PONE-D-20-27453

Within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold and mechanical temporal summation in healthy subjects

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Massé-Alarie,

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 17 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,

Alison Rushton

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address the reviewers' comments detailed below.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: 

Comments:

- The authors propose a very interesting study to determine how many measurements provide the best reliability metrics. Thus, the authors presented a well-designed study design, in which they evaluated the minimum change that exceeds the variability of the pressure pain threshold (PPT) technique and the mechanical time sum of pain (TSP) with 3 measures from two tested blocks with a 20-minute break and retest.

- The authors used convenience sampling. Even if it's only for the studied group, the main consequence is to generalize the study. Although it can offer us valuable information in countless circumstances, especially when there are no fundamental reasons that differentiate accessible individuals. The type of sampling for convenience in this study I believe will not introduce bias in relation to the total population, the results obtained can be used for the studied universe (pain in specific sites).

Considerations and one question:

In the item materials and methods, in the description of the gender of the participants (line 92), there is an incoherence of the authors in relation to table 1 (descriptive statistics - line 106). The authors reported 12 females from the 24 participants, in table 1 they report ills (50%). Exclusion criteria are presented for females. Was the study carried out with both? It is not clear. Table 1 must be offset.

-If the study was conducted with females, did they not exclude menstrual periods and menopause? These conditions create pain. Could they interfere with the measurements?

The age range in the age of 18 to 65 years, could generate bias, although it was 28.3 the average age.

Reviewer #2: 

Please provide operational definition for healthy subjects. Clarify the inclusion criteria....the cause/s of pain in the subjects included in the study. Please add discussion about patient characteristics, any influencing factors that could have affected the study result

Reviewer #3: 

The study was purported to determine the absolute and relative intra-rater within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold (PPT) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) and the influence of the sequence of the measurements. Authors established that at least two PPT and three TSP consecutive measures are needed to optimize reliability. The study was well conducted, well written to clearly communicate the results and has added additional evidence to the reliability of pain measurements at the low back and forearm in a healthy population. However, there are a few suggestions to consider to improve the manuscript.

Results

Line 249 – 251: The second sentence seems incomplete. Are the first-two sentences supposed to be linked as one sentence?

Figure 2. The color coding for LES and WF looks identical and difficult to follow. Consider using a different shape(s).

Discussion

Line 344: The sentence “Some methodological limitations derived from the application of the antilog factor” looks incomplete.

Lines 359 – 364. It’s interesting that there are some conflicting outcomes with the first PPT measurement from other studies. It would be great to briefly discuss possible factors in these studies that could have led to the different findings relative to the finding in your study.

**********

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: Yes: Izabel Cristina Custódio de Souza

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[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.

Within-session test-retest reliability of pressure pain threshold and mechanical temporal summation in healthy subjects

PONE-D-20-27453R1

Dear Dr. Massé-Alarie,

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,

Alison Rushton

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for addressing all comments from the reviewers to a satisfactory level.

I hope that you agree the changes have improved the quality of the manuscript further.

Reviewers' comments:

No further review required.