports, 11(3), 68;

ii) Ciaccioni, S., Condello, G., Guidotti, F., & Capranica, L. (2019). Effects of judo training on bones: a systematic literature review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(10), 2882-2896.

iii) Oliveira, J. S., Gilbert, S., Pinheiro, M. B., Tiedemann, A., Macedo, L. B., Maia, L., ... & Sherrington, C. (2023). Effect of sport on health in people aged 60 years and older: a systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(4), 230-236.

Materials and methods

L74: please indicate a reference to clarify this study design.

L95: please report the Ethics Committee approval date.

The study includes a supplementary (“non-published”) material titled “Consentimiento de uso de imagen personal” reporting the informed consent form for a single person. Please clarify it.

L118-119: please indicate the reliability and validity scores.

L132: unnecessary space between "surface" and the comma. Please doublecheck the punctuation.

 

Figure 1: Please provide clearer and less blurred images.

L150: could you please provide more details on the dance performance? Latin dances are usually performed in mixed male and female pair or couples. Considering that there were 28 women and 2 men, how were the dances organized? To avoid to overload them, I guess the two gentlemen were not the partners of all 28 ladies.

L153: please provide the software version number.

Statistical analyses

Please indicate whether there were missing data and how they have been eventually treated.

Results

They are clear.

Tables 2

Be consistent with the reporting of the zero before the decimal point. With or without the zero? E.g., 0.01 or .01?

Tables 3

Only significant (p<0.???) correlations were included.

Discussion

The discussions are solid and well-organized.

Still, a thorough examination of the sport-related literature is missing. By comparing or contrasting the emerged results with those of other studies, some useful deductions could be discussed. Examine for instance the following study and others: Perrin, P., Deviterne, D., Hugel, F., & Perrot, C. (2002). Judo, better than dance, develops sensorimotor adaptabilities involved in balance control. Gait & posture, 15(2), 187-194.

Conclusions

Overall positive. Once again, please use an inclusive language throughout the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement: approval date missing.

Supplementary Materials: the reference to the provided “non-published” material is missing.

References

Please double-check the correctness of all references, according to the journal guidelines.

Please consider expanding the references after a specific review of the sport and exercise-related literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As previously stated, some minor edits are needed such as clarifying some confusing sentences and using a more age-inclusive language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, thank you for your words and the time spent reviewing this article. We have carefully considered all reviewers' considerations of the paper (applsci-2914693). I have attached our detailed answers to reviewers' queries in a PDF document.

We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. Your contributions have improved the quality of the article considerably. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown with track changes. The authors declare that the manuscript is original and has not been considered for publication elsewhere. Additionally, the authors had approved the paper for release and agreed with its content.

Kindly regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is highly interesting; I extend my congratulations to the authors for their innovative concept and meticulous execution. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. Nevertheless, I have several observations regarding the manuscript, which I would like to outline:

Please explain why the sensor for the lumbar spine was placed at the levels L1-L3 instead of, for example, at the level of L4-S1. Were the authors anticipating greater loads in that region compared to the lower segments?

„Aligning with our hypothesis, the ankles suffered the greatest overall workload, accumulating over 8800 impacts on average, with 90% ≤4 g. The knees registered the second highest collisions (11800 per limb over the hour), with 98% ≤4 g” -  It seems to me that the ankles recorded the second-highest result, with the knees achieving the first, given that 11,800 is greater than 8,800..

 

Please review the entire manuscript once again, as there are some strange phrases appearing in it, for example: "Firstly, we quantified impacts using accelerometry in ecological conditions versus specific laboratory gold standards." I am not sure what "ecological conditions" mean in this context. Please carefully review the entire text and ensure it is more understandable.

The "Conclusions" section appears to be overly expanded; essentially, its first paragraph adequately and appropriately summarizes the findings of the study. The remaining two paragraphs should be moved into the discussion section.

In my view, it is important for the authors to provide a comprehensive discussion of the employed measurement method, including an in-depth review of the previously conducted validation of such an approach. Additionally, it is essential to extensively explore the correlation between these measurements and the actual load experienced by the patients' joints. Given that the use of accelerometers may not necessarily reflect the true joint loads, it is understandable that direct measurement of such loads in vivo is not possible. However, it seems that expanding on this topic and elucidating the relationships between indirect accelerometer measurements and direct joint loads could be significant, enhancing the overall value of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, thank you for your words and the time spent reviewing this article. We have carefully considered all reviewers' considerations of the paper (applsci-2914693). I have attached our detailed answers to reviewers' queries in a PDF document.

We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. Your contributions have improved the quality of the article considerably. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown with track changes. The authors declare that the manuscript is original and has not been considered for publication elsewhere. Additionally, the authors had approved the paper for release and agreed with its content.

Kindly regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for having addressed properly all required amendments. The paper is now ready for publication. I do not have further comments. Best regards