The Influence of Badminton on the Anterior Stability of the Knee in Badminton Players between 10 and 12 Years of Age

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The aim of this paper is to observe the anterior stability of knee. However, most of the review articles are about ACL. There are many effects can affect anterior stability, the authors should comprehensive overview the effects of anterior stability of knee.

2.The authors claim that they obtain badminton training can improve the anterior stability of knee for 10 year-old boys and girls. However, from the results, there is nonsignificant difference between experimental group and control group. Not only between-group, the pretest and posttest are also no significant difference. The results and that authors assumption, badminton can improve anterior stability, is inconsistent. The authors should re-check the experimental data, discussion and conclusion prudently.

3.As previous, the manuscript title shows that 10-12 years old badminton players. However, the material section denotes that the participants are 10 years old (see table 1). Furthermore, the prevalence rate of ACL injury for young people who aged 10-12 or 10 years old are almost 0%. I suppose that the authors interest in ACL, if that, the authors should detailed describe their participants.

4.The paper lacks many operational and criteria definitions. For example, Functional Movement Screen (FMS) in this paper is a very import measure tool. However, the authors do not provide detail description. Furthermore, initial words are also need to provide their full length words in advance, also, FMS.

5.There are many typo and style mistake. And, all figures need caption to describe them. Table on line #180-183 should has index. Equation on line #189 also should be indexed. And, symbols in figure 2 is not clearly defined. Furthermore, abstract should be shown in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Madame/Sir, Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

We are grateful for your insightful comments on our
paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by your review. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns:

Comment 1. The aim of this paper is to observe the anterior stability of knee. However, most of the review articles are about ACL. There are many effects can affect anterior stability, the authors should comprehensive overview the effects of anterior stability of knee.

Response: Anterior cruciate ligament is a major stabilizer of anterior tibial translation and its tear leads to anterior knee instability. Clinical tests and objective testing like arthrometry evaluates ACL efficiency which is vital for keeping knee joint in stable position. Authors are using the term “anterior stability” in reference to the most important factor of anterior stability of the knee joint.

Comment 2. The authors claim that they obtain badminton training can improve the anterior stability of knee for 10 year-old boys and girls. However, from the results, there is nonsignificant difference between experimental group and control group. Not only between-group, the pretest and posttest are also no significant difference. The results and that authors assumption, badminton can improve anterior stability, is inconsistent. The authors should re-check the experimental data, discussion and conclusion prudently.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that no statistically significant changes were observed for the R and L translation parameters. However, we would like to point out that the conclusion about the effect of badminton training on improving anterior knee stability was confirmed in the results in Table 2. The main indicator analyzed in the study is the "stability index" for which a statistically significant difference was observed between the measurement before and after the training intervention in experimental group. Such significance was not observed in the control group. In addition, we observed statistically significant correlations between R and L translations and the results of the FMS functional test. Which also confirms the effectivity of badminton training.

Comment 3. As previous, the manuscript title shows that 10-12 years old badminton players. However, the material section denotes that the participants are 10 years old (see table 1). Furthermore, the prevalence rate of ACL injury for young people who aged 10-12 or 10 years old are almost 0%. I suppose that the authors interest in ACL, if that, the authors should detailed describe their participants.

Response: In Table 1, we have presented the results of the measurements that were taken immediately before the experiment. The children at the entrance of the experiment were 10 or 11 years old with a predominance of 10-year-olds. Hence, the average age value in the table is 10.2+/-0.4. After one year of the experiment, the children, were 11 and 12 years old, respectively. Therefore, we indicated in the title that we studied children between the ages of 10 and 12. We have added relevant information to Table 1 and in the text so that this aspect is clearer.

Comment 4. The paper lacks many operational and criteria definitions. For example, Functional Movement Screen (FMS) in this paper is a very import measure tool. However, the authors do not provide detail description. Furthermore, initial words are also need to provide their full length words in advance, also, FMS.

Response: Functional Movement Screen (FMS) has a detailed description in the manuscript now.

Comment 5. There are many typo and style mistake. And, all figures need caption to describe them. Table on line #180-183 should has index. Equation on line #189 also should be indexed. And, symbols in figure 2 is not clearly defined. Furthermore, abstract should be shown in the manuscript.

Response: All found typos were corrected as well as style mistakes. All figures in the paper have received their captions. Table in the line #180-183 and equation in the line #189 have been indexed. Symbols in figure 2 are now clearly defined. Manuscript contains an abstract.

 

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and  to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely, 

Piotr Rodak, 26.08.2022

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to express my gratitude regarding the opportunity to review this manuscript.

It seems to be an interesting study, with practical application in sports, congratulations.

The submitted version of the manuscript requires significant improvements (I even do not know if this was the final version previously to submission, it presents too many mistakes).

Below suggestions with line indication:

Title should be according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

7 – Word track changes, please correct.

5-12 – Please correct affiliations format (zip code, and others) and abbreviations of authors' names should be included.

Abstract is missing and many parts of the manuscript present journal template text that should be removed.

19 – “ACL” and others throughout the manuscript first appearance should be in full.

29 - Citations are incorrect (in this line and throughout the manuscript).

97 – “Methods” section requires significant improvement and detailed information.

160-164 – Please review tables content and consider including text between tables.

179 – Table 3 title format is incorrect. Please also review the content.

190-193 – Too many spaces.

194 – Discussion section text should be more fluid aiming follow-up and understanding from readers. Please also consider smaller paragraphs (with no spaces).

305 – In the end of the discussion section, please consider describing study limitations and suggestions for future research.

307-313 – Please consider directing the text of the conclusions section more towards objective findings and take-home messages with practical application.

317 - As previously indicated, text from the journal template should be removed (also 474-485).

320-365 – Please fill out what is required by the journal in the different topics (Author Contributions, and all the others)

366 – Please carefully review references according to journal instructions for authors.

 

Author Response

Dear Madame/Sir, Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript.

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by your review. 

The updated version of the manuscript received significant improvements in accordance to all your suggestions.

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.

Title should be according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

Title was created according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

7 – Word track changes, please correct.

Word track changes option was added.

5-12 – Please correct affiliations format (zip code, and others) and abbreviations of authors' names should be included.

Affiliations format has been corrected, in Poland we do not have states/provinces so that part is not applicable for this manuscript, abbreviations of authors' names and author contributions have been placed in the last part of the manuscript.

Abstract is missing and many parts of the manuscript present journal template text that should be removed.

Abstract was added to the manuscript and all texts form the journal template were removed.

19 – “ACL” and others throughout the manuscript first appearance should be in full.

“ACL” and others throughout the manuscript first appearance are now in full.

29 - Citations are incorrect (in this line and throughout the manuscript).

Citations are corrected throughout the whole manuscript.

97 – “Methods” section requires significant improvement and detailed information.

“Methods” section received significant improvement and detailed information.

160-164 – Please review tables content and consider including text between tables.

Tables content was updated and some additional text was added between tables.

179 – Table 3 title format is incorrect. Please also review the content.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The captions of Tables 3 and 4 have been corrected. The content has been checked and does not contain errors.

190-193 – Too many spaces.

Extra spaces were deleted.

194 – Discussion section text should be more fluid aiming follow-up and understanding from readers. Please also consider smaller paragraphs (with no spaces).

Due to our corrections discussion section became more fluid. Smaller paragraphs with no spaces are included as well.

305 – In the end of the discussion section, please consider describing study limitations and suggestions for future research.

In the end of the discussion section we have described study limitations and suggestions for future research.

307-313 – Please consider directing the text of the conclusions section more towards objective findings and take-home messages with practical application.

The text of the conclusions section is now directed more towards objective findings and take-home messages with practical application.

317 - As previously indicated, text from the journal template should be removed (also 474-485).

All texts from the journal template were removed.

320-365 – Please fill out what is required by the journal in the different topics (Author Contributions, and all the others)

All mandatory parts required by the journal are filled in.

366 – Please carefully review references according to journal instructions for authors.

References according to journal instructions for authors were carefully reviewed.

 

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and  to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely, 

Piotr Rodak, 26.08.2022

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors completely response reviewer's comments. This is to be encourage. However, there are some comments for revision manuscript.

1. As previous review, I mentioned that this research is about anterior stability of knee, but authors aim on ACL. The authors reply that evaluating ACL function is utilized for clinical test. However, although ACL is critical function of knee, but it is not all of anterior stability of knee. Furthermore, ACL function instead of anterior stability of knee is main purpose of this research, thus, I suggest that the authors provide some relevant works to satisfy this purpose.

2. Table 2 provides most import information to commit the authors’ approach. However, there are some issues in Table 2. First, Noun should be described and defined in advanced. For example, what do measurement I and measurement II means? It is very important because the authors claim that these two phase are significant difference. Second, in Table 2, stability index is different between table and its description in main text (line #159-#160). The authors shown stability index as 0.18 in main text. Third, initial words should be defined in advanced. I mean that M, SD and Me are not defined. Furthermore, these initial words should be discussed in main text.

3. Participants can identify the observation of research. As the authors mentioned in reversion replay, the age of the participants are 10.2+/-0.4, thus, the participants should be note at the initial age, but not 10-12.

4. As previous comments, the authors claim that badminton can improve anterior stability of knee. However, puberty teenage who are growing up, how do the authors identify anterior stability of knee improving from the badminton or participants’ growing up? I suggest that the authors can provide some relevant works to support their purpose.

Author Response

Dear Madame/Sir, Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable, additional comments, giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of our manuscript.

We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by your second review. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.

Here is a point-by-point response to your additional comments and concerns:

Comment 1. 

As previous review, I mentioned that this research is about anterior stability of knee, but authors aim on ACL. The authors reply that evaluating ACL function is utilized for clinical test. However, although ACL is critical function of knee, but it is not all of anterior stability of knee. Furthermore, ACL function instead of anterior stability of knee is main purpose of this research, thus, I suggest that the authors provide some relevant works to satisfy this purpose.

Response: 

We are aware that the anterior stability of the knee, apart from the ACL, is also influenced by other factors such as, for example, anterolateral ligament (ALL) and hamstrings.

However in our opinion and in numerous articles, anterior cruciate ligament is a major stabilizer of the anterior tibial translation and its tear leads to anterior knee instability as we emphasized in the first review's answers. Moreover objective testing like arthrometry evaluates ACL efficiency (not muscles) which is vital for keeping knee joint in stable position.

Many authors are using the term “anterior stability” in reference to the most important factor of anterior stability of the knee joint. The concept of ACL and frontal stability very often appears inseparably in the articles' titles. Please kindly find some examples below.

1. Evaluation of anterior knee joint instability with the Rolimeter A test in comparison with manual assessment and measuring with the KT-1000 arthrometer. H Balasch, M Schiller, H Friebel, F Hoffmann - Knee Surgery, Sports, 1999 – Springer
2. Diagnosis of anterior knee instability. Comparison between the Lachman test, the KT-1,000 arthrometer and the ultrasound Lachman test. DP König, J Rütt, D Kumm, E Breidenbach - Der Unfallchirurg, 1998 - europepmc.org
3. Management algorithm and screening examination for highly active individuals with anterior cruciate ligament injury: part 2, determinants of dynamic knee stability. WJ Hurd, MJ Axe… - The American journal. 2008 - journals.sagepub.com
4. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis in patients with revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and high-grade anterior knee instability. L Alm, TC Drenck, KH Frosch, R Akoto - The Knee, 2020 – Elsevier
5. Diagnostic value of stress radiography and arthrometer measurement for anterior instability in anterior cruciate ligament injured knees at different knee flexion position. HJ Lee, YB Park, SH Kim - Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & …, 2019 – Elsevier
6. Does double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improve postoperative knee stability compared with single-bundle techniques? A systematic review. R Mascarenhas, GL Cvetanovich, ET Sayegh… - … : The Journal of …, 2015 – Elsevier
7. Lateral meniscal posterior root repair with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction better restores knee stability. X Tang, B Marshall, JH Wang, J Zhu… - … American Journal of …, 2019 - journals.sagepub.com

Comment 2.

Table 2 provides most import information to commit the authors’ approach. However, there are some issues in Table 2. First, Noun should be described and defined in advanced. For example, what do measurement I and measurement II means? It is very important because the authors claim that these two phase are significant difference. Second, in Table 2, stability index is different between table and its description in main text (line #159-#160). The authors shown stability index as 0.18 in main text. Third, initial words should be defined in advanced. I mean that M, SD and Me are not defined. Furthermore, these initial words should be discussed in main text.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable consideration.

In order to clarify the information in Table 2, we have added a legend (below the table) explaining all the abbreviations and terms in the table.

 

Comment 3. 

Participants can identify the observation of research. As the authors mentioned in reversion replay, the age of the participants are 10.2+/-0.4, thus, the participants should be note at the initial age, but not 10-12.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment.

We agree with your suggestion and change throughout the paper that we included children aged 10-11 in the study.

Comment 4.

As previous comments, the authors claim that badminton can improve anterior stability of knee. However, puberty teenage who are growing up, how do the authors identify anterior stability of knee improving from the badminton or participants’ growing up? I suggest that the authors can provide some relevant works to support their purpose.

Response: 

This study was conducted with the division of participants into two groups - control and study group, participants were in the same age range.

The variable, which influence on the knee anterior stability was investigated, was badminton training.

We believe that the inclusion of a control group in the study, which was conducted at the same time interval as in the study group, is an aspect that excludes a significant influence of the age factor on the anterior stability of the knee joint.

 

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Piotr Rodak, 05.10.2022

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for considering my suggestions and incorporating them into the manuscript. It has improved, congratulations, but still requires careful analysis and improvement of some aspects. At the same time, it is important to carefully analyze the manuscript, namely considering English improvement and assuming the journal template and instructions for authors, before the next stage of review.

Below comments/suggestions related to this last version, with line indication.

4 – Please insert a space between surname and affiliation number.

7 – Please correct track change (in blue).

25 – Abstract should end with conclusions.

38 – Please confirm if not more than one space after “[7].”

38 – “As Kimura et al. and Kurihara” please correct.

49 – “Shultz et al. and Alentorn-Geli et al. [7,13],” please correct.

51 – “Sarshin claims that as fatigue progresses [14],” please correct. 

55 – “Kimura [1],” – According to the references should be changed to “Kimura et al [1]”. Please double check these details throughout the manuscript.

28-63 – The paragraph is too long. It is suggested the division in paragraphs according to the described topic in the text.

64 – “is to define” – “was to define”.

65-67 – Text related to the instrument should be placed in “Materials and Methods”.

68 – (FMS) should be placed in this line (abbreviation).

68-71 – “Early detection of potentially reduced knee stability could make it possible to launch a programme of preventive actions to minimise the risk of knee instability and of complete damage to the anterior cruciate ligament.” This phrase should appear in the text immediately before the aim of the study. Also “minimise” should be corrected to “minimize” and ACL abbreviated.

80 – Fig 1 – Figure and Tables titles should start in bold. Also, please consider inserting figure immediately after text introducing the same.

81 – Please consider improving the subject’s characterization. For example, it is important to have information related to training experience in badminton, other sports? Injury during research?

85 – “consisted” suggested. The article should be written in the past. Please review all the manuscript assuming this.

87-88 – Please consider removing “etc.” and write for example “e.g. participation in…”.

91 – Please confirm if not more than one space after “height”.

92-94 – Please rewrite this sentence “Height, weight and BMI did differ statistically in the studied groups (p> 0.05). Demographic data are presented in Table 1 (measurements were taken at the beginning of the experiment).” – The English should improve in these lines and please also double check the entire manuscript. Also, BMI should be in full in the first appearance in the text.

100 – Please review table content (some text in bold), the alignment of the cells and legend of the table.

102-105 – Please review the journal template and instructions for authors and format all the manuscript accordingly.

108 – “FMS” – Suggested.

112 – A reference related to “by the creators of the method” should be provided.

105, 108, 113 and others – Line spacing in all paragraphs should be reviewed according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

122 – “ACL” suggested. Please review all manuscript regarding these details.

140 – Please insert units in x and y axis. The quality of the figure should also improve and line 125 space removed.

151 – Please provide information related to city and country of all instruments (“GNU R software and Statistica 13”. Also instruments for example for height, weight and FMS evaluations (please review all manuscript).

155 – “(p> 0.05)” / 160 “(p <0.05)” – Please standardize the format not only in these lines, also throughout the manuscript.

169-172 – Please review the spaces.

173 – The table should be presented immediately after is introduction (in the beginning of “results” section”).

173 – Please review the table tittle.

174-176 – Text should be presented between the tables, namely short analysis of the first and introduction of table 2.

177 – Please insert legend. L – Left; R – Right, and others. Please review the spaces between table and text.

178-191 – Please consider paragraphs to provide readers with better reading and interpretation conditions. Too much continuous text in these lines.

197 – Please Review table content, title, cells alignment and legend.

207-208 – Please review according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

212 – The discussion section text does not present spaces in the beginning of each paragraph according to the journal template and instructions for authors. Please review in all manuscript and correct.

226, 299 – “ACL” – Suggested.

271 – “FCI”? Please review.

277, 278 – Please correct the citation format. This should be carefully considered and reviewed throughout the manuscript.

325 – “larger” – Please correct.

325-328 – Please consider to be more specific regarding study limitations and suggestion for future research.

339 – Please review journal template and correct accordingly (only authors initials).

347 – Please review line spacing.

355 – Please remove the hyperlink.

359 – Please double check the references format and correct. Some examples: journals should be abbreviated; REFs 5,8, 15, 32 and 35 format not correct.

Author Response

Dear Madame/Sir, Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript.

We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect all of the suggestions provided by your review. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns:

 

4 – Please insert a space between surname and affiliation number. 

Space inserted.

7 – Please correct track change (in blue).

Track change corrected.

25 – Abstract should end with conclusions.

Abstract ends with conclusions.

38 – Please confirm if not more than one space after “[7].”

Confirmed.

38 – “As Kimura et al. and Kurihara” please correct.

Line corrected.

49 – “Shultz et al. and Alentorn-Geli et al. [7,13],” please correct.

Line corrected.

51 – “Sarshin claims that as fatigue progresses [14],” please correct. 

Line corrected.

55 – “Kimura [1],” – According to the references should be changed to “Kimura et al [1]”. Please double check these details throughout the manuscript.

References were double checked throughout the manuscript.

28-63 – The paragraph is too long. It is suggested the division in paragraphs according to the described topic in the text.

Paragraph was divided into smaller parts.

64 – “is to define” – “was to define”.

Line corrected.

65-67 – Text related to the instrument should be placed in “Materials and Methods”.

Text placed in the mentioned part.

68 – (FMS) should be placed in this line (abbreviation).

Abbreviation added.

68-71 – “Early detection of potentially reduced knee stability could make it possible to launch a programme of preventive actions to minimise the risk of knee instability and of complete damage to the anterior cruciate ligament.” This phrase should appear in the text immediately before the aim of the study. Also “minimise” should be corrected to “minimize” and ACL abbreviated.

Phrase appears in the pointed part, text corrected.

80 – Fig 1 – Figure and Tables titles should start in bold. Also, please consider inserting figure immediately after text introducing the same.

Corrected.

81 – Please consider improving the subject’s characterization. For example, it is important to have information related to training experience in badminton, other sports? Injury during research?

We have added the subject's characterization. Injuries history was added.

85 – “consisted” suggested. The article should be written in the past. Please review all the manuscript assuming this.

Corrected

87-88 – Please consider removing “etc.” and write for example “e.g. participation in…”.

"etc." removed

91 – Please confirm if not more than one space after “height”.

Confirm.

92-94 – Please rewrite this sentence “Height, weight and BMI did differ statistically in the studied groups (p> 0.05). Demographic data are presented in Table 1 (measurements were taken at the beginning of the experiment).” – The English should improve in these lines and please also double check the entire manuscript. Also, BMI should be in full in the first appearance in the text.

100 – Please review table content (some text in bold), the alignment of the cells and legend of the table.

102-105 – Please review the journal template and instructions for authors and format all the manuscript accordingly.

108 – “FMS” – Suggested.

112 – A reference related to “by the creators of the method” should be provided.

105, 108, 113 and others – Line spacing in all paragraphs should be reviewed according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

122 – “ACL” suggested. Please review all manuscript regarding these details.

140 – Please insert units in x and y axis. The quality of the figure should also improve and line 125 space removed.

151 – Please provide information related to city and country of all instruments (“GNU R software and Statistica 13”. Also instruments for example for height, weight and FMS evaluations (please review all manuscript).

Information added.

155 – “(p> 0.05)” / 160 “(p <0.05)” – Please standardize the format not only in these lines, also throughout the manuscript.

Standardized.

169-172 – Please review the spaces.

Reveiwed.

173 – The table should be presented immediately after is introduction (in the beginning of “results” section”).

173 – Please review the table tittle.

174-176 – Text should be presented between the tables, namely short analysis of the first and introduction of table 2.

177 – Please insert legend. L – Left; R – Right, and others. Please review the spaces between table and text.

178-191 – Please consider paragraphs to provide readers with better reading and interpretation conditions. Too much continuous text in these lines.

197 – Please Review table content, title, cells alignment and legend.

207-208 – Please review according to the journal template and instructions for authors.

212 – The discussion section text does not present spaces in the beginning of each paragraph according to the journal template and instructions for authors. Please review in all manuscript and correct.

226, 299 – “ACL” – Suggested.

271 – “FCI”? Please review.

277, 278 – Please correct the citation format. This should be carefully considered and reviewed throughout the manuscript.

325 – “larger” – Please correct.

325-328 – Please consider to be more specific regarding study limitations and suggestion for future research.

339 – Please review journal template and correct accordingly (only authors initials).

347 – Please review line spacing. Reviewed.

355 – Please remove the hyperlink. Hyperlink removed.

359 – Please double check the references format and correct. Some examples: journals should be abbreviated; REFs 5,8, 15, 32 and 35 format not correct. 

References fromat corrected.

We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Piotr Rodak, 05.10.2022