Retirements of professional tennis players in second- and third-tier tournaments on the ATP and WTA tours

Maria Palau; Ernest Baiget; Jordi Cortés; Joan Martínez; Miguel Crespo; Martí Casals

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304638

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 6, 2024
27 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Javier Abián-Vicén, Editor PONE-D-24-04977Retirements of tennis players in professional tournaments of previous stages to the ATP and WTA ToursPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Casals, 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 May 11 2024 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, Javier Abián-Vicén, Ph.D. 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research was funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain) (PID2019- 352 104830RB-I00) and the Departament de Recerca i Universitats de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain) [2021 SGR 01421 (GRBIO)]." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: 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: The study aimed to use available epidemiological data to draw conclusions. While retirements of tennis players provided some useful insights, the results were not entirely conclusive. The statistical analysis was difficult to understand, hence more arguments were required to clarify how the conclusions were reached. It is crucial to explain the process of selecting a certain match level, the significance of each computed number, and how they led to the conclusions. I completely agree that this kind of study is necessary in the field of sports medicine to make the vast amount of available data meaningful and useful. Reviewer #2: Retirements of tennis players in professional tournaments of previous stages to the ATP and WTA Tours General comments The aim of this study was to analyze epidemiological patterns and risk factors associated with the retirement of tennis players from previous professional tournaments. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The study focused on past ATP (584,806 matches) and WTA (267,380 matches) tournaments in the period 1978-2019 for men and 1994-2018 for women. Potential risk factors such as playing surface, tournament category, round of play and player age were analyzed to assess withdrawals. The overall incidence rate was 1.56 withdrawals for men and 1.36 withdrawals for women per 1000 games played. The dropouts increased over the years. The incidence rates were different on hard court, clay court and grass. The risk factors differed according to gender and tournament round. This study provides coaches, players, support staff and epidemiologists with valuable insights into the breakdowns and associated risk factors at ATP and WTA tournaments, contributing to injury prevention strategies. Special comments Title Line 1: The authors should consider whether the use of the term "of previous stages to the ATP and WTA Tours" really makes it clear to the reader which competitions they are referring to. Introduction Line 75: Otherwise, I think the concept of the introduction is well characterized, but I suggest that the authors add at least some parameters that better determine the workload of tennis players in different time periods (duration of matches, amount of exercise, number of rallies and strokes, calories burned, etc.). With this information, the causes of injuries can also be better explained. Perhaps they can also add the aspect of where injuries occur most frequently in tennis players, in tournaments or in training. Line 138: Also in terms of conclusions, I suggest that the introduction includes a part that defines more precisely the evolution of workload in tennis for men and women during the observation period. In my opinion, the game of tennis has changed dramatically in 40 decades. Materials and methods Line 158: I suggest that in Table 4 the term “hand dominance” was used for both the winner and the loser of the match. Line 291: The information “of which are completed matches and 7,306 (2.73%) are matches in which there was an abandonment” is reproduced in line 296. Results Line 314: In Table 5-9, a comma should be used for numbers above 9999. Discussion Line 487: The authors should explain what "preference for high-speed points" means. Line 497: The authors should think about whether there is another reason why there is no difference in withdrawal rates in women's tournaments. Line 509: is it possible that the age structure of tennis players who participated in tournaments during the observed period has also changed. Conclusions Line 532: Considering the observation period and the amount of data contained in the study, I think the conclusions are rather modest. As already mentioned, I suggest that the authors divide the observation period into smaller time intervals or find a more detailed explanation for the results obtained. ****** 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: Yes: Ales Filipcic ******** [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.0304638.r001
Revision 1
10 Apr 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity of submitting a revision of the manuscript entitled “Retirements of players in professional tournaments of previous stages to the ATP and WTA Tours”. We have carefully read the comments and suggestions that have certainly improved the manuscript. Additionally, a list of changes and answers to the reviewers’ comments has been submitted. Note that the correct grant numbers for the awards of the study in the ‘Funding Information’ section are: "This research was funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain) (PID2019- 352 104830RB-I00) and the Departament de Recerca i Universitats de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain) [2021 SGR 01421 (GRBIO)]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Sincerely, Martí Casals Sport and Physical Activity Studies Centre (CEEAF), University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia (UVic-UCC), C. Dr. Antoni Vilà Cañellas, s/n, 08500 Vic, Spain. ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1775-8331 Twitter: @CasalsTMarti Response to Reviewers We have carefully read the comments and suggestions that have certainly improved the manuscript. Additionally, a list of changes and answers to the reviewers’ comments has been submitted. 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 study aimed to use available epidemiological data to draw conclusions. While retirements of tennis players provided some useful insights, the results were not entirely conclusive. The statistical analysis was difficult to understand, hence more arguments were required to clarify how the conclusions were reached. It is crucial to explain the process of selecting a certain match level, the significance of each computed number, and how they led to the conclusions. I completely agree that this kind of study is necessary in the field of sports medicine to make the vast amount of available data meaningful and useful. Thank you for the comment. We have clarified and updated the Conclusions subsection according to your suggestion (See below). In addition, for a better statistical interpretation and seeing that the multivariable model of ATP (table 10) without the interaction of age, the conclusions were similar and equally parsimonious, it has been updated with the age multiplied by 5 to facilitate interpretation (which has been added to the Discussion section). “This study provides valuable insights into the increasing incidence of retirements in both male and female professional tennis over the observed period. Our analysis reveals a notable trend in the increasing incidence of retirements, particularly noticeable from around the end of the 90s, especially in the ATP tournament. Interestingly, while the evolution of retirement incidence rates follows an upward trajectory in both ATP and WTA tournaments, the incidence rates are consistently higher in ATP than in WTA. This finding suggests potential differences in the underlying factors contributing to retirements between male and female players or differences in the management of retirements across the two circuits. Our analysis also highlights the impact of playing surface and tournament category on retirement rates, with hard and clay courts exhibiting higher incidence rates compared to grass courts. Additionally, in men's tournaments, we observed a significant effect of tournament category on retirements, particularly lower rates in ATP Challenger competitions, while in women's tournaments, the match round emerged as a significant factor, with higher rates in final rounds. Overall, this study underscores the importance of understanding the underlying factors contributing to retirements in professional tennis and provides a foundation for developing targeted injury prevention strategies to optimize player performance.” Reviewer #2: Retirements of tennis players in professional tournaments of previous stages to the ATP and WTA Tours General comments The aim of this study was to analyze epidemiological patterns and risk factors associated with the retirement of tennis players from previous professional tournaments. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The study focused on past ATP (584,806 matches) and WTA (267,380 matches) tournaments in the period 1978-2019 for men and 1994-2018 for women. Potential risk factors such as playing surface, tournament category, round of play and player age were analyzed to assess withdrawals. The overall incidence rate was 1.56 withdrawals for men and 1.36 withdrawals for women per 1000 games played. The dropouts increased over the years. The incidence rates were different on hard court, clay court and grass. The risk factors differed according to gender and tournament round. This study provides coaches, players, support staff and epidemiologists with valuable insights into the breakdowns and associated risk factors at ATP and WTA tournaments, contributing to injury prevention strategies. Special comments Title Line 1: The authors should consider whether the use of the term "of previous stages to the ATP and WTA Tours" really makes it clear to the reader which competitions they are referring to. Thank you for your suggestion. We have updated the title: “Retirements of Professional Tennis Players in Second- and Third-Tier Tournaments on the ATP and WTA Tours” Introduction Line 75: Otherwise, I think the concept of the introduction is well characterized, but I suggest that the authors add at least some parameters that better determine the workload of tennis players in different time periods (duration of matches, amount of exercise, number of rallies and strokes, calories burned, etc.). With this information, the causes of injuries can also be better explained. Perhaps they can also add the aspect of where injuries occur most frequently in tennis players, in tournaments or in training. Competition male and female tennis players have to face powerful strokes during matches up to 3 hours, with mean rallies durations and covered distances of 5.5 and 6.4 s and 9.6 m and 8.2 m [9]. Each rally requires to perform an average of 4-5 short, repetitive, and multidirectional high-intensity changes of direction, covering approximately 3 m, and resulting in a total of 250 to 400 changes of direction during the whole match [ref1]. Therefore, competition tennis players have to prepared to repeatedly over an extended period fo time execute hihg-intensity actions (i.e., shots and displacements) and to recover fast from it with both aerobic and anaerobic metabolic demands [ref2]. Ref1: Giles, B., Peeling, P., & Reid, M. (2022). Quantifying change of direction movement demands in professional tennis matchplay: An analysis from the Australian Open Grand Slam. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. Ref 2: Fernandez-Fernandez, J., Sanz-Rivas, D., & Mendez-Villanueva, A. (2009). A review of the activity profile and physiological demands of tennis match play. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 31(4), 15-26. Line 138: Also in terms of conclusions, I suggest that the introduction includes a part that defines more precisely the evolution of workload in tennis for men and women during the observation period. In my opinion, the game of tennis has changed dramatically in 40 decades. Thank you. We have added the following sentences to clarify: "During the last decades, there has been a tendency towards increased ball speed and taller players, allowing professional players to generate higher amounts of power behind their shots [12]." Materials and methods Line 158: I suggest that in Table 4 the term “hand dominance” was used for both the winner and the loser of the match. Done Line 291: The information “of which are completed matches and 7,306 (2.73%) are matches in which there was an abandonment” is reproduced in line 296. Thank you for your comment. We have deleted the paragraph from line 293 to 296, as it was redundant and repeated information as suggested. Results Line 314: In Table 5-9, a comma should be used for numbers above 9999. Done Discussion Line 487: The authors should explain what "preference for high-speed points" means. Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your concern and value your contribution to improving our article. After reviewing the literature and considering your observations, we acknowledge that the assertion regarding the relationship between high-speed points and the number of retirements on grass courts may be more nuanced than initially described. Therefore, we propose a revised wording of the sentence in question: “On the contrary, grass courts are fast surfaces, often favoring shorter rally durations and more points concluded with high-speed shots, which may potentially lead to a higher incidence of abrupt movements and an increased risk of injuries, although it is worth noting that certain characteristics of grass courts, such as shorter points and a higher frequency of serves and net play, may mitigate the risk of injuries for players.” Line 497: The authors should think about whether there is another reason why there is no difference in withdrawal rates in women's tournaments. Thank you for the comment. While there are no differences based on tournament category, it's also unclear why there are different trends based on gender, and it would be worthwhile to address this in more detail in future studies. Line 509: is it possible that the age structure of tennis players who participated in tournaments during the observed period has also changed. Thank you for your comment. We have explored the age structure of tennis players participating in tournaments over the observed period. However, our analysis did not reveal any significant changes in age structure for both ATP and WTA players during the study period. Therefore, we did not address this aspect as a hypothesis in the Discussion section. We appreciate your suggestion and have included this clarification in the revised version of the manuscript. Conclusions Line 532: Considering the observation period and the amount of data contained in the study, I think the conclusions are rather modest. As already mentioned, I suggest that the authors divide the observation period into smaller time intervals or find a more detailed explanation for the results obtained. Thanks. We have updated the Conclusions subsection according your suggestion. “This study provides valuable insights into the increasing incidence of retirements in both male and female professional tennis over the observed period. Our analysis reveals a notable trend in the increasing incidence of retirements, particularly noticeable from around the end of the 90s, especially in the ATP tournament. Interestingly, while the evolution of retirement incidence rates follows an upward trajectory in both ATP and WTA tournaments, the incidence rates are consistently higher in ATP than in WTA. This finding suggests potential differences in the underlying factors contributing to retirements between male and female players or differences in the management of retirements across the two circuits. Our analysis also highlights the impact of playing surface and tournament category on retirement rates, with hard and clay courts exhibiting higher incidence rates compared to grass courts. Additionally, in men's tournaments, we observed a significant effect of tournament category on retirements, particularly lower rates in ATP Challenger competitions, while in women's tournaments, the match round emerged as a significant factor, with higher rates in final rounds. Overall, this study underscores the importance of understanding the underlying factors contributing to retirements in professional tennis and provides a foundation for developing targeted injury prevention strategies to optimize player performance.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304638.r002
16 May 2024 Decision Letter - Javier Abián-Vicén, Editor Retirements of Professional Tennis Players in Second- and Third-Tier Tournaments on the ATP and WTA Tours PONE-D-24-04977R1 Dear Dr. Casals, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Javier Abián-Vicén, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Dear authors, I would like to express my gratitude for submitting a revised article that addressed my questions and concerns. I also appreciated reading your explanations to the other reviewer, as it greatly improved my understanding of the topic. I sincerely hope that this article on the use of vast amounts of data in sports and competitions will provide valuable insights to clinicians, trainers, and other interested parties. Thank you again for your hard work and dedication to this field. Best regards, Nani Cahyani Sudarsono ****** 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: Nani Cahyani Sudarsono ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304638.r003
Formally Accepted
21 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Javier Abián-Vicén, Editor PONE-D-24-04977R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Casals, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Javier Abián-Vicén Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304638.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 .