PONE-D-20-05075

Profiling the health related fitness of Irish adolescents: A school level socioeconomic status divide.

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr O'Keeffe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Comments from two expert reviewers can be found below. Overall, the manuscript was viewed positively by both, however each have raised several important questions relating to the study rationale and comparison with other European datasets, outcome measure assessments and the analysis and reporting of the data. Please ensure all questions are fully addressed in your revision.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 17 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kathryn L. Weston, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: http://blogs.PLOS.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-check-your-manuscript-image-quality-in-editorial-manager/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: An interesting paper that is clear and easy to follow. I have a few minor comments:

I think it is usual practice to report actual p values, unless p<0.001, this hasn't been done consistently.

Did you create BMIz-scores to calculate the proportions that were overweight? If so this data should go in the tables and could be used in the analysis.

Discussion, third paragraph "...physical activity rates among young ADOLESCENT girls"... not adolescents, unless you don't mean to have the word 'girls' in the sentence?

Fig 1 and 2 need to have the categories altered slightly, as at the moment the boundaries fall into two categories, ie someone on the 20th centile is currently both 'very low' and 'low'. Ditto 40th/60th/80th. Check which need to be >< or also equals.

Reviewer #2: Many thanks to the authors for their work in preparing this manuscript. I enjoyed reading the manuscript and feel it will make a good contribution to the literature, given the lack of published data for this country, employing more objective methods. I have outlined queries below.

Introduction

The authors have presented a good overview of the literature in adolescents and the different findings across these datasets. I feel this section could be further strengthened by briefly offering explanations for these differences – are these attributed to methodological differences in how outcomes were measured, inconsistencies in reference points applied, or as a result of the samples recruited.

Methods

The authors could provide some further justification to compare with the European dataset. The methodology should make reference to the population in the European dataset (similar age, gender) and if outcomes were measured in the same way or how any differences were accounted for in the analysis.

Data collection and quality control – I was interested if the schools noted or reported any issues with participants being measured by older peers? I feel the authors should consider the rationale for this approach, and whether it may have introduced a bias within the study sample. Is it possible that some participants (perhaps those who were less sporty/fit/overweight) may have been put off from taking part because of this data collection approach, and how this may have impacted upon the results across schools?

The authors note that disadvantaged schools make up ~ 25% of all secondary schools. Given the difference in sample size across non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged within the results, did the authors consider recruiting a higher proportion of disadvantaged schools to provide a more balanced sample across groups.

Results

Lines 231 – 234 – These findings are quite descriptive and the authors should avoid highlighting individual mean scores.

From Table 2, were any other school level factors (mixed-gender / school location) considered in the analysis which may have influenced differences between disadvantaged and non- disadvantaged schools.

Discussion (line numbers missing)

The opening paragraph highlights that the aim was to look at school level characteristics, and first highlighted results discusses males vs females. Was this technically a school level characteristic i.e. did this only compare all male vs all female schools? I feel this could be further clarified, as it is more a characteristic of the overall gender breakdown sample as opposed to a school level characteristic?

Paragraph 2 notes the higher scores for boys across the sample – did the authors consider collecting any additional information on physical activity levels/sports participation. Would suggest including some references here to support the reasoning behind these observed findings.

Minor comments

Manuscript uses males and females in some instances, then boys and girls in others. Would suggest a consistent approach across the manuscript.

Abstract

Background: Include introductory line to provide context to the article before outlining the study aims

Method: Line 21 – Reword to clarify that tests were undertaken to measure components of physical fitness

Main body

Methods

Were all tests performed in the same order by each study participant to control for the potential of some testing to impact upon performance in another outcome?

Results

Of the 20 schools recruited, how many were disadvantaged? Can only see student numbers, not school numbers also.

What was the mean number of students who participated across each school?

Formatting

Appears to be inconsistency in font size across manuscript version

The figures are unclear/blurred and difficult to view

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Profiling the health-related physical fitness of Irish adolescents: A school-level sociodemographic divide.

PONE-D-20-05075R1

Dear Dr. O'Keeffe,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kathryn L. Weston, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please note some very small comments from the Reviewers regarding a minor typo in Table 3, spacing throughout the manuscript and the suggestion to remove a sentence from the Discussion. Please ensure these are addressed in the final version of the manuscript. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The additions have really strengthened the paper.

Check the new table 3 as one of the variables has two decimal places (this is the minor revision, as PLOS ONE says it does not correct typos).

Reviewer #3: Thank you for addressing the comments of the reviewer. I have a few minor comments/amendments required. Please check the full manuscript for adherence and consistency to the SI units of reporting. For example, for 20m shuttle run, there should be a space between the number and unit. Please check all numbers and units. Additionally the authors sometimes use N in capitals, other times as n. Please ensure there is a space between n and the equals sign. For example, n = 35. Not n= 35. Finally, within the discussion, the authors state....to the best of the authors knowledge this is the first study.......I would personally consider refraining from using such expressions. Firstly, you cannot be sure. And secondly, I am not sure what this adds to the manuscript and the interpretation of the findings. It may perhaps be better to allow the reader to decide. A short article on why to avoid such phrases can be found here https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)17096-7/fulltext

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No