Next Article in Journal
The Relative Merits of Posterior Surgical Treatments for Multi-Level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Remain Uncertain: Findings from a Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Factors Associated with the Postoperative Healing of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in Patients with Osteoporosis
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Thermal Pain Thresholds Are Significantly Associated with Plasma Proteins of the Immune System in Chronic Widespread Pain—An Exploratory Pilot Study Using Multivariate and Network Analyses

J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(16), 3652; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163652
by Björn Gerdle 1,*, Karin Wåhlén 1, Torsten Gordh 2 and Bijar Ghafouri 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(16), 3652; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163652
Submission received: 11 June 2021 / Revised: 13 August 2021 / Accepted: 16 August 2021 / Published: 18 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Laboratory Medicine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, I would like to thank the editor for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. Secondly, I would like to congratulate the authors for the excellent work done, presenting relevant and deeply detailed findings in their analysis.

1) I am not clear about the inclusion criteria for CWP patients, they should be further specified.

2) 107-111. I think this would be better detailed in the results along with a flow chart of participants included/excluded/missed.

3) Why were CPT and HPT assessed in the trapezius? If patients had different levels of neck pain, could this influence the results?

4) In the introduction and throughout the manuscript the difference between CWP and FM should be clearer, as sometimes the authors seem to refer to the same term, while differentiating it in others.

5) The fact that patients with CWP have lower pain thresholds is an aspect widely reported in the literature. I think the authors should focus on highlighting the rest of their research findings in the discussion and conclusions. In addition, they should try to improve the strengths section of their manuscript, highlighting what novel aspects it provides and what clinical and scientific implications it presents.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

I needed some time to read previous publications because it are complex chemical investigations and statistical analyses.

Remarks of a more clinical point of view :

-the selection of the patient group is according to the Fibromyalgie 1990 ACR criteria, why didn't you use the 2010 or even more recent ACR criteria ?  This could have influenced the homogenity of the group. 

-the experimental group is rather small.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop