Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ponco Birowo; Ervandy Rangganata; Nur Rasyid; Widi Atmoko

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244295

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 29, 2020
16 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves, Editor PONE-D-20-28346 Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Birowo, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 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, Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves 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. 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. 3. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works. - https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/972601/ We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work. We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. [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: Partly ******** 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: In this study, the authors aimed to assess the efficacy and safety profile of ESWT for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis. After reading this manuscript, I've found a few aspects that are a matter of concern. Very few studies have been considered to support the final assumptions concerning the consensus on a dose of ESWT. The authors should also take some caution regarding Pain Domain conclusions. Reviewer #2: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of ESWT for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis. In general, the English language should be improved and errors corrected. After their research, authors analyzed the results of 3 papers only. Discussion does not add relevant data to what is mentioned in results. Other comments: Abstract - Please detail some search engines used in this MS and period of study Keywords: Please add “Chronic pelvic pain syndrome” Introduction: This section must be more robust, making an upto date of the literature. In addition, please detail and rephrase aims of study, since some papers are available on ESWT treatment. A quick search showed the following papers: Polackwich AS, Shoskes DA. Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a review of evaluation and therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Jun;19(2):132-8. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.8. Clemens JQ, et al., Research Network Study Group. Urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome: insights from the MAPP Research Network. Nat Rev Urol. 2019 Mar;16(3):187-200. doi: 10.1038/s41585-018-0135-5. DeWitt-Foy ME et al., Management of Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Jan;5(1):2-4. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.08.027. Magistro G, et al., Contemporary Management of Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome. Eur Urol. 2016 Feb;69(2):286-97. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.061. Rayegani SM, et al., Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Combined with Drug Therapy in Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome : A Randomized Clinical Trial. Urol J. 2020 Mar 16;17(2):185-191. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4673. Zhang ZX, et al. Efficacy of Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. Am J Mens Health. 2019 Jan-Feb;13(1):1557988318814663. doi: 10.1177/1557988318814663. Database Searching and Literature Screening: The searching process of these data …. Results: Is this analysis based on three studies only? Which parameters were used to qualify two of those studies as good quality? Table 3 is expendable, since data are included in Table 4. Please correct errors in the footer of Table 4. Discussion: Please start discussion section with the paragraph: “The present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and safety profile of ESWT in the management of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis based on NIH classification. A randomized clinical trial is the best study design to evaluate such type of study. This meta-analysis included three randomized clinical trial studies, all of which were conducted with a treatment arm and a sham arm”. Please include references on non existed consensus exists on the mechanism of ESWT on CPPS. Please discuss other therapeutic startegies since a number of studies suggest a multimodal therapeutic approach. ****** 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:** Maria de Lourdes Pereira [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244295.r001
Revision 1
2 Nov 2020 Author Response Response to Reviewers Submission ID: PONE-D-20-28346 Title : Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Editor, Reviewer 1, and Ms./Mrs. Maria de Lourdes Pereira Thank you for taking the time to read our article and provide feedback on improving it. We have made quite a lot of changes in our article, and these are some point we would like to enclose regarding the comment that editor and reviewers have given: Editor: “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…” According to the template given, we have made an update regarding our article style, including the file naming. “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” Thank you for the suggestion given. We thought that the pictures and tables in our main article are sufficient to support our article; thus, we neither consider adding additional figures nor tables as Supporting Information. “Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works.” We have updated the sections that overlap with the previously published article. We apologize for this negligence; we will try to be more thorough before submitting the article. Reviewer 1: “Very few studies have been considered to support the final assumptions concerning the consensus on a dose of ESWT.” There are only a few studies available that discuss ESWT dosage. Thus, we also include this within the limitations of our study. The dose-response gradient cannot be assessed given that all included studies had the same dose of ESWT. “The authors should also take some caution regarding Pain Domain conclusions.” The pain domain after 12 weeks was the only outcome that had significant heterogeneity (92%). Therefore, we tried to analyze the effect size using the random-effects model. In this analysis, we found significantly lower results in the intervention group. However, this high heterogeneity may lead to less precise results, especially with the small number of studies in our meta-analysis. Thus, we also include this within the limitations of our meta-analysis. Reviewer 2: “In general, the English language should be improved and errors corrected.” We would like to thank you for the feedback given. We have made several changes in our article. We also have tried our best to improve grammatical stuff in our article. We are looking forward for any comment regarding these revisions. “Abstract - Please detail some search engines used in this MS and period of study Keywords: Please add “Chronic pelvic pain syndrome” Corrected “Introduction - This section must be more robust, making an upto date of the literature. In addition, please detail and rephrase aims of study, since some papers are available on ESWT treatment.” Changed “Results: Is this analysis based on three studies only? Which parameters were used to qualify two of those studies as good quality? Table 3 is expendable, since data are included in Table 4. Please correct errors in the footer of Table 4.” This analysis has made based on three studies available only. We used Jadad scale and Cochrane Risk Bias tools to assess the quality of these studies. We have expended the Table 3, and add a row in Table 4 informing the quality of study (Jadad scale score). “Discussion: Please start discussion section with the paragraph: “……… Please discuss other therapeutic startegies since a number of studies suggest a multimodal therapeutic approach.” Corrected. We also have added some discussion regarding the multimodal therapeutic strategies. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244295.r002
2 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves, Editor PONE-D-20-28346R1 Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Birowo, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Jan 16 2021 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, Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves 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 #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: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: The revised version has been improved. From my point of view the explanation regarding pain domain should be in the manuscript. Reviewer #2: The authors made a set of changes previously suggested, and also included some references, which improved the MS. ****** 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:** Maria de Lourdes Pereira [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244295.r003
Revision 2
6 Dec 2020 Author Response Response to Reviewers Submission ID: PONE-D-20-28346 Title : Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Editor, Reviewer 1, and Ms./Mrs. Maria de Lourdes Pereira Thank you for taking the time to read our article and provide feedback on improving it. We have made quite a lot of changes in our article, and these are some point we would like to enclose regarding the comment that editor and reviewers have given: Reviewer 1: “The revised version has been improved. From my point of view the explanation regarding pain domain should be in the manuscript.” Thank you for the feedback has been given. We have added a brief additional explanation regarding the pain domain that we have found in this study, specifically in the discussion section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244295.r004
8 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves, Editor Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-20-28346R2 Dear Dr. Birowo, 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, Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244295.r005
Formally Accepted
14 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves, Editor PONE-D-20-28346R2 Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Birowo: 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. Marco Aurélio Gouveia Alves Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244295.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .