Alignment of the metatarsal heads affects foot inversion/eversion during tiptoe standing on one leg in demi–pointe position: A cross–sectional study on recreational dancers

Akiko Imura; Hiroyuki Nagaki; Takahiro Higuch

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276324

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 12, 2022
13 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Shazlin Shaharudin, Editor PONE-D-22-22601Alignment of the metatarsal heads affects foot inversion/eversion while standing on one leg in a demi-pointe position: A cross-sectional study in dancersPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Imura, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 28 2022 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Shazlin Shaharudin 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Summary The research project investigate the relationship between metatarsal alignment in both load positions and foot inversion/eversion angle during tiptoe standing. Authors hypothesized that the angles between adjacent metatarsal heads are related to foot inversion/eversion and to the proportion of load on the medial and lateral of the foot; Authors also hypothesized these relationships are different between both legs. 9 ballet dancers are collected with experimental design. Major issues. Some of figures need clarification. Figure 1 could be improved to emphasize the toe extension and ankle plantarflexion. Does Figure 2 represent the average dancer's metatarsal heads? Where the image source came form? As this image provides a great platform explaining research questions, clear source of images might be needed. It is also not clear how information derived from the results in Figure 3. I suggest the authors need to provide clear explanation in each box. Minor issues The authors should check whether there is a reporting guideline suitable for their study; usually, there will be and re-write the manuscript following a guideline checklist. It offers a standard way for authors to prepare report of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation. The main limitation is the 9 participants as authors explained in the limitation section, still it should be justified in the text why it is "okay" to conclude your hypotheses with small number of subjects. The methodology is not clear enough. For example, I don't see any information about motion marker-data collection part. This is a fairly significant omission (or am I missing some part?). Methods to Data analysis should be linked, but this does not seem to be reported in the manuscript. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276324.r001
Revision 1
3 Oct 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: Summary The research project investigate the relationship between metatarsal alignment in both load positions and foot inversion/eversion angle during tiptoe standing. Authors hypothesized that the angles between adjacent metatarsal heads are related to foot inversion/eversion and to the proportion of load on the medial and lateral of the foot; Authors also hypothesized these relationships are different between both legs. 9 ballet dancers are collected with experimental design. We would like to express our appreciation to the reviewer for clear understanding of our study and the helpful suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript. We agree with your comments and have modified our manuscript have revised our manuscript in line with your comments. We reconsidered adding explanations about foot inversion/eversion. This study aimed to examine why the supporting foot might turn inward or outward when standing on tiptoe with a single leg. While this foot rotation is called foot sickling–out or sickling–in in dance, non–dance people may be unfamiliar with this word. Therefore, we named it foot inversion/eversion in the manuscript. We mentioned this in the revised manuscript in Lines 53-57. Major issues. Some of figures need clarification. Figure 1 could be improved to emphasize the toe extension and ankle plantarflexion. We added an enlarged photo of the foot during tiptoe standing, as shown in Fig 1b. Also, we added the angle of AG_IE, the variable presenting the foot inversion/eversion, in Fig 1c. Does Figure 2 represent the average dancer's metatarsal heads? Where the image source came form? As this image provides a great platform explaining research questions, clear source of images might be needed. Figure 2 represents MR images of a dancer in this study. It is also not clear how information derived from the results in Figure 3. I suggest the authors need to provide clear explanation in each box. To find the results of Figures 3 and 4 quickly, we arranged the contents of the Results section, the tables, and the figures (Lines 231-288) and added simple explanations to each box in the caption (Figs 3 and 4). To track how to determine these variables quickly, we added the abbreviations used in Figures 3 and 4 into sentences which explain how to determine the variables (Lines 170 & 186). Furthermore, we divided the Data analysis section in the Method into two sub–sections, "Kinematics and kinetics during tiptoe standing" and "Measuring angles between metatarsal heads on MR images". Minor issues The authors should check whether there is a reporting guideline suitable for their study; usually, there will be and re-write the manuscript following a guideline checklist. It offers a standard way for authors to prepare report of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation. We referred to the guideline for analysing kinematics and kinetics by [21] Derrick et al. (2020) and [22] Leardini et al. (2021). We also referred to [23] Weishaupt et al. (2002), as they measured the distance between the bottom of the metatarsal head bone and the sole using MR images. The main limitation is the 9 participants as authors explained in the limitation section, still it should be justified in the text why it is "okay" to conclude your hypotheses with small number of subjects. The normality of distributions and a type two error are concerns when the sample number is small. We tested the variables after verifying the normality of distribution, and then parametric or non–parametric tests were used accordingly to obtain the accurate p–values. However, the type two error might still occur. Therefore, we added sentences about the type two error caused by the small number of participants, especially in interpreting the limitation of leg kinematics and kinetics results (Lines 345-348). Furthermore, we limited the interpretation of the results to recreational dancers in the title and Conclusion (Line 367). The methodology is not clear enough. For example, I don't see any information about motion marker-data collection part. This is a fairly significant omission (or am I missing some part?). Methods to Data analysis should be linked, but this does not seem to be reported in the manuscript. ** We have added a more detailed explanation of motion capturing according to the guideline for analysing kinematics and kinetics (Lines 133-142). The additional material (S1 File) provides the information on the marker set. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 2022_AI_reply.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276324.r002
5 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Shazlin Shaharudin, Editor Alignment of the metatarsal heads affects foot inversion/eversion during tiptoe standing on one leg in demi–pointe position: A cross–sectional study on recreational dancers PONE-D-22-22601R1 Dear Dr. Imura, 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, Shazlin Shaharudin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276324.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Shazlin Shaharudin, Editor PONE-D-22-22601R1 Alignment of the metatarsal heads affects foot inversion/eversion during tiptoe standing on one leg in demi–pointe position: A cross–sectional study on recreational dancers Dear Dr. Imura: 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. Shazlin Shaharudin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276324.r004

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 .