Comparison of Spine–Pelvis Kinematics Variability during Sit-to-Stand and Stand-to-Sit in People with & without Chronic Low Back Pain: A Vector Coding and Statistical Parametric Mapping Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  This study aimed to compare the variability of spinal-pelvic coordination during sit-to-stand in 15 people with and without LBP. Some changes would improve the quality:

ABSTRACT

·      The abstract needs to be improved. the method is unclear, the results are not complete and the conclusion does not respond to the objective

·      The coordination patterns and the variability of the upper trunk, lower trunk, lower back, and 19 pelvis were calculated using the modified vector coding method. (this must be clafied. i.e how?)

·      " kinematics co-ordination even in the upper parts of the spine during sit-to-stand"  how?

INTRODUCTION

·      lines 32 - 39 can be summarized for better clarification.

·      ref for LBP epidemiology is needed

·      the stat of art  for Sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit  is not well described.  Authors said that it has “ been considered by researchers due to their effect on LBP [5] “, but what are the main findings, and how these papers studied the theme (methods, variables measured). This systematic review, for example, was not considered

 

Kinematic Characteristics of Sit-to-Stand Movements in Patients With LowBack Pain: A Systematic Review.

Sedrez JA, Mesquita PV, Gelain GM, Candotti CT.

 

·      The concept of  “coordination” must be better described. How to measure it, for this test sit to stand, for example?

·      The aim is confusing and its missing the hypothesis. What do you expect?

 

 

METHODS

·      Sample size calculation is not clear?  Which data you entered for the expected mean, and deviation to achieve 10 for group?

·      Pain scale was considered for inclusion criteria

·      Experimental setup  needs to be improved. Please include a figure of the marker positions, cameras, chair, etc.

·      Data processig and analysis needs to be improved. Please include a figure of raw data of one subject and how the variables were extracted from it

·      UT/LT, LT/LB, LB/Pelvis coordination also need clarification. We are unaware and unable to reproduce the same methods. Please include a step by step on how you got all this varibles.

 

DISCUSSION

·      Discussion may start with the hypoithisis , stating if you accepeted or rejected it, based on the results.

·      Then you should summarize the main results, and after that you start the topics

·      “The results of the current study in light of those from previous studies can indicate 221 that while ROM data, may not differ between groups other kinematics parameters like  coordination and coordination variability may differ between LBP and healthy people 3 which warranted further investigation. “  this must come in the beggining

·      Comparison of coordination patterns between groups . please better summiruze the differences you found between groups. i.e ;they  tried to extend their lower trunk while their upper 256 trunk is in flexion?  Maybe in results, you should add a biomechanical figure of the different patterns (not only the graphics)

·       

CONCLUSION

·      Conclusion may be re- written around the hypothesis. 

·      “The result of the cur-  rent study is in line with the previous observations on the effect of low back pain on co-ordination and coordination variability during different activities of daily like walking, running, sitting, and standing [48], [50], [51], [58]. “  this must be removed.

·      “LBP can alter kinematics coordination patterns even in the upper parts of the spine during sit-to-stand. “  how?

 

·      “people with low back pain show more coordination variability 302 during sit-to-stand to find an optimal pain-free pattern ( you cannot state it)..

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive reviews and we appreciate their comments on our manuscript. We have now addressed all the reviewer’s comments in the attached file and have revised our manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the changes in our manuscript in blue highlight.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Generally, the study concerns an important problem of low back pain among adults and its effect on spino-pelvis coordination during daily movements.

A minor review is needed. You can find a more detailed review below.

Introduction section

1.      Line 35: I propose to add more relevant literature.

2.      Line 35: chronic low back pain - You should use the abbreviation CLBP. The first time this abbreviation should be used at this point. This abbreviation appears in the tables and is not explained below the table. The abbreviation first appears on line 205. There is no abbreviation on line 230. It should be corrected.

Methods section

1.      Lines 97-98: An eight-camera Vicon motion capture system and a multi-segmental model were 97 used to track movement in the upper spine, lower spine, and lower back. And not the pelvis?

2.      In the abstract there is information about 4 markers. In the methods section, this information is missing. Where were these markers located? This information should be in the text.

3.      Lines 126-128: What is that scale? Is it the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)? Was the reliability and validity of this scale assessed? You should provide more information. I propose to add more relevant literature.

4.      Lines 82-83: Using G-power software, the number of subjects was estimated. What should be the minimum total number of subjects? You should include it in the text.

5.      Line 135: The Oswestry Disability Index – The abbreviation should be corrected to ODI (not DOI). I propose to add more relevant literature.

6.      Statistical analysis: There is no information that the parameters were described using basic descriptive statistics measurements for quantitative variables.

Results section

1.      In Table 1 is mean ±SD, in Table 2 is AVE ±Stdev – It should be corrected.

2.      All figures are not clear (some parts are blurred and the font of the text is too small).

Discussion section

1.      There is no reminder of the purpose of this study.

2.      Lines 290-291: This finding is inconsistent with the results of studies [13], [43], [44] and it was in line with the results of studies [45], [54]. – This sentence should be corrected.

3.      Lines 204, 295: None Specific. Do you mean “non specific”?

Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017 Feb 18;389(10070):736-747. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9. 

Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2012 Feb 4;379(9814):482-91. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60610-7.

4.      Line 299: should be “activities of daily living”

References

Citations should be standardized: Christie et al. (2016) (line 204), or Galli et al. [36] (line 208), or Peydro et al. (line 206)

 

Technical errors

Check the dots: for example lines 204,205,232

Check letter size: for example lines 50, 89, 204, references no. 30, 52

Other technical errors: for example lines 50, 57

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive reviews and we appreciate their comments on our manuscript. We have now addressed all the reviewer’s comments in the attached file and have revised our manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the changes in our manuscript in blue highlight.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My concerns were addressed

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We addressed your comment about sample size. You can find it in line 106.

Thank you,

Elham Alijanpour.