The Effect of Soccer and Lacrosse Participation and Video Verified Head Impact Biomechanics on Clinical Concussion Measures

The Effect of Soccer and Lacrosse Participation and Video Verified Head Impact Biomechanics on Clinical Concussion Measures

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal's area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

 

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Good

 

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

 

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

 

Tools and Methods

Q: Are the methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

 

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

 

Comments: The Discussion briefs about the clinical measures used to detect sports-related concussions (SRC) over the season of collegiate men’s or women’s lacrosse or soccer. The authors have compared the concentration scores of Standardized Assessment of Concussion (SAC) between women and men, providing relevant literature. The Discussion also puts forth the limitations and future directions for clinical measures of neurocognition. Finally, the Conclusion underlines the clinical changes and head impact biomechanics among men and women during a single season of lacrosse & soccer in a group of non-concussed athletes.

 

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

 

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

 

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

 

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Good

 

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

 

Comments: There are some errors found in the manuscript, which are as follows:

·       Under Introduction, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence, “Due to the risk for exposure to head impacts in both soccer and lacrosse…” must be written as “Due to the risk of exposure to head impacts in both soccer and lacrosse…”.

·       The word “Delayed” has been misspelled as “delated” under the heading, Neurocognitive Testing and Instrumentation.

 

Further comments on the paper

Comments: The manuscript illustrates the study on the effect of soccer, lacrosse participation, and video verified head impact biomechanics on clinical concussion measures. The primary purpose of the research was to determine changes in clinical measures of cognitive function in uninjured collegiate lacrosse and soccer players. Further, the manuscript highlights the difference in the significant statistical changes over the course of the season among men and women.

 

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published


If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.


Thanks,
Science Repository Team

 
 

Author Info

Corresponding Author
Thomas G. Bowman
Department of Athletic Training, University of Lynchburg, USA

Article Info

Article Type
Research Article
Publication history
Received: Fri 25, Mar 2022
Accepted: Fri 15, Apr 2022
Published: Mon 02, May 2022
Copyright
© 2021 Thomas G. Bowman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.NNB.2022.02.01