https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5330-6340
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJune 18, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-09354 Effect of the FIFA 11+ soccer specific warm up programme on the reduction of injuries: a cluster-randomised controlled Trial PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nuhu, 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. The manuscript has been evaluated by several reviewers, and their comments are available below. The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. They request additional information on methodological aspects of the study, and revisions to the statistical analyses. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised? Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Carmen Melatti Associate 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information [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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: N/A Reviewer #6: 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: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: Yes ********** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes Reviewer #6: No ********** 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: A cluster randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted to examine the impact of the FIFA 11+ warm-up on incidence and severity of injuries. The odds of sustaining injuries were lower in the intervention group compared to the control group. Minor revisions: 1- Abstract: Provide the proportions that correspond to the number of sustained injuries in the following sentence. To improve clarity, replace “fewer” with “a lower proportion of.” “Fewer players sustained injuries in the intervention group (163 players) compared to the control group (200 players)...” 2- Double check that 20% is correct in the following statement. “A 20% reduction in the risk of sustaining moderate/severe injuries was observed in the intervention group (OR: 2.3, 95% C.L: 1.56-3.40).” 3- Paragraph beginning at line 117: The statistical power calculation should also indicate if the alpha level was one- or two-sided and statistical testing method which archives 90% power. 4- Line 124: Indicate the mechanism used to implement random allocation sequence (such as sequentially numbered containers), describe any steps taken to conceal the sequence until interventions were assigned. 5- Line 180: State the statistical method used to estimate the 95% confidence interval. 6- Table 1: The F and t values can be removed from Table 1. As a table footnote, indicate that p-values were calculated from t-test. Indicate if the distribution of the data was checked for normality prior to applying t-tests. Clarify the statistical method used to estimate the coefficient and its robust standard error. 7- Line 229: The statistical term for average is mean. 8- Table 2: Explain F-ratio variances and p-value variances. 9- Throughout the manuscript: Since the sample sizes of the control and intervention arms are not the same be sure to summarize the data as the proportion affected in addition to the frequency. 10- Table 3: Explain “Row %” and “Design Effect.” 11- Table 4: Consider removing columns of data for t-value and DF. Explain F-ratio variances, p-value variances, Mean Rank Intervention, Mean Rank Control, Sum of Ranks Intervention and Sum of Ranks Control. Possibly simplifying this table could improve clarity. 12- Table 5: Indicate if “Count” refers to sample size. 13- Indicate if any adverse events occurred during the course of the study. 14- Cite the statistical software used for the analysis. 15- An objective of the study was to address the severity of injuries; however, results for severity have not been presented. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this article, which bridges the gap between training theory/rehabilitation theory and its impact upon performance measures. Importantly, it addresses these issues as they apply to the topic of the FIFA 11+, which is an area of the sport science literature needing more attention. I see this manuscript as generally well-written and clearly laid out. The authors have done a nice job of laying out the need for such a study with the Introduction, clearly describing the Methods and Results, and tying the present findings to related studies within the Discussion. Given the interventional nature of this study, in which the members of the research team trained the coaches of the intervention group, and then regularly traveled to conduct follow up meetings with the respective teams, a LOT of work went into this study. My suggestions for improving this manuscript are largely related to “cleaning up” some English-usage issues, such as the omission of an article within some sentences, a few awkwardly written sentences that may present a lack of clarity for many readers, the lack of use of the Oxford comma, and so on. In summary, the aim of this project has merit. I recommend the authors address the issues noted below prior to this manuscript appearing in this peer-reviewed journal. Thanks once again for the opportunity to review this paper. Specific comments: Line 21: suggest replacing “typically” for “mostly” Line 26: suggest inserting “the” between “as” and “unit” Line 60: the statement of “ranges from 18.8 to 1.2” does not seem correct to me. Is this a typo? Logic and conventional practice for stating ranges of numbers suggests these numbers may transposed, the second number may be missing a digit, etc. Lines 63-64: Suggest revising as follows: “Injuries generally occur more frequently during matches…” Line 85: Suggest revising as follows: “…was developed by the group of experts commissioned by FIFA to reduce perceived intrinsic risk factors…” Line 92: Suggest adding a comma after “eccentric hamstring strength56, Line 93: Suggest revising as follows: “…correct alignment of the hip, knee, and ankle joints during dynamic activity in young athletes.” Line 95: Suggest revising as follows: “However, the positive impact of the ….” Lines 128-129. This sentence is awkwardly written. Here is a suggested revision: The principal investigator, assisted by the Rwanda soccer technical director, governed the randomization process. Line 131: It states “three” but 4 forms are listed. Revise for greater clarity. Lines 156-157: Revise as follows for greater clarity: “…all the second division teams in the experimental group were invited…” Line 159: While throughout this manuscript, the Oxford comma is not generally used, its absence here in particularly creates unnecessary confusion. Thus, I recommended revising as follows: “prevention, the development, and use…” Line 165: Recommend revising: “corrections to flaws in technique.” Line 191: Recommend revising: “…sessions were defined as medium compliance…” Line 194: Recommend revising: “…were done for lower limb, such as location of ….” Line 198: Add “the” after “in” and before “2016” Line 209: Add a comma after “coaches” Line 212: Revise to (Table 1). Lines 224-225: It appears that the intervention group was the group that was significantly greater, but it is not clear as written. Revise this slightly, making this a bit more apparent to the typical reader. Line 235: Add a comma after “control group” Line 255: Revise to (Table 3). Line 272: Revise to (Table 4). Line 280: Revise as follows: “lost 40% less days; they exhibited a mean of …” Line 282: Revise to (Table 5). Line 295: Add comma after “training”. Again, use of the Oxford comma throughout this manuscript would help a bit for the overall presentation. Line 296: Add a comma after “rates” Line 297: Revise to: “rising to 91% prior to matches”. Line 300: Add “previous” between “one” and “study” Line 339: Add “previous” between “one” and “study” Line 379: This is an incomplete sentence. Revise for greater clarity. Line 396: This is another incomplete sentence. Revise for greater clarity. Reviewer #3: Complements to the authors on this very nicely conducted trial. I have a number of comments regarding the statistical analysis and presentation of results, but the trial design is sound and the results seem quite optimistic and useful. Comments: 1. Is there a typo in the introduction, paragraph one, first sentence: “… ranges from 18.8 to 1.2 per 1000 hours” or was it intentional to specify the range from high to low? I would expect to see the range specified from low to high, but I supposed either way is acceptable. 2. Specification of sample size in a cluster-randomized trial should address both the number of clusters and the number of participants per cluster. In other words, given that the number of clusters was fixed at 12 per arm, the sample size calculation should specify the number of individuals needed per cluster, given an assumed value for the intra-class correlation (ICC). The source and justification for the ICC, and the corresponding design effect, should be stated. 3. Statistical methods should be clearer about what methods are used to account for clustering. Logistic regression is not appropriate here given the large prevalence rates. Poisson regression is probably the best option for incidence rates. Linear regression for risk differences. 4. In the statistical analysis section, the software package used should be specified (in addition to the “Epi-info complex tables function”.) 5. In the “Characteristics…” section, group means for coach experience should be stated, along with the p-value; the U and Z statistics are not necessary in the text. 6. There is far too much information in Table 1. At the very most this table should show two columns (Intervention and Control Group means) and the p-value. The p-value column is not necessary, but OK to include it this journal requires it. 7. In the “Compliance…” section, the first sentence should start with “The teams in the intervention group…”, for clarity. 8. Delete the first sentence in the “Injuries” section about player-level injuries. This is summarized in the Effects of the intervention at the level of the individual players” section. Instead, overall incidence rates (Table 2) and relative risks should be summarized here. 9. Table 2 should be restructured to show the following information for overall/training/match injuries (three rows): a. The numbers of injuries in each study arm b. The numbers of exposure hours in each study arm c. The incidence rate in each arm, and 95% confidence interval d. The relative risk of injury comparing arms e. The p-value f. (Remove all other extraneous statistical content from this table) 10. Table 3 should be reduced substantially and take a similar format as Table 2, with just three rows (overall, training, match) and the following four columns: a. Number of players with 1+ injuries in the intervention arm / number of participants in the intervention arm and percent: (n/N %) b. Same for the control arm (n/N %) c. The risk difference and 95% CI (Odds ratios are not appropriate with such high prevalence rates, and the relative risk is better calculated using incidence rates which is already done in Table 2) d. P-value e. (remove everything else from this table) 11. Revise the text in the “Effects of the intervention at the level of the players” section to provide a simple verbal summary of the new Table 3. 12. Revise Table 4 similarly by adding 95% CIs for the incidence rates and removing all statistical columns except the p-value which should be computed using clustered-date methods. 13. The section “Effect of the intervention on the severity of injuries” really combines two concepts: severity and impact on lost hours. Suggest separating them into: a. Tabulation of injury severity categories in each study arm, counts and percentages (denominator for percentages being the total of the number of injuries in each arm.) b. Comparison of days of lost play. (As in Table 5). Show means and ranges for this, not CIs, as there will be interest in the distribution of days lost, not just inference about the mean. And, define the mean: mean per player? per injured player? mean per team? 14. Once Tables 2-5 have been simplified and reformatted, it may be possible to combine them into one single, concise table of results. 15. Would be nice to include an appendix with more detail regarding the intervention. Nothing too long, e.g. just a page, but enough to give a reader a good sense for what is involved and how long it takes. 16. Discussion is generally good but it could be more concise and there are a few typos. Reviewer #4: The study analyses the effect of a specific warm-up protocol for the prevention of injuries in soccer players. The manuscript is well written and the methodology of the study is appropriate according to the objective of the research. The main limitation of this paper is that it´s not clear whether this research adds anything new to the literature. The gaps in the literature need to be better described in order to justify what this paper adds to the field of knowledge. Introduction: It does not give a complete picture of what still needs to be studied about the effectiveness of the FIFA 11+ protocol. With a quick search you can find a systematic review of Baredo et al. (2014) where they include 12 articles analysing the effects of this protocol for injury prevention in soccer players, the narrative review of Bizzini and Dvorak (2015), or even a meta-analysis conducted by Thorborg et al. (2017). All these reviews conclude that the FIFA 11+ injury prevention programme is effective for soccer players of different levels and ages. Thus, the statement made by the authors at the end of the introduction “The positive impact of the FIFA 11+ warm up in preventing injuries has not yet been fully established, with poor compliance to the programme limiting conclusions drawn in several studies” needs to be clarified as it is difficult to sustain based on previous reviews. Without giving a complete picture of the state of the art it is not possible to determine how the submitted manuscript adds new knowledge or insights into this field of knowledge. The authors need better justify the need of this research. The reference numbers are chaotic. In page 4 line 90 we go from the reference 29 to the number 507?? and next to the 56,…. Then in line 96 this numbers with no order at all are listed as references (30;17;31;23;24;20;32;33;25) Methodology: There is a lack of details about the intervention, the warm-up protocol. Although the programme is accessible for the FIFA web page it is not clear how exactly they implemented the warm-up protocol. For example the original programme includes three levels. Furthermore, the reference given for accessing the protocol does not lead to the programme itself (FIFA, F-Marc. The “11+” Manual: A complete warm-up programme to prevent injuries. 2007:1-76. http://www.yrsa.ca/pdf/Fifa11/11plus_workbook_e.pdf.) Thus, more details about the exact intervention are needed as it is key for practical applications and replication. Discussion: similar to the introduction section, there is a need for better discussing the already existing literature about the effects of the FIFA 11+ programme for preventing injuries. Reviewer #5: The authors have examining the effect of the FIFA 11+ injury prevention programme among male soccer players in an African population. This study showed that the FIFA 11+ programme with moderate to high compliance in training and match preparation decreased the incidence of injuries. Line 60-61: ranges from 18.8 to 1.2 per 1000 hours. Is here the lower number first or not? Injuries occur 63-65: consistently more often during matches than during training and most commonly in the lower extremities Is this proven? Line 214 Players had around 3 years of experience in football? This is really small background. Please explain why only 3 years? Were the coaches included in the analysis and if yes why? Please explain the training programs of the control groups. Did they all had the same warm up? Also explain the other parts of training plan during one week. Reviewer #6: This manuscript explores the effects of a specific FIFA11+ warm-up intervention in the injury incidence in an important sample of amateur soccer players. In general terms, the manuscript is well organized, the research question is well defined and the results are clearly presented, although the use of English is far to reach the higher standards, and some concerns in methods section, as well as several statements in the discussion should be revised and qualified before more consideration for publication. Finally, authors make a correct use of references in their manuscript, but some references need to be reviewed according the journal's instructions. Below is shown some comments for the authors: Major concerns: Title: After reading the manuscript, I suggest that the term reduction should be changed by the more correct term incidence. The reduction is precisely an effect of the intervention. Introduction. Is the sample an amateur or profesional sample? I gather that is amateur, so theoretical framework should be more contextualized for amateur soccer players. I suggest that review several recent studies investigating specific warm-up protocols for injury prevention in amateur soccer players, like this study: García-Luna, M.A.; Cortell-Tormo, J.M.; García-Jaén, M.; Ortega-Navarro, M.; Tortosa-Martínez, J. Acute Effects of ACL Injury-Prevention Warm-Up and Soccer-Specific Fatigue Protocol on Dynamic Knee Valgus in Youth Male Soccer Players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5608. Methods. Design and ethical approval: The experimental design and the randomization system of the teams should be explained in more detail in this section. Participants: Please, add in this section the descriptive data of participants (number of players (total / per group), and mean and SD about age, experience, level of amateur/professionally should appear here in one sentence, apart from the Table 1. Otherwise, you should reference or insert there the Table 1 providing more info about demographic characteristics of players). Also, if randomization was based on teams instead of players, descriptive data of teams and their selection criteria should be explained. Lastly, which inclusion/exlusion criteria for player recruitment within respective teams was followed? What is the total dropout rate along the season? Explain more deitaled, please. Sample size: This section should be renamed as "sample size calculation", and should specify the total number of selected players, and their distribution (number per group). The power analysis seems right. Randomization and allocation of the participants: Why did you include the head coaches as participant in the study, if they were not subjects for intervention / control? On the other hand, explain more specifically the randomization criteria. Instruments: Did you collected the coach's perceptions and/or opinions, or motivations, about different practical issues on the implementation of the FIFA11+ program as a warm-up after intervention? I think that some interviews to coaches could be collected, and a qualitative analysis could be performed. If you do not have these data, you should include this question as possible limitation and/or future research. Intervention: I have some concern in this section: Firstly, there was no control on the usual warm up applied by the different control group coaches along the season. It can be understood that each one continued their usual warm up, but there is no information about this (what type of exercises, duration, intensity, of each warm up, and what frecuency of the sessions, etc. were performed?). I think that report these data would be necessary to check the heterogeneity -or not- of these different warm-up proposals, seeking for standardized systems, if you want to compare the different control warm-up effects with the experimental warm-up effects. Secondly, how it was controlled that coaches effectively applied the FIFA11+ program as a warm up thorough all trainings and matches of the seasons in each club? (if it was done, you have to include it in the section). Please, explain these regards. Results: Lines 198-212, and Figure 1: I think that this information about demographic characteristic of coaches and players should be located in the participant section. Also, I do not understand why the coaches were included as participant, if they did not performed the control or experimental warm-ups. I suggest exclude these data from analyses. Lines 222-225: As it can be seen in this section, there was a significant difference on the total training exposure, that it could have influenced the injury incidence as external explaining factor of the injury incidence as well. You did not report the total exposure hours of control group (please provide it in this section), and other analysis comparing these data should be performed (if it was performed, please provide the significance p-value). If significant differences resulted, you should interpret your data considering this external factor as well. Discussion: Lines 292-301: You should specify that the experimental FIFA11+ program was applied as a warm up, and that the incidence of injuries and their severity decreased, always compared to the control programs (traditional programs?? You should comment this regard, as I was pointed above). Lines 303-309: When you state about the generalization of results, you have to limite only to the amateur soccer players (or players with similar characteristic). Caution on the generalization of results. Lines 344-346: Here, you stated: "he intervention resulted in less contact injuries, that can potentially be attributed to the neuromuscular effects of the FIFA 11+ programme". What is the basis to state this? I think that contact injury incidence has a multifactorial component that could not be explained by only one factor. Lines 362-365: This hypothesis is an overstatement. You cannot attribute the effects of a specific warm-up to the recovery of different injuries. Please, qualify this. This should also be qualified in the Line 383, when you state that the experimental warm up reduced the contact injuries during matches (it seems an overstatement). Lines 390-391: Same concern. Lines 375-379: The idea is not clear. Please, redact more clearly these sentences. Compliance with the programme section: Similarly that methods section, how it was controlled that coaches effectively applied the FIFA11+ program as a warm up thorough all trainings and matches of the seasons in each club? Please, explain this essential question. References: Please, review citations accordingly the journal instructions. English review: I think that a native English speaker should review the English use throughout the manuscript. **Minor concerns: Introduction: Lines 63-65: Authors talk here about the injury incidence. This sentence requires be referenced. Line 97: this corresponds to the methods section (in study design). Methods: Line 108: Please, spell out the FERWAFA acronym, if it is the first time that appears in the manuscript. Line 131: Instruments: you stated that three forms were used collecting data, but there is enumerated four different forms. Please, correct this regard. Line 134: Is this form to control the player's exposure during training sessions? So, please specify this in the name of the form. Line 138: You spell out FERWAFA here, but it appeared above, in line 108. Please, review this regard. Lines 147 and 149: Please, provide reference about the definition proposed for injury, and the reference for classifying the severity of the injury, or explain the criteria followed to determine this Discussion: Line 292: Please, define RCT (it is the first time that appears in the manuscript). Line 311: Please, specify that the initial training is referred to the pre-season instructional meeting. It is not clear here. Lines 334-336: Please, provide references of previous studies that you comment here. ********** 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: No Reviewer #6: 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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
Effect of the FIFA 11+ soccer specific warm up programme on the incidence of injuries: a cluster-randomised controlled Trial PONE-D-20-09354R1 Dear Dr. Nuhu, 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, Don Hoover Guest Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): See suggestion of Reviewer 1, which is to replace "average" with "mean" throughout 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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: Throughout the manuscript: Replace the term "average" with "mean." Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all of my previous comments/suggestions. I personally see this as a valuable study which effectively assessed the efficacy of the FIFA 11+ regimen on a broad basis. Reviewer #4: The authors have nicely addressed the questions raiesed by the reviewers. Only two minor details: - Line 330 hadsignificantly (separate the words) - In the the first reference, the title is in capital letters. Reviewer #5: (No Response) ********** 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 #2: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-09354R1 Effect of the FIFA 11+ soccer specific warm up programme on the incidence of injuries: a Cluster-Randomised Controlled trial Dear Dr. Nuhu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Don Hoover Guest Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .