Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure: Protocol for a scoping review of clinical studies

Hye-Bin Seung; Jungtae Leem; Hui-Yong Kwak; Chan-Young Kwon; Sang-Ho Kim

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273131

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 2, 2022
2 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Editor PONE-D-22-21401 Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure: Protocol for a scoping review of clinical studies PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kim, 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 16 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Ph.D. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1F1A105928211). SHK have received this fund. The funding source had no input in the interpretation or publication of the study results. ※ MSIT: Ministry of Science and ICT" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "The authors of this work have nothing to disclose." Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: In relation to the work, which is very thorough, there are minor revisions and adjustments that need to be made. These are indicated by the reviewers' comments. Please do not consider the indications raised by a reviewer in relation to the delivery of results and analysis of these. Now, if there are preliminary results or an approximation to them, it will be very convenient to include them. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: - Should include Web of Science and Scopus databases. - “We will also consider gray literature searches using Google Scholar” → Be specific on the types of documents that will be used in gray literature. - “as well studies that did not use diagnostic criteria” → At least, medical diagnostic will be the minimum to include cases. - “With the exception of East Asian traditional medicine interventions, such as herbal medicine, moxibustion, cupping, and tui-na, any type of control group intervention will be included.” → Explain this exclusion. - Update the PRISMA flowchart to 2020 version. Reviewer #2: Recommendations for authors: Revise verb tenses in the abstract. There are several parts in the manuscript that require english review. The abstract is expected to describe the main results of the study. The conclusion presented in the abstract is not specific to the topic of this study, i.e., Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress 2 disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure. The current conclusion is very generic, and could even be used as a template for any other study, it does not provide a solid conclusion derived from the subject of the review. Regarding the research questions the authors could have incorporated: some questions about (a) theoretical aspects of the research; (b) limitations reported by previous studies, (c) aspects referred to the measurement instruments; (d) the effect size of the interventions. All these questions would be important to incorporate, in order to advance from only a descriptive component of the review and to be able to carry out analyses, for example, of the effectiveness of the interventions. The above, considering the objective specified by the authors in L114 is "We aim to explore the clinical research designs that have been used in studies conducted on acupuncture treatment for war veterans with PTSD." In addition, these questions should be incorporated because the authors state in L164 "Eligibility criteria: study types", that they will especially consider: "Clinical research studies examining the effects of acupuncture in patients with PTSD (military 166 veterans) will be included (see in L165 and L166). The method does not consider the reference databases Wos and Scopus. In the method, specifically in the phase "Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies" (L147) "Information sources" (L148), the authors indicate in lines 156 and L157, that they will consider "The reference lists of the relevant systematic reviews and retrieved articles will be manually searched". At this point, a concern arises about the originality of the work. They should include in the introduction the previous existing systematic reviews on the subject and perhaps make a table with the following information: citation, objective of the previous systematic review, keywords, search period, databases consulted and main results. This would allow understanding the value of the review by clearly identifying the contributions that the authors will make in relation to the objectives and findings of previous reviews. However, in the discussion of the manuscript the authors point out that there are no reviews of this type. This generates an inconsistency in the arguments (see L248 and L249) "there have been no comprehensive reviews of acupuncture therapy for PTSD in military personnel and veterans. Therefore, we will perform the first scoping review." In line 162 the authors point out that there is a supplementary material with "The search terms and strategies are detailed in S1 Supplementary digital content". When downloading this file, in the search algorithm tables, there are only the keywords with their synonyms and the respective booleans used, e.g. OR, AND etc., but there is no syntax for each search, i.e. the filters applied in each database, e.g. disciplinary area. Finally, it is also not specified whether iterations will be performed in each database and with which different combination. This biases the possibility of replicating the study; the keywords and year of search are not enough, since there are multiple possible combinations that are not clarified by the authors. Figure 1 is empty. But, in addition, it is not the latest version of the PRISMA RSL process which were the guidelines on which the authors based themselves as stated in the method. The Flowchart acts only has 3 phases, not 5. Therefore the method is outdated (authors are suggested to revise. https://www.prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram It is necessary to present the results of the review with an exhaustive discussion of each one of them. Only describing a protocol with important limitations that do not allow its replicability is insufficient to contribute to the generation of knowledge in the area. The authors need to make a profound change in the presentation of their manuscript for it to be considered for publication. In its current state, it does not have sufficient complexity and scientific novelty. ****** 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: Fabiola Sáez Delgado ******** [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.0273131.r001
Revision 1
24 Oct 2022 Author Response Response to the Reviewers’ Comments Title: Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure: Protocol for a scoping review of clinical studies Emily Chenette Editor-in-Chief PLOS ONE Dear Editor Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Ph.D: I wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure: Protocol for a scoping review of clinical studies.” The manuscript ID is PONE-D-22-21401. We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the PLOS ONE. The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith/given below. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. � Response to Comments from the academic editor Comment #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 Response #1: Thank you for your comment. I have reviewed manuscript carefully to meet style requirements. I changed some parts (marked in yellow). I delete keywords. And I moved Ethics and dissemination to methods section. “The search terms and strategies are detailed in S1 Table.” “Conclusions” “Supporting information S1 Table. Search terms used in each database. S2 Table. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol* Comment #2: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1F1A105928211). SHK has received this fund. The funding source had no input in the interpretation or publication of the study results. ※ MSIT: Ministry of Science and ICT" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response #2: I added the funders’ role in the financial disclosure. “This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1F1A105928211). SHK has received this fund. The funding source had no input in the interpretation or publication of the study results. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Comment #3: Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "The authors of this work have nothing to disclose." Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response #3: I changed the statement of Competing Interests. I changed the previous statement to this in the cover letter. "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist." [cover letter] “This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal. No ethical approval is needed for our manuscript because data from previously published studies, in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators, will be retrieved and analyzed. We have read and understood your journal’s policies, and we believe that neither the manuscript nor the study violates any of these. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” Comment #4: We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”. Response #4: I provided PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocolas Supporting Information (S2 table). Comment #5: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response #5: I have checked all reference lists. There are no retracted papers. I also have corrected information of some references such as issue and page. Comment #6: Additional Editor Comments: In relation to the work, which is very thorough, there are minor revisions and adjustments that need to be made. These are indicated by the reviewers' comments. Please do not consider the indications raised by a reviewer in relation to the delivery of results and analysis of these. Now, if there are preliminary results or an approximation to them, it will be very convenient to include them. Response #6: Thank you for your careful comment. I prepared the responses to all comments from reviewers as below. � Response to Comments from Reviewer 1 Comment #1: Should include Web of Science and Scopus databases. Response #1: According to your suggestion, I added Wos and Scopus to the searching database of abstract, method section, and Search terms used in each database (S1 Table). Comment #2: “We will also consider gray literature searches using Google Scholar” → Be specific on the types of documents that will be used in gray literature. Response #2: We will also consider gray literature searches such as conference proceedings and doctoral dissertations using Google Scholar.[Page 8] Comment #3: “as well studies that did not use diagnostic criteria” → At least, medical diagnostic will be the minimum to include cases. Response #3: I changed those sentences for clarity as below: “We will include studies that used standardized diagnostic criteria for PTSD (such as those presented in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Classification of Diseases). We will also include studies that used cut-off values from validated PTSD evaluation tools (such as the PTSD Checklist, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale) as the inclusion criteria for participants.” [Page 9] Comment #4: “With the exception of East Asian traditional medicine interventions, such as herbal medicine, moxibustion, cupping, and tui-na, any type of control group intervention will be included.” → Explain this exclusion. Response #4: We want to compare the effectiveness of acupuncture for PTSD management in military veterans with usual conventional therapy (medication or psychotherapy) or sham-acupuncture or wait-list group. Therefore, we have excluded East Asian traditional medicine interventions such as herbal medicine, moxibustion, cupping, and tui-na. Comment #5: Update the PRISMA flowchart to 2020 version. Response #5: I have updated the PRISMA flowchart to 2020 version (S1 Fig) as your comment. � Response to Comments from Reviewer 2 Comment #1: #1. Revise verb tenses in the abstract. Response #1: I revised verb tenses as bellows (marked in yellow): “Methods: ….The study question is as follows…” Comment #2: 2. There are several parts in the manuscript that require english review. Response #2: I have attached the certification of editing for manuscript. I have received extensive editing again for this revision. Comment #3: #3. The abstract is expected to describe the main results of the study. The conclusion presented in the abstract is not specific to the topic of this study, i.e., Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress 2 disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure. The current conclusion is very generic, and could even be used as a template for any other study, it does not provide a solid conclusion derived from the subject of the review. Response #3: Thank you for insightful comment. According to your suggestion, I did re-write the conclusion. “The findings of this scoping review will provide fundamental data that will help researchers identify appropriate research questions and design further studies on the use of acupuncture for PTSD management in military veterans. These results will be helpful for developing disaster site-specific research protocols for future clinical trials on this topic. (marked in yellow).” [page 3, 13] Comment #4: #4. Regarding the research questions the authors could have incorporated: some questions about (a) theoretical aspects of the research; (b) limitations reported by previous studies, (c) aspects referred to the measurement instruments; (d) the effect size of the interventions. All these questions would be important to incorporate, in order to advance from only a descriptive component of the review and to be able to carry out analyses, for example, of the effectiveness of the interventions. The above, considering the objective specified by the authors in L114 is "We aim to explore the clinical research designs that have been used in studies conducted on acupuncture treatment for war veterans with PTSD." In addition, these questions should be incorporated because the authors state in L164 "Eligibility criteria: study types", that they will especially consider: "Clinical research studies examining the effects of acupuncture in patients with PTSD (military 166 veterans) will be included (see in L165 and L166). Response #4: I have incorporated previous research questions as below (marked in yellow): 1. Which clinical research designs were adopted in studies on acupuncture for PTSD management in military veterans? 2. What is the most frequently used type of acupuncture therapy for PTSD management in military veterans? 3. Which clinical outcomes were adopted in previous studies on PTSD management in military veterans? 4. What types of adverse events occurred after acupuncture therapy for PTSD in military veterans? 5. How long should acupuncture treatment be administered for PTSD management? 6. Which populations were the target in previous PTSD acupuncture studies? => 1. What are the characteristics (e.g., research design and target population) of studies on the use of acupuncture for PTSD management in military veterans? 2. Which clinical outcomes were adopted in previous studies on PTSD management in military veterans? 3. What is the regimen of acupuncture therapy for PTSD management in military veterans? 4. What have previous studies reported on with respect to the effectiveness and safety of using acupuncture for treating PTSD in military veterans? [page 7] Comment #5: #5. The method does not consider the reference databases Wos and Scopus. Response #5: According to your suggestion, I added Wos and Scopus in the searching database of abstract and method section (marked in yellow). Information sources We will restrict this review to peer-reviewed studies on acupuncture for PTSD. A literature search will be conducted from inception to June 2022. The following databases will be searched: Medline (via PubMed), Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, [page 8] Comment #6: #6. In the method, specifically in the phase "Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies" (L147) "Information sources" (L148), the authors indicate in lines 156 and L157, that they will consider "The reference lists of the relevant systematic reviews and retrieved articles will be manually searched". At this point, a concern arises about the originality of the work. They should include in the introduction the previous existing systematic reviews on the subject and perhaps make a table with the following information: citation, objective of the previous systematic review, keywords, search period, databases consulted and main results. This would allow understanding the value of the review by clearly identifying the contributions that the authors will make in relation to the objectives and findings of previous reviews. However, in the discussion of the manuscript the authors point out that there are no reviews of this type. This generates an inconsistency in the arguments (see L248 and L249) "there have been no comprehensive reviews of acupuncture therapy for PTSD in military personnel and veterans. Therefore, we will perform the first scoping review." Response #6: To our knowledge, there are no comprehensive reviews regarding this topic. I changed those sentences for clarity as below (marked in yellow): The reference lists of the relevant reviews and retrieved articles will be manually searched". [page 8] Comment #7: #7. In line 162 the authors point out that there is a supplementary material with "The search terms and strategies are detailed in S1 Supplementary digital content". When downloading this file, in the search algorithm tables, there are only the keywords with their synonyms and the respective booleans used, e.g. OR, AND etc., but there is no syntax for each search, i.e. the filters applied in each database, e.g. disciplinary area. Finally, it is also not specified whether iterations will be performed in each database and with which different combination. This biases the possibility of replicating the study; the keywords and year of search are not enough, since there are multiple possible combinations that are not clarified by the authors. Response #7: Thank you for your comment. I added syntax to each search terms of EMBASE and PsycARTICLES (marked in yellow). Comment #8: #8. Figure 1 is empty. But, in addition, it is not the latest version of the PRISMA RSL process which were the guidelines on which the authors based themselves as stated in the method. The Flowchart acts only has 3 phases, not 5. Therefore the method is outdated (authors are suggested to revise. https://www.prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram Response #8: I have updated the PRISMA flowchart to 2020 version (S1 Fig) as your comment. Comment #9: #9. It is necessary to present the results of the review with an exhaustive discussion of each one of them. Only describing a protocol with important limitations that do not allow its replicability is insufficient to contribute to the generation of knowledge in the area. Response #9: Discussion PTSD due to active military combat trauma is very common among military personnel and veterans [2–6]. However, PTSD treatments have many limitations [15–22]. As an alternative, complementary and integrative medicine, including acupuncture, may be considered for the treatment of PTSD [23]. Acupuncture, such as BFA, is widely used for soldiers [27,28]. To date, there have been no comprehensive reviews of acupuncture therapy for PTSD in military personnel and veterans. Therefore, we will perform the first scoping review. Our review will summarize the treatment regimens, participant characteristics, and frequently used outcomes, and will also identify knowledge gaps to assist in the planning of future studies Because acupuncture is a non-psychological and non-pharmacological intervention, it may help overcome barriers to PTSD treatment, such as stigma in the military culture, high costs, and low accessibility to mental health care [37]. The fundamental data obtained in this scoping review will contribute to the designing of future studies that aim to collect evidence on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture-based treatments for PTSD in military veterans. Furthermore, the findings from this review will also be helpful to clinicians who want to use acupuncture to manage PTSD in this population.[Page 12,13] 37. Bisson JI, van Gelderen M, Roberts NP, Lewis C. Non-pharmacological and non-psychological approaches to the treatment of PTSD: results of a systematic review and meta-analyses. European Journal of Psychotraumatology. 2020 Dec 31;11(1):1795361. Comment #10: #10. The authors need to make a profound change in the presentation of their manuscript for it to be considered for publication. In its current state, it does not have sufficient complexity and scientific novelty. Response #10: This study followed the existing scoping review protocol methodology. However, since the subject of this review is a new topic that has not been studied, we hope that the results of review will contribute to conducting novel study in the future. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_20221024.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273131.r002
27 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Editor Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure: Protocol for a scoping review of clinical studies PONE-D-22-21401R1 Dear Dr. Sang-Ho Kim, 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, Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Considering the interesting and novelty of the study protocol, we look forward to the results obtained, which we hope will also be published in PLOS ONE. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273131.r003
Formally Accepted
14 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete, Editor PONE-D-22-21401R1 Acupuncture for military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and related symptoms after combat exposure: Protocol for a scoping review of clinical studies Dear Dr. Kim: 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. Juan-Luis Castillo-Navarrete Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273131.r004

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 .