One in Five Trail Running Race Entrants Sustained an Injury in the 12 Months Training Period before the 2021 Mac Mac Ultra Race

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors:

 

First of all I would like to congratulate you on your work, it has been a thorough assessment of many individuals. I would now like to suggest areas for improvement in your paper: 

- In the material and methods section you should explain how you recruit these patients, what are the inclusion and exclusion criteria, what is the sample size calculation carried out, how the study is carried out by interview, questions, google forms... clarify all this section in an exahusive way.

- In addition, a flow chart with the patients obtained to check the total sample of your study would be appreciated.

 

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The main aim of this study was to examine clinical characteristics, as well as epidemiology of RRIs between race entrants of the 2021 Mac Mac Ultra race during the 12 months before the event and specifically the two weeks before the race. The second aim of this study was to define associated risk factors with universally known running injuries and also, specifically, in trail running. Regarding the authors, I would like to congratulate and thank them for their effort and motivation involved in this research study. Unfortunately, I have many concerns about this manuscript.

Firstly, the article should have a concise and informative title. For titles in MDPI journals, the main words are capitalized and most secondary words are lowercase (title case: APA style). The title in this manuscript, therefore, needs to be clarified and also needs to be made compliant.

Secondly, the abstract must be completely rewritten. It is currently unclear whether the first sentence is the purpose of the paper or what the authors have in mind. In addition, what happened to the additional purpose of the paper, which is in the manuscript text but not in the abstract. Furthermore, it is best to divide the abstract into Introduction (add from 2-3 sentences), Materials and Methods, Results and Conclusion. The current abstract focuses on the details without pointing out important generalities.

The introduction is very poor and does not demonstrate the authors' detailed knowledge of the topic addressed, which is also confirmed by the paucity of literature used (only 5 references). I have doubts that the authors have done a good theoretical background before the study, and the introduction does not confirm this. It is necessary to significantly expand the introduction and add at least 10 additional bibliographic items with recent research from the last 5 years. Moreover, what are the research hypotheses? Did the study confirm them? Were these results expected? This should be further elaborated at the end of the introduction.

In materials and methods, study design needs to be thoroughly expanded. I suggest that authors see what this section looks like in other scientific articles so that they can adapt it in their own as well.

The article states that the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, what is extremely important. However, there is no information whether the participants were treated ethically according to the American Psychological Association code of ethics? Please complete this information in the manuscript.

In the results section, Table 2 is very illegible, and it is necessary to divide it into two separate tables or make it more understandable. It is also important to explain in more detail why this calculation methodology was adopted.

The discussion unfortunately reproduces the errors contained in the introduction and is a consequence of the lack of in-depth analysis of the topic. The authors discuss only a few studies, in different sections of the discussion sometimes only one. For this reason, it is difficult to consider the studies as valid and also adequately collated. This section needs to be completely expanded, and here too, by analogy, it would be useful to introduce 10 more bibliographic items from the last five years with which to undertake polemics.

All references should be brought into line with the MDPI Instruction for Authors, which is included on the journal's website (in particular, bring the cited items into line with MDPI and ACS Style).

Finally, I feel that this article should be found in another journal more suited to the topic being addressed, such as Epidemiologia from the MDPI group. If in the end it would not be accepted here, I suggest trying to send it there.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions made by the authors in response to previous feedback have substantially improved the quality and credibility of their work. However, one notable concern still remains regarding the absence of a clear description of adherence to the ethical guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association (APA). Ethical integrity is paramount in any research endeavor, ensuring the rights and well-being of participants. The absence of such information raises questions about the ethical framework under which the study was conducted, potentially undermining the credibility of the research findings, despite incorporating the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

In light of the authors' diligence in addressing previous feedback and refining their work, it is recommended that they address the issue of ethical transparency. Specifically, they should provide a section detailing the steps taken to obtain ethical approval, informed consent procedures, and any measures taken to protect participants' rights and confidentiality. Incorporating these ethical dimensions will not only strengthen the study's ethical foundation but also bolster the overall reliability and trustworthiness of the research outcomes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx