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, 4^th paragraph, 1^st 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