PONE-D-22-35570Prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries among university undergraduates following Sri Lankan traditional dancingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wadugodapitiya,

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. Some of the comments provided will require significant revisions of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 2023 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,

Andrea Dell'Isola

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. We note that Figure 1 includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. 

Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. 

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

Additional Editor Comments:

The study focuses on “evaluating the prevalence of common musculoskeletal injuries among university undergraduates following Sri Lankan traditional dancing styles”. However, a large part of the results and discussions are dedicated to analysing the association between other factors and the injury. Please revise the manuscript so that the aims are correctly aligned with the analysis, results and discussions. Also please keep a consistent order in presenting and discussing the results (the other should be based on the aims).

Currently, several aspects of the methodology are unclear and need to be specified. Please restructure the manuscript to follow guidelines for reporting e-surveys (e.g. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34. Erratum in: doi:10.2196/jmir.2042. PMID: 15471760; PMCID: PMC1550605.) and provide a copy of the checklist (https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/JMIG_CHERRIES.docx)

Can the authors clarify how they accounted for multiple testing in the analysis?

If the main focus of the study is the prevalence of injuries, I would suggest estimating prevalence rather than relying on the chi-square test to compare the distribution between groups.

Please report measures of uncertainty for your estimates, possibly 95%CI as they can be easily interpreted by most of the readers.

Please carefully revise the manuscript to make sure that the methods, results, and discussions are aligned. Also, make sure that all the statements correctly reflect the results (see comments from reviewer 2)

Please specify in your data availability statement where the data are stored.

[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: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-22-35570

Manuscript title: Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Injuries among University Undergraduates Following Sri Lankan Traditional Dancing

Comments

This manuscript reports a study designed to evaluate the prevalence of common musculoskeletal injuries among university undergraduates following Sri Lankan traditional dancing styles. The manuscript is generally well-written and is of interest to the field. I have only a few minor suggestions for the authors to consider.

Minor comments

1. Abstract. This section is usually a single paragraph, please double-check the journal’s instructions for authors.

2. Tables 2 to 4. Very low p-values should be reported as <0.001 (rather than 0.000).

3. When reporting summary statistics of categorical data, please report consistently in the format “n (%)”.

Reviewer #2: The study assessed musculoskeletal injuries prevalence among undergraduate dancers. Dancing is an important occupation prone to injuries. Therefore, the study is relevant. However, the statistical analysis and results need overhauling.

Abstract: Can you make the abstract a paragraph?

Introduction

Merge paragraphs 1 and 2 of introduction.

Methods

1. What is the validity of this questionnaire? Please report the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.

2. "From the returned questionnaires, 293 participants who fulfill the inclusion criteria were selected randomly". You stated that you used stratify sampling to select 293 participants? This statement suggests that more participants were included out of which 293 participants were randomly selected. Can you clarify?

3. Statistical analysis: ANOVA test assesses the mean difference in three or more groups and not association. please reconstruct the statement in the analysis section.

Results

Report of tables 2 and 3 need review. The caption of table 2 needs review.

Discussion

Can you start the discussion with a summary of your findings? you may delete paragraph one.

See the attached for other comments.

**********

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: Yes: Arthur de Sá Ferreira

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Oyewole O. Olufemi

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-35570.pdf

Prevalence and associated factors of musculoskeletal injuries among university undergraduates following Sri Lankan traditional dancing

PONE-D-22-35570R1

Dear Dr. Wadugodapitiya,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once the comments from reviewer two will be addressed and all outstanding technical requirements will be met.

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,

Andrea Dell'Isola

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #2: (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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has improved. Minor corrections needed.

Abstract

i. "Among the three types of traditional dancing styles, the majority were following Kandyan dancing: 45.1%" (lines 32-33). Please change 'majority' to 'many'.

ii. "Out of the study sample, 190 dancers reported injuries with females indicating the highest rate of injuries" (lines 33-34). Please insert the percentage (%) of 190.

Data analysis

".....................using One-way ANOVA test....." (lines 148-148). change to "...........using One-way ANOVA and t-test..."

Results

i. Table 3 is better presented in figure.

ii. No 95% CI was indicated in Tables 4 & 5.

iii. One-way ANOVA was not indicated in Table 5. Delete the footnote, it is not applicable here.

Conclusion

i. "Female dancers showed a higher rate of injuries than female dancers" (lines 316-317). change to "Female dancers showed a higher rate of injuries than male dancers".

**********

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: Yes: Arthur de Sá Ferreira

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-35570_R1.pdf