The Effect of the FIFA 11+ on Injury Prevention and Performance in Football: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review with meta-analysis is focused on the effectiveness of the FIFA 11+ warm up protocol on injury prevention. Some others review and meta-analysis have been performed on the topic, so the authors must justify the need of their work. Moreover and despite the high quantity of literature about the topic, this review is supported just in 21 references, which seems a weak point that must be improved. Some other issues to solve are:
Lines 12, 16 and 17: Check hyphens in words, they are not necessary
Line 27: a reference about FIFA11+ is required
Line 46: please use inclusive terms (“he”, why not “she”?)
Line 57: the title mentions a “systematic review” not a “literature review”. Please clarify the type of review. The sentence “the search of some Randomized controlled trials” makes me think that authors did not followe a systematic process.
Line 58: three databases are quite low. Authors must consider the include a fourth one as is recommended in PRISMA guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis. I suggest Web of Science or SportDiscuss, as this last is more focused on sports sciences.
Line 67: this is not the reference style of the journal
Link 70: why participants over 13 years old was the age selected? This section is not the appropriate for a systematic review, authors should follow PRISMA guideline and use the appropriate sections (selection criteria)
Lines 97, 117, 119…: one again, this is not the reference style of the journal.
Line 121: using only one person to select the studies is a high bias for a systematic review. Please clarify.
Line 125: include reference for PRISMA guideline.
Figure 1: you must improve quality of the picture. Moreover, include how many registers did you fund per database.
Table 1: is more usual to note the score of each item instead of the response (0/1 instead of YES/NO), but it could be acceptable.
Table 2: the table is not useful. Some boxes are empty of information, the table is extended along 6 pages without any try of space optimization and the headings are only in the first page. Authors must work harder on it in a try to make it useful for readers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to re-submit a revised draft of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect your suggestions provided. We have written the changes in red within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.
Comments by reviewer 1:
This review with meta-analysis is focused on the effectiveness of the FIFA 11+ warm up protocol on injury prevention. Some others review and meta-analysis have been performed on the topic, so the authors must justify the need of their work. Moreover and despite the high quantity of literature about the topic, this review is supported just in 21 references, which seems a weak point that must be improved.
Answer to comment: We have reviewed this section and provided justification for the conduction of the study in lines 60-76.
Some other issues to solve are:
Lines 12, 16 and 17: Check hyphens in words, they are not necessary-
Answer: Done as suggested
Line 27: a reference about FIFA11+ is required
Answer: Done as suggested in first paragraph in the introduction.
Line 46: please use inclusive terms (“he”, why not “she”?)
Answer: Done as suggested
Line 57: the title mentions a “systematic review” not a “literature review”. Please clarify the type of review. The sentence “the search of some Randomized controlled trials” makes me think that authors did not followe a systematic process.
Answer: Done as suggested. We clarified that this is a systematic review and deleted the word some in line 78.
Line 58: three databases are quite low. Authors must consider the include a fourth one as is recommended in PRISMA guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis. I suggest Web of Science or SportDiscuss, as this last is more focused on sports sciences.
Answer: Done as suggested. We included SPORTDISCUSS.
Line 67: this is not the reference style of the journal
Answer: Done as suggested
Link 70: why participants over 13 years old was the age selected? This section is not the appropriate for a systematic review, authors should follow PRISMA guideline and use the appropriate sections (selection criteria)
Answer: Done as suggested. See lines 90-97.
Lines 97, 117, 119…: one again, this is not the reference style of the journal.
Answer: Done as suggested
Line 121: using only one person to select the studies is a high bias for a systematic review. Please clarify.
Answer: We explained the process more clearly in lines 143-147.
Line 125: include reference for PRISMA guideline.
Answer: Done as suggested in line 154.
Figure 1: you must improve quality of the picture. Moreover, include how many registers did you fund per database.
Answer: Done as suggested in figure 1.
Table 1: is more usual to note the score of each item instead of the response (0/1 instead of YES/NO), but it could be acceptable.
Answer: We actually avoided the inclusion of numbers again between studies to avoid confusion with the end result. Since this is acceptable by you, we decided to keep it that way.
Table 2: the table is not useful. Some boxes are empty of information, the table is extended along 6 pages without any try of space optimization and the headings are only in the first page. Authors must work harder on it in a try to make it useful for readers.
Answer: Done as suggested. We deleted unnecessary information and reformatted the entire table. Unfortunately, due to space restrictions, we could not replicate the headings in each page separately since this is one table.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors should refer to the previous meta-analyses published in the framework of the FIFA 11+ application on injury prevention and performance in football during the introdution. It should also differentiate the practical applications for injury prevention and performance.
The authors used only two references for the entire introduction, whereby the research gap, study hypothesis and research aims are not identifiable. The authors should address the current research topics for the rationale of the study, specifically with regard to injury prevention and match running performance in adult and male football players:
o The need to measure the relationship between training and match load (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3906).
o The influence of independent variables such as periodization structure (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/11/4871), age-related factors (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.832202/full) or contextual factors (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/8/973).
o Also, the injury prevention and athletic improvement should be considered (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11986, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269215516675906).
The methods, results and conclusions are solid and well-drafted, however without novelty.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to re-submit a revised draft of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect your suggestions provided. We have written the changes in red within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.
Comments by reviewer 1:
The authors should refer to the previous meta-analyses published in the framework of the FIFA 11+ application on injury prevention and performance in football during the introdution. It should also differentiate the practical applications for injury prevention and performance.
Answer: Done as suggested in the introduction. See lines 61-76.
The authors used only two references for the entire introduction, whereby the research gap, study hypothesis and research aims are not identifiable. The authors should address the current research topics for the rationale of the study, specifically with regard to injury prevention and match running performance in adult and male football players:
o The need to measure the relationship between training and match load (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3906).
o The influence of independent variables such as periodization structure (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/11/4871), age-related factors (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.832202/full) or contextual factors (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/8/973).
o Also, the injury prevention and athletic improvement should be considered (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11986, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269215516675906).
Answer: Done as suggested in the introduction. See lines 24-30, 53-60.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
It is a pleasure to check the important effort made to apply the suggested changes. The manuscript has been improved in such a way that I consider it could be fine for publication. I still think the table could be improved (maybe by increasing the width of the last column and by narrowing the previous). Moreover, in the references list the numbers are repeated, please check. Finally, number 34 in the reference list is empty of reference, please remove it.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to re-submit again a revised draft of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect your suggestions provided.
Based on your comments, we understand that the table needs to improve the appearance of the table by increasing the width of the last column and by narrowing the previous. We managed to do this in order to have a better appearance for the table.
Also, the numbers in the reference list are not repeated in the file that we uploaded, but probably during the editing stage by the journal, this was done automatically. We have changed that again based on your suggestions, and we removed number 34.
Thank you for your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
I suggest that the manuscript be accepted in the present form. Congratulations on your research.
Kind regards,
AMM.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2
Thank you for accepting the article for publication.
