Pain Education in the Management of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The PRISMA protocol that was applied by the authorship represent one of the most significant method for this kind of studies. Also, instead of low number of studies included in the final interpretation , the results and  discussion are cleary represented, so the conclusions are very strong.

The theme reflects one of the most important medical problems from our times, and the systematic literature review shows the efforts from the practitioners during the past decade in this field;

Scientific importance of the study stay in the methods and good interpretation of the data. Low back pain remain an old but new subject for clinical practice, because of the diversity of the pathology. The strong parts of the manuscript are represented by independent evaluation of three from the authors  and the risk assesment used.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your evaluable comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This study is based on a literature review and is substantial and original. It is of real interest for the management of chronic low back pain. 

Nevertheless, the choice of subject is not sufficiently justified.

The method is very complete and is very rigorous, very serious and well presented.

13 articles are selected and presented, which may seem few in comparison with the 2673 identified.

The reading of table 5 is sometimes confusing and the reading of the results as well. The formatting could help the reader in this way.

1 - introduction

The author should quickly explain the principles of the multidisciplinary management of chronic low back pain and the multidimensional deconditioning syndrome.

 

The author should also:

- justify this study from an economic, epidemiological and health point of view,

- specify in a few lines the emergence of cognitive-behavioural therapies

 

2 - Methods

Line 71: give one or more references

“A temporal threshold of persistence of pain equal to or more than 3 months was established to consider low back pain 70 as chronic, according to the literature by most of the authors”.

 

3- Table 5:

-       Table 5 could be presented in landscape format

-       The author should explain the following abbreviations: NT, LDE

-       Louw et al. 2016: indicate the mean age and complete with the standard deviation

-       P Walti et al: “ PAIN: a reduction in pain intensity was recorded both in the experimental group (2.14.1.0-3.5)” the results in brackets are unclear

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank your for your evaluation and suggestions. 

Here you will find a point-by-point answers.

Q1: The author should quickly explain the principles of the multidisciplinary management of chronic low back pain and the multidimensional deconditioning syndrome. 
A1: Thanks for the suggestion

Q2: justify this study from an economic, epidemiological and health point of view, 
A2: Thanks for the suggestion

Q3: specify in a few lines the emergence of cognitive-behavioural therapies 
A3: Thanks for the suggestion

Q4: Line 71: give one or more references
A4: Done 

Q5: Table 5 could be presented in landscape format
A5: Thanks, totally agree. We tried it but it is still confusing. Hopefully  the editing service will optimize that 

Q6: Louw et al. 2016: indicate the mean age and complete with the standard deviation 
A6: Standard deviation is not reported in the article

Q7:PAIN: a reduction in pain intensity was recorded both in the experimental group (2.14.1.0-3.5)” the results in brackets are unclear 

A7: Thanks, hope now is more clear Q8: The author should explain the following abbreviations: NT, LDE 
A8: Thanks, done.

Best regards

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I had the pleasure of revising the article entitled "pain education in the management of patients with chronic low back pain. A systematic review".

The article shows a complete literature review on a topic of particular interest to the journal.

The methodological part is well described, following the indications of the authors. The tables (n 5 in particular) in the attached version are difficult to read, but the editing service will optimize them. The tables include all critical information and are complete.

The discussion is adequate, as are the conclusions, by critically considering the limitations of existing publications.

Here are just a few minor revisions that I suggest:

introduction: starts with the number 2 should be 1. also, reviewing the notes for authors

-in the exclusion criteria, I would eliminate the first point (duration) as it is already reported in line 69-70 (or remove it from there).

- line 131 is correctly reported as an abbreviation for the level of evidence (LOE), but tables 4 and 5 use LDE.

- in multiple bibliographies (see, for example, line 191), put 2 square brackets; I ask the editor to check if it is correct; in my opinion, better [1,2,3,4] or [1-6]

Apart from these minor corrections, the structure of the work appears worthy of publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

thank your for your comments and evaluation.

Here you will find a point-by-point answers:

Q1: - in multiple bibliographies (see, for example, line 191), put 2 square brackets; I ask the editor to check if it is correct; in my opinion, better [1,2,3,4] or [1-6] 
A1: Thanks. We can easily modify it as you and the editor suggest 

Q2: introduction: starts with the number 2 should be 1. also, reviewing the notes for authors 
A2: Thanks, Done 

Q3: line 131 is correctly reported as an abbreviation for the level of evidence (LOE), but tables 4 and 5 use LDE. 
A3: Thanks, we replaced LDE with LOE 

Q4: in the exclusion criteria, I would eliminate the first point (duration) as it is already reported in line 69-70 (or remove it from there). 
A4: Thanks, done Reviewer 3