A Systematic Review of the Factors Associated with Performance in Non-Elite Runners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the study is to identify the factors associated with performance in non-professional runners competing in distances ranging from 5 km to ultramarathons. Despite being an interesting topic and having a well-developed and well-written methodology, the research was conducted years ago and the discussion should discuss the results rather than resemble the results section.

 

Here are my contributions:

 

- The review was conducted in October 2023, more than two years ago. The search needs to be updated to a more recent period.

- Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, etc. could be made more appealing and reader-friendly by using a table instead of a text with so many references.

• If the main objective of the review is to identify factors related to performance, why is so much importance given in the manuscript to the terminology used by researchers? It can be included in the review, but it should not have a privileged section in the manuscript as it does in some sections such as the discussion, which is the first idea that begins to be discussed. The answer to the main objective should occupy the privileged places in the manuscript.
• The discussion does not discuss the data obtained. This section needs to be improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The aim of the study is to identify the factors associated with performance in non-professional runners competing in distances ranging from 5 km to ultramarathons. Despite being an interesting topic and having a well-developed and well-written methodology, the research was conducted years ago and the discussion should discuss the results rather than resemble the results section.

 

Here are my contributions:

Reviewer comment: The review was conducted in October 2023, more than two years ago. The search needs to be updated to a more recent period.

Authors answer: We agree with the reviewer. The search was updated. Please, check the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer comment:  Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, etc. could be made more appealing and reader-friendly by using a table instead of a text with so many references.

Authors answer: We agree with the reviewer. We have included supplementary material; however, we kept the description of the results in the main text to make it easier for readers to follow. Please check the revised version of the Results section.

Reviewer comment: If the main objective of the review is to identify factors related to performance, why is so much importance given in the manuscript to the terminology used by researchers? It can be included in the review, but it should not have a privileged section in the manuscript as it does in some sections such as the discussion, which is the first idea that begins to be discussed. The answer to the main objective should occupy the privileged places in the manuscript.

Authors answer: We appreciate your comment and partially agree with it. We have revised the Discussion section to improve the focus on the main objective. However, we believe it is important to highlight the terminology used in the included studies due to its implications for the external validity of the findings. As the reviewer can observe, the lack of clear and consistent definitions across studies substantially limits the interpretation and generalizability of our results.

Reviewer comment: The discussion does not discuss the data obtained. This section needs to be improved.

Authors answer:  We have revised the Discussion section to improve the focus on the main objective.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic is timely and valuable, as non-elite runners represent the majority of the running population, yet evidence is often fragmented across heterogeneous definitions and performance indicators. The manuscript has clear potential and several strengths, including a relevant research question, a pre-registered protocol, and broad coverage of performance-related domains.

However, substantial revisions are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

 

- There appear to be discrepancies across the PRISMA flow figure and the text (e.g., final included studies and full-text exclusion counts). A systematic review must present fully consistent numbers across abstract, methods, results, figure(s), and supplementary files. Please reconcile all counts and ensure one definitive set of numbers throughout the manuscript.

- The manuscript would benefit from tighter reporting of database coverage, final search dates, and reproducible search syntax (including limits/filters). Since “non-elite” status is central, the operational decision rules used to classify studies should be explicitly documented. Please provide a clearer, reproducible eligibility framework and classification logic.

- You appropriately used JBI criteria, but the implications of recurrent weaknesses (e.g., unclear eligibility criteria, limited confounder handling in many included studies) are not sufficiently reflected in the strength of conclusions. Please calibrate the certainty of statements according to methodological quality and potential confounding.

- Performance was operationalized using multiple outcomes (time, pace, speed, PB/ranking), which can invert interpretation if directionality is not standardized. Please explicitly define one directionality rule (e.g., lower race time = better performance) and apply consistent language throughout (e.g., “associated with faster performance” rather than generic “positive association”).

- The manuscript identifies inconsistent use of terms (recreational/amateur/trained/etc.), which is important. To maximize impact, consider adding a practical minimum reporting set for future studies (e.g., age, sex, training volume, years of running, race distance specialty, recent performance level). A concise reporting framework/checklist would significantly strengthen the manuscript’s contribution.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic is timely and valuable, as non-elite runners represent the majority of the running population, yet evidence is often fragmented across heterogeneous definitions and performance indicators. The manuscript has clear potential and several strengths, including a relevant research question, a pre-registered protocol, and broad coverage of performance-related domains.

However, substantial revisions are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. 

Reviewer comment: There appear to be discrepancies across the PRISMA flow figure and the text (e.g., final included studies and full-text exclusion counts). A systematic review must present fully consistent numbers across abstract, methods, results, figure(s), and supplementary files. Please reconcile all counts and ensure one definitive set of numbers throughout the manuscript.

Authors answer: Thank you for your comment. We have updated the PRISMA flow diagram to include the newly identified studies.

Reviewer comment: The manuscript would benefit from tighter reporting of database coverage, final search dates, and reproducible search syntax (including limits/filters). Since “non-elite” status is central, the operational decision rules used to classify studies should be explicitly documented. Please provide a clearer, reproducible eligibility framework and classification logic.

Authors answer: We appreciate your comment. We have updated the Methods section to clarify the search dates and have provided supplementary material with a more detailed description of the search process, including the number of studies identified in each search. Regarding the use of the term “non-elite,” we have added the following explanation to the Methods section: “We defined non-elite runners as individuals who participate in running without sponsorship and who do not compete in World Championships, the Olympic Games, or continental championships. Studies including mixed samples (i.e., both elite and non-elite athletes), as well as those allowing participants to self-classify as elite, were excluded.”

 

Reviewer comment: You appropriately used JBI criteria, but the implications of recurrent weaknesses (e.g., unclear eligibility criteria, limited confounder handling in many included studies) are not sufficiently reflected in the strength of conclusions. Please calibrate the certainty of statements according to methodological quality and potential confounding.

Authors answer: We appreciate your comment. We included this critical perspective at the end of the discussion.

 

Reviewer comment: Performance was operationalized using multiple outcomes (time, pace, speed, PB/ranking), which can invert interpretation if directionality is not standardized. Please explicitly define one directionality rule (e.g., lower race time = better performance) and apply consistent language throughout (e.g., “associated with faster performance” rather than generic “positive association”).

Authors answer: We appreciate your suggestion and agree with the reviewer’s concern. However, making extensive changes to all explanations at this stage would be very challenging and could potentially introduce misunderstandings. Instead, we have revised parts of the Results section to provide a clearer presentation of the findings and the direction of the reported associations. All modifications have been highlighted in the manuscript.

Reviewer comment: The manuscript identifies inconsistent use of terms (recreational/amateur/trained/etc.), which is important. To maximize impact, consider adding a practical minimum reporting set for future studies (e.g., age, sex, training volume, years of running, race distance specialty, recent performance level). A concise reporting framework/checklist would significantly strengthen the manuscript’s contribution.

Authors answer: We appreciate your suggestion and have included a supplementary table presenting the proposed minimum reporting set.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded appropriately to the contributions made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript has been substantially improved, and the authors have addressed the major concerns raised in the previous review.