Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Nov 8;18(11):e0291488. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291488

Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A feasibility randomized controlled trial protocol

Amanda Cristina Fernandes 1, Deisiane Oliveira Souto 1, Ricardo R de Sousa Junior 1, Georgina L Clutterbuck 2, F Virginia Wright 3, Mariane Gonçalves de Souza 1, Lidiane Francisca Borges Ferreira 4, Ana Amélia Cardoso Rodrigues 1, Ana Cristina R Camargos 1, Hércules R Leite 1,*
Editor: Aditya Pawar5
PMCID: PMC10631688  PMID: 37939077

Abstract

Background

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) children have lower levels of participation in recreational and sporting activities when compared to their peers. Participation has been defined based on the Family of Participation-Related Constructs (fPRC) which defines participation as including both attendance and involvement, with sense of self, preferences and activity competence related to a child’s participation. Modified sports interventions such as Sports Stars can act on physical literacy and some of the fPRCs components. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the Sports Stars Brazil intervention for children with ASD.

Methods

This study will be conducted with 36 participants with ASD aged 6 to 12 years old following the CONSORT for pilot and feasibility recommendation. Participants will be randomly allocated into two groups. Intervention group will receive eight, weekly Sports Stars sessions. Each session will include of sports-focused gross motor activity training, confidence building, sports-education and teamwork development. Study assessments will occur at baseline, immediately post-intervention and 20-weeks post-randomization. First, we will assess process feasibility measures: recruitment, assessment completion, adherence, adverse events and satisfaction. Second, we will investigate the scientific feasibility of the intervention by estimating the effect size and variance at the level of achievement sports-related activity and physical activity participation goals (Goal Attainment Scaling), activity competence (Ignite Challenge, Test of Gross Motor Development-second edition, Physical Literacy Profile Questionnaire, Pediatric Disability Assessment Inventory–Computer Adaptive Test—PEDI-CAT—mobility, 10×5 Sprint Test and Muscle Power Sprint Test), sense of self (PEDI-CAT—responsibility), and overall participation at home, school and community, (Participation and Environment Measure for children and young people, PEM-CY).

Discussion

The results of this feasibility study will inform which components are critical to planning and preparing a future RCT study, aiming to ensure that the RCT will be feasible, rigorous and justifiable.

Trial registration

The trial was registered with the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials database (ID: RBR-9d5kyq4) on June 15, 2022.

1. Background

Participation in leisure-time physical activities prepares children for a physically active life and improves health and psychosocial outcomes [1]. Despite these benefits, children with disabilities are more likely to be sedentary and experience more barriers to participation in physical activities [2]. In particular, children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have lower levels of physical activity compared to their peers [35]. ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects individuals’ communication and social interaction, and includes repetitive or restricted behavior/s and interests [6, 7]. These children often experience impairments in their physical, social, cognitive and/or psychological competence, and these can pose significant barriers to their participation in sports [8]. Therefore, it is necessary to identify and promote interventions that increase participation in sports and recreational leisure-time physical activities in this population.

Participation is important as a core component of the evaluation of outcomes of children and adolescents with disabilities [9]. It is defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as involvement in real-life situations [10]. More recently, the concept of participation has been extended to involve two essential components: attendance and involvement [11, 12]. The Family of Participation-Related Constructs (fPRC) defines participation as including both attendance and involvement, with sense of self, preferences and activity competence related to a child’s participation [11, 12]. Activity competence is the ability to execute the activity being undertaken according to an expected standard, includes cognitive, physical and affective skills and abilities [11, 12], where can be measured: (1) abilities that the child can use in a daily environment, (2) ability of the child within a structured environment like that created for test-taking and (3) abilities the child uses in everyday settings [13, 14]. Attendance is characterized as “being present” and can be measured as frequency or diversity of activities that an individual participates [11, 12]. Involvement refers to the subjective experience of participation during attendance, including elements such as engagement, persistence, social bonding, and affection level [11, 12].

When considering participation in sports and recreational activities, activity competence can be associated with physical literacy. Physical literacy describes the skills that one needs to engage in enjoyable leisure-time physical activities throughout life, in four domains: 1) physical (e.g., locomotor skills); 2) psychological (e.g., motivation); 3) social (e.g., relationships); and 4) cognitive (e.g., content knowledge) [1517]. The interaction between the fPRCs and physical literacy provides a greater understanding of the participation of children with ASD in physical and sports activities and provides guidance for future participation-based research.

Recently, Clutterbuck, Auld and Johnston [18] developed Sports Stars, a modified group sport intervention held in the community environment. Sports Stars has shown to be effective in improving preferred sports-related activity and physical activity participation (attendance and involvement) goals and activity competence for ambulant Australian children with cerebral palsy (CP) compared to usual care [18]. Furthermore, parents and therapists perceived that Sports Stars improved children’s physical literacy across all domains, including the physical, social, psychological, and cognitive competence needed for sports participation, and that Sports Stars would be their intervention of choice for children with sports focused goals [19].

The prevalence and rate of diagnosis of children with ASD has been growing in recent years [20, 21]. According to the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics (SBP) [22], in Brazil, children with ASD frequently receive a late diagnosis and consequent delayed access to intervention, which might compromise their development [22]. There are significant advances in the international public policies for this population [20, 21]. However, in Brazil, laws were only recently introduced to guarantee the rights of people with ASD, for example to participate in sports and leisure activities (Laws: 12.764/2012–13.146/2015) [23, 24]. Despite the evidence suggesting that participation of people with ASD in leisure-time physical activities and group sports improves their socialization skills, communication, development of independence, motor skills and cardiovascular fitness, up to now, this is addressed by just one initiative by the Brazilian Government (entitled TEAtivo) [2528]. Larger efforts are needed to developed appropriate interventions, such as Sports Stars, to improve physical activity levels and promote participation in sports and physical recreation for this population [29, 30]. However, while the effectiveness and feasibility of Sports Stars Brazil is under investigation in children with CP by our research group [31, 32], its feasibility in other conditions such as ASD is still unknown. This paper presents a feasibility Randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocol aiming to assess the feasibility of the Sports Stars Brazil intervention for children with ASD as articulated by Thabane et al. (2010) framework [33]. This framework encompasses that the aim of a feasibility study might be linked to one or more of the following four classifications: process, resources, management and scientific. In this study, we will focus on two feasibility classifications:

First, we will assess the process of feasibility that will determine the ability to enroll participants, the assessments completion rates, as well as adverse effects, satisfaction and adherence. To this purpose, a priori success criteria will be established when appropriated. Second, we will evaluate the scientific feasibility for estimating the effect size and variance of nine outcomes aligned with the fPRCs components.

2. Methods and analysis

Study design

This will be a prospectively registered, open, two arm, pilot RCT. This manuscript was written in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines [34] (see S1 Checklist). Forthcoming publication of trial results will be reported according to reporting standards for pilot and feasibilities studies (i.e., Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials—CONSORT), (see S2 Checklist) [35]. The schedule with assessment at different points in time is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Time schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments on participant outcome inspired by the SPIRIT 2013 reporting guidelines [34].

Fig 1

Autism classification system of functioning: social communication—ACSF: SC; Participation and Environment Measure for children and young people -PEM-CY; GAS—Goal Attainment Scaling; Physical Literacy Profile Questionnaire- PLPQ; Pediatric Disability Assessment Inventory–Computer Adaptive Test—PEDI-CAT; Test of Gross Motor Development-second edition–TGMD-2; 10×5 Sprint Test -10x5 ST and Muscle Power Sprint Test–MPST.

SPIRIT schedule of assessments at different time points

Study setting

The study will be conducted in open spaces and sports courts/facilities of a university in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Children aged 6 to 12 years at the beginning of the intervention;

  • Diagnosed with ASD according to medical report, and classified at support levels I or II by the Autism classification system of functioning: social communication ACSF:SC [36];

  • Both genders.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Participants with cognitive, behavioral, or clinical limitations that prevent them from following instructions and safely participating in group physical activity;

  • Who have undergone surgery or fractures in the last 6 months.

Procedures

Children with ASD will be recruited through advertisement, radio spots, social media networks, as well as recruited by convenience from public or philanthropic institutions and private rehabilitation clinics in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. All eligible individuals will receive clarifications regarding the objectives of the study and will sign a statement of informed consent prior to participation. Participants characteristics will be collected. Finally, two blinded researchers will collect the outcome data at baseline, 8 weeks after randomization, and the follow-up evaluation. All assessments will be repeated by the same assessors.

Data collection

Characteristics of the participants

Participants’ age, sex, classification on the ACSF:SC [36], and the Abbreviated Sensory Profile 2 [37] will be collected after signing the informed consent and assent form.

Autism classification system of functioning: Social communication (ACSF: SC)

The ACSF:SC classifies the level of communication skills used by children with ASD [36]. Classification is divided into five levels that distinguish individuals’ social communication skills according to social needs and goals. The ACSF:SC was properly translated for Brazilian children and young people with ASD and will be applied by a trained assessor [38].

Sensory profile questionnaires

Sensory profiles of children in this study will be captured by the Abbreviated Sensory Profile 2. This questionnaire consists of 34 items which are answered by the caregiver and describes children’s responses to various sensory experiences [39]. Responses should consider how often (always, often, occasionally, rarely, never) the behaviors occur, and scores are given from 1 (always) to 5 (never). Lower scores indicate greater severity of sensory problems.

Outcomes

Process and criteria for feasibility. The process feasibility measures will include: Recruitment rates, number of patients who completed the study, as well as adherence, adverse events and satisfaction. Child’s adherence to the program will be evaluated through document analysis that will determine the number of children who started and completed the intervention. Interventionist reports on children’s behavior during the sessions and possible adverse events observed by them will also be documented. To analyze the general satisfaction of the participants, a semi-structured questionnaire adapted from Feitosa et al. [40] will be used (S1 File). This questionnaire will contain questions related to the format of the intervention, for example, satisfaction with the intervention schedule. This questionnaire also addresses the child’s interaction with the therapist, achievement of your prioritized goals. The completion of the questionnaire will be performed by the participants after the last day of the intervention.

The criteria or success for feasibility based on previous studies [41, 42] will include: ≥10% response rate from all eligible participants; and ≥80% of the participants successfully complete the study. (i.e. completed baseline, immediate and post follow up). Given the nature of the other feasibility measures they will not have cut-off criteria to determine the feasibility of performing a complete RCT. Instead, their results will be reported descriptively and will be used to determine the suitability of a full RCT combined with the others specific criteria mentioned.

This protocol study will follow one of the recommendations: not feasible, feasible with minor modifications, or feasible with closing monitoring [33].

Scientific feasibility. Preferred sports-related activity and physical activity participation goals

  1. Activity and physical activity participation goals will be evaluated by the Goal Attainment Scaling–GAS [43, 44]. GAS is patient centred and has been widely used to quantify the achievement or fulfillment of goals previously defined in an intervention program [4346]. In this study, goals will be selected by caregivers. In order to increase responsiveness, validity and reliability, three goals that can be affected by the treatment will be identified [47]. The first refers to performance of a sport-related motor activity, the second and third refers to attendance and involvement in leisure-time physical activities during sports or physical recreation participation (see example in Table 1). All GAS’ will be shared among caregivers and interventionists at baseline by another non-blinded assessor.

Table 1. Goal attainment scale examples.
Score Meaning Sports-related activity example Attendance of physical activity participation Involvement of physical activity participation
Parent’s goal: To dribble a soccer ball with control along the soccer field Parent’s goal: To participate in soccer classes at least twice in a week Parent’s goal: To be engaged at least 30 minutes when participates in school’s sports activities of one-hour duration
-2 Current level Dribbles a soccer ball during 4 meters of the soccer field without lose control of the ball Does not participate in soccer classes in a week Is not engaged at all during school’s sports activities
-1 Less than expected Dribbles a soccer ball during 6 meters of the soccer field without lose control of the ball Participate in soccer classes one day in a week Is engaged in 15 minutes during school’s sports activities
0 Expected to achieve Dribbles a soccer ball during 10 meters of the soccer field without lose control of the ball Participate in soccer classes two days in a week Is engaged in 30 minutes during school’s sports activities
+1 More than expected Dribbles a soccer ball during 12 meters of the soccer field without lose control of the ball Participate in soccer classes three days in a week Is engaged in 45 minutes during school’s sports activities
+2 Much more than expected Dribbles a soccer ball during 14 meters of the soccer field without lose control of the ball Participate in soccer classes four days in a week Is engaged in 60 minutes during school’s sports activities

Activity Competence and sense of self

  1. Ignite Challenge: Measures accuracy and speed of locomotor and object control skills necessary for sports and active recreation activities [48]. It is a 13-item measure that can be used in children with ASD classified at ACSF levels I and II. The instrument total raw score is converted in percentage points. The higher the score, the better the performance. It can include “picture cards” for each test item to supplement evaluators’ demonstrations and improve understanding of each test item [4951]. The Ignite Challenge has demonstrated excellent inter-rater (ICC = 0.91 (95% = 0.93, 0.99), intra-rater (ICC = 0.96, 95% = 0.90, 0.98) and rest-test (ICC = 0.91, 95% = 0.84, 0.95) reliability in Australian children with ASD (n = 47) [51].

  2. Test of Gross Motor Development-2—TGMD-2: Is used in children up three to 10 years, it assesses accuracy and quality of 12 fundamental motor skills, six of which are locomotor skills and six are object control skills. The total scores of each subtest are summed and represented as raw scores, which can be converted into motor quotients [52]. The TGMD-2 was validated and reliable for typical Brazilian children in the study by Valentini et al. [53] and has been used in children with ASD [54, 55]. Furthermore, it has been seen as a responsive measure in the Australian Sports Stars in children with CP [18]. Reliability of the TGMD-2 for children with ASD is currently being evaluated by our research group (ongoing study).

  3. 10×5 Sprint Test–(10×5ST) and Muscle Power Sprint Test (MPST): The 10×5ST assesses agility [56, 57]. In the 10×5ST, participants need to run 5 m separated by 2 cones, 10 times continuously, making turns in the cones that mark the end of the five meters [57]. The 10×5ST has excellent inter-observer and test-retest reliability (ICC = 1.00 and 0.97) and good reported construction validity. An increase in agility of 3.2 seconds is considered a real change [54]. Participants muscle power will be evaluated by the Muscle Power Sprint Test–MPST [54]. The MPST measures muscle power by asking the participant to run as fast as possible for 15 m, 6 times, with a 10 second interval between each sprint. The MPST has high inter-observer and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97 and 0.99) for ambulant children with CP [56]. Reliability of the MPST and 10x5ST for children with ASD is currently being evaluated by our research group (ongoing study).

  4. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory—Computer Adaptive—PEDI-CAT ASD: Will be used to assess the domains of mobility (activity competence) and sense of self (responsibility) [58]. In the PEDI-CAT domain mobility the four-point scores are based on different levels of difficulty. The responsibility domain ranks items on a five-point scale, describing the division of responsibility between the caregiver and the child in managing complex, multi-step life tasks. The PEDI-CAT was adapted and presented reliability to be used by children with autism [59]. It was translated and culturally adapted for the Brazilian population aged 0–21 years [60].

  5. Physical Literacy Profile Questionnaire–PLPQ: Assesses the components of physical literacy (physical, cognitive, social and psychological) of children [61]. The questions are related to performance and satisfaction in the physical, social, psychological and cognitive competencies. Each item assesses performance on a scale of 0 to 2 and each item assesses the child/adolescent/young adult’s performance satisfaction on a scale of 1–10 points. The higher the score, the higher the level of performance and satisfaction. The QPAF is in the process of being validated by our research group, preliminary data showed good test-retest reliability for children with CP (ICC = 0.84; IC [95%]: 0.74–0.91) (data not published yet) [61].

    Overall Participation at home, school and community

  6. Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth—PEM-CY: Will be used to assess participation at home, school and community [62, 63]. The measure identifies attendance and involvement of children in activities carried out at home, at school and in the community, as well as the characteristics of these environments that influence participation in six parts: frequency of participation, involvement of participation, desire to change participation, support for the environment, support for the environment and environmental resources [64, 65]. The PEM-CY has moderate to good internal consistency and test-retest reliability indices [62] and was translated and culturally adapted for the Brazilian population [58]. The PEM-CY it has been used as an outcome measure to assess the effects of participation interventions on individuals with ASD [66, 67].

Randomization and blinding. Children (n = 38) will be randomized into 2 groups (Sports Stars Brazil intervention and control group). Randomization will occur when 8 to 10 the child has been recruited and the allocation ratio will be 1:1. The randomization will be performed using a computer-generated random sequence to ensure equal allocation to each group. This sequence will be used to randomize children into the immediate group, or the control group. A new sequence will be used for each subgroup randomization until 36 children are allocated, or no further participants can be recruited. All assessments will be performed before the allocation of each subgroup. Thus, the use of the block randomization method is unlikely to increase the probability of identifying the allocation of participants.

An independent researcher, not involved in recruitment or data collection and without direct contact with those involved in this research, will perform all randomization steps. The randomization process and allocation of participants will be supervised by the independent investigator. Due to the intervention characteristics of this study, it is not possible to blind participants and interventional therapists to group allocation. In order to minimize bias, the children and their caregivers will be instructed to not tell the assessors which group they are in until after all their baseline assessments were completed. Furthermore, all the two blinded assessors will be asked to indicate if they know which group (control or intervention, and if so to cite the source of unblinding). This will permit to report the success of blinding. The statistician will be blinded to the group allocation until the completion of the analyses.

The possible contamination of information between the groups will also be evaluated. For this, the following questions will be asked. 1) Have you talked to other participants in this study about the intervention they are receiving? 2) If so, did your attitude towards the intervention change after talking to one of the participants in the other group? 3) Did you have any changes related to physical activity after the first contact with our project? 4)Are any of the participants in the other group aware of the type of intervention you were receiving in this study?

Interventions

Sports Stars Brazil group

Sports Stars will be conducted in small groups of four or five children aged 6–12 years old, with ASD and ACSF-SC level I-II, led by one physical therapist (the same in all Sports Stars groups) with the assistance of Occupational Therapy and Physical Education undergraduate and graduate students. Each session will consist of the following activities: arrival of participants (10 minutes); warm up (5 minutes), locomotor skill training, e.g. running and jumping activities (15 minutes); object control skill training; e.g. dribbling, discus, bouncing, catching (15 minutes); modified sports game (10 minutes); and a cool down (5 minutes) [18, 31]. Participants will receive eight, one-hour, weekly sessions of Sports Stars Brazil, with two weeks focusing on each of the following popular Brazilian sports: soccer, handball, basketball and athletics, per the published protocol for children with CP [31]. The structure main components of Sports Stars Brazil, as well as the strategies for supporting the autistic children during the sessions are detailed in Fig 2. Along the program the complexity of the task is graded, aiming to improve the child’s performance and developing activity competence in each of the physical literacy domains (i.e., physical, cognitive, psychological and social skills). Standard descriptors are used to guide each child’s progress, as detailed in the Sports Stars Session Plan examples (see S2 File)”.

Fig 2. Structure and main components of the Sports Stars intervention.

Fig 2

Since children with ASD may present with repetitive and stereotyped behaviors [7], support strategies based on the guidelines of the I CAN Develop Physical Literacy, carried out in partnership by the Physical Literacy Programs (PISE) and Canucks Autism Network (CAN) [68] will be used to facilitate participation during Sports Stars [69]. Specifically, during the reception, a visual schedule will be used to introduce the day’s activities, providing predictability of the session. During the sessions strategies such as giving feedback, informing about rest time, time to hydrate and time to relax will be also used, Fig 2. All these strategies will be documented through the study.

Structure of the Sports Stars intervention and the supporting strategies applied.

Usual care or control group

Participants in the control group will receive their standard care, including maintaining existing occupational therapy and/or physical therapy intervention programs. Children with ASD in Brazil are expected to receive 1 to 2 sessions of occupational therapy (but not physical therapy) per week in public or private clinics. Both interventions provide individualized treatment plans tailored to the needs of each child. Generally speaking, physical therapy provides a general exercise program that involves gross motor training, muscle strengthening, and balance and coordination training. Occupational therapy usually involves sensory integration, neuropsychomotor development and participation in occupations (activities of daily living and education). The activities done by participants in the control group and the treatment adherence will be registered in a daily activity (see S3 File). To ensure equal access to this intervention, after they have participated in their post-intervention and follow-up assessments, participants in the control group will be invited to receive the 8-week Sports Stars Brazil intervention, but no outcomes will be collected.

Participant timeline

The flowchart summarizing the experimental procedures and participants is displayed in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Study flowchart.

Fig 3

TGMD-2: Test of Gross Motor Development-2; GAS: Goal Attainment Scaling; 10×5ST 3: 10×5 Sprint Test; MPST: Muscle Power Sprint Test; PEDI-CAT ASD: Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory—Computer Adaptive; PLPQ: Physical Literacy Profile Questionnaire; PEM-CY: Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth.

Statistical methods

Sample size rationale

This study is designed to investigate the feasibility of conducting a future RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of Sports Stars and to build decision-making processes to guide the execution of a larger study, particularly concerning satisfaction, adherence. Despite of no sample size calculation is necessary in a feasibility trial, 15–20 subjects by group are suggested to determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT [33]. Our aim is to identify 36 potential participants to reach our target sample (18 per group) [70].

Data analysis. For process feasibility, participant recruitment and demographic/clinical data will be reported as means and standard deviations for continuous parametric data, medians and ranges for continuous non-parametric data, and frequencies and percentages for categorical data as per CONSORT recommendations [35]. Success criteria for feasibility will be reported descriptive and narratively, with accompanying 95% Confidence Interval (CI), when appropriate.

For scientific feasibility, as the objective of the study is to inform a definitive RCT, the analysis will focus on estimating treatment effect size and variance. No statistical significance tests (p value) or hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of the treatment will be performed. Treatment effects for secondary outcome measures will be presented as means, SD and CIs [35]. Considering a normal data distribution, effects sizes for each scientific feasibility outcome will be collected pre-intervention, immediately post intervention and at 12 weeks post intervention, using the following equation:

CohensˊD=Meanprepostchange(treatment)Meanprepostchange(control)Standarddeviation(pooled)

The following thresholds will be considered for interpretation of effect size: small (0.20 0.49), medium (0.50–0.79) and large (>0.80). High scores indicate better outcomes and positive effect sizes suggest benefit from Sports Stars over the control group [71]. The 95% CI will also be reported.

Plan for supervision and monitoring

The study will be conducted and monitored by the lead investigator (HRL) under the supervision of the author (ACF), with assistance of the research team. All the ethical principles as provided by Declaration of Helsinki will be followed by all the members of this research.

Ethical consideration

This study received approval from the ethics committee of the university (certificate number:55151222.4.0000.5149) and was prospectively registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials: RBR-9d5kyq4. Written consent will be obtained from parents or caregivers of each participant. In the same way, children will only participate in the study by signing the free and informed assent term. Participants’ information will be coded to preserve their identity. On completion of the study, data will be analyzed and tabulated and a final study report will be prepared. The researchers will take all appropriate and customary steps to ensure that the data remain safeguarded and that the privacy and confidentiality of the participants are maintained. Protocol modifications will be reported to the Institutional Review Board and to the trial registry.

Data integrity and management plan

Research data will be collected by two research assistants who will be trained to collect and manage it. Participant identifiers (including name, address, contact information and other personal information) will be removed from the survey data and stored in another file. The data will be entered into Microsoft Excel and SPSS. Survey data will be monitored weekly and any errors in input will be identified (if any) and amended. Consent forms will be stored in the office of the School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy at the Federal University of Minas Gerais along with other research data files.

3. Discussion

Potential impact and significance of the study

This study presents a protocol of a feasibility RCT of Sports Stars Brazil in children with ASD compared to a control group. The main objective of the randomized pilot or feasibility testing is to assess the feasibility of drive the definitive future RCT. The increasing prevalence of ASD indicates that a greater number of pragmatic interventions with capacity for rapid upscale are needed to improve participation in sport and physical recreation for this population. This proposed pilot RCT will provide relevant information (e.g., adherence, adverse effects and satisfaction) to plan a full RCT that can assess the effectiveness of Sports Stars Brazil for children with ASD.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

This feasibility study has a number of strengths. The Sports Stars program has been tailored to meet the needs of children with ASD, such as to promote participation in meaningful leisure activities, and delivery in group format to motivate children to play together. Furthermore, the secondary outcomes address important elements of Participation and its related constructs across the fPRC. The study protocol was based CONSORT to randomized pilot and feasibility trials [35], increasing the likelihood that crucial study design elements have been covered. In addition, all therapists will receive ongoing expert (G.C and VW are the researchers who developed originally the intervention in Australia and the Ignite Challenge assessment, respectively) consultation throughout the study.

This feasibility study will exclude children classified over the ACSF-SC level II, which may limit the generalizability of findings A potential weakness is that many assessments relevant to sport and physical recreation lack psychometric information when used with children with ASD. However, for measures which do not currently have published reliability data, further evaluation is currently underway by our research group and can be excluded from this study if its psychometric properties are found not to be satisfactory. Furthermore, it is not possible to blind the children and the interventionists. Finally, no specific instrument will be applied to assess possible cognitive alterations of the participants. Only subjective assessment of cognitive functioning will be performed during screening or through parents’ reports.

Contribution to physical therapy profession

To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first feasibility RCT study to investigate a practitioner-led, peer-group sports intervention for children with ASD. This study is an important first step in establishing the feasibility of a new intervention to improve leisure-time physical activity participation for children with ASD. In conclusion, the findings from this feasibility RCT will further our understanding of an intervention that has the potential to address the functioning (i.e., impairments, activity limitation and participation restrictions) of children with ASD.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

(DOC)

S2 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a pilot or feasibility trial.

(DOC)

S1 File. Satisfaction questionnaire for the Sports Stars group.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Sports Stars Session Samples.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Daily activity.

(DOCX)

S4 File

(PDF)

S5 File

(PDF)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The present study was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq (grant number 150010/2022-2 and 302010/2022-0), Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa da UFMG (PRPq) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Coordination for the Advancement of Higher Education Personnel in the form of a PhD scholarship, grant number: APQ-00754-20).

References

  • 1.Nicholson H, Kehle TJ, Bray MA, & Heest JV. The effects of antecedent physical activity on the academic engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder. Psychol Sch. 2011;48(2), 198–213. doi: 10.1002/pits.20537 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Draheim CC, Williams DP, & McCubbin JA. Prevalence of physical inactivity and recommended physical activity in community-based adults with mental retardation. Ment Retard. 2002;40(6):436–44. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Srinivasan SM, Pescatello LS, & Bhat AN. Current perspectives on physical activity and exercise recommendations for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Phys Ther. 2014;94(6):875–89. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stanish HI, Curtin C. Must A, Phillips S, Maslin M, & Bandini LG. Physical activity levels, frequency, and type among adolescents with and without autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2017;47(3):785–794. doi: 10.1007/s10803-016-3001-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hillier A, Buckingham A, & Schena D. Physical activity among adults with autism: participation, attitudes, and barriers. Percept Mot Skills. 2020;127(5):874–890. doi: 10.1177/0031512520927560 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Carter MJ. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Therapeutic recreation journal. 2014; 48(3), 275. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.What is Autism Spectrum Disorder [access March 31, 2022]. Available in: https://www.cdc.gov/.
  • 8.Oliveira K. S. C., Fontes D. E., Longo E., Leite H. R., & Camargos A. C. R. (2021). Motor skills are associated with participation of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10803-021-05318-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Phillips RL, Olds T, Boshoff K, & Lane AE. Measuring activity and participation in children and adolescents with disabilities: A literature review of available instruments. Aust Occup Ther J. 2013;60(4):288–300. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Children & Youth Version: ICF-CY. World Health Organization, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Imms C, Granlund M, Wilson PH, Steenbergen B, Rosenbaum PL, & Gordon AM. Participation, both a means and an end: a conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59 (1):16–25. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.13237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Imms C, Adair B, Keen D, Ullenhag A, Rosenbaum P, & Granlund M. ‘Participation’: a systematic review of language, definitions, and constructs used in intervention research with children with disabilities. Dev Med Child Neurol; 2016;58(1):29–38. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Morris C. Measuring participation in childhood disability: how does the capability approach improve our understanding? Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51(2):92–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03248.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Smits DW, Gorter JW, van Schie PE, Dallmeijer AJ, Ketelaar M, group Ps. How do changes in motor capacity, motor capability, and motor performance relate in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(8):1577–84. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, & Jones AM. Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2017;47(1):113–126. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cairney J, Dudley D, Kwan M, Bulten R, & Kriellaars D. Physical literacy, physical activity and health: Toward an evidence-informed conceptual model. Sports Med. 2019;49(3):371–383. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Bremer E, Leo J, & Wright FV. A pragmatic approach to measuring physical literacy and behavioural outcomes in youth with and without disabilities. Leisure/Loisir, 1–25. 2022. doi: 10.1080/14927713.2022.2085157 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Clutterbuck GL, Auld ML, & Johnston LM. SPORTS STARS: a practitioner-led, peer-group sports intervention for ambulant children with cerebral palsy. Activity and participation outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(6):948–956. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1783376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Clutterbuck GL, Auld ML, & Johnston LM. SPORTS STARS: a practitioner-led, peer-group sports intervention for ambulant, school-aged children with cerebral palsy. Parent and physiotherapist perspectives. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(6):957–966. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1785558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zeidan J, Fombonne E, Scorah J, Ibrahim A., Durkin M. S., Saxena S., et al. Global prevalence of autism: A systematic review update. Autism Research, 2022; 15(5), 778–790. doi: 10.1002/aur.2696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.World Health Organization. Comprehensive mental health action plan 2013–2030.
  • 22.Transtorno do Espectro do Autismo. Departamento Científico de Pediatria do Desenvolvimento e Comportamento. Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria, 2019.
  • 23.Autista, E. Lei n° 12.764, de 27 de dezembro de 2012. 2012, Brasília, DF.
  • 24.Vicente, M. C., & de Castro Aguado, J. (2015). A PROTEÇÃO E DEFESA DA PESSOA COM DEFICIÊNCIA: A EVOLUÇÃO DA LEGISLAÇÃO ATÉ A PROMULGAÇÃO DA LEI 13.146 DE 2015 E A GARANTIA DO DIREITO À SAÚDE. In Anais do Congresso Brasileiro de Processo Coletivo e Cidadania (No. 3, pp. 93–99).
  • 25.TEAtivo Program Guideline. Special Secretariat for Sport, National Secretariat for Parasports and the Federal Government, 2022. Available at: https://www.gov.br/cidadania/pt-br/composicao/orgaos-especificos/esporte/paradesporto/programa-teativo
  • 26.Alexander MG, Dummer GM, Smeltzer A, & Denton SJ. Developing the social skills of young adult Special Olympics athletes. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil. 2011;46(1):3–10.25674353 [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Menear KS, & Neumeier WH. Promoting physical activity for students with autism spectrum disorder: Barriers, benefits, and strategies for success. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance. 2014; 86(3), 43–48. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2014.998395 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Huang J, Du C, Liu J, & Tan G. Meta-analysis on intervention effects of physical activities on children and adolescents with autism. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17;17(6):1950. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17061950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hui G. E. N. G., & Tao F. U. (2022). Research progress on sports interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder. Chinese Journal Of School Health, 2022; 43(12), 1915–1920. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.12.037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rowland JL, Fragala-Pinkham M, Miles C, O’Neil ME. The scope of pediatric physical therapy practice in health promotion and fitness for youth with disabilities. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2015;27(1):2–15. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0000000000000098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sousa Junior RR, Camargos AC, Clutterbuck GL, & Leite HR. Effectiveness of Modified Sports for Children and Adolescents With Cerebral Palsy: A Pragmatic Study Protocol. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2022;34(1):81–87. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0000000000000852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Souto D. O., da Silva L. C., de Sousa Junior R. R., Clutterbuck G., Anaby D., Longo E., et al. Practitioner-led, peer-group sports intervention combined with a context-focused intervention for children with cerebral palsy: a protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial. BMJ open, (2023); 13(1), e068486. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Thabane L., Ma J., Chu R., Cheng J., Ismaila A., Rios L. P., et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC medical research methodology. 2010; 10, 1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;38(6):506–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Eldridge S. M., Chan C. L., Campbell M. J., Bond C. M., Hopewell S., Thabane L., et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016, 355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Di Rezze B, Gentles SJ, Hidecker MJC, et al. Adaptation, Content Validity and Reliability of the Autism Classification System of Functioning for Social Communication: From Toddlerhood to Adolescent-Aged Children with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2022. Jun. doi: 10.1007/s10803-022-05621-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dunn W. Caregiver Questionnaire–Sensory Profile. United States of America. 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Di Rezze B, Gentles S, Hidecker MJ, Zwaigenbaum L, Rosenbaum P, Duku E, et al. Adaptation and reliability of the Autism Classification System of Functioning for social communication: from toddlerhood to adolescent-aged children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2022. Jun 8. doi: 10.1007/s10803-022-05621-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dunn W. Child Sensory Profile–2 user’s manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Feitosa M, Mancini C, Silvério M, Gordon M, & Brandão B. “Help Me to Improve my Own Priorities!”: A Feasibility Study of an Individualized Intensive Goal Training for Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2021;41(6):601–619. doi: 10.1080/01942638.2021.1891186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sharma S., Jensen M. P., Moseley G. L., & Abbott J. H. (2018). Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial). BMJ open, 8(8), e022423. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.James S., Ziviani J., Ware R. S., & Boyd R. N. (2015). Randomized controlled trial of web‐based multimodal therapy for unilateral cerebral palsy to improve occupational performance. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 57(6), 530–538. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kiresuk T, Sherman R. Goal attainment scaling: a general method of evaluating comprehensive mental health programmes. Community Mental Health J 1968; 4: 443–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(4):362–70. doi: 10.1177/0269215508101742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Toovey RA, Harvey AR. Mcginley JL, Lee KJ, Shih ST, & Spittle AJ. Task‐specific training for bicycle‐riding goals in ambulant children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2022;64(2):243–252. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.15029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gibson N, Chappell A, Blackmore AM, Morris S, Williams G, Bear N, et al. The effect of a running intervention on running ability and participation in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(25):3041–3049. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1367426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Portney LG, & Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice (Vol. 892). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wright FV, Lam CY, Mistry B, & Walker J. Evaluation of the reliability of the challenge when used to measure advanced motor skills of children with cerebral palsy. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2018;38(4):382–394. doi: 10.1080/01942638.2017.1368765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Liu T, & Breslin CM. The effect of a picture activity schedule on performance of the MABC–2 for children with autism spectrum disorder. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2013;84(2):206–12. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2013.784725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Breslin CM, & Rudisill ME. The effect of visual supports on performance of the TGMD-2 for children with autism spectrum disorder. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2011;28(4):342–53. doi: 10.1123/apaq.28.4.342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Evans K et al. Initial validation of the ignite challenge for children and youth with autism spectrum disorder. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2021;14. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ulrich DA. Test of Gross Motor Development, 2nd ed. n. June, 2000.
  • 53.Valentini NC. Validity and reliability of the TGMD-2 for Brazilian children. J Mot Behav. 2012;44(4):275–80. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2012.700967 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kruger GR, Silveira JR, & Marques AC. Motor skills of children with autism spectrum disorder. Rev Bra cineantropom. desempenho hum. 2019;21. doi: 10.1590/1980-0037.2019v21e60515 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mohd Nordin A, Ismail J, & Kamal Nor N. Motor development in children with autism spectrum disorder. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:598276. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.598276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Verschuren O, Bongers BC, Obeid J, Ruyten T, & Takken T. Validity of the muscle power sprint test in ambulatory youth with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2013. Spring;25(1):25–8. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e3182791459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Verschuren O, Takken T, Ketelaar M, Gorter JW, Helders PJM. Reliability for running tests for measuring agility and anaerobic muscle power in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2007;19(2):108–115. doi: 10.1097/pep.0b013e318036bfce [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kramer JM, Coster WJ, Kao YC, Snow A, & Orsmond GI. A new approach to the measurement of adaptive behavior: development of the PEDI-CAT for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2012;32(1):34–47. doi: 10.3109/01942638.2011.606260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Haley SM, Coster WJ, Dumas HM, FRAGALA‐PINKHAM MA, Kramer J, Ni P, et al. Accuracy and precision of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory computer‐adaptive tests (PEDI‐CAT). Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(12):1100–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04107.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Mancini MC, Coster WJ, Amaral MF, Avelar BS, Freitas R, & Sampaio RF. New version of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI-CAT): translation, cultural adaptation to Brazil and analyses of psychometric properties. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(6):561–570. doi: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Souza MG & Ferreira RG. Desenvolvimento de um instrumento para a avaliação da alfabetização física: questionário do perfil de alfabetização física (QPAF). Belo Horizonte. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso [Graduação em Fisioterapia]–Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Coster W, Bedell G, Law M, Khetani MA, Teplicky R, Liljenquist K, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(11):1030–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04094.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Coster W, Law M, Bedell G, Khetani M, Cousins M, & Teplicky R. Development of the participation and environment measure for children and youth: conceptual basis. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(3):238–46. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.603017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bedell GM, Khetani MA, Cousins MA, Coster WJ, & Law MC. Parent perspectives to inform development of measures of children’s participation and environment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(5):765–73. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Galvão ÉRVP, Cazeiro APM, De Campos AC, & Longo E. Medida da Participação e do Ambiente-Crianças e Jovens (PEM-CY): adaptação transcultural para o uso no Brasil. Rev de Ter Ocup da Univer de São Paulo, 2018;29(3), 237–245. doi: 10.11606/issn.2238-6149.v29i3p237-245 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Simpson K, Adams D, Bruck S, & Keen D. Investigating the participation of children on the autism spectrum across home, school, and community: A longitudinal study. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(5):681–687. doi: 10.1111/cch.12679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Krieger B, Schulze C, Boyd J, Amann R, Piškur B, Beurskens A, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth (PEM-CY) into German: a qualitative study in three countries. BMC Pediatr. 2020;20(1):492. doi: 10.1186/s12887-020-02343-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Jull, S., Graham, K. and Russell, S. I can develop physical literacy [Online]. Physical literacy program (PISE), Canucks Autism Network (CAN). [access March 31, 2022]. Available in: https://www.pise.ca/app/uploads/2017/04/I-CAN-Develop-Physical-Literacy.pdf.
  • 69.Hassani F, Sheikh M, & Shahrbanian S. The physical literacy and children with autism. Early Child Dev Care. 2022;192(3), 470–480. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2020.1766452 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hertzog M. A. Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in nursing & health, 2008; 31(2), 180–191. doi: 10.1002/nur.20247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, no.1. Lwrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers, 1988. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Zakir Abdu

15 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-31855Effectiveness of Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled trial protocol Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Souto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by March 31, 2023 at 12:50 PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zakir Abdu (Assistant Professor)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author (s),

Thank you for submitting an important and scientific piece of work in the field of SRH Effectiveness of Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder in PLOS ONE journal. With due reverence to our reviewers and valuable comments, the following points are additional ones found to be addressed, the manuscript writing and its flow are praiseworthy though :

  1. Rewrite the abstract part as per the PLoSONE policy.

  2. Methodology part: The trial wil be reported following the Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Interventional …. (an English grammar problem)

  3. Clearly describe the sample size calculation with rationale

  4. What do you think about information contamination?

  5. Who will be given the intervention?

  6. Briefly explain the treatment protocol

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments to authors

The paper aims to assess Effectiveness of Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled trial protocol Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder

The paper is relevant in its discipline. Although the paper is well written, the authors need to consider some issues as highlighted below.

Title

Should you use the word “effectiveness” or “effect”?

Abstract

your abstract is well written but it would be better to include the Background which should include:

• Case (context)

• Gap (Punch Line)

Background

This section should give a summary of the main issue of the study. It is better to include the magnitude of the problem from globe to local, efforts made by the government or other concerned body to address the issue and the gap to be filled by this study.

Methods

Line 1 “an is” should be removed.

Line 2 wil should be changed to will.

The sampling procedure – in your document “procedure” is not clearly written. As this is a randomized controlled trial, how are going to select the participants and randomize??

Is it individual randomization? How are you going to minimize information contamination as this is a kind of behavior intervention??

These issues should be clearly stated in the sampling procedure?

Your sample size calculation is also not clear. Even if there is no previous study to estimate the effect size, you could have used the conventional effect size of small, medium or high and calculated your sample size.

Data analysis

“Differences between groups will be calculated using unpaired t tests”. Better to say independent t-test. There is not unpaired t- test in statistics. Paired - t-test or independent t- test.

“Differences between groups over time will be analyzed using repeated measured analysis of variance followed by Tukey post hoc test for parametric data”.

ANOVA is used for the crude analysis of mean difference between groups. It does not show the difference in difference. So it is advisable to use appropriate statistical models to determine the difference overtime between the groups.

Ethical consideration

“All participants signed the informed consent form”. But your study population is under the legal age to give informed consent.

From whom are you going to obtain consent? Assent??

Reviewer #2: This is a thorough and well written research proposal for pre-registration as a RCT. I only have a slight concern regarding the sample size. A priori power analysis for a 2x2 mixed factorial ANOVA assuming a medium effect size, 80% power, alpha of .05, and correlation between repeated measures of .50 calls for 34 total participants. The authors are assuming 20% dropout, so I wonder if a larger sample size should be required. I realize that if larger effect sizes than f = .25 and/or stronger correlations between repeated measures than .50 are observed, then 80% power could be maintained with a smaller sample, but these are unknowns. I wonder if the authors should justify their assumptions more clearly or perhaps target a larger sample. Otherwise, I am simply noting a few typos I saw:

p. 12, end of first paragraph typo (invertion > intervention)

p. 12, near the bottom typo (unbinding > unblinding)

Fig 1. (enrolment > enrollment)

Reviewer #3: COMMENTS – Manuscript PONE-D-22-31855

Title: “Effectiveness of Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled trial protocol Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder”

Important note: This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ [like medical importance, relevance of the study, ‘clinical significance and implication(s)’ of the whole study, etc.] are to be evaluated [should be assessed] separately/independently. Further please note that any ‘statistical review’ is generally done under the assumption that (such) study specific methodological [as well as execution] issues are perfectly taken care of by the investigator(s). This review is not an exception to that and so does not cover clinical aspects {however, seldom comments are made only if those issues are intimately / scientifically related & intermingle with ‘statistical aspects’ of the study}. Agreed that ‘statistical methods’ are used as just tools here, however, they are vital part of methodology [and so should be given due importance]. I look at the manuscript in/with statistical view point, other reviewer(s) look(s) at it with different angle so that in totality the review is very comprehensive. However, there should be efforts from authors side to improve (may be by taking clues from reviewer’s comments). Therefore, please do not limit the revision only (with respect) to comments made here.

COMMENTS: Overall though there are not many flaws in the manuscript, I have few concerns. First and foremost {very serious} is about the ‘sample Size’ section. You stated that “due to the lack of suitable research to determine effect size, the sample size calculation was performed ---” which may be true. But even for medium effect size, according to table-2 on page 158 of Cohen’s paper “A power primer” in Psychological Bulletin, 1992, vol.:112, pp 155-159 [which is a sort of summary of the excellent book by Jacob Cohen titled ‘Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences’, Academic Press, 1977, New York] even for medium effect size you need n=64 per group (type-I error=0.05, power=80%). Therefore, what is you stated [“the sample size was performed considering a parallel group design, with no weighted patient preference, power of 0.81, type I error rate of 0.05, means method of analysis, and a loss up to 20% over time, a total of 36 participants will be required for the study (18 per group)] then implies that there is certainly some very serious error in your calculations. Kindly check (and modify the protocol manuscript accordingly).

Note that ‘How the required minimum sample size for this study was determined is nevertheless a very-very important question [one of the important items in CONSORT checklist, item 7a] for any type of study (clinical trial or else) which needs to be discussed in adequate details {including assumptions made at the time of estimation, power of the study, software used, etc.}’. Moreover, in ‘Strengths and Weakenesses of the Study’ section you say “The sample size was calculated to provide the appropriate statistical power to detect precise between-group differences for the primary outcomes”. I very doubtful about this statement. Please re-check. Otherwise, this small sample size is acceptable only for ‘pilot’ study (but if considered as pilot study, ‘pilot’ word should appear in title).

I even doubt if just saying that (refer to ‘Methods and Analysis - Study Design’ section) that “The results will be further reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)” is sufficient? I guess, not (because the important phrase ‘CONSORT’ appears only once [though most of the important items are discussed/included] in this manuscript). It is well-known that while reporting [findings from and even planning] ‘Clinical Trial’ one should follow CONSORT guidelines [since your article type is ‘Clinical Trial’, you are supposed to cover important CONSORT items in the report or even in the ‘Protocol’].

In ‘Data Analysis’ section since you stated that “Differences between groups will be calculated using unpaired t tests”, please note that, [especially because “the sample size calculation was performed applying a probabilistic model for data for trials from our primary outcome, the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) endpoint”], please note that though the measures/tools used are appropriate, most of them yield data that are in [at the most] ‘ordinal’ level of measurement [and not in ratio level of measurement for sure {as the score two times higher does not indicate presence of that parameter/phenomenon as double (for example, a Visual Analogue Scales VAS score or say ‘depression’ score)}]. Then application of suitable non-parametric test(s) is/are indicated/advisable [even if distribution may be ‘Gaussian’ (also called ‘normal’)]. Agreed that there is/are no non-parametric test(s)/technique(s) available to be used as alternative in all situation(s) [suitable / most desired/applicable], but should be used whenever/wherever they are available. This [‘ordinal’ level of measurement of data of primary outcome, the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) endpoint] also has implications in estimation of required sample size [it is sometimes suggested to inflate the sample size by 20-25% while dealing with ‘ordinal’ level of measurement data].

As pointed out in ‘important note’ above “This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ should be assessed separately/independently [one should carefully consider/look at the clinical implications of the study]. In my opinion, to rescue this article (which is quite possible), some amount of re-vision (re-drafting) may be needed. However, please do not limit the revision only (with respect) to comments made here. The respected ‘Editor’ may consider accepting if found ‘clinical implications’ (of this study) valuable. ‘Major revision’ is recommended [assuming that the respected editor would to like to give chance of improvement of the manuscript as in my opinion, the study has potential].

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dereje Tsegaye Ph.D

Reviewer #2: Yes: Daniel M. Smith

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to authors.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_ff0a7.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 8;18(11):e0291488. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291488.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Mar 2023

PLOS ONE

Dear Editor,

First of all, we thank the you and reviewers for the comments and suggestions regarding the manuscript: “Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot randomised controlled trial protocol”. We have addressed all the comments and suggestions in this letter and revised the manuscript accordingly. All the modifications are highlighted in red in the new version of the manuscript. We would like to inform that, in order to provide the manuscript’s adjustments suggested by the reviewers, a new author collaborated on this new version of the manuscript and was added as a co-author.

Best Regards,

Hércules Ribeiro Leite, Ph.D.

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

E-mail: (hercules@ufmg.br).

EDITORIAL REQUESTS

Editor, Comment 1

Rewrite the abstract part as per the PLoS ONE policy.

Authors’ answer: Done as requested. The new edits followed the Plos One recommendations.

Editor, Comment 2

Methodology part: The trial will be reported following the Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Interventional …. (an English grammar problem)

Response: Done as requested.

Editor, Comment 3

Clearly describe the sample size calculation with rationale

Response: We acknowledge that the sample size calculation was the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. We have previously based our sample size calculation on a previous study looking at the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) outcome. However, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulated our paper and aims, where a pilot RCT design have been reported throughout the updated manuscript.

Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.70 “

Editor, Comment 4

What do you think about information contamination?

Response: To assess information contamination between groups, the following questions will be asked:

Page 15, lines 304 to 310: “The possible contamination of information between the groups will also be evaluated. For this, the following questions will be asked. 1) Have you talked to other participants in this study about the intervention they are receiving? 2) If so, did your attitude towards the intervention change after talking to one of the participants in the other group? 3) Did you have any changes related to physical activity after the first contact with our project? 4)Are any of the participants in the other group aware of the type of intervention you were receiving in this study?”.

Editor, Comment 5

Who will be given the intervention?

Response: Thanks for raising this query. The intervention will be led by one physical therapist (the same in all intervention groups) with the assistance of Occupational Therapy and Physical Education’s undergraduate and graduate students. In order to better clarify this issue, we have added new excerpts in the new version of the manuscript.

Page 15, lines 313 to 316: “Sports Stars will be conducted in small groups of four or five children aged 6-12 years old, with ASD and ACSF-SC level I-II, led by one physical therapist (the same in all Sports Stars groups) with the assistance of Occupational Therapy and Physical Education undergraduate and graduate students.”

Editor, Comment 6

Briefly explain the treatment protocol

Response: Thanks for raising this query. We acknowledge that we have provided few details of our treatment protocol. In the new version of the manuscript, we added more detailed information and provided a supplementary material showing the protocol details. We have also built a new figure (Figure 2) to better summarize and clarify the Sports Stars protocol.

Page 16, lines 323 to 329: “…The structure main components of Sports Stars Brazil, as well as the strategies for supporting the autistic children during the sessions are detailed in figure 2. Along the program the complexity of the task is graded, aiming to improve the child's performance and developing activity competence in each of the physical literacy domains (i.e., physical, cognitive, psychological and social skills). Standard descriptors are used to guide each child's progress, as detailed in the Sports Stars Session Plan examples (see Supporting information S4).”

REVIEWER: 1:

Reviewer 1, Comment 1

Title

Should you use the word “effectiveness” or “effect”?

Response: Considering that we have changed the paper focus to a pilot RTC, we have excluded this term from the title and main text, please see below the new title:

Page 1: “Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot randomized controlled trial protocol”.

Reviewer 1, Comment 2

Abstract

your abstract is well written but it would be better to include the Background which should include:

• Case (context)

• Gap (Punch Line)

Response: Done as requested.

Page 2, lines 3 to 10: “Autistic children have lower levels of participation in recreational and sporting activities when compared to their peers. Participation has been defined based on the Family of Participation-Related Constructs (fPRC) which defines participation as including both attendance and involvement, with sense of self, preferences and activity competence related to a child's participation. Modified sports interventions such as Sports Stars can act on physical literacy and some of the fPRCs components. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the Sports Stars Brazil intervention for children with ASD, informing the primary outcome measure and sample size for a full RCT.”

Reviewer 1, Comment 3

Background

This section should give a summary of the main issue of the study. It is better to include the magnitude of the problem from globe to local, efforts made by the government or other concerned body to address the issue and the gap to be filled by this study.

Response: Done as requested.

Page 5-6, lines 93 to 106: “The prevalence and rate of diagnosis of children with ASD has been growing in recent years.20,21 According to the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics (SBP)22, in Brazil, children with ASD frequently receive a late diagnosis and consequent delayed access to intervention, which might compromise their development.22 There are significant advances in the international public policies for this population. 20,21 However, in Brazil, laws were only recently introduced to guarantee the rights of people with ASD, for example to participate in sports and leisure activities (Laws: 12.764/2012 - 13.146/2015).23,24 Despite the evidence suggesting that participation of people with ASD in leisure-time physical activities and group sports improves their socialization skills, communication, development of independence, motor skills and cardiovascular fitness, up to now, this is addressed by just one initiative by the Brazilian Government (entitled TEAtivo). 25,26,27,28 Larger efforts are needed to developed appropriate interventions, such as Sports Stars, to improve physical activity levels and promote participation in sports and physical recreation for this population.29,30”

Reviewer 1, Comment 4

Methods

Line 1 “an is” should be removed.

Line 2 wil should be changed to will.

Response: Done as requested.

Reviewer 1, Comment 5

The sampling procedure – in your document “procedure” is not clearly written. As this is a randomized controlled trial, how are going to select the participants and randomize??

Is it individual randomization? How are you going to minimize information contamination as this is a kind of behavior intervention??

These issues should be clearly stated in the sampling procedure?

Your sample size calculation is also not clear. Even if there is no previous study to estimate the effect size, you could have used the conventional effect size of small, medium or high and calculated your sample size.

Response: We appreciate your comment. We have added more information to the text in order to clarify the randomization and blinding procedure. About the sample calculation, as this was a point raised by the editor and the three reviewers, we decided to reformulate our article and chose to carry out a pilot RCT study. Therefore, we provide a new description of the sample size following the literature recommendation. Please see below the new excerpts added to new manuscript:

Pages 14-15, lines 284 to 310: “Children (n = 38) will be randomized into 2 groups (Sports Stars Brazil intervention and control group). Randomization will occur when 8 to 10 the child has been recruited and the allocation ratio will be 1:1. The randomization will be performed using a computer-generated random sequence to ensure equal allocation to each group. This sequence will be used to randomize children into the immediate group, or the control group. A new sequence will be used for each subgroup randomization until 36 children are allocated, or no further participants can be recruited. All assessments will be performed before the allocation of each subgroup. Thus, the use of the block randomization method is unlikely to increase the probability of identifying the allocation of participants.

An independent researcher, not involved in recruitment or data collection and without direct contact with those involved in this research, will perform all randomization steps. The randomization process and allocation of participants will be supervised by the independent investigator. Due to the intervention characteristics of this study, it is not possible to blind participants and interventional therapists to group allocation. In order to minimize bias, the children and their caregivers will be instructed to not tell the assessors which group they are in until after all their baseline assessments were completed. Furthermore, all the two blinded assessors will be asked to indicate if they know which group (control or intervention, and if so to cite the source of unblinding). This will permit to report the success of blinding. The statistician will be blinded to the group allocation until the completion of the analyses.

The possible contamination of information between the groups will also be evaluated. For this, the following questions will be asked. 1) Have you talked to other participants in this study about the intervention they are receiving? 2) If so, did your attitude towards the intervention change after talking to one of the participants in the other group? 3) Did you have any changes related to physical activity after the first contact with our project? 4)Are any of the participants in the other group aware of the type of intervention you were receiving in this study?”

Response: About the sample calculation, as this was a point raised by the editor and the three reviewers, we decided to reformulate our article and chose to carry out a pilot RCT study. Therefore, we provide a new description of the sample size following the literature recommendation. Please see information below highlighted in red in the manuscript text.

Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.70”

Reviewer 1, Comment 6

Data analysis

“Differences between groups will be calculated using unpaired t tests”. Better to say independent t-test. There is not unpaired t- test in statistics. Paired - t-test or independent t- test

ANOVA is used for the crude analysis of mean difference between groups. It does not show the difference in difference. So it is advisable to use appropriate statistical models to determine the difference overtime between the groups.

Response: We acknowledge that the statistical analysis and sample size calculation were the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. Thus, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulate our paper, where a pilot RCT design have been reported accordingly throughout the updated manuscript. Consequently, we have also updated the statistical analysis to follow the new aims and purposes of the study.

Page 18, lines 373 to 389: “Demographic and clinical data will be reported as means and SDs for continuous parametric data, medians and ranges for continuous non-parametric data, and frequencies and percentages for categorical data. To assess feasibility (adherence, adverse effects and satisfaction), a descriptive data analysis will be implemented, with accompanying 95% Confidence Interval (CI).

Considering a normal data distribution, effects sizes for each secondary outcome will be calculated after 8 and 12 weeks postintervention, as follows:

The following thresholds will be considered for interpretation of effect size: small (0.20 0.49), medium (0.50–0.79) and large (>0.80). High scores indicate better

outcomes and positive effect sizes suggest benefit from Sports Stars over the control group.71 An intention-to-treat analysis will be used. Sample size calculations for the RCT will be made using the treatment effect size and variance estimates from the immediate postintervention change data for the selected outcome measure. Missing follow-up data will be addressed using pairwise deletion.”

Reviewer 1, Comment 7

Ethical consideration

“All participants signed the informed consent form”. But your study population is under the legal age to give informed consent.

From whom are you going to obtain consent? Assent??

Response: Written consent will be obtained from parents or caregivers of each participant. In the same way, written assent will be obtained from each child. This information has been added to the manuscript, as following”

Page 19, lines 499 to 403: “Written consent will be obtained from parents or caregivers of each participant. In the same way, written assent will be obtained from each child. Participants’ information will be coded to preserve their identity. On completion of the study, data will be analyzed and tabulated and a final study report will be prepared.”

REVIEWER: 2:

Reviewer 2, Comment 1

This is a thorough and well written research proposal for pre-registration as a RCT. I only have a slight concern regarding the sample size. A priori power analysis for a 2x2 mixed factorial ANOVA assuming a medium effect size, 80% power, alpha of .05, and correlation between repeated measures of .50 calls for 34 total participants. The authors are assuming 20% dropout, so I wonder if a larger sample size should be required. I realize that if larger effect sizes than f = .25 and/or stronger correlations between repeated measures than .50 are observed, then 80% power could be maintained with a smaller sample, but these are unknowns. I wonder if the authors should justify their assumptions more clearly or perhaps target a larger sample.

Response: We acknowledge that the statistical analysis and sample size calculation were the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. Thus, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulate our paper, where a pilot RCT design have been reported accordingly throughout the updated manuscript. Consequently, we have provided a new sample size description following the literature recommendation, as following:

Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.70”

Reviewer 2, Comment 2

Otherwise, I am simply noting a few typos I saw:

p. 12, end of first paragraph typo (invertion > intervention)

p. 12, near the bottom typo (unbinding > unblinding)

Fig 1. (enrolment > enrollment)

Response: Done as requested

REVIEWER: 3:

Reviewer 3, Comment 1

Overall though there are not many flaws in the manuscript, I have few concerns. First and foremost {very serious} is about the ‘sample Size’ section. You stated that “due to the lack of suitable research to determine effect size, the sample size calculation was performed ---” which may be true. But even for medium effect size, according to table-2 on page 158 of Cohen’s paper “A power primer” in Psychological Bulletin, 1992, vol.:112, pp 155-159 [which is a sort of summary of the excellent book by Jacob Cohen titled ‘Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences’, Academic Press, 1977, New York] even for medium effect size you need n=64 per group (type-I error=0.05, power=80%). Therefore, what is you stated [“the sample size was performed considering a parallel group design, with no weighted patient preference, power of 0.81, type I error rate of 0.05, means method of analysis, and a loss up to 20% over time, a total of 36 participants will be required for the study (18 per group)] then implies that there is certainly some very serious error in your calculations. Kindly check (and modify the protocol manuscript accordingly).

Response: We acknowledge that the statistical analysis and sample size calculation were the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. Thus, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulate our paper, where a pilot RCT design have been reported accordingly throughout the updated manuscript. Consequently, we have provided a new sample size description following the literature recommendation, as following:

Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.70”

Reviewer 3, Comment 2

Note that ‘How the required minimum sample size for this study was determined is nevertheless a very-very important question [one of the important items in CONSORT checklist, item 7a] for any type of study (clinical trial or else) which needs to be discussed in adequate details {including assumptions made at the time of estimation, power of the study, software used, etc.}’. Moreover, in ‘Strengths and Weakenesses of the Study’ section you say “The sample size was calculated to provide the appropriate statistical power to detect precise between-group differences for the primary outcomes”. I very doubtful about this statement. Please re-check. Otherwise, this small sample size is acceptable only for ‘pilot’ study (but if considered as pilot study, ‘pilot’ word should appear in title).

Response: We acknowledge that the statistical analysis and sample size calculation were the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. Thus, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulate our paper, where a pilot RCT design have been reported accordingly throughout the updated manuscript. Consequently, we have provided a new sample size description following the literature recommendation, as following:

Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.70”

Reviewer 3, Comment 3

I even doubt if just saying that (refer to ‘Methods and Analysis - Study Design’ section) that “The results will be further reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)” is sufficient? I guess, not (because the important phrase ‘CONSORT’ appears only once [though most of the important items are discussed/included] in this manuscript). It is well-known that while reporting [findings from and even planning] ‘Clinical Trial’ one should follow CONSORT guidelines [since your article type is ‘Clinical Trial’, you are supposed to cover important CONSORT items in the report or even in the ‘Protocol’].

Response: The Consolidated Standards of Test Reports (CONSORT), will be used to ensure that all items are covered by the article and are provided in supplemental material S2.

Pages 6-7, lines 114 to 119: “This will be a prospectively registered, open, two arm, pilot RCT. This manuscript was written in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines33 (see Supporting information S1). Forthcoming publication of trial results will be reported according to reporting standards for pilot and feasibilities studies (i.e., Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - CONSORT), (see Supporting information S2).34”

Reviewer 3, Comment 4

In ‘Data Analysis’ section since you stated that “Differences between groups will be calculated using unpaired t tests”, please note that, [especially because “the sample size calculation was performed applying a probabilistic model for data for trials from our primary outcome, the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) endpoint”], please note that though the measures/tools used are appropriate, most of them yield data that are in [at the most] ‘ordinal’ level of measurement [and not in ratio level of measurement for sure {as the score two times higher does not indicate presence of that parameter/phenomenon as double (for example, a Visual Analogue Scales VAS score or say ‘depression’ score)}]. Then application of suitable non-parametric test(s) is/are indicated/advisable [even if distribution may be ‘Gaussian’ (also called ‘normal’)]. Agreed that there is/are no non-parametric test(s)/technique(s) available to be used as alternative in all situation(s) [suitable / most desired/applicable], but should be used whenever/wherever they are available. This [‘ordinal’ level of measurement of data of primary outcome, the Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) endpoint] also has implications in estimation of required sample size [it is sometimes suggested to inflate the sample size by 20-25% while dealing with ‘ordinal’ level of measurement data].

Response: We acknowledge that the statistical analysis and sample size calculation were the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. Thus, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulate our paper, where a pilot RCT design have been reported accordingly throughout the updated manuscript. Consequently, we have also updated the statistical analysis to follow the new aims and purposes of the study.

Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.70”

Reviewer 3, Comment 4

As pointed out in ‘important note’ above “This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ should be assessed separately/independently [one should carefully consider/look at the clinical implications of the study]. In my opinion, to rescue this article (which is quite possible), some amount of re-vision (re-drafting) may be needed. However, please do not limit the revision only (with respect) to comments made here. The respected ‘Editor’ may consider accepting if found ‘clinical implications’ (of this study) valuable. ‘Major revision’ is recommended [assuming that the respected editor would to like to give chance of improvement of the manuscript as in my opinion, the study has potential].

Response: We thank you for all que suggestions made. The manuscript was modified and revised accordingly following the new aims and purposes, considering a pilot RCT. The text were improved substantially in order to highlight its clinical impact on the ASD population and future studies on the pediatric rehabilitation field.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Aditya Pawar

13 Jul 2023

PONE-D-22-31855R1Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot randomized controlled trial protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Souto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aditya Pawar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Hi,

Thank you for revising the manuscript. The reviewers have further made some suggestions and a new reviewer has also asked for some clarifications. Kindly incorporate those and send a pointwise response.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied that my comments on the original version have been sufficiently addressed.

Reviewer #3: COMMENTS: It is very good that “considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion on earlier draft, you decided to reformulate your paper as ‘pilot randomized controlled trial protocol’. However, in my knowledge the primary purpose of publishing a research protocol [of main study/trial] is a means to allow the academic community to evaluate whether subsequent analysis and results are in line with the investigators' initial objectives. Additionally, it informs the academic community on ongoing research and may avoid duplication of work. Agreed that making study protocols publicly available has the benefit of disseminating the most contemporary ideas with respect to study design and data analysis.

Nevertheless, the purpose/intention of ‘protocol for a pilot/feasibility study/trial is not known {at least to me and may be to many others as well}. Will these learned authors may please explain the purpose of protocol for this pilot study? Agreed that now this being a ‘pilot’ study in nature, sample size is not a big issue. However, [though many things are ignored (loosely looked at / evaluated)] in case of ‘pilot studies’, methodological issues need to be very rigorous followed {like in case of clinical trial, CONSORT guidelines are to be strictly observed/followed & you may know that a separate document on CONSORT for Pilot trials is available}.

Though for most of the ‘Comments’ made earlier by me, the ‘Response’ is same, namely : We acknowledge that the statistical analysis and sample size calculation were the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. Thus, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulate our paper, where a pilot RCT design have been reported accordingly throughout the updated manuscript. Consequently, we have also updated the statistical analysis to follow the new aims and purposes of the study. Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.

Note the following: As you said, “it is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT” by quoting reference number 68 is 100% true. Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial is also agreed. Further you said “15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies” is not agreed because “According to document ‘CONSORT for Pilot trial’ - “Formal hypothesis testing for effectiveness (or efficacy) is not recommended. The aim of a pilot trial is not to assess effectiveness (or efficacy) and it will usually be underpowered to do this””, therefore please check the reference quoted w.r.t. this statement (reference 70).

Therefore, I do not have any specific recommendation [though only as system requirement I choose major revision]. Let the respected editor decide the future course. However, I request you to kindly note that I do not wish to re-review this paper/article again (let authors do any changes on accepting earlier & present comments).

Reviewer #4: 1. In the abstract- “Methods” section- better to write “This study will be conducted with 36 participants with ASD aged 6 to 12 years old”.

2. Please expand the abbreviations at the first time they are being mentioned.

3. I am not comfortable with the conclusions mentioned in the abstract “The results from this pilot study will inform if a full clinical trial is warranted and identify any necessary modifications required to the protocol”- I am not clear on what nature of the findings from the pilot will decide if a full clinical trial is required or not. I feel that a pilot trial is more appropriate to see what planning and preparations are required to conduct a full clinical trial. These could include barriers to acceptance of the interventions, the required sample size, feasibility of delivering the intervention etc.

4. The inclusion criteria states that children aged 6-12 years will be eligible for inclusion. Any reason for such a broad age range? The effect of intervention being tested may vary depending on the age at which it is being initiated. It would be better if the authors could plan to have an age-stratified analysis, in addition to the overall analysis.

5. The exclusion criteria states that participants with cognitive, behavioral, or clinical limitations will be excluded. Will the investigators assess the child for these limitation at the time of screening for the study OR they will go by documented evidence?

6. Regarding the consenting process- will the children or their caregivers (e.g., parents) provide informed consent? I worry that some younger children may not be able to understand the trial and what is expected from them better. Further, there would be children aged under 7 years and for them “assent” may be required. It would be good if the authors could provide more clarity on this.

7. Please expand on what will the control group children receive (Nothing or the standard/routine care?). If it’s the routine care, then please elaborate on what is being currently provided under routine care.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Daniel M. Smith

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Ravi Prakash Upadhyay

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 8;18(11):e0291488. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291488.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


8 Aug 2023

Review

Reviewer 2, Comment 1

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied that my comments on the original version have been sufficiently addressed.

Response: Thanks again for your comments.

Reviewer 3, Comment 1

COMMENTS: It is very good that “considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion on earlier draft, you decided to reformulate your paper as ‘pilot randomized controlled trial protocol’. However, in my knowledge the primary purpose of publishing a research protocol [of main study/trial] is a means to allow the academic community to evaluate whether subsequent analysis and results are in line with the investigators' initial objectives. Additionally, it informs the academic community on ongoing research and may avoid duplication of work. Agreed that making study protocols publicly available has the benefit of disseminating the most contemporary ideas with respect to study design and data analysis.

Nevertheless, the purpose/intention of ‘protocol for a pilot/feasibility study/trial is not known {at least to me and may be to many others as well}. Will these learned authors may please explain the purpose of protocol for this pilot study? Agreed that now this being a ‘pilot’ study in nature, sample size is not a big issue. However, [though many things are ignored (loosely looked at / evaluated)] in case of ‘pilot studies’, methodological issues need to be very rigorous followed {like in case of clinical trial, CONSORT guidelines are to be strictly observed/followed & you may know that a separate document on CONSORT for Pilot trials is available}.

Response:

We are in line with you. The publication of trial protocols, including pilot and feasibility trial protocols, has been advocated as an important strategy to improve transparency in the conduct and communication of pivotal trials and pilot/feasibility trials (Eldridge et al., 2016). A pilot study protocol is an important step in main study design and study rigor. There are several reasons for advocating the publication of pilot protocols as stated by CONSORT extension to pilot and feasibility:

• The rationale of a pilot trial is to investigate areas of uncertainty about the future definitive RCT

• The primary aims and objectives of a pilot trial are therefore about feasibility, and this should guide the methodology used in the pilot trial

• Assessments or measurements to address each pilot trial objective should be the focus of data collection and analysis. This might include outcome measures likely to be used in the definitive trial but, equally, it might not

• Since the aim of a pilot trial is to assess the feasibility of proceeding to the future

definitive RCT, a decision process about how to proceed needs to be built into the

design of the pilot trial. This might involve formal progression criteria to decide

whether to proceed, to proceed with amendments, or not to proceed

• Methods used to address each pilot trial objective can be qualitative or quantitative. A mixed methods approach could result in both types of data being reported within the same paper. Equally, a process evaluation or other qualitative study can be done alongside a pilot trial and reported separately in more detail

• The number of participants in a pilot study should be based on the feasibility objectives and some rationale should be given

• Formal hypothesis testing for effectiveness (or efficacy) is not recommended. The aim of a pilot trial is not to assess effectiveness (or efficacy) and it will usually be underpowered to do this Research collaboration. Publishing the pilot protocol will enhance communication among groups of researchers interested in the same area and potential collaborations that may improve recruitment, expansion of the study and avoid doubling the research efforts.

Considered all the purposes mentioned above of a feasibility study, we have better addressed and clarify in the new version of the manuscript our aims/objectives and methods to follow the CONSORT for pilot and feasibility recommendations. Please see the updates in the new version highlight in grey.

We also inserted a sentence into the discussion that highlights the benefits of the feasibility study. (Page 21, lines 437-439.

This study presents a protocol of a feasibility RCT of Sports Stars Brazil in children with ASD compared to a waitlist control group. The main objective of the randomized pilot or feasibility testing is to assess the feasibility of drive the definitive future RCT.

We also would like to emphasize that this protocol complies with the CONSORT guidelines for randomized pilot and feasibility trials. Furthermore, following the MacIntosh study (2020) [published previously on PLOS ONE], we would like to highlight that in the new version of the manuscript we divide our aims/objectives/methods into two following the Thabane et al (2010) framework, as following:

(Page 6, lines 110-121).

This paper presents a feasibility Randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocol aiming to assess the feasibility of the Sports Stars Brazil intervention for children with ASD as articulated by Thabane et al (2010) framework. This framework encompasses that the aim of feasibility study might be linked to one or more of the following four classifications: process, resources, management and scientific. In this study, we will focus on two feasibility classifications

First, we will assess the process of feasibility that will determine the ability to enroll participants, the assessments completion rates, as well as adverse effects, satisfaction and adherence. To this purpose, a priori success criteria will be established when appropriated. Second, we will evaluated the scientific feasibility for estimating the effect size and variance of nine outcomes aligned with the fPRCs components.

Reviewer 3, Comment 2

Though for most of the ‘Comments’ made earlier by me, the ‘Response’ is same, namely: We acknowledge that the statistical analysis and sample size calculation were the weaknesses of our study, as stated by the editor and all the three reviewers. Thus, considering all the queries raised and the reviewer’s suggestion, we decided to reformulate our paper, where a pilot RCT design have been reported accordingly throughout the updated manuscript. Consequently, we have also updated the statistical analysis to follow the new aims and purposes of the study. Pages 17-18, lines 363 to 371: “The sample size calculation was conducted using four main characteristics: significance level, power, an estimate of group difference and standard deviation.67 As there are no published studies on the effectiveness of Sports Stars intervention in children with ASD, to the ability to estimate group differences and variances is limited. It is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT.68 Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies and determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT.69 Our aim is to enroll 18 participants per group as the minimum sample size.

Note the following: As you said, “it is known that one of the main goals of a pilot study is to give information on sample size for a future RCT” by quoting reference number 68 is 100% true. Therefore, while no sample size calculation is necessary in a pilot trial is also agreed. Further you said “15-20 subjects by group are suggested to estimate effects from pilot studies” is not agreed because “According to document ‘CONSORT for Pilot trial’ - “Formal hypothesis testing for effectiveness (or efficacy) is not recommended. The aim of a pilot trial is not to assess effectiveness (or efficacy) and it will usually be underpowered to do this””, therefore please check the reference quoted w.r.t. this statement (reference 70).

Therefore, I do not have any specific recommendation [though only as system requirement I choose major revision]. Let the respected editor decide the future course. However, I request you to kindly note that I do not wish to re-review this paper/article again (let authors do any changes on accepting earlier & present comments).

Response: Thanks for your comments. We are in line with you in the new version of the manuscript we have better clarify our aims/purposes/methods to follow the CONSORT for pilot and feasibility study. The sample size section was rewritten, as following (Page 18, lines 382-387):

This study is designed to investigate the feasibility of conducting a future RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of Sports Stars and to build decision-making processes to guide the execution of this larger study, particularly concerning satisfaction, adherence. Despite of no sample size calculation is necessary in a feasibility trial, 15-20 subjects by group are suggested to determine if enrollment is sufficient to progress to a full RCT. Our aim is to identify 36 potential participants to reach our target sample (18 per group).

Reviewer 4, Comment 1

In the abstract- “Methods” section- better to write “This study will be conducted with 36 participants with ASD aged 6 to 12 years old”.

Response: Modified as suggested.

Reviewer 4, Comment 2

Please expand the abbreviations at the first time they are being mentioned.

Response: We appreciate your comment, abbreviations have been expanded.

Reviewer 4, Comment 3

I am not comfortable with the conclusions mentioned in the abstract “The results from this pilot study will inform if a full clinical trial is warranted and identify any necessary modifications required to the protocol”- I am not clear on what nature of the findings from the pilot will decide if a full clinical trial is required or not. I feel that a pilot trial is more appropriate to see what planning and preparations are required to conduct a full clinical trial. These could include barriers to acceptance of the interventions, the required sample size, feasibility of delivering the intervention etc.

Response: We appreciate your comment. The conclusion of the abstract has been reformulated as suggested (page 3, lines 29-31).

The results of this feasibility study will inform which components are critical to planning and preparing a future RCT study, aiming to ensure that the RCT will be feasible, rigorous and justifiable.

Reviewer 4, Comment 4

The inclusion criteria states that children aged 6-12 years will be eligible for inclusion. Any reason for such a broad age range? The effect of intervention being tested may vary depending on the age at which it is being initiated. It would be better if the authors could plan to have an age-stratified analysis, in addition to the overall analysis.

Response: Thank you for your comment and your suggestion. The original Sports Stars Protocol was designed for children aged 6 to 12 years with Cerebral Palsy, demonstrating positive results for all age groups (Clutterbuck, Auld, & Johnston, 2022). As stated by the other reviewers, it was necessary to reformulate the purposes of our feasibility study, since its main purposes its not to estimate effects and differences between groups. Thus, the new version of the manuscript is focusing on the feasibility aspects. The results of this pilot study will inform which components are critical to planning and preparing a future RCT study, aiming to ensure that the RCT will be feasible, rigorous and justifiable. In the future, using the full RCT data we can extrapolate the data, using other statistical analysis, to try to identify any age difference, etc.

Clutterbuck, G. L., Auld, M. L., & Johnston, L. M. (2022). SPORTS STARS: a practitioner-led, peer-group sports intervention for ambulant, school-aged children with cerebral palsy. Parent and physiotherapist perspectives. Disability and rehabilitation, 44(6), 956-965.

Reviewer 4, Comment 5

The exclusion criteria states that participants with cognitive, behavioral, or clinical limitations will be excluded. Will the investigators assess the child for these limitation at the time of screening for the study OR they will go by documented evidence?

Response: No specific instruments will be applied to assess these limitations, only subjective assessment during screening or parent reporting. This limitation has been included in the Discussion section. Page 21, lines 455-458.

Finally, no specific instrument will be applied to assess possible cognitive alterations of the participants. Only subjective assessment of cognitive functioning will be performed during screening or through parents' reports.

Reviewer 4, Comment 6

Regarding the consenting process- will the children or their caregivers (e.g., parents) provide informed consent? I worry that some younger children may not be able to understand the trial and what is expected from them better. Further, there would be children aged under 7 years and for them “assent” may be required. It would be good if the authors could provide more clarity on this.

Response: Parents and children signed the free and informed consent form and the free and informed assent form, respectively (This information can be found on page 20, lines 417 to 419). The term of assent has a language aimed at the child population, including numerous illustrations that facilitate the understanding of children. In addition, a researcher was available to assist in reading the terms and clarify any doubts the parents or children might have.

Reviewer 4, Comment 7

Please expand on what will the control group children receive (Nothing or the standard/routine care?). If it’s the routine care, then please elaborate on what is being currently provided under routine care.

Response: We appreciate your comment and agree that the information is not clear, and therefore, have been reformulated see page 16, lines 344-352).

Participants in the control group will receive their standard care, including maintaining existing occupational therapy and/or physical therapy intervention programs. Children with ASD in Brazil are expected to receive 1 to 2 sessions of occupational therapy (but not physical therapy) per week in public or private clinics Both interventions provide individualized treatment plans tailored to the needs of each child. Generally speaking, physical therapy provides a general exercise program that involves gross motor training, muscle strengthening, and balance and coordination training. Occupational therapy usually involves sensory integration, neuropsychomotor development and participation in occupations (activities of daily living and education)

References:

Eldridge, S. M., Chan, C. L., Campbell, M. J., Bond, C. M., Hopewell, S., Thabane, L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2016). CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. bmj, 355.

MacIntosh, A., Desailly, E., Vignais, N., Vigneron, V., & Biddiss, E. (2020). A biofeedback-enhanced therapeutic exercise video game intervention for young people with cerebral palsy: A randomized single-case experimental design feasibility study. PLoS One, 15(6), e0234767.

Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios LP, et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10: 1. pmid:20053272

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Aditya Pawar

31 Aug 2023

Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A feasibility randomized controlled trial protocol.

PONE-D-22-31855R2

Dear Dr. Souto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aditya Pawar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Aditya Pawar

26 Sep 2023

PONE-D-22-31855R2

Sports Stars Brazil in children with autism spectrum disorder: A feasibility randomized controlled trial protocol.

Dear Dr. Souto:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aditya Pawar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

    (DOC)

    S2 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a pilot or feasibility trial.

    (DOC)

    S1 File. Satisfaction questionnaire for the Sports Stars group.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Sports Stars Session Samples.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Daily activity.

    (DOCX)

    S4 File

    (PDF)

    S5 File

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to authors.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_ff0a7.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES