Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bradley Furlong; Holly Etchegary; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Michelle Swab; Andrea Pike; Amanda Hall

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274527

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 4, 2022
5 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor PONE-D-22-16206Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Furlong, 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 Aug 19 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: "None declared." 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. [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 presented a meta-analysis of 27 studies evaluating patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica. The analysis is well-conducted, data is presented in an intelligible manner, and the manuscript has been drafted decently. However, there are a few minor concerns that need to be addressed. 1. In the abstract, the authors have mentioned the results but the relevant numbers are not provided within brackets. Please include the effect sizes within brackets in the abstract as well. 2. In the data extraction section, kindly mention the initials of the reviewers within brackets who have conducted the data abstraction. Also add as to what was done in case there were any discrepancies during screening articles or data extraction. Was a third reviewer consulted or the issues were solved mutually? Please add this too. 3. Review Manager 5 was used for statistical analysis. Can the authors please add the company details of the software within brackets? 4. Kindly cite the reference for Higgins I2 (square) statistic. 5. In the results section, the authors have mentioned the effect sizes and number of RCTs and patients within brackets. However, two important components of meta-analytical results are missing. Kindly add the p values and I2 (square) values within all these brackets as well. ****** 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.0274527.r001
Revision 1
26 Jul 2022 Author Response Responses to Reviewer Comments Reviewer #1: The authors presented a meta-analysis of 27 studies evaluating patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica. The analysis is well-conducted, data is presented in an intelligible manner, and the manuscript has been drafted decently. However, there are a few minor concerns that need to be addressed. 1. In the abstract, the authors have mentioned the results but the relevant numbers are not provided within brackets. Please include the effect sizes within brackets in the abstract as well. We agree that adding the effect sizes would add value to the abstract and have now added all the relevant numbers (pg. 2, line 26). Please note that this did require us to exceed PLOS One’s word limit for abstracts. 2. In the data extraction section, kindly mention the initials of the reviewers within brackets who have conducted the data abstraction. Also add as to what was done in case there were any discrepancies during screening articles or data extraction. Was a third reviewer consulted or the issues were solved mutually? Please add this too. Please note that all data abstraction was performed by BF and doubly abstracted by one of three individuals who have been acknowledged in the acknowledgements section (GD, AS, SG). These contributors only partially contributed to portions of study screening and/or data extraction and do not qualify for authorship. However, we have still added their initials in these sections as requested with reference to the acknowledgements section. Thank you for your second point. We had already described how screening discrepancies/conflicts would be resolved (i.e., by a third reviewer; please see pg. 5, line 101), but did not do so for the data extraction section. We have now included this (pg. 6, line 108) with the author initials in all sections. 3. Review Manager 5 was used for statistical analysis. Can the authors please add the company details of the software within brackets? We have added the specific version (5.4.1) and company (The Cochrane Collaboration) details for Review Manager 5 in the manuscript (pg. 7, line 139). 4. Kindly cite the reference for Higgins I2 (square) statistic. We have cited this paper for the I2 statistic (pg. 8, line 151). 5. In the results section, the authors have mentioned the effect sizes and number of RCTs and patients within brackets. However, two important components of meta-analytical results are missing. Kindly add the p values and I2 (square) values within all these brackets as well. Thank you for pointing this out, we agree that this will add value to the results section. We have added all relevant p and I2 values to the text (starting on pg. 21, line 227). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274527.r002
24 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor PONE-D-22-16206R1Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Furlong, 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 Oct 08 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: The authors have addressed the concerns appropriately. However, there is a minor issue. The authors state, 'Two reviewers (BF, see acknowledgements for AS, SG)'. However, these are a total of 3 reviewers I suppose. Kindly correct this if it is an error. ****** 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.0274527.r003
Revision 2
24 Aug 2022 Author Response Responses to Reviewer Comments Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed the concerns appropriately. However, there is a minor issue. The authors state, 'Two reviewers (BF, see acknowledgements for AS, SG)'. However, these are a total of 3 reviewers I suppose. Kindly correct this if it is an error. Thank you very much for noticing the wording here. We completely agree that the way we worded this could be confusing for the reader. What we meant to say is that BF performed all actions for all studies, and it was doubly performed by one of the other listed reviewers (e.g., either GD, AS, SG). That is, the work was split up between these three acknowledged individuals so that all screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. To clarify, if we had a hypothetical scenario where 1000 studies were found in the search, BF would have screened all 1000 articles, and GD, AS, and SG would have each screened approximately 333 unique articles so that all articles were screened by two reviewers in the end. I hope this makes sense. We have updated the wording in these instances to make it more explicitly clear: • pg. 5, line 100 – changed to “(BF, one of GD, AS, SG; see acknowledgements)” • pg. 6, line 107 – changed to “(BF, one of AS, SG; see acknowledgements)” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274527.r004
30 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-22-16206R2 Dear Dr. Furlong, 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.0274527.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Editor PONE-D-22-16206R2 Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Furlong: 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.0274527.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 .