Efficacy and acceptability of blue-wavelength light therapy for post-TBI behavioral symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Karan Srisurapanont; Yanisa Samakarn; Boonyasit Kamklong; Phichayakan Siratrairat; Arina Bumiputra; Montita Jaikwang; Manit Srisurapanont

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274025

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 8, 2022
22 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor PONE-D-22-16609Efficacy and acceptability of blue-wavelength light therapy for post-TBI behavioral symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Srisurapanont, 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 Sep 05 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, Tariq Jamal Siddiqi 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 in your Competing Interests section: The authors do not have any conflicts of interest 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. 3. 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. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The authors have conducted a meta-analysis on, "Efficacy and acceptability of blue-wavelength light therapy for post-TBI behavioral symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". In my opinion, the manuscript can be improved by incorporating the following points: 1. The authors have mentioned a very detailed inclusion criteria. However, the manuscript lacks any statement regarding the exclusion criteria 2. More information should be mentioned about WEBPLOTDIGITIZER. Moreover, adding a reference would be ideal. 3. Can the authors add the company names of the software used in the meta-analysis ? 4. It is necessary to cite which trials reported administering BWLT via light box or glass or house lighting. 5. In my opinion, the authors should emphasize on the strengths of this article. The authors need to highlight what are the gaps in the literature that required this study, and that how the results of this review help with filling the gaps in the medical literature. Regarding the "Table 1" :- Overall, the manuscript is very well written and I appreciate that the authors have presented accurate results. However, please note that the table in its current form is very confusing. The table should have proper sections for control/intervention and sample/age/bmi/duration/female or male percentage/characteristics/outcomes. ****** 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 ******** [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.0274025.r001
Revision 1
27 Jul 2022 Author Response Thank you for the valued comments given by the reviewer. They are very much helpful in improving our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and wish to give details on each point of revision in the following statements. In the mark-up copy, the revision points are in red. The pages and paragraphs are also referred to those in the mark-up copy of the manuscript. Please be informed that the cleaned manuscript is for press and has no mark-up inside. 1. The authors have mentioned a very detailed inclusion criteria. However, the manuscript lacks any statement regarding the exclusion criteria • Our response: We have added the following sentence. • Page 5, Paragraph 1: To maintain the data consistency, we excluded the following trials: i) less than 50% of the participants having TBI, ii) light therapy not perceived by the eyes, and iii) concomitant treatment of biological or physical therapy. 2. More information should be mentioned about WebPlotDigitizer. Moreover, adding a reference would be ideal. • Our response: We have added the version and reference #24 of the WebPlotDigitizer. • Page 6, Paragraph 3: We extracted the data from published articles and,…WebPlotDigitizer, version 4.5 [24]. • Reference #24: Rohatgi A. WebPlotDigitizer. Pacifica, California, USA; 2011. Available: https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer 3. Can the authors add the company names of the software used in the meta-analysis ? • Our response: We have added the company names of the software used in the meta-analysis. • Page 8, Paragraph 3: All analyses were performed in the R Program (version 4.2), R Foundation for Statistical Computing [36]. 4. It is necessary to cite which trials reported administering BWLT via light box or glass or house lighting. • Our response: We have added citations after each device. • Page 9, Last paragraph & Page 10, Paragraph 1: Devices used to administer light therapy were lightboxes (4 trials) [22,26,39,41], face-mounted device resembling glasses (1 trial) [40], and house lighting (1 trial) [38]. 5. In my opinion, the authors should emphasize on the strengths of this article. The authors need to highlight what are the gaps in the literature that required this study, and that how the results of this review help with filling the gaps in the medical literature. • Our response: We have added a paragraph to emphasize the strength of this article. • Page 20, Paragraph 2: This meta-analysis included the largest number of RCTs examining the benefits of BWLT for post-TBI behavioral symptoms. While the previous results were mixed and inconclusive, the results of this meta-analysis seemed to clarify at least two points: i) BWLT had a large treatment effect in reducing depressive symptoms (moderate certainty), and ii) BWLT had a moderate traetment effect in relieving sleep disturbance (low certainty). These results should be helpful for research and treatment planning in this area. 6. Regarding the "Table 1" :- Overall, the manuscript is very well written and I appreciate that the authors have presented accurate results. However, please note that the table in its current form is very confusing. The table should have proper sections for control/intervention and sample/age/bmi/duration/female or male percentage/characteristics/outcomes. • Our response: We have extensively revised Table 1 accordingly to the reviewer’s comment • Page 11-12: Please see Table 1. Remark Please be informed that we have added three sentences to inform about the trials with two and three arms that included in this study Page 9, Paragraph 3: Of the six trials, one had three arms of BWLT (n = 10), LWLT (ambient light therapy) (n = 10), and NLT (n = 10) [26]. The data of LWLT and NLT groups of this three-arm trial were combined as a control group. The other five trials had two arms comparing BWLT and LWLT/NLT. Thank you for your consideration. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274025.r002
16 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor PONE-D-22-16609R1Efficacy and acceptability of blue-wavelength light therapy for post-TBI behavioral symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Srisurapanont, 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 Sep 30 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, Tariq Jamal Siddiqi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: I appreciate and thank the authors for their significant contribution and for submitting a revised draft. All the previous comments have been addressed. However, my concerns remain regarding the strengths of the findings. The authors need to improve the paragraph they have added regarding the strengths of the manuscript: - They can improve by telling how these findings help in clinical practice. - Further emphasis on how these findings translate into improved prognosis and management of post traumatic brain injury patients. - Additionally, they may also discuss briefly about how these findings help in improving the current guidelines and recommendations. ****** 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 ******** [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.0274025.r003
Revision 2
17 Aug 2022 Author Response Thank you for the valued comments given by the reviewer. They are very much helpful in improving our manuscript. We have further revised the manuscript accordingly and wish to give details on each point of revision in the following statements. In the mark-up copy, the revision points are in red. The pages and paragraphs are also referred to those in the mark-up copy of the manuscript. Please be informed that the cleaned manuscript is for press and has no mark-up inside. 1. Regarding the strengths of the findings, the authors need to improve the paragraph they have added regarding the strengths of the manuscript: - They can improve by telling how these findings help in clinical practice. - Further emphasis on how these findings translate into improved prognosis and management of post traumatic brain injury patients. - Additionally, they may also discuss briefly about how these findings help in improving the current guidelines and recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. • Our response: We consider that all reviewer’s comments are relevant to the implications of our study findings for clinical practice and research. We, therefore, add a paragraph on this matter between the parts of limitations and Conclusions of the Discussion. In addition, we add a reference to support two sentences in the added paragraph. • Page 21, Paragraph 5 – Page 22, Paragraph 1: The present results should be helpful for clinical practice and research in this area. Because treatment options for post-TBI behavioral symptoms remain unsatisfactory, as a promising intervention, BWLT may change the clinical practice and prognosis of patients with post-TBI depression and sleep disturbance. Clinicians may consider BWLT as a treatment option for post-TBI behavioral symptoms. In a recent review [55], guidelines suggested only neurobehavioral interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy for rehabilitating behavioral and emotional disorders. The low to moderate certainty of our positive findings may impact future evidence-based practice guidelines and lead to a recommendation of BWLT for some post-TBI behavioral symptoms, e.g., depression, sleep disturbance. More trials in large sample sizes with longer study duration remain needed. Two reasons appear to support that patients with mild TBI should be a priority studied group. First, other than the benefits for depression and sleep disturbance, our subgroup analysis also found that BWLT might improve sleepiness in patients with mild TBI. Second, little has been known about the specific therapy for behavioral symptoms in mild TBI [55]. • Page 30, reference 55: 55. Lee SY, Amatya B, Judson R, Truesdale M, Reinhardt JD, Uddin T, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation in traumatic brain injury: a critical appraisal. Brain Inj. 2019;33: 1263–1271. doi:10.1080/02699052.2019.1641747 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 20220817.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274025.r004
22 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor Efficacy and acceptability of blue-wavelength light therapy for post-TBI behavioral symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials PONE-D-22-16609R2 Dear Dr. Srisurapanont, 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, Tariq Jamal Siddiqi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274025.r005
Formally Accepted
24 Aug 2022 Acceptance Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor PONE-D-22-16609R2 Efficacy and acceptability of blue-wavelength light therapy for post-TBI behavioral symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Dear Dr. Srisurapanont: 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. Tariq Jamal Siddiqi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274025.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 .