Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 15;15(7):e0235035. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235035

Clarifying the structure of serious head and spine injury in youth Rugby Union players

Koh Sasaki 1,*, Haruhiko Sato 2, Akihiko Nakamura 3, Takumi Yamamoto 4, Ichiro Watanabe 5, Takashi Katsuta 6, Ichiro Kono 7
Editor: Filipe Manuel Clemente8
PMCID: PMC7363091  PMID: 32667924

Abstract

This study aimed to clarify the cause of rugby head and spinal cord injuries through a network centrality analysis of 14-year (2004–2018) longitudinal data in Japan. The study hypothesis is that understanding the causal relationship among the occurrence of serious injuries, the quality of player experience and play situation as a network structure could be possible to obtain practical knowledge on injury prevention. In this study, bipartite graphs are used to make it easier to understand the situation of players and injuries. This would also help to elucidate more characteristic subgroup. A network bipartite graph and subgroup (cluster) analyses were performed to clarify the injured players' experience and the cause of injury. We used the algorithm of R program, IGRAPH, clustering edge betweenness. For subgroup extraction, the modularity Q value was used to determine which step to cut. The Japanese rugby population was 93,873 (2014–2018 average), and 27% were high school students. The data showed that careful attention would be particularly needed for groups of inexperienced Japanese high school players. Our study suggests that we should consider introducing rules that prohibit “head-on collisions” in youth rugby.

Introduction

In Japan, approximately 20 cases of serious injuries occurred annually since 2011 [1]. Data utilizing long-term data would contribute to its prevention. In rugby, tackle plays to stop the opponent's attack by physical contact are allowed by rules. This could lead to more serious injuries in adolescents, where the growth gap is large. A longitudinal study of adolescent injuries may be an important issue. However, studies on serious rugby injuries are few, which are mostly short-term or conceptual ones [2,3,4], and longitudinal studies on these cases are scarce. The reason why there are few longitudinal studies would be that the social rules for ethical use of medical diagnosis and for protecting personal information were not sufficiently established.

The occurrence of injury will have a relationship structure, such as experience differences and growth differences, as well as physical contact situations. The approach of grasping the network structure of its occurrence might be useful for safety management of tackle situations in Rugby.

Network analysis has applications in many disciplines including physics, computer science, biology, economics, ecology, and sociology. From a broad perspective, networks can be viewed as integrative structures of the physical society or lifeforce. Additionally, the relationship that links structural entities is always dynamic. Network analysis was found to be a valuable new tool for exploring, depicting, and explaining the individual relationships that impact team dynamics [5]. Studying these collaborative structures might allow discovery of the possibilities of new survival abilities in a society.

Network analysis has been developed in the field of communication network studies [6,7].

Some traditional studies focusing on network structures were introduced in the period from 1960 to 1970, including the “small world phenomenon”, “the strength of weak ties”, and “scale free network”. In addition, the specification of the “cluster community” or “sub-group network” were also developed to determine with social network robustness. Sociological approaches are widely used for predictive models of big data in the field of information technology and cerebral functions in biology [8,9,10].

Network analysis methodologies have been applied in social and natural science approaches used in sport sciences. Within the social-science approaches, there are social psychological debates on how sports assist the development of cooperation values within a specific society [6,11]. In addition, political and economic studies have been reported that declining trends in sports and health promotion activities have a negative impact on the civil economy network [12,13,14,15]. Natural science approaches include discussions on the causes of sports injuries [4,13]. The factors that play a central role in various physiological parameters during exercise-induced fatigue were clarified by network analysis, and its application to risk management was discussed [13]. The direct relationship among some performance indicators in sports had also been investigated [14,15,16,17,18,19], which involves strategies and tactics in competitive dimensions. It was considered that there was a central player called a hub in the passing behavior research of a soccer game, and there was a power law there. Furthermore, the hub dynamically switched throughout the game. The difference between dynamic networks and static networks is that the former focuses on the variable and diverse play structures occurring in sports games [18].

How is the importance of network dynamism discussed? There exist important hub functions, sub-group communities, and actors playing some central roles within a network. The important role of network analysis would be to reveal the decisive and pragmatic structures required to obtain specific goals among complex networks as well as to identify individuals who are fulfilling the principal roles. This could be discussed from the perspective of network centrality [20,21]. Network centrality clarifies an organization’s temporal and bipartite or multilayered structures, which would help us understand the driving force of the network dynamism [22].

This study aimed to investigate the network relationship of injury cause structure in a sports field by clarifying the situation of serious injury by network centrality analysis. The study hypothesis is that understanding the causal relationship among the occurrence of serious injuries, the quality of player experience and the play situation as a network structure, it could be possible to obtain more practical knowledge on injury prevention.

Materials and methods

Data collection

The data were obtained from rugby serious injury reports for the past 14 years [1]. Registered teams of the Japan Rugby Football Union are obligated to report within 3 days, 2 months, and 6 months after a serious injury. Multiple specialist doctors determine the classification of the injury: 1) death, 2) loss of consciousness over 24 hours, 3) spinal cord injury with quadriplegia, 4) craniotomy and spinal surgery, 5) visceral injury surgery, and 6) seriously injured from medical certificate. The referring data of the Japan Rugby Union serious injury report were fully anonymized. The anonymized data were locked in multiple stages in a hard disk drive that was not connected to the internet. All procedures used in this study were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Research Center for Health, Physical Fitness, and Sports, Nagoya University.

In this study, high school players were divided into the following groups according to their age and years of experience: 16E1 (players aged 16 years with 1-year rugby experience), 17E2 (players aged 17 years with 1-2-year experience), 18E3 (players aged 18 years with 1-3-year experience), 16EM (players aged 16 years with many years of experience), and 17EM (players aged 17 years with many years of experience), 18EM (players aged 18 years with many years of experience).

Caused of injuries were categorized into 1) own tackle, 2) oppose tackle, 3) rack, a one-on-one situation; 4) collision not categorized as above, 5) saving, hold the ball on the ground, or 6) others or unknown. In addition, the causes of injury were further classified as mauls (3 or more players battling the ball) and scrum (8 players battling the ball). Moreover, seasons were categorized as summer training camp (August) and the main official season (November, February). These classification processes were performed by the safety management committee of the Japanese Rugby Football Union. This committee works closely with the medical committee, coaching committee, referee committee, and technical committee in Japanese Rugby Union, cooperates in classification of the cause of injury based on the detailed play situation reported by the team manager and doctor.

Network analysis and statistical analysis

Nodes of network in this study are player groups (age and years of experience), types of injuries, and play styles that cause injuries (tackle, tackled, scrum, etc.). It clarifies the continuity of what kind of players’ experience years, what kind of play, and what part of body collision caused the injury. These are the dynamic networks which focus on the diverse play structures occurring throughout rugby game. Although this study would clarify a kind of local properties of networks, it might be considered as global properties by promoting international joint study in the future.

A bipartite graph divides a network into two subsets and has no edges between nodes in each set [23]. In this study, bipartite graphs are used to make it easier to understand the situation of players and injuries. Map layout was calculated by Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm which is a force-directed layout algorithm for centralization of the injury factors [24]. This would also help to elucidate more characteristic subgroup. We used the algorithm of R program, IGRAPH, clustering edge betweenness. The idea of the edge betweenness based community structure detection is that edges connecting separate modules have high edge betweenness as all the shortest paths from one module to another must traverse through them [25,26]. Edge-betweenness centrality represents the degree of being located in the shortest path bridge between nodes. It was adopted because it would indicate a close relationship among players, injuries, and the causes. The limitation of this metric is that its approximate value may become unstable in case of a large-scale network graph [27,28].

In the bipartite graphs, players’ experiences, injury details, and caused plays were plotted in the adjacent matrix. For drawing the graph, centrality, obtained by identifying which items occupy the critical positions in injury condition, is a major focus. Subgroup that was central in the network area are extracted from the relatively dense area. If the adjacent matrix of the graph is A = (𝑎𝑖𝑗), the number of nodes of the entire graph is 𝑛, the number of nodes belonging the subgroup is 𝑛𝑠, and the cohesion S of the subgroup is next [10].

S=iSjSaijns(ns1)/iSjSaijns(nns)

There were some clustering methods that extract subgroup such as random walks [29], greedy algorithm [30], overlapping [31], or spin glass [32]. The present study repeated the calculation of edge-betweenness centrality and the removal of the edge with the maximum betweenness centrality to detect a highly cohesive subgroup. The use of edge-mediated centrality makes it possible to extract a subgroup relatively easily [25,26]

For subgroup extraction, the modularity Q value was used to determine which step to cut. If the extracted subgroup set is C, the number of edges connected from community i to community j is 𝑒𝑖𝑗, and the total number of edges included in the entire graph structure is m, Modularity is defined as follows [33]:

Q=iC{eij/2m(jCeij/2m)2)}

The closer the modularity Q value is to 1, the more appropriate the cluster is divided. There were few graphs close to 1 in this study.

Results

In the entire domestic rugby population of 93,873 (2004–2018 average), there is a higher percentage (27%) of high school students (~18 years old). Among all high school players, 57% (24,918–10,693 = 14,225) started from high school, indicating that they have a relatively low experience. The serious injury ratio of the high school players was high (head: 41%, spine: 41%, chest abdominal: 50%, circulation: 38%, average: 43%. High school students suffered a relatively high frequency of head injuries during the summer camp in August. This season would be a first time for high school first graders (16 years old) to be suffered of high load practices and games of rugby. Many injuries occurred during the summer camp (August) and the game season (February). (Table 1)

Table 1. Japanese rugby population, number (ration) of serious injuries, and number of head injuries (HI) and all serious injuries (ASI) by month in High school players (nc; not clear).

Japanese Rugby Population
Age grade -12 -15 -18 -22 23- (women) Total
Number (%) 19,975 (21) 10,510(11) 24.918(27) 10,693(12) 26,204(28) 570 (1) 93,873(100)
Number (Ration) of serious injuries in Japan (nc; not clear)
Head nc nc 48 (41) nc nc nc 117
Spine nc nc 54 (41) nc nc nc 133
Chest Abdominal nc nc 4 (50) nc nc nc 8
Circulation nc nc 10 (38) nc nc nc 26
Number of head injuries (HI) and all serious injuries (ASI) by month in High school players (nc; not clear)
Month 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 nc
N of HI 2 0 5 4 14 3 6 3 2 5 0 3 0
N of ASI 6 3 2 4 7 4 7 3 2 5 7 3 2

Head injury

Table 2 shows that there is a higher occurrence of acute subdural hematoma (ASH) in the high school players. Thirty-five cases (76%) out of the 48 head injuries were occurred in inexperienced players.

Table 2. High school players’ head injuries, spinal cord injuries, the age and experiences of playing years (ASH: acute subdural hematoma, FR: fracture, AEH; acute epidural hematoma, ICH/CC: intra cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral contusion, CI/CA: cerebral infarction, cerebrovascular accident O: others or not clear, OTHG: oppose tackle and head to ground, THG; tackle and head to ground, THB: tackle and head to oppose body, C: collision not categorized as above, R: rack, S: saving, VF: vertebral fracture、DS: dislocation of spine, FD: fracture dislocation, CC: central cord, S: Spinal cord, CSC: Cervical spinal cord, OT: oppose tackle, T: own tackle, Rack: a one-to-one situation, M: maul (3 or more players battling the ball), C: collision not categorized as above, Saving; hold the ball on the ground, SC: scrum (8 players battling with the ball)).

Players 16all 16E1 17all 17E2 18all 18E3 Total
head Injuries ASH 15 12 8 6 5 4 28
FR 2 1 3 1 0 0 5
AEH 2 1 0 0 3 3 5
ICH/CC 0 0 1 1 4 2 5
CI/CA 1 0 1 1 0 0 2
O 2 2 1 1 0 0 3
Total 22 16 14 10 12 9 48
cause play of ASH OTHG 7 7 3 1 1 1 11
THG 3 2 4 4 2 2 9
THB 3 2 0 0 0 0 3
C 2 1 0 0 0 0 2
R 0 0 1 0 1
S 0 0 1 1 1
O 1 1 0 0 1
Total 15 12 8 6 5 4 28
Spinal cord injuries VF 1 1 6 6 6 3 13
DS 1 1 7 5 5 5 13
FD 2 0 6 6 3 3 11
CC 0 0 2 1 4 1 6
S 1 1 3 3 0 0 4
CSC 3 2 0 0 2 2 5
O 1 0 1 1 0 0 2
Total 9 7 25 22 20 14 54
cause play of spinal cord injuries OT 2 1 3 2 2 1 7
T 2 2 10 10 9 7 21
R 2 1 5 4 3 1 10
M 0 0 2 2 3 3 5
C 0 0 2 1 0 0 2
S 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
SC 3 2 3 3 2 2 8
Total 10 6 25 22 19 14 54

The causes of the injuries were own tackle and oppose tackle, accounting for 83% of cases. There were also other collision situations. Table 3 shows the cause of play and the body area of collision. Injury reports suggested that the head position of the injured player tended to be lower than that the opposite’s knee height. Many injured parts were at frontal depressions and many situations were in tackles (Table 3).

Table 3. Causes of injury and the body area of collision (H-G; head to ground, H-H; head to head, H-L; head to leg, H-B; head to the other part of opponent’s body part, LH; low head (head under the opponent’s body), O; others, T; own tackle, OT; oppose tackle, R; ruck (a one-on-one situation), C; collision not categorized as above, S; saving (hold the ball on the ground), O; other or unknown, SC; scrum (8 players battling with the ball), M; maul (3 or more players battling the ball), and cause of the load (MW; multi players weights, LH; low head (head under oppose’ body), H-B; head to the other part of oppose body, N-B: Neck to other part of oppose body, O: Others).

causes of injury and the body area of collision cause of the load
H-G H-H H-L H-B LH O Total MW LH H-B N-B O Total
T 12 1 0 0 0 0 13 4 7 4 2 4 21
OT 6 4 5 7 3 2 27 2 0 0 3 2 7
R 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 2 10
C 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 2
S 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
SC 8 0 0 0 0 8
M 5 0 0 0 0 5

The ratio of inexperienced players with ASH was high (79%; 22 out of the 28), and the cause play was still due to tackle (Table 2). The number of players who recovered were 13, those with aftereffects were 6, those who died were 2, and those with unknown injuries were 7. The 16E1 group showed unfortunate results.

Spinal cord injury

A total of 54 spinal cord injuries occurred in high school students (Table 1). Forty-three players (80%) with spinal cord injuries were inexperienced (Table 2). Causes of spinal cord injuries in the inexperienced players were OT (oppose tackle), T (own tackle), Ruck (a one-on-one situation), Maul (3 or more players battling the ball), C (collision not categorized as above), Saving, and SC (8 players battling with the ball), (Table 3). The cause of the load occurred not only in one-on-one tackles, but also under heavy weights pressure by multiple players, especially in the head and spine, such as scrum or maul (Table 3).

Junior high and elementary school players

A total of 20 serious injuries were found in elementary and junior high school players (Table 4). The injuries in these age groups should also be prevented the expansion.

Table 4. Serious injuries, injured body parts and caused plays, and the possible sequelae and the collision situations (ASH: acute subdural hematoma, ICH/CC: intra cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral contusion, TSH: traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, FR: Fracture, H-G: head to ground, H-H/B: head to head or/and the other part of opposes’ body, nc: not clear).

Serious injury Injured body parts and caused plays
year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Age (years old) Caused plays
-12 13 14 15 T OT R M O
Head 2 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 4 3 3 5 1 2
Spine 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 2 1 2
chest abdominal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1
heatstroke 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Injuries, the possible sequelae and the collision situations.
possible sequelae collision situations.
possible sequelae Total H-G H-H/B nc
ASH 2 8 3 3
ICH/CC 1 2 1
TSH 1 1
FR 3 3

In terms of body parts and caused of injuries, there were many cases of head and spinal cord injuries caused by a tackle. There were also many cases of the head hitting the ground.

Clustering by edge betweenness centrality

Given that the number of serious injury data were not large enough (48 head injuries, 54 spinal cord injuries), we tried to extract the central subgroup in the network. The ratio of the relationship density between the nodes in the subgroup and the nodes outside the subgroup indicates the cohesion of the subgroup. It is a community detection approach based on edge betweenness centrality. The graph is divided from the calculation of the edge-betweenness centrality and the removal of the edge having the maximum betweenness centrality, and a highly cohesive community is detected.

Head injuries

We made a bipartite graph of age, years of experience, and head injury symptoms (Fig 1). From the edge-betweenness centrality analysis in the network, the central subgroup comprised young and inexperienced players [16E1 (players aged 16 years with 1-year rugby experience), 17E2 (players aged 17 years with 2-year experience), 18E3 (players aged 18 years with 3-year experience), 16EM (players aged 16 years with many years of experience)] suffered serious injuries such as ASH, skull fracture, cerebral infarction/cerebrovascular accident, and others (Fig 1, clustering edge-betweenness, Modularity Q value = 0.5).

Fig 1. Age, grade, years of rugby playing experience, presence of head injury [inexperienced players (16 years old and with only 1 year of experience, 16 years old and with many years of experience, 17 years old and with 2 years of experience, 17 years old and with many years of experience), and presence of serious injuries like such as ASH: acute subdural hematoma, FR: skull fracture, CI/CA: cerebral infarction/cerebrovascular accident others (the circle was the extracted subgroup by clustering edge betweenness, Modularity Q value = 0.5)].

Fig 1

A subgroup analysis of causes of serious injuries include own tackle and opponents’ tackle situations. The collisions parts were “head to ground”, “head to head”, ‘head to opponent’s body”, “head under opponent’s body” and others. The collision position of the head during tackle and the manner of falling after tackle could be related to serious injuries (Fig 2, Modularity Q value = 0.23).

Fig 2. Causes of serious injuries (T: own tackle, OT: oppose tackle, S: saving, R: rack, C: other collisions, H-H: head to head, H-B: head to opponent’s body, RH: head under opponent’s body, O: other; the circle was the extracted subgroup by clustering edge betweenness, Modularity Q value = 0.23).

Fig 2

Focusing on the injury and the cause of injury for ASH only, it became clear that a young and inexperienced player tackled and collided his head with the ground or the opponent's body part, or was involved in other collisions. The data on whether the player left the place as soon as possible after the tackle was also extracted (Fig 3, Modularity Q value = 0.37).

Fig 3. Injury and cause of injury for acute subdural hematoma only (THG: tackle and head to ground, THB: tackle and head to the opponent’s body, OTHG: oppose tackle and head to ground, C: other collision, S: saving, R: rack, O: other; circle was the extracted subgroup by clustering edge betweenness, Modularity Q value = 0.37).

Fig 3

Spinal cord injuries

The spinal injury graphs and the result of the cluster analysis showed that players with spinal cord injuries were older than those with head injuries, but both patient groups had short playing experience. The injuries including VF: vertebral fracture, DS: dislocation of spine, FD: fracture dislocation, S: spinal cord occurred in inexperienced players with 3 years of experience (16E1, 17E2, 18 E3) (Fig 4, Modularity Q value = 0.14)

Fig 4. Spinal injuries and years of playing experience (VF: vertebral fracture, DS: dislocation of spine, FD: fracture dislocation, S: spinal cord, CC: central cord, CSC: cervical spinal cord, O: others; Circle was the extracted subgroup by clustering edge betweenness, Modularity Q value = 0.14).

Fig 4

The causes of the spinal cord injuries include plays under multiple weight pressure, such as scrums, in addition to the one-on-one situation of tackles. It would be necessary to strictly manage the scrum and maul plays in high school players (Fig 5, Modularity Q value = 0.1).

Fig 5. Years of playing experience and cause of spinal injuries (T: tackle, OT: oppose tackle, SC: scrum, R: rack, M: maul, SV: saving, C: other collision; circle was the extracted subgroup by clustering edge betweenness, Modularity Q value = 0.1).

Fig 5

Network analysis revealed that high school players with one or two years of experience tended to suffer from serious head and spinal injuries caused by tackles. Careful consideration for this age would be desired.

Discussion

The study hypothesis was to clarify the fact that the causes of serious rugby injuries such as head injury and spinal cord injury are due to the years of player experience. That knowledge could help to propose practical rules for injury prevention.

A playing experience of 1 year was defined as the period ranging from 1 to 365 days. First year high school students (16 years old) experience first summer camp in approximately 100 days (3–4 months) after their starting day. The inexperienced players are forced to face severe physical contacts with opponents with large differences in physique and experience. Many team players who participate in national competitions have more than 10 years of experience. These teams and teams including inexperienced players play against each other during summer camps or national competition qualifiers in the Autumn. There is no doubt that the so-called mismatch situation would be one of the causes of serious injuries [34,35].

Based on the findings of this study, it is an urgent issue to construct special guidelines that would consider the mismatch in cross-age and cross-body size of players. Previous studies on rugby injury also mentioned the difference in physique concerning serious injury [1,2]. Our study suggests that we should consider introducing rules that prohibit head-on collisions in youth inexperienced rugby players. Such specific rules could be developed in collaboration with medical, refereeing, technical and coaching experts. The injury prevention guidelines would also signalize the attention of governments (Japan Sports Agency, Japan Sports Council) and elite rugby organizations (World Rugby) in terms of sports policies that can prevent these serious injuries.

The numbers of female rugby players are also increasing. The empirical study to prevent serious injuries to female players is also urgent. Our study of female rugby players suggested that serious injuries at the lower leg, especially the knee joint that is unique to female athletes, as well as head injuries including concussion [3].

With the aim of acquiring valuable knowledge from data with a graph structure, we performed graph mining [33]. The approaches include frequent pattern detection [36], structure prediction [37], extraction of subgraphs that extract dense nodes (such as subgroup extraction), and calculation of node importance. Among them, it is important to identify closely related communities from network graphs by subgroup extraction and to find highly influential nodes [33].

The closer the modularity Q value is to 1, the more appropriate the cluster is divided. There were few graphs close to 1 in this study. Whether this is due to the number of data or different factors would be a future task. The value of 0.5 (Fig 1) was a relatively good clustering, which leads to some persuasive considerations. However, even if the modularity values were less than 0.5, those graphs might be useful findings, suggesting structures of serious injury processes in young rugby players.

This study examined the cause of serious injuries with a bipartite graph. However, in order to consider the relational structure more deeply, multi-stage analysis would be required in the future. In addition, discussion on injury reporting methods in each country seems to be an urgent issue. Serious injury occurs in other ball games and martial arts sports. Cross-sectional study, including specific injury prevention methods, would also be important.

The aim of this study was not to scare young individuals of the possible injuries that could occur when playing rugby because it may be a dangerous sports activity, but it was our goal to design a positive system by sharing information networks structure that for a safer playing environment.

This study has several limitations. First, the small number of data would be a limitation of a one-country study. In the future, collaborative study with foreign countries would be necessary. To unify the data collection methods, it would be necessary to resolve the differences in sports insurance systems in each country. Second, there were causes of injuries that were difficult to determine [34,35], and specifying which situation caused the injury is also difficult to determine. Third, it is also deeply involved with the insurance system. Despite these limitations, our data using more than 14 years of longitudinal data could contribute in preventing serious injuries in rugby players.

Conclusion

Younger and inexperienced rugby players tended to suffer from serious injuries. Our 14-years (2004–2018) longitudinal data showed that approximately 20 cases of serious injuries occurred in one year. 48 head injuries in 14 years divided 28 subdural hematoma, 5 fracture, 5 acute epidural hematoma, 5 intra cerebral hemorrhage/cerebral contusion, 2 cerebral infarction/cerebrovascular accident, and 3 others. 35 of the 48 (76%) were inexperienced players. 54 Spine cord injuries in 14 years divided 13 fracture dislocation, 13 central cord, 12 spinal cord, 6 cervical spinal cord, 4 vertebral fracture, 4 dislocation of spine, and 2 others. 43 of the 54 (80%) were inexperienced players. Causes of injury were “head to ground”, “head to head”, “head to leg”, “head to the opponent’s body part”, “head under the opponent’s body”, and others. The play styles were own tackle, oppose tackle, ruck (a one-on-one situation), other collision not categorized as above, saving (hold the ball on the ground), and other or unknown.

In the bipartite graph of age, years of experience and injury symptoms obtained from 14 years’ data, the edge-betweenness centrality network analysis could be an effective method for understanding occurrence structure. Our study suggests that we should consider introducing rules that prohibit head-on collisions in youth rugby.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Initials of the authors who received JSPS KAKENHI grant Number 16K01658(2016-2018) and 19K11549(2019-2021).

References

  • 1.Japan Rugby Football Union. Rugby serious injury report. 2004–2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fuller CW, Brooks JH, Kemp SP. Spinal injuries in professional rugby union: a prospective cohort study. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2007: 17(1): 10–16. 10.1097/JSM.0b013e31802e9c28 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Silver JR. The impact of the 21st century on rugby injuries. Spinal Cord. 2002: 40(11): 552–559. 10.1038/sj.sc.3101349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sasaki K, Watanabe I, Yamamoto T, Yamashita S, Tanaka A, Okuwaki T. An empirical study of Japanese women's rugby injury 2016. Japanese Journal of Rugby Science. 2017: 28(1): 56–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Warner S, Bowers MT, Dixon M. Team dynamics: a social network perspective. Journal of Sport Management. 2012: 26(1): 53–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sasaki K, Yamamoto T, Komatsu K, Ueno Y, Katsuta T, Kono I. Cognitive societal human values of sports: after the 2011 disaster of Japan. Social Sciences. 2013: 2(1): 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sasaki K, Yamamoto T, Murakami J, Ueno Y. Defense performance analysis of rugby union in Rugby World Cup 2011: network analysis of the turnover contributors. Performance Analysis of Sport. 2013: IX: 94–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Junker BH, Schreiber F. Analysis of Biological Networks. Hoboken (NJ): John & Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sanz-Leon P, Knock SA, Spiegler A, Jirsa VK. Mathematical framework for large-scale brain network modeling in The Virtual Brain. NeuroImage. 2015: 111: 385–430. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Suzuki T. Network Analysis. Tokyo (JPN): Kyouritsu Shuppan; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sasaki K, Yamamoto T, Watanabe I, Katsuta T, Kono I. Athletes’ pride bridge: network centrality analysis to clarify the societal values of sports after the 2011 disaster in Japan. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal. 2019: 6(2): 440–450. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Newell P, Timmons R. The Globalization and Environment Reader. Hoboken (NJ): Blackwell Publishing; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pereira VH, Gama MCT, Sousa FAB, Lewis TG, Gobatto CA, Manchado-Gobatto FB. Complex network models reveal correlations among network metrics, exercise intensity and role of body changes in the fatigue process. Scientific Report. 2015: 5: 10489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hambrick ME. Social Network Analysis in Sport Research. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Putnam RD. Bowling alone. Simon and Schuster; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Duch J, Waitzman JS, Nunes Amaral LA. Quantifying the performance of individual players in a team activity. PLoS One. 2010: 5(6): e10937 10.1371/journal.pone.0010937 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Passos P, Davis K, Araujo D, Paz N, Minguens J, Mendes J. Network as a novel tool for studying team ball sports as complex social systems. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2011: 14: 170–176. 10.1016/j.jsams.2010.10.459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Yamamoto Y, Yokoyama K. Common and unique network dynamics in football games. PLoS One. 2011: 6(12): e29638 10.1371/journal.pone.0029638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sasaki K, Yamamoto T, Miyao M, Katsuta T, Kono I. Network centrality analysis to determine the tactical leader of a sports team. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 2017: 17(6): 822–831. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shalley CE, Perry-Smith JE. The emergence of team creative cognition: the role of diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2008: 2(1): 23–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zuo XN, Ehmke R, Mennes M, Imperati D, Castellanos FX, Sporns O, et al. Network centrality in the human functional connections. Cereb Cortex. 2011: 22(8): 18621875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ramos J, Lopes RJ, Araújo D. What’s next in complex networks? Capturing the concept of attacking play in invasive team sports. Sports Medicine. 2018: 48(1): 17–28. 10.1007/s40279-017-0786-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Faust K. Centrality in affiliation network. Social networks. 1997: 19(29: 157–191. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fruchterman TMJ and Reingold EM. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software-practice and Experience. 1991: 42(11): 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Newman M and Girvan M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks, Physical Review. 2004: E 69, 026113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Girvan M and Newman M. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America. 2002: 99 (12) 7821–7826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nakaminami T, Nakayama S, Kobayashi S and Yamaguchi H. Ulnerability assessment of emergency transportation road network based on eigenvalue analysis. Civil engineering. 2018: 74(5) I_1141–I_1148. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hayashi T, Akiba T, Yoshida Y. A fast metrics for computing edge-betweenness centrality in dynamic network. DEIM (Data Engineering and Information Management) Forum. 2015: E3–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pons P, Latapy M. Computing communities in large networks using random walks. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications. 2006: 10(2): 191–218. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Clauset A, Newman MEJ, Moore C. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E. 2005: 70(6): 066111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ahn YY, Bagrow JP, Lehmann S. Link communities reveal multiscale complexity in networks. Nature. 2010: 466(7307): 761–764. 10.1038/nature09182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Reichardt J, Bornholdt S. Statistical mechanics of community detection. Physical Review E. 2006: 74(1): 016110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Iida Y, Kishimoto Y, Fujiwara Y, Shiokawa H, Onizuka M. Finding communities and ranking for large-scale graphs—fast algorithms and applications. AI. 2014: 29(5): 472479. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bleakley C, Tully M, O’Connor S. Epidemiology of Adolescent Rugby Injuries: A Systematic Review. Journal of Athletic Training. 2011: 46(5): 555–565. 10.4085/1062-6050-46.5.555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.McIntosh AS, McCrory P, Finch CF, Wolfe R. Head, face and neck injury in youth rugby: incidence and risk factors. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2010: 44(3): 188–193. 10.1136/bjsm.2007.041400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Inokuchi A, Washio T, Motoda H. An Apriori-Based Algorithm for Mining Frequent Substructures from Graph Data. Heidelberg (Berlin): Springer. 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kashima H. Prediction of network structure. AI. 2007: 22(3): 344–351. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Filipe Manuel Clemente

6 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-24936

Who suffers from serious injuries among rugby players? Clarifying the structure of rugby injury through a network edge-betweenness centrality approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Sasaki,

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.

Despite the recognized merit of the article, the reviewers suggest some changes mainly in the methods, results, and discussion. I do believe that the article may benefit from a major revision.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Filipe Manuel Clemente, PhD

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should remain as separate "supporting information" files

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 6 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The title is not quite understandable.

The article is very interesting and the use of the network theory could enlightening the interactions of all the variables.

On the other hand, the introduction lacks on focusing the key constructs and does not tackle adequately why using network theory and specifically betweenness centrality. It is too much generalised and focusing on things that does not have relevance for the topic.

The subsection Network Analysis title is repeated in the results, and in the first part it does not explain why using bipartite networks, betweenness centrality (after referring clustering and random walks). This subsection is quite confusing on the relevance of the methods and metrics chosen.

In the section Statistical Analysis, the results does not seem to follow a sequence, repeating the subsection of Network Analysis.

In the Discussion section, there is some information text should be on the method section (e.g. lines 283-285, 300-305, 306).

The conclusion section does not reflect the importance of the study, regarding suggestions and future changes of the rules of the game. Its also confusing on the structure.

Reviewer #2: Congratulations of the paper, due to its relevance, scope, and methodology. However, in order for it to be published I believe it requires two things:

1 - Although the quality of written language is reasonable, it could benefit largely from a revision from a native speaker. The text is understandable, but sometimes difficult to follow. There are also many repetitions and some confusing sentences.

2 - The authors should advance proposals - even if speculative - to circumvent what is occurring with the younger and/or less experienced players. What can be done to improve the situation and make them less exposed to such injuries? Could potential rules changes help? Again, even if speculative, it could provide working ideas for concerning parties, as well as generate interesting and novel prospective studies.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript entitled “Who suffers from serious injuries among rugby players? Clarifying the structure of rugby injury through a network edge-betweenness centrality approach” addresses the usefulness of social network analysis as an effective method for analysing the occurrence structure of rugby league injuries. For achieving this purpose was employed a network centrality analysis of 14-year (2004-2018) longitudinal data in Japan. Thus, a network bipartite graph and subgroup (cluster) analysis were performed to clarify the injured players' experience and the cause of injury. The paper highlights the applicability of social networks as a suitable tool for analysing injuries in rugby league. The topic of the paper is relevant and adequate for this journal. However, some issues must be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

The manuscript has the following strong points:

- The topic of the paper is relevant and provides a novel way of using network analysis to analyse injuries in rugby, which can also be extended to other team sports;

- The paper readability is in general good and does not have grammar or spelling mistakes.

The manuscript has the following weak points:

- The abstract is very poor. The authors do not refer the methods and/or statistical procedures used for analysing the data, and do not provide any results;

- The study has no previous established hypotheses;

- The Introduction section is almost (not to say entirely) directed to the properties of the tool/methods (network analysis) and its applications. It is not clear the real relevance of this research if the authors only focus on the tool. The three first paragraphs of the Discussion section have a strong message regarding the mismatch situations that typically occur in sports performance, and it would be highly relevant to re-write the introduction based, not only on methods, but also on this rationale;

- In the methods section, the authors need to provide more details regarding the underlying procedures of a bipartite graph (definition, methods/algorithms, etc). Which social network software, or other tool (please mention the characteristics of the software or tool) was used to create the bipartite network? How was centrality and edge-betweenness centrality calculated? This is important, because, depending on the software (if such a software was used), each one has its own way to calculate centrality-based indicators;

Moreover, why did the authors chose the edge-betweenness centrality and how it is defined/calculated? There is missing information regarding the modularity Q (how the cluster is divided, cut-off points? Software that was used to calculate (Matlab?), etc);

- The Results section is dense. There are lots of tables which can hinder or even distract readers attention. Is there any way that the authors can combine tables in order to reduce their number? For example, the tables depicting the number of injuries, causes, etc, can be amalgamated in only one table;

- The authors do not mention the aim of their study in the first paragraph of the Discussion section, before starting to discuss their results. Moreover, by defining previous hypotheses there is a need to report if they were or not confirmed. Importantly, the authors need to include more references to support their findings;

- The Discussion section can be enriched by providing a more in-depth examination and discussion concerning the mismatch in cross-age and cross-body size of players. Undoubtedly, these encompass two potent messages for the scientific community that can impact in the way that sports organizations and sports federations organize competitions;

- In the conclusion section please report what type of serious injuries do younger and inexperienced players suffer.

I am looking forward to seeing another version of this paper.

**********

6. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: José Afonso

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 15;15(7):e0235035. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235035.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Mar 2020

In response to the all reviewer's thankful comments, I have significantly modified, tables, 1_introduction, 2_especially in the methods of network analysis, 3_ results (table amendments), 4_discussions and 5_conclusions.

2020321

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_to_ reviewer_ks20200325.docx

Decision Letter 1

Filipe Manuel Clemente

25 May 2020

PONE-D-19-24936R1

Clarifying the structure of serious head and spine injury in youth Rugby Union players

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sasaki,

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 consider the recommendations of reviewer 3 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 09 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Filipe Manuel Clemente, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: General appreciation

The manuscript entitled “Clarifying the structure of serious head and spine injury in youth Rugby Union players.”, intends to clarify the cause of rugby head and spinal cord injuries through a network centrality analysis of 14-year (2004-2018) longitudinal data in Japan. The authors implemented a network bipartite graph and subgroup (cluster) analysis to examine injured players' experience and the caused of injury. The manuscript is in general well written and provides some interesting points with respect to the aim of the authors. The topic of the manuscript is relevant and adequate for the journal. Regardless, there are some issues that still need to be address before the publication can be considered.

The manuscript has the following strong points:

- The manuscript uses longitudinal data and provides an interesting view of how network analysis can be applied to examine rugby head and spinal cord injuries, which can be further extended to other team sports;

The manuscript has the following weak points:

- In the Introduction section, the authors perform a brief literature review regarding the application of the network analysis in different disciplines (economics, physics, social, etc). However, the authors over-emphasise technical aspects of the network analysis and there is little information concerning its applications on team sports like rugby. What does previous research tells us about the application of the network analysis in rugby? Is there any study that have tried to use social networks to examine injuries? What are the common limitations found in previous studies, beyond an over-emphasis on transversal studies than longitudinal?

- In line 70 of the Introduction section the authors report the importance of network dynamics. What is the difference between a static network and a dynamic network? What about this study? It focuses on static networks or dynamic networks? How does network analysis evaluate dynamic networks?

- The authors report that networks can be used to identify global properties of the network (e.g., structures that emerge more often) as well as local properties (identification of individuals who have a key role in the network). But, what about in this study? Typically, the network analysis conceives the individuals as the network nodes and their relationships are commonly evaluate, for example, through ball-passing actions. In this study, what are the nodes of the network and what type of connections are established among nodes. Although it is implicit throughout the manuscript, the authors need to clarify this. Not all readers are familiar with this type of analysis.

- In the Methods section, there are lots of tables and much information. Is there any way of collapsing information from tables in only two or three tables maximum?

- What are the nodes of the network and what are the links? Is this a static or dynamic network? Why using the edge-betweenness centrality? Is there any limitations of this metric? Please clarify this.

- How were the causes of injuries categorized?

- Please report the aim of the study in the first paragraph of the Discussion section.

- The study hypothesis is very general. Are the authors trying to analyse if the occurrence of serious injuries is related with player experience? Please clarify and make it more specific.

- The authors refer: “Quality of experience”. Is it quality of experience or quantity of experience (i.e. accumulated experience according to the number of years playing rugby)?

- In the Discussion section the authors refer that the data could contribute in preventing serious injuries in rugby players. How? Is the authors aim to signalise the attention of governments and elite rugby organizations in terms of sports policies that can prevent these injuries?

Given the aforementioned, it is my recommendation that the manuscript should not be considered for publication in the current form. However, I am looking forward to see another draft of the paper.

**********

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: No

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: PLOS ONE_review.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 15;15(7):e0235035. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235035.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Jun 2020

Dear Reviewer #3

Appreciate for your kind review. I send same file on the response to review.

with very best regards,

Answre to the reviewer

Q. - In the Introduction section, the authors perform a brief literature review regarding the application of the network analysis in different disciplines (economics, physics, social, etc). However, the authors over-emphasise technical aspects of the network analysis and there is little information concerning its applications on team sports like rugby. What does previous research tells us about the application of the network analysis in rugby?

We added next study. Sorry it was related soccer (we could not find Rugby analysis studies)

A. It was considered that there was a central player called a hub in the passing behavior research of a soccer game, and there was a power law there. Furthermore, the hub dynamically switched throughout the game. The difference between dynamic networks and static networks is that the former focuses on the variable and diverse play structures occurring in sports games.[18] (page.5 line.72 )

Q. Is there any study that have tried to use social networks to examine injuries?

We added next study.

A. The factors that play a central role in various physiological parameters during exercise-induced fatigue were clarified by network analysis, and its application to risk management was discussed [13]. (page.4 Line.68 )

Q. What are the common limitations found in previous studies, beyond an over-emphasis on transversal studies than longitudinal?

A. The reason why there are few longitudinal studies would be that the social rules for ethical use of medical diagnosis and for protecting personal information were not sufficiently established. (page.3 line.44 ) 

Q. - In line 70 of the Introduction section the authors report the importance of network dynamics. What is the difference between a static network and a dynamic network?

A. The difference between dynamic networks and static networks is that the former focuses on the variable and diverse play structures occurring in sports games [18]. (p.5 L:74 )

What about this study? It focuses on static networks or dynamic networks? How does network analysis evaluate dynamic networks? - The authors report that networks can be used to identify global properties of the network (e.g., structures that emerge more often) as well as local properties (identification of individuals who have a key role in the network). But, what about in this study? Typically, the network analysis conceives the individuals as the network nodes and their relationships are commonly evaluate, for example, through ball-passing actions. In this study, what are the nodes of the network and what type of connections are established among nodes. Although it is implicit throughout the manuscript, the authors need to clarify this. Not all readers are familiar with this type of analysis.

Nodes of network in this study are player groups (age and years of experience), types of injuries, and play styles that cause injuries (tackle, tackled, scrum, etc.). It clarifies the continuity of what kind of players’ experience years, what kind of play, and what part of body collision caused serious injury. These are the dynamic networks which focus on the diverse play structures occurring throughout rugby game. Although this study would clarify a kind of local properties of networks, it might be considered as global properties by promoting international joint study in the future. (p7, L:119)

- In the Methods section, there are lots of tables and much information. Is there any way of collapsing information from tables in only two or three tables maximum?

We change from 9 tables to 4 tables. (p10: table 1,2, p12:Table3, p14:Table4)

- What are the nodes of the network and what are the links? Is this a static or dynamic network?

Same adobe

Nodes of network in this study are player groups (age and years of experience), types of injuries, and play styles that cause injuries (tackle, tackled, scrum, etc.). It clarifies the continuity of what kind of players’ experience years, what kind of play, and what part of body collision caused serious injury. These are the dynamic networks which focus on the diverse play structures occurring throughout rugby game. Although this study would clarify a kind of local properties of networks, it might be considered as global properties by promoting international joint study in the future. (p7. L.119)

Why using the edge-betweenness centrality? Is there any limitations of this metric? Please clarify this.

A. Edge-betweenness centrality represents the degree of being located in the shortest path bridge between nodes. It was adopted because it would indicate a close relationship among players, injuries, and the causes. The limitation of this metric is that its approximate value may become unstable in case of a large-scale network graph [27, 28]. (p8 L:136)

- How were the causes of injuries categorized?

A.These classification processes were performed by the safety management committee of the Japanese Rugby Football Union. This committee works closely with the medical committee, coaching committee, referee committee, and technical committee in Japanese Rugby Union, cooperates in classification of the cause of injury based on the detailed play situation reported by the team manager and doctor. (p.7 l.112 )

- Please report the aim of the study in the first paragraph of the Discussion section.- The study hypothesis is very general. Are the authors trying to analyse if the occurrence of serious injuries is related with player experience? Please clarify and make it more specific.

We change the sentense under bellow.

A. The study hypothesis was to clarify the fact that the causes of serious rugby injuries such as head injury and spinal cord injury are due to the years of player experience. That knowledge could help to propose practical rules for injury prevention. (p.18 L:300 )

- The authors refer: “Quality of experience”. Is it quality of experience or quantity of experience (i.e. accumulated experience according to the number of years playing rugby)?

We change the sentense

The study hypothesis was to clarify the fact that the causes of serious rugby injuries such as head injury and spinal cord injury are due to the years of player experience. (P18, L:301)

- In the Discussion section the authors refer that the data could contribute in preventing serious injuries in rugby players. How? Is the authors aim to signalise the attention of governments and elite rugby organizations in terms of sports policies that can prevent these injuries?

We added the sentense under bellow.

Our study suggests that we should consider introducing rules that prohibit head-on collisions in youth inexperienced rugby players. Such specific rules could be developed in collaboration with medical, refereeing, technical and coaching experts. The injury prevention guidelines would also signalize the attention of governments (Japan Sports Agency, Japan Sports Council) and elite rugby organizations (World Rugby) in terms of sports policies that can prevent these serious injuries. (p. 19 L:313 )

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answer_for_reviewer20200531.docx

Decision Letter 2

Filipe Manuel Clemente

9 Jun 2020

Clarifying the structure of serious head and spine injury in youth Rugby Union players

PONE-D-19-24936R2

Dear Dr. Sasaki,

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,

Filipe Manuel Clemente, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for their hard work in improving this manuscript. I believe this updated version constitutes a major improvement over previous versions and will provide a solid and relevant contribution for the field of Sports Sciences.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Filipe Manuel Clemente

11 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-24936R2

Clarifying the structure of serious head and spine injury in youth Rugby Union players

Dear Dr. Sasaki:

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. Filipe Manuel Clemente

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_ reviewer_ks20200325.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE_review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answer_for_reviewer20200531.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES