The Interplay of Dual Tasks, Sleep Quality and Load Carriage on Postural Stability in Young, Healthy Adults
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, you will find my comments in the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
The study is interesting and investigates the interaction between dual tasks, sleep quality and load carrying on postural stability.
However, I believe that the authors need to make some adjustments to improve the article.
Abstract:
Authors should cite the participants' work activity to give meaning to the study's proposal.
Authors should write the abbreviation “QS” in full first.
Authors should substitute “and collaborators” for “et al.” in the text: L. 62; L. 160 and 161; L. 322.
Introduction:
Authors should reformulate the last paragraph, highlighting the specific problem situation of the study sample.
Materials and Methods:
The authors should provide more information about the study sample, especially their professional activity. Were they police officers? Were they military personnel? Were they first responders? Do they work with extra loads such as belts, vests or backpacks? Are they already adapted to using these accessories? Do they have postural deviations such as hyperlordosis, hyperkyphosis and scoliosis? Do they work on a shift system (12h; 24h)?
Did the authors calculate the sample size (n)?
The authors need to describe in more detail how the experimental protocol was carried out in both conditions.
Was the individual standing on the force platform with an open base? Did they have their gaze fixed on a reference point and at what distance?
Why did the authors use a 30-second protocol to analyze COP displacement, considering the age range of the sample? Previous studies with older people have shown COP changes with 20-second protocols force platform using the open base and open eyes on the bipedal position. Perhaps with young adults, the time on the platform should be longer, around 1 minute or be related to the work function.
Authors need to describe the time interval between warm-up and experimental protocols. They also need to describe the time interval between the two conditions analyzed.
Results:
Table 1: Replace the body mass value of the Bad Sleepers group from “756.0” to “75.60”.
L. 240: p=0.062 is not significant.
L.241: Correct the crossed-out text.
L.252: p=0.062 is not significant.
Discussion:
I suggest dividing the last paragraph, as it is too long.
Conclusion:
Remove the citations from this section. In the conclusion, the authors should restrict themselves to the objective of the study. Then, they should present an application of the study and then make recommendations for future research.
Sincerely
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic of this study appears to be of great interest, as examining the importance of sleep quality and its possible interaction with performing a secondary task or exerting effort to move a load on balance could be highly relevant for injury prevention, particularly in certain occupational settings.
In my opinion, despite the relevance of the topic presented, the manuscript has certain aspects that need to be addressed:
- In the Study Design and Participants section, instead of describing the intervention, the authors should describe the type of study conducted. If it has been registered, the registration number should be provided. It should also be stated whether the Declaration of Helsinki was followed, and if the study was approved by an ethics committee, the approval number should be included.
- In the participants section, the authors should describe how recruitment was carried out, in addition to the eligibility criteria already presented.
- On line 126, the authors state that subjects were randomized according to the 'load' condition. How was this randomization conducted, and who performed it?
- Between lines 109 and 111, the authors present the aim of the study. However, in lines 128 and 129, they introduce another aim. What is the purpose of this additional aim? How do the authors address it in this paper? What is their conclusion about it? Which is the main objective? In my opinion, both aims should be presented together.
- In my opinion, the authors should include a new section detailing the intervention conducted, incorporating the information presented between lines 123 and 136.
- In my opinion, the information contained between lines 151-167 and 182-191 should be included in a new section (Measurements) where all study variables, their respective assessment tools, clinimetric values, etc. are detailed.
- The cut-off point used by the authors to establish good and bad sleepers, described in the Statistical Analysis section (lines 206-209), should be detailed in the new Measurements section, specifically in the part dealing with sleep.
- I suggest that the authors include the information between lines 168-179 in the previously suggested 'Intervention' section.
- In lines 202-203, the authors mention “a non-parametric 2x2x2 Aligned-Ranks Transformed Repeated Measures ANOVA”. When the authors refer to a non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA, are they referring to the Friedman test?
- As I mentioned earlier, the authors state that a repeated measures ANOVA was performed (lines 202-203). Why was it a repeated measures ANOVA? Were the subjects reassessed at multiple time points? If so, how many times were they assessed? Please include this information in the new "Measurements" section that I have previously suggested.
- In the Results section, the partial eta squared value for the interactions is reported. Please provide further details in the Statistical Analysis section, explaining that it was calculated to estimate the effect size of these interactions.
- There is a typo in the p-value reported in line 252.
- Between lines 208-209, the authors state: "The cut-off was changed to less than 5 to define good sleepers. If the previous criterion established by Saraiva et al. set the cut-off at less than or equal to 5, why did the authors decide to change this criterion? What was the purpose of this change? Is there any evidence to support the new criterion?
- The format of Tables 2 and 3 should be modified to align with the journal's style.
- In my opinion, the statement between lines 372 and 374 is an opinion that should be reflected in the discussion section rather than in the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my comments have been satisfactorily addressed, so I recommend publishing your article in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and comments in the review.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the authors have satisfactorily implemented the recommendations. However, I believe the format of Tables 2 and 3 should be adjusted to align with the journal's guidelines. Remove the central dividing lines and follow the format used for Table 1.
Author Response
Comment: However, I believe the format of Tables 2 and 3 should be adjusted to align with the journal's guidelines. Remove the central dividing lines and follow the format used for Table 1.
Response: Thank you for clarifying how to adjust the tables. Table 3 has been adjusted. Table 2 was challenging to adjust within the current template for the journal. We have attached another document that has the Table adjusted but in landscape format. We hope that we can work with the journal editing team to address this issue. We appreciate your time reviewing the manuscript and thoughtful comments to help improve.
