The Landing Biomechanics in Youth Female Handball Players Does Not Change When Applying a Specific Model of Game and Weekly Training Workload

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study explores the landing mechanics of female athletes through landing error scoring system. This serves as a measure to assess ACL injury. Authors have worked on an exciting topic, however, the manuscript lacks proper explanations of methodology. For instance, in landing mechanics section, LESS is introduced briefly by referring to source#36. Authors need to consider dissecting the scoring system, describing contributing factors, and more importantly, trying to explain how LESS is related to the probability of ACL injuries. Source#36 is prevalently used throughout the paper while the details could have elaborated instead. In 4.3. limitations, there is no notion of why 11 subjects were selected. Results section is weak. Why did they use Z-test and chi-squared? What is the logic behind it?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor issues in wording technical content. For instance, in line 21, appears not to decrease lower limb biomechanics does not make sense. Authors need to improve the quality of the language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a study aimed to explore the effects of competitive match play and subsequent training during typical competitive microcycle on landing biomechanics in female youth handball players. They asked 11 female youth players to perform two analyzed 14 trials of a single leg counter movement jump, and used the “Landing Error Scoring System” (LESS) was used to analyse the participants’ landing biomechanics. I think the author's argument is unconvincing. We know the counter movement jump is a useful way to test the fatigue and power of players. This study did not design a control group to compare the performance in the single leg counter movement jump with the experimental group. The article needs to be significantly revised. Arising questions are listed as follows.

(1)   In the abstract, the authors claim “The results of the study indicate that a model of competitive and training workload appears not to decrease lower limb biomechanics during landing and does not contribute to an increased risk of ACL injury in female youth handball players.”. But, the data show they are at a high risk of ACL injury because the average LESS score is very close to or over 6. Please comment and revise the statements.

(2)   The full names of the abbreviations of nouns should be provided at the first appearance in the manuscript, like ACL, PHV, and LESS. Even if the full name of LESS shows once in the abstract, it still needs to be provided again in the main text.

(3)   Why don’t cite some papers related to the jump landing mechanism and the ACL injury? Like the paper published in J. Athl Train (J Athl Train. 2014 Jul-Aug; 49(4): 435–441.

(4)   In the paper published by Padua et al. (Am J Sports Med 2009), they provided a very clear picture of the setup of experimental devices, and action images taken in the experiment. In this manuscript, I know the authors used two cameras to record the motions. But, I don’t know whether the force plates were adopted

 

(5)   The control group is needed in the study design.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW

Firstly, I would like to recognize the authors' efforts in producing this manuscript, which aimed to explore the effects of competitive match play and subsequent training on landing biomechanics in female handball players. The results of this study are of great interest and importance, considering the high incidence rate of ACL injuries in female handball players.

The abstract accurately describes the article's purpose, methods, results, and conclusion.

The introduction contains the parameters of interest, the associated literature, and the significance of the study. The introduction is very well written. I would only change (line 64)- Numerous studies have proved that females land more frequently increased knee valgus- Here, I would say numerous studies have demonstrated or indicated as you used "proved" at the beginning of the paragraph. It's a minor comment, however.

The methods section is presented with sufficient detail so that someone can replicate the study. Line 87: I would say "yrs." Or "years" instead of y.

One minor comment on the methodology is that having two experienced raters rather than one for video analysis would have been preferable.

Statistical analysis: I assume you violated the normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions; therefore, the use of non-parametric tests?

The results section is short and clear.

The results were discussed and interpreted in the discussion section. Finally, the limitations and conclusions were clearly and accurately presented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality is fine. No major issues were detected. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answer all questions and make the necessary corrections.