Heart Rate Variability Monitoring in Special Emergency Response Team Anaerobic-Based Tasks and Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors must be commended for carrying out a study regarding the heart rate variability monitoring in special emergency response in SWAT team. This topic is novel and has outstanding practical value. The research methodology used in the study is appropriate, and the manuscript is written with good clarity. However, some issues need to be taken into consideration. Please find my specific comments below

 

Abstract

I strongly suggest shortening the Background part of the abstract to two sentences.

Remove a hypothesis from the abstract.

Please add the details about the participants.

Please add the statistical analysis used in the study.

I suggest rephrasing the study conclusion.

 

Introduction

Congrats on the introduction part.

 

Materials and Methods

I strongly suggest dividing the Materials and Methods into subsections: Study design, Participants, Procedures, and Statistical Analysis (e.g.).

Was this occupational obstacle course used and described in some previous studies? If so, please elaborate.

 

Results

Table 1:  I suggest marking the significant differences with * for p<0.05 and ** for p<0.001.

Since Table 1 presents the differences, I strongly suggest placing it after Table 2 and 3 (descriptive statistics).

Why haven’t you presented the results of linear regression in the table?

 

Discussion

Line 296-297: ’’ No statistically significant differences were found between baseline and post-qualification values.’’. At the end of this kind of sentence, please emphasize a place in the results where the reader can see these statements: (Table 1...).

 

Conclusion

Please remove the references from the conclusion section.

I suggest focusing on the most important findings in the conclusion section.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their recommendations. Please see the attached file with responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear corresponding Author,

I read with interest your paper and I congratulate with you for the job. I think that you underlined a very important aspect for SWAT personnel.

I have only two recommendations:

1) You wrote "Due to privacy considerations necessary for research access to the training event, no additional anthropometric data can be reported. These limitations are not unusual in this population". It can be true but it is at the same a very big problem because the study cannot be replicated with another sample. Please add this important limitation in the discussion

2) The conclusion seems another part of the discussion and moreover there are some references. It is not usual to put references in conclusion. I recommend to move the actual conclusion in the final part of the discussion and write again a very short conclusion. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their feedback. Please see the attached document with responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for: "Heart Rate Variability Monitoring in Special Emergency Response Team Anaerobic-based Tasks and Training".

 

The work is well conceptualized methodologically. The presentation of the obtained results clearly enables practical application in order to improve anaerobic training in law enforcement. The research can serve as planning for other studies in the field of occupational health. Tabular and figure presentation of the results is good. References are recent and relevant for research.

 

Below are comments for improving the quality of work:

 

1. I suggest adding a few sentences to the introduction about the impact of psychological stress. And potentially about the interaction of private-business stressors on outcomes.

2. Please explain in more detail this sentence from the methodology line 130: "These limitations are not unusual in this population..."

3. I complement the detailed display of test statistics in the results on the basis of which the comparison is made. 

4. References should not be cited in the conclusion of the paper. The conclusion needs to be rewritten. List the most significant research results. Emphasize the application of the obtained results.

5. In the discussion of the work, can you state the most significant obstacles that the respondents encountered in achieving better results?

6. What are the advantages of these types of training? Do you suggest any improvements?

7. Highlight more specific strengths of your research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their feedback. Please see the attached document with responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for submitting their work investigating HRV response in SWAT team members completing acute tasks. It is impressive that you were able to complete data collection in a complex field-testing environment. However, key information such as participant demographics are missing, and some statements are rather strong considering you are underpowered to detect true effects. Specific comments are included below. 

Abstract is clear and well-written. The addition of sample size, some participant characteristics, and introduction of the “three time points” would aid the reader in interpretability of the findings.

In the purpose statement in lines 99-105, it would be helpful to replace “training” with acute training session or training event such as in figure 1. That way the reader will not think this is a training study because it is an acute exercise exposure.

Methods

Should begin with an ethics statement addressing ethical review approval. Consider beginning the methods section with the information provided in lines 125-136.

Lines125-126 could be revised for readability.

Please elaborate on “females were eligible to participate, but none were present at the time of data collection”? How was the time of data collection selected? If females were eligible, why not find a time to allow them to participate in the research?

Figure 2 is excellent

It is a limitation that there are not basic anthropometric data / basic medical history data. Is it possible to reach back out to your participants and at least obtain self-reported height/weight/age/blood pressure data?

Were any pre-testing guidelines followed (i.e., no caffeine?) If not, please list as a limitation.

In table 2, the results should be interpreted with caution because you are not powered to compare variations between top 50% and bottom 50%. Please add a caution in interpretation statement to 312-318.

Discussion section is missing a strengths and limitations section.

Conclusion: This study is about HRV monitoring for SWAT team members during anaerobic tasks. The beginning of this paragraph should be revised to align with the study purpose. Also, should consider what your data mean regarding recovery.

It is strange to end the paper by saying the limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. In what way? And consider relocating this statement to another area of the discussion.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their feedback. Please see the attached document with responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors applied my comments and suggestions, the paper is dramatically improved and the is now suitable for publishing, from my point of view.

 

Best luck!

 

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback, thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear corresponding Author,

the paper is improved. I read the modifications. Anyway, the conclusion are not adequate. A conclusion paragraph cannot start with the hypothesis. It seems a resume of the discussion. Please be direct with a strong and practical conclusion.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 comment: the paper is improved. I read the modifications. Anyway, the conclusion are not adequate. A conclusion paragraph cannot start with the hypothesis. It seems a resume of the discussion. Please be direct with a strong and practical conclusion.

 

Response: We have taken the feedback regarding the conclusion under consideration and have revised it thoroughly. Thank you.

Revised conclusion text: 

This study explored heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) in SWAT personnel across different stages of their training. Significant changes in HRV were observed between baseline and post-training, indicating that HRV can be utilized to detect physiological changes associated with intense physical exertion and stress. These findings suggest that HRV, especially time and nonlinear domain measures like SDNN and SD1, could be useful in evaluating the readiness of SWAT personnel and their stress adaptation capacities, even in small cohorts. Moreover, personnel with faster obstacle course completion times tended to sustain higher HRV, highlighting the importance of anaerobic fitness in tactical settings. This study is not without limitations however, such as the small sample size and uncontrolled variables like sleep and diet, which should be considered in further research in this area. Despite these limitations, the results point towards the potential utility of HRV analysis in law enforcement training, particularly when combined with high-intensity physical tasks that mimic real-world conditions. Law enforcement trainers may benefit from this research; incorporating HRV as opposed to HR alone may prove to enhance training practices by providing additional information regarding relationships between occupational fitness and performance while also enhancing performance stratification efforts.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have answered all of my comments accordingly. 

I recommend this paper to be accepted in this form. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their recommendation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments addressed. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their feedback.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the correction.