4000ers of the Alps-So beautiful, so dangerous: An analysis of falls in the Swiss Alps between 2009-2020.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze falls regarding their demographic characteristics, severity, frequency over time, and the localization of injuries while high-altitude mountaineering in the Swiss Alps.
METHODS: Data on fall-related emergencies during mountaineering between 2009 to 2020 from the Swiss Alpine Club central registry were analyzed retrospectively. The variables age, sex, time of occurrence, severity of an event quantified by NACA-Score (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Score), and injury localization were examined descriptively. Changes in injury severity, number of total emergencies, and fatal emergencies over time were analyzed using linear regression models.
RESULTS: Out of 1347 (28.7%) victims of fall-related emergencies, 1027 were men (76.2%) and 320 (23.8%) women. Around 70% of the cases happened during summer in July and August. The mean age was 49.9 ± 14.9 years for men and 51.3 ± 14.4 years for women with no between-sex difference. Higher NACA-Scores were found in men than women (3.6 ± 2.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.6; p < 0.01). Approximately 80% of all victims originated from the countries close to the Alps (Switzerland, Germany, Italy, France, and Austria). There was a slight decrease of total cases (R2 = 0.104) and fatal cases over time (R2 = 0.183). NACA-Scores decreased over time (R2 = 0.168). Likewise, risk aversion decreased over time as the severity of emergencies decreased. Injuries occurred predominantly at the extremities (90%). Out of all cases, 228 fatal emergencies (16.9%) could be identified of which 82 occurred while climbing one of the classic 4000ers.
CONCLUSIONS: The decrease of the number and severity implies that security standards of the average alpinist have in tendency increased. Nevertheless, the high number of emergencies on classic 4000ers implies that despite the potentially improved security standards, many tours on famous mountains still have high requirements in terms of alpine skills.

Introduction

Mountain sports activities enjoy increasing popularity and rising numbers of executants [1-3]. In 2001, the number of tourists visiting altitudes above 2000 m was estimated at 40 million people per year in the Alps and 100 million high-altitude tourists worldwide [1]. For the Swiss Alps, it is assumed that an estimated number of 150,000 persons engage in high-altitude mountaineering per year [4]. Despite the beauty of the Swiss Alps, risks while mountaineering exist despite all technological progress.

The fall is a famous and central cause of death while high-altitude mountaineering [5] and tragedies already started with the first ascent of popular peaks such as the Matterhorn [2, 6]. Seven persons were on the peak, however during the descent four died due to a rope rip [2, 6]. Further tragedies are well known from the large north walls such as the Eiger-Nordwand or the Grandes Jorasses [2, 6]. Today, it is hardly comprehensible with what boldness big walls were successfully completed in the past [2]. At the stand, well-secured with drilled bolts or ice screws, equipped with excellent material and familiar with state-of-the-art safety technology, successfully completing difficult routes is nowadays definitely possible at a lower risk [2]. Nevertheless, falls still have the highest relevance and even top alpinists are not filed against them as for instance the tragedy of Ueli Steck shows [7, 8]. Apparently, the weather was good at the time of the fall and the route was also not known to be technically extremely demanding [7]. It seemed to be a routine exercise for an exceptional alpinist like Ueli Steck [7]. Nevertheless, even the best are not immune to falling and the danger of falls in high-altitude mountaineering is constantly present [2, 7, 8]. In consequence, the prevention of these was repeatedly empathized by the SAC (Swiss Alpine Club) [2].

Difficult parts are now often secured with drill hooks on the classic routes and the technical developments around the use of securing material is continuing enormously while parallel increasing security [2]. Focusing on the effective causes of falls diverse reasons can be mentioned: the breaking out of a rock, a slippery stand or the good grip that simply does not come are just a few causes for falls in the high alps [2]. However, from a systematic point of view, there is, unfortunately, little data on the characteristics of falls while high-altitude mountaineering in contrast to for example mountain hiking [3, 9]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of falls during high-altitude mountaineering in the Swiss Alps between 2009 and 2020.

Materials and methods

Study population

This study included all mountain emergency cases involving high-altitude mountaineering that were documented in the SAC central registry between 2009 and 2020. The registry contains data from the Swiss Air Rescue Service (REGA), Air Glaciers Lauterbrunnen, Air Glaciers Sanenland, Register SAC, KWRO (Kantonale Walliser Rettungsorganisation), Snow and Avalanche Research Institute Davos, and the cantonal police registers. This study was conducted according to the local regulatory requirements respectively the declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its further amendments. Since original data analyzed was anonymous, no consent for participation was necessary and a waiver was obtained by the ethics committee of North-western and Central Switzerland. All data were fully anonymized before we accessed them. The term ‘mountain emergency’ covers all events involving alpinists requiring the help of mountain rescue services and alpinists being affected by subjective and objective mountain hazards [10-12]. This also applies to illnesses and evacuations of uninjured mountaineers. Each mountain emergency included the emergency number used, date, rescue organization, event, place, canton, activity, NACA-Score (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Score), nationality, date of birth, sex, place of residence, coordinates, and a short report (Table 1) [13, 14].

Table 1

NACA-Score (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Score) [13, 14].

NACA 0	No injury or disease.
NACA I	Minor disturbance. No medical intervention is required (e.g., slight abrasion).
NACA II	Slight to moderate disturbance. Outpatient medical investigation but usually no emergency medical measures necessary (e.g., fracture of a finger bone, moderate cuts, dehydration).
NACA III	Moderate to severe but not life-threatening disorder. Stationary treatment required, often emergency medical measures on the site (e.g., femur fracture, milder stroke, smoke inhalation).
NACA IV	Serious incident where rapid development into a life-threatening condition cannot be excluded. In the majority of cases, emergency medical care is required (e.g., vertebral injury with neurological deficit, severe asthma attack, drug poisoning).
NACA V	Acute danger (e.g., third grade skull or brain trauma or severe heart attack).
NACA VI	Respiratory and or cardiac arrest.
NACA VII	Death.

Data preparation

In the first step, all mountain emergencies were classified according to their cause. Cases that occurred due to falls were subsequently analyzed in detail in terms of age, sex, time of occurrence, severity of the event quantified by NACA-Score (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Score), and injury localization. This was followed by a detailed data analysis for the missing entries. For further analyses of age, a substitution method (mean value imputation as missing values were less than five percent) was used [15].

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated for age and NACA-Score for women and men, respectively. To analyze potential differences in age between sexes, a two-sided heteroscedastic t-test was performed. Normality was assessed graphically using quantile-quantile plots. Since NACA-Scores were not normally distributed, a Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze between-sex differences. Changes over time were examined using linear regression with the calculation of the coefficient of determination (R2). Furthermore, the model of risk-bearing proposed by Arrow (16) & Pratt (17) was applied. Starting with a polynomic regression of second degree of NACA-Score over time, the absolute aversion of risk (AAR) = − f’(t)/f”(t) could further be calculated to approximate risk aversion. Analyses were done using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS statistics (Armonk, New York, USA).

Results

Out of 4687 cases of emergencies in the observational period from 2009–2020, a total of 1347 fall-related cases were identified. The distribution of falls over the year showed that emergencies mainly occurred in the summer months (Fig 1). Of this sample, 1,027 (76.2%) were men and 320 (23.8%) were women. The mean age was 50 ± 15 years for men and 51 ± 14 years for women, with no statistical difference between sexes (p = 0.14). Victims of fall-related emergencies originated from Switzerland (49.2%), Germany (18.3%), Italy (5.9%), France (5.3%), Austria (3.7%), the UK (2.7%), the Netherlands (2%), Poland (2.3%), Czech Republic (1.7%), Spain (1%), Belgium (1%), Japan (1%), the U.S. (0.5%), and other countries (3%). Taken together, the countries from the Alps, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, France, and Austria, covered around 85% of all cases. Regarding the severity of the injuries suffered, mean NACA-Scores were significantly different between men and women (3.6 ± 2.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.6; p < 0.01).

Fig 1

Distribution of falls during high-altitude mountaineering throughout the year–around 70% occurred in the two summer months July and August.

A total of 228 fatal fall-related emergencies were detected (16.9% of all fall-related cases) with 195 (85.5%) alpinists being men and 33 (14.5%) women. The mean age was 51 ± 14 for men and 49 ± 14 for women, whereby no statistical difference between sexes was detected (p = 0.37). Victims of fatal emergencies originated from Germany (29.8%), Switzerland (27.6%), Italy (11.8%), France (6.1%), Austria (3.5%), Czech Republic (3.5%), Japan (2.6%), and other countries (2%). Eighty-two fatal events (36.0%) took place at one of the classic 4000 m mountains [18] with 17 (7.5%) at the Matterhorn and 12 (5.2%) at the Bernina.

Data on the injury localization were available for 482 (35.8%) cases. There was a relatively low share of head and trunk injuries of only around 5% each, whereas the upper extremities with close to 50% and lower extremities with around 40% were much more likely to be injured (Table 2).

Table 2

Localization of injuries from 482 (35.8%) emergency cases attributed to anatomical location (multiple choices were possible).

Anatomic region	Body part	n	%
Lower extremities	Foot	115	16.6
n = 289	Ankle	13	1.9
41.80%	Ankle joint	19	2.7
	Shank	30	4.3
	Knee	51	7.4
	Thigh	3	0.4
	Leg	58	8.4
Upper extremities	Finger	11	1.6
n = 330	Hand	25	3.6
47.80%	Arm	228	33
	Shoulder	66	9.6
Trunk	Rip	15	2.2
n = 36	Chest	4	0.6
5,2%	Stomach	5	0.7
	Back	12	1.7
	Spine	2	0.3
Head	Head and face	34	4.9
4.90%
	Total	691	100

Based on the case reports it is to mention that in 971 cases alpinists were not secured by a rope or where falling alone and hold by the companions. Furthermore, pairs of two alpinists were identified in 266 cases, in 67 cases groups of three alpinists, in 22 cases groups of four alpinists and in 21 cases groups of five alpinists or more.

The development of both the number of total cases (R2 = 0.104) and fatal cases (R2 = 0.183) was characterized by a slight decrease over time (Fig 2A and 2B). Furthermore, the severity of emergencies decreased over time (R2 = 0.168) (Fig 2C). Using the concept of Arrow and Pratt [16, 17], we tried to quantify the development of risk aversion over time, whereby stating a direct relationship between severity of an injury and risk aversion. Therefore a polynomial regression of second degree of development of NACA-Score over time was used, yielding NACAt = - 0.01 * time2 + 0.13 * time + 3.20 (R2 = 0.384). In addition, the AAR was 4.1 for the year 2009 and 6.9 for the year 2020. As negative, respectively smaller values imply risk pleasure and positive values risk aversion, it is detectable that risk aversion decreases over time with the average rate per year calculated as: ([AAR (t12) / AAR (t1)]1/12–1) * 100 = 4.3%. To consider, this statement is biased by many factors such as e.g. better training or equipment.

Fig 2

(a) Development of all falls over the observational period (b) Development of fatal falls over the observational period (c) Development of NACA-Score over the observational period. The score indicates the severity of injuries. Abbreviations: NACA-Score, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Score.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to analyze falls during high-altitude mountaineering in the Swiss Alps. The central findings of this twelve-year retrospective analysis were that the majority of accidents happen in the summer months July and August with severe injuries and fatal accidents occurring more frequently in men than women. With 90% of all injuries, the extremities are the most frequently injured body region. Furthermore, there was a slight decrease in both the number of fall-related emergencies and the severity of injuries apparent over the past 12 years. These findings may advance alpine sports epidemiology and form an important basis for fall-related injury prevention in high-altitude mountaineering.

As most tours to the top of 4000ers are absolved best in the summer months [18], the finding indicating a high share of emergencies occurring in these months seems valid and correlates with previous research [19]. It seems hence suggestive that mountain safety campaigns (e.g., sicher-bergwandern.ch) should aim to achieve the highest visibility in these months.

Male sex may be associated with a higher prevalence of both non-fatal and fatal emergencies during mountaineering. This is contrary to the sex distribution seen in non-fatal falls in mountain hikers in the Austrian alps [9]. The well-described elevated risk-taking behavior in males might be one possible explanation [20]. Yet, a possible underrepresentation of female mountaineers could also have impacted the distinct between-sex difference.

The mean age of victims of non-fatal and fatal falls in the current study was around 50 years for both sexes. This is six years lower compared to victims of non-fatal falls during mountain hiking [3] but still 8 years older than the general population of mountain hikers [21]. As cardiorespiratory fitness decreases with advancing age [22], older alpinists may be more easily over-challenged by environmental factors (i.e., pronounced hypoxia, solar radiation, etc.) and difficult trail conditions, posing a greater physiological strain compared to mountain hiking [23]. Advancing age may thus be associated with an increased number of emergencies during mountaineering.

When further focusing on the nationality of victims, the portion of victims with Swiss nationality was markedly smaller in fatal falls compared to non-fatal falls (27.6% vs. 50.0%). This supports the argument that alpinists being unaware of the local terrain are at greater risk for fatal events. It may be assumed that Swiss alpinists have developed a special security sensorium due to due living close to the mountains for their whole life, allowing them to assess mountaineering risks more adequately [10-12].

The location of injuries seems to be important information for the advancement of prevention strategies as well as mountaineering equipment. It was evident from our data that the injuries were relatively evenly distributed between the lower (around 40%) and upper extremities (nearly 50%). The relatively low frequency of head injuries with only 5% might be because nowadays alpinists often wear a helmet. The slightly higher prevalence of injuries at the upper extremities may be explained by the center of gravity predisposing to fall onto the upper extremities or the attempts of alpinists to catch the fall. Consequently, injury prevention should focus on the extremities.

From an epidemiological perspective, analyzing changes in the number of emergencies over time is important to examine whether prevention strategies and advances in mountaineering equipment are successful. Our data indicated a slight decrease of cases over the observational period for both fatal and non-fatal emergencies (Fig 2A and 2B). Furthermore, a decrease in the severity of emergencies was detected over time (Fig 2C). Reasons for these findings could be the higher standard of equipment [2]. This may firstly be due to enhanced personal equipment and secondly better equipment on the routes. Furthermore, the advances in GPS technology which is nowadays used by many alpinists may allow emergency services to act in a faster and more efficient manner. Long search actions with potentially further harming have probably become less likely yielding to a more secure sport in general. Finally, the decreasing number of injuries over time may also reflect the success of ongoing injury prevention campaigns.

Interestingly, the mean NACA-Score of men was slightly higher compared to women implying more severe injuries in male alpinists. This is supported by findings based on a similar dataset of the Alpine Club of Canada [19]. As mentioned before, the greater risk-taking behavior in men may be associated with the increased injury severity [20]. The fact that a substantially greater percentage of fatal accidents was detected in men versus women, indicating a greater risk aversion in the latter backs this hypothesis.

A significant number of fatal cases occurred at the Matterhorn and the Piz Bernina. When interpreting this finding, it should however be taken into consideration that these mountains are very popular and thus more frequently visited. The likelihood for a fatal accident is in consequence larger. Yet, this argument probably only matters to some extent as a special type of alpinists may attempt to climb these popular mountains with a less developed risk sensorium.

Focusing on the likelihood of an event, it was estimated that 150,000 alpinists are active in the high mountains every year. This implies that around one in a thousand alpinists has an emergency due to a fall [4]. This is a relatively low prevalence rate, but it must be considered that the statistics only include more severe cases that are recovered by the organized emergency organizations [3]. Falls that do not cause the rescue teams to move out are consequently not recorded. The same applies to alpinists who self-refer themselves after a fall to a general practitioner or an emergency department. Another limitation was that reports about the emergencies are commonly short for organizational reasons, not always providing information about e.g., the location of the injury.

Conclusions

To conclude, we found that most falls in mountaineering occur during the summer months. Male sex may be associated with both higher prevalence and severity of fall-related injuries. Advancing age may further have an impact on the prevalence of injuries. The extremities are injured most often and should therefore be moved into the spotlight. Recent efforts for improving mountaineering equipment and creating awareness for hazards in the mountains seem to work out. The findings of the present study have important implications for injury prevention and form a necessary basis for future research examining risk factors for fall-related injuries in mountaineering. Finally, from a practical point of view, we especially encourage male and/or older alpinists to perform adequate planning of the tour under consideration of the individual fitness status.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Nov 2021

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,

Zsolt J. Balogh, MD, PhD, FRACS

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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Thank you for asking me to review this manuscript about an analysis of falls on the 4000 peaks in the Alps. The manuscript is original and has sound statistical analysis. It is easy to read and follow.

However a couple of points must be raised to make this manuscript more meaningful.

1. What other data is collected in the Swiss alpine club registry?

2. Do the authors have data on which mountain, route taken (classic vs modified, difficulty), weather conditions, skill set of mountaineering party (tourist vs experienced), number of people in the mountaineering group vs solo, equipment and safety gear etc.

3. Upgrades done on specific routes, some of the classic routes have minimal drill bolts and only at difficult sections to not take the experience for the mountaineer

4. The anatomic location should be more specific. What do the authors mean by ankle vs ankle joint? Shank? Leg? Maybe something similar to below is more adequate?

a. Foot fractures/injuries

b. Ankle fractures/injuries

c. Tibia and fibula fractures

d. Knee injuries

e. Femur fractures

f. Hip fractures/injuries

g. Pelvic fractures

h. Soft tissue injuries in any lower limb location

5. Similar for upper extremity and trunk. The anatomic location/injury needs to make sense! Arm?

6. How many patients needed hospitalization?

7. How many patients needed an operation?

8. Where they any falls that could have been prevented? No equipment, wrong equipment etc.

Reviewer #2: The article is a simple descriptive study which might allow useful formulation of public policy or approaches to rescue and therapy.

It is worth publishing.

Some of the translation into English should be improved for clarity.

line 58 "absolved " would be better written as "successfully completed"

line 60 "absolving " would be better written as "successfully completing" another option would be the climbing jargon " to summit"

line 223 patients who "self confine" the best English equivalent would be patients who "self present" to general practitioners etc.

In table 2 injuries to the trunk "rip" is not a common medical term. I don't know what that means. It may be a translation for laceration?

In the results section "risk aversion" is discussed. This is a psychological concept and may not explain the decrease in accident and injury rates. The change might be due to better training , better equipment or varying numbers of climbers going up mountains.

**********

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: Dr Conrad Loten

[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.

18 Jan 2022

Point-by-point response to reviewers

We thank the reviewers, for taking the time and providing their thoughtful and important feedback to our manuscript. Please find below the point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. Text in italic are the reviewers’ comments, normal text is our response to the comments, and text in red is what was edited in the manuscript.

To make sure the manuscript is written in a clear, correct, and unambiguous manner, a thorough spelling check was performed. We formatted the manuscript according to the PLOSE ONE style requirements and included an additional statement concerning the anonymity of the analyzed data (L. 89-90). Finally, we specified in the data availability statement, where the minimal data set underlying the results described in the manuscript can be found.

Reviewer 1

Reviewer 1 Comment 1: What other data is collected in the Swiss alpine club registry?

Authors’ response 1: The registry further includes information about the emergency number used to make the call, date, rescue organization, event, place, canton, activity, place of residence, and coordinates. This was mentioned in L. 138-142.

Reviewer 1 Comment 2: Do the authors have data on which mountain, route taken (classic vs modified, difficulty), weather conditions, skill set of mountaineering party (tourist vs experienced), number of people in the mountaineering group vs solo, equipment and safety gear etc.

Authors’ response 2: Thank you for this remark. In some but not all cases, information about weather conditions are available. However, this parameter is not routinely documented and is thus difficult to analyze. Detailed information about the route taken are usually not available. Finally, it is known whether the victims were mountaineering in a group or alone. However, we included an additional comment of the group sizes during mountaineering in the results section in the manuscript (see L. 147-150).

Reviewer 1 Comment 3: Upgrades done on specific routes, some of the classic routes have minimal drill bolts and only at difficult sections to not take the experience for the mountaineer

Authors’ response 3: Thanks for the constructive hint, unfortunately there was no information on that. Some alpinists try to climb something without artificial help whereas other use the drill bolts. Based on my experience, most alpinists use the drill bolts if available.

Reviewer 1 Comment 4 & 5: The anatomic location should be more specific. What do the authors mean by ankle vs ankle joint? Shank? Leg? Maybe something similar to below is more adequate? Similar for upper extremity and trunk. The anatomic location/injury needs to make sense! Arm?

Authors’ response 4 & 5: We appreciate your constructive critique and tried to implement it as good as possible. Some of the short reports written by members of the rescue organizations included only sparse information about the location of the injury not allowing further specification. We mentioned this in Table 2.

Reviewer 1 Comment 6 & 7: How many patients needed hospitalization? How many patients needed an operation?

Authors’ response 6 & 7: Indeed, these data would be valuable. Unfortunately, no information about hospitalization or surgery were available.

Reviewer 1 Comment 8: Where they any falls that could have been prevented? No equipment, wrong equipment etc.

Authors’ response 8: Yes, however this information was very fragmentary and was only available for a small number of case reports. In consequence, we allowed not picking up this point too much.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer 2 Comment 1: The article is a simple descriptive study which might allow useful formulation of public policy or approaches to rescue and therapy. It is worth publishing. Some of the translation into English should be improved for clarity.

Authors’ response 1: Thank you for this remark. We performed a thorough spelling/grammar check of the whole manuscript and believe that the readability has substantially improved.

Reviewer 2 Comment 2, 3 & 4: line 58 "absolved " would be better written as "successfully completed". line 60 "absolving " would be better written as "successfully completing" another option would be the climbing jargon " to summit". line 223 patients who "self confine" the best English equivalent would be patients who "self present" to general practitioners etc.

Authors’ response 2: We changed this accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Comment 5: In table 2 injuries to the trunk "rip" is not a common medical term. I don't know what that means. It may be a translation for laceration?

Authors’ response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We were referring to an injury of the ribs/costae and corrected this mistake.

Reviewer 2 Comment 6: In the results section "risk aversion" is discussed. This is a psychological concept and may not explain the decrease in accident and injury rates. The change might be due to better training , better equipment or varying numbers of climbers going up mountains.

Authors’ response 4: Indeed, it is a psychological concept. We weakened the line of arguments (L150-152) and were reformulating the paragraph. As there might be – however strongly biased – a relationship between severity of an injury and risk aversion we did not delete the paragraph but made in the end another comment concerning a potential bias (L158-159).

Submitted filename: Point-by-point_response.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Mar 2022

4000ers in the Alps – so beautiful, so dangerous - an analysis of falls in the Swiss Alps between 2009-2020

PONE-D-21-24501R1

Dear Dr. Gasser,

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,

Zsolt J. Balogh, MD, PhD, FRACS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you.

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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 #1: All comments have been addressed sufficiently.............................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................All comments have been addressed sufficiently.............................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reviewer #2: (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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Conrad Loten

28 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-24501R1

4000ers of the Alps – So beautiful, so dangerous: An analysis of falls in the Swiss Alps between 2009-2020

Dear Dr. Gasser:

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. Zsolt J. Balogh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE