Review Reports
- Ayame Oishi1 and
- Takao Yamasaki1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Carol Flores-Rivera Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Peter Lemon
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the article is interesting and addresses an important topic in the area, I think it is important to improve some important aspects.
Regarding the methodology, I think it is poor, the types of study that were chosen are not indicated, because they were selected one over another, the methodological quality criteria for the selection are not specified.
It is important in the results to point out the characteristics regarding the type of interventions that showed beneficial results at a cognitive and other level. It is important to note the frequency, burden, and volume of those interventions that had an effect.
In the conclusions it is important to point out the benefits considering the specifications of the intervention, so that readers who want to implement this type of sport can apply it in a good way.
The review addresses an important topic, however, it must be much more specific regarding the selected studies so that the article contributes to this area of knowledge, since the effect of physical exercise on cognitive status is well reported, however, There is not much evidence for this specific sport.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We revised it according to your suggestions. Our responses to your comments are below.
To Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: Regarding the methodology, I think it is poor, the types of study that were chosen are not indicated, because they were selected one over another, the methodological quality criteria for the are not specified.
Response: Thank you. We agree with your opinion. Per your suggestion, the Methods section was extensively edited (Lines 116-132).
Comment 2: It is important in the results to point out the characteristics regarding the type of interventions that showed beneficial results at a cognitive and other level. It is important to note the frequency, burden, and volume of those interventions that had an effect.”
Response: Thank you for your helpful comments. We revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. Edits have been throughout the text. Also, Table 2 now includes additional details about the study intervention (Pages 8–11).
Comment 3: In the conclusions it is important to point out the benefits considering the specifications of the intervention, so that readers who want to implement this type of sport can apply it in a good way.
Response: We noted the benefits in the Summary and Conclusions section, per the reviewer’s suggestion (Lines 369-379).
Comment 4: The review addresses an important topic, however, it must be much more specific regarding the selected studies so that the article contributes to this area of knowledge, since the effect of physical exercise on cognitive status is well reported, however, There is not much evidence for this specific sport.
Response: As mentioned in the previous version of this manuscript, reports indicate badminton is more effective at improving cognitive function than other sports. We believe in its unique benefits but certainly understand your opinion. Thus, in the revised version, we have added our paper's limitations regarding this issue in the Summary and Conclusion section (Lines 380-392).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsencyclopedia-2960611
Thanks for the opportunity to revise this study. The is an interesting study study adopts a review-based approach to explore badminton's beneficial effects on physical and cognitive health. Specifically, it focuses on how engaging in badminton, an open-skill exercise, contrasts with closed-skill exercises (like running or swimming) in terms of cognitive benefits. Open-skill exercises are characterized by their unpredictability and the need for external attention and decision-making in response to changing environments, which can stimulate cognitive functions more intensively. The importance of this study lies in its potential to influence health and exercise science by providing evidence on the multifaceted benefits of badminton, emphasizing its role in preventing cognitive decline and promoting a healthy, active lifestyle accessible to a wide audience.
However there are several points that must be addressed.
Abstract
There are several aspects where the abstract could provide more detailed information:
1. It doesn't specify the type of studies reviewed or the methodology used for selecting and analyzing them. Including this information would help establish the reliability and validity of the review's conclusions.
2. The abstract lacks quantifiable data or specific results from the studies referenced.
3. The main purpose is not clarified.
Introduction
The introduction offers a broad overview of badminton's relevance as a sport, its physical and social health benefits, and the global demographic and health trends related to aging and dementia. However, there are several limitations to this introduction that could be addressed for clarity, coherence, and focus on the study's main goals:
1. While the introduction touches upon badminton's physical, social, and psychological benefits, it does not directly connect these benefits to the mechanisms by which badminton might prevent cognitive decline and dementia. A more focused discussion on how badminton affects cognitive functions and potentially delays the onset of dementia would strengthen the relevance to the study.
2. Although the introduction mentions badminton's benefits for physical, social, and psychological health, it lacks specificity on what makes badminton uniquely beneficial compared to other sports or activities in preventing dementia. Highlighting specific studies or evidence showing badminton's direct impact on cognitive health would address this limitation.
3. While the introduction mentions previous studies on badminton's benefits, it does not integrate these findings into a cohesive argument for how badminton could specifically contribute to preventing or delaying dementia. A more detailed synthesis of past research findings related to badminton and cognitive health would make the introduction more compelling.
4. Please clarify the main objective of the introduction and what this study adds to the current literature.
Methods
several limitations to this Methods section are:
1. How comprehensive was the search strategy? Were databases beyond PubMed and Google Scholar considered, such as PsycINFO, Scopus, or Web of Science, to ensure a wide range of studies were included?
2. Were the keyword combinations used in the search strategy sufficient to capture all relevant studies? Could additional keywords have provided a broader range of studies?
3. What were the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies? How were these criteria applied consistently across studies during the selection process?
4. Was the screening of studies based solely on title and abstract sufficient to determine the relevance of each study? Did this process risk excluding relevant studies that did not clearly indicate their relevance in the title or abstract?
5. How was the quality of the included studies assessed? Were there any quality or risk of bias assessments conducted to ensure the reliability of the findings?
6. Were different types of study designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies) included in the review, and how were they weighted in terms of their evidence strength?
7. Were there any date or language restrictions applied to the search strategy? How might this have limited the scope of the review?
8. What was the process for data extraction from the included studies, and how were discrepancies handled?
The recommendation is to conduct a systematic review on the benefits of badminton for preventing cognitive decline and dementia; you would follow a structured protocol typically guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We revised it according to your suggestions. Our responses to your comments are below.
To Reviewer 2:
Abstract:
Comment 1: It doesn't specify the type of studies reviewed or the methodology used for selecting and analyzing them. Including this information would help establish the reliability and validity of the review's conclusions.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the information you suggested to the revised abstract (Lines 15-20).
Comment 2: The abstract lacks quantifiable data or specific results from the studies referenced.
Response: These data and results were added to the revised manuscript (Lines 20-28).
Comment 3: The main purpose is not clarified.
Response: In the revised version of this manuscript (lines 13–15), we clarified the study's main purpose.
Introduction:
Comment 1: While the introduction touches upon badminton's physical, social, and psychological benefits, it does not directly connect these benefits to the mechanisms by which badminton might prevent cognitive decline and dementia. A more focused discussion on how badminton affects cognitive functions and potentially delays the onset of dementia would strengthen the relevance to the study.
Response: Thank you. We added a focused discussion of your points to the revised manuscript (Lines 63-82).
Comment 2: Although the introduction mentions badminton's benefits for physical, social, and psychological health, it lacks specificity on what makes badminton uniquely beneficial compared to other sports or activities in preventing dementia. Highlighting specific studies or evidence showing badminton's direct impact on cognitive health would address this limitation.
Response: Thank you for your helpful comments. We added information about specific studies demonstrating that badminton directly impacts cognitive health (Lines 83-98).
Comment 3: While the introduction mentions previous studies on badminton's benefits, it does not integrate these findings into a cohesive argument for how badminton could specifically contribute to preventing or delaying dementia. A more detailed synthesis of past research findings related to badminton and cognitive health would make the introduction more compelling.
Response: Following your suggestion, we strengthened our overview of previous research findings on badminton and cognitive health in the Introduction section (Lines 98-109).
Comment 4: Please clarify the main objective of the introduction and what this study adds to the current literature.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Accordingly, we have included a clearer description of this study's main objective and novelty, Lines 110-115 of the Introduction section.
Methods:
Comment 1: How comprehensive was the search strategy? Were databases beyond PubMed and Google Scholar considered, such as PsycINFO, Scopus, or Web of Science, to ensure a wide range of studies were included?
Response: Thank you for your important comments. We reanalyzed using other databases besides PubMed and Google Scholar and found the same studies.
Comment 2: Were the keyword combinations used in the search strategy sufficient to capture all relevant studies? Could additional keywords have provided a broader range of studies?
Response: We believe our keyword combination was sufficient, but we appreciate the reviewer’s comment.
Comment 3: What were the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies? How were these criteria applied consistently across studies during the selection process?
Response: We have extensively revised the Methods section and elaborated on the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria (Lines 116-132).
Comment 4: Was the screening of studies based solely on title and abstract sufficient to determine the relevance of each study? Did this process risk excluding relevant studies that did not clearly indicate their relevance in the title or abstract?
Response: We revised the Methods section to include these points (Lines 116-132).
Comment 5: How was the quality of the included studies assessed? Were there any quality or risk of bias assessments conducted to ensure the reliability of the findings?
Response: Because this paper is a narrative rather than a systematic review, we did not employ methods to minimize bias. A brief overview of potential sources of bias is included in the revised Discussion section.
Comment 6: Were different types of study designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies) included in the review, and how were weighted in terms of their evidence strength?
Response: We revised the Methods section to include the reviewer’s points (Lines 116-132).
Comment 7: Were there any date or language restrictions applied to the search strategy? How might this have limited the scope of the review?
Response: We revised the Methods section to include the reviewer’s points (Lines 116-132).
Comment 8: What was the process for data extraction from the included studies, and how were discrepancies handled?
Response: We revised the Methods section to include the reviewer’s points (Lines 116-132).
Comment 9: The recommendation is to conduct a systematic review on the benefits of badminton for preventing cognitive decline and dementia; you would follow a structured protocol typically guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
Response: As suggested, we understand that systematic reviews are preferable to narrative reviews; we plan to publish systematic reviews in the future.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInteresting manuscript; however; the sentence structure needs work as several statements are too long and unclear. Please carefully review and correct these.
Line 18. Key words should not repeat words in the title as searches use titles and keywords.
Line 21-25. Is this a sentence?
Line 32-36. Is this a sentence?
Line 117 and elsewhere. ml/kg/min is not mathematically correct. It should be ml . kg-1 . min-1.
It is not necessary to repeat in the text the data presented in Table 1. Rather present a summary statement and reference Table 1.
Line 160-161. "... longer apart ..." your meaning here is unclear.
Line 287. This is a summary and Conclusion not a conclusion. A conclusion is a definitive statement based on the data. Replace title with Summary and Conclusion or revise so you have a conclusion only.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSentence structure is unclear in several places.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We revised it according to your suggestions. Our responses to your comments are below.
To Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: Line 18. Key words should not repeat words in the title as searches use titles and keywords.
Response: Thank you for your advice. We have revised the manuscript’s keywords (Line 31-32).
Comment 2: Line 21-25. Is this a sentence?
Response: Thank you for your advice. We have modified the text (Lines 36-40).
Comment 3: Line 32-36. Is this a sentence?
Response: Thank you for your advice. We have modified the text (Lines 47-52).
Comment 4: Line 117 and elsewhere. ml/kg/min is not mathematically correct. It should be ml . kg-1 . min-1.
Response: Thank you for your advice. We carefully reviewed the manuscript and made necessary (Line 202; Table 1).
Comment 5: It is not necessary to repeat in the text the data presented in Table 1. Rather present a summary statement and reference Table 1.
Response: We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions (Lines 186-187).
Comment 6: Line 160-161. "... longer apart ..." your meaning here is unclear.
Response: We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions (Lines 228-229).
Comment 7: Line 287. This is a summary and Conclusion not a conclusion. A conclusion is a definitive statement based on the data. Replace title with Summary and Conclusion or revise so you have a conclusion only.
Response: Thank you for your advice. The revised manuscript replaces the Conclusion section with a Summary and Conclusion section (Line 355).
Comment 8: Sentence structure is unclear in several places.
Response: Thank you for your advice. A native English language speaker has edited the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe document is approved after the modifications made.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We revised it according to your suggestions. Our responses to your comments are below.
To Reviewer１
Comment: The document is approved after the modifications made.
Response: Thank you very much. We have modified this document as your instruction.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised their manuscript sufficiently but the sentence structure and grammar still could be improved.
Specific Suggestions; Line 64, delete induced improvement in blood pressure levels; Line 66, may reduce social isolation; Line 189, why different decimal places for lactic acid values?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors have revised their manuscript sufficiently but the sentence structure and grammar still could be improved.
Specific Suggestions; Line 64, delete induced improvement in blood pressure levels; Line 66, may reduce social isolation; Line 189, why different decimal places for lactic acid values?
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We revised it according to your suggestions. Our responses to your comments are below.
To Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: The authors have revised their manuscript sufficiently but the sentence structure and grammar still could be improved.
Response: Thank you for your advice. A native English language speaker has edited the revised manuscript. We have attached the English proofreading certificate.
Comment 2: Line 64, delete induced improvement in blood pressure levels; Line 66, may reduce social isolation; Line 189, why different decimal places for lactic acid values?
Response: Thank you for your advice. We have modified the text (Lines 64 and 66). We noted the lactic acid values according to the reference number 4 (Line 187).