Effects of acupuncture on earthquake survivors with major psychiatric disorders and related symptoms: A scoping review of clinical studies

Chan-Young Kwon; Jungtae Leem; Da-Woon Kim; Hui-Ju Kwon; Hyun-Seo Park; Sang-Ho Kim

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286671

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 14, 2023
19 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-23-07499Effects of acupuncture on earthquake survivors with major psychiatric disorder and related symptoms: A scoping review of clinical studiesPLOS ONE Dear, 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. It is suggested that the studies of all languages can be included, which will make the results more credible. A bias risk assessment was recommended for all included studies to clarify the evidential value level of the results. Please submit your revised manuscript by 17th May 2023. 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-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 [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: A good and thorough review of available material. The paper is well written and outcomes are described well. I did not find material that needed edits or changes to the current proof of the paper. Well done. Reviewer #2: This scoping review was for the first time, provide an overview of the research status on acupuncture for MPD after earthquakes. Which is of great research value. As far as I am concerned, there are only a few studies included in this study, which are concentrated after the Wenchuan earthquake. Therefore, it is suggested that the studies of all languages can be included, which will make the results more credible. A bias risk assessment was recommended for all included studies to clarify the evidential value level of the results. It is recommended to include references to individual sources, e.g "The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture reporting guideline was used for the detailed analysis of the acupuncture regimen used." Further standardize the language of the article, e.g "(4) what was the appropriate length of acupuncture treatment for MPD management?", inaccuracy of expression. ****** 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: Jennifer E Brett Reviewer #2: 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.0286671.r001
Revision 1
2 May 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: A good and thorough review of available material. The paper is well written and outcomes are described well. I did not find material that needed edits or changes to the current proof of the paper. Well done. � Thank you for your dedication to reviewing this manuscript. Reviewer #2: This scoping review was for the first time, provide an overview of the research status on acupuncture for MPD after earthquakes. Which is of great research value. � Thank you for your dedication to reviewing this manuscript. We have improved the quality of this manuscript by reflecting your comments in this revised manuscript. All corrections in the manuscript are described with red words. As far as I am concerned, there are only a few studies included in this study, which are concentrated after the Wenchuan earthquake. Therefore, it is suggested that the studies of all languages can be included, which will make the results more credible. � Thank you for the comments. We think that this is a misunderstanding that occurred because the inclusion criteria in our original manuscript were not clearly described. That is, this review did not place any restrictions on the language of publications. Nevertheless, the reason for the concentration of research in some countries appears to be related to the predominant use of acupuncture in Eastern cultures. We have added the following sentences to clarify this point. Line 153: “However, case reports with fewer than three patients (28), literature reviews, and preclinical studies were excluded. There were no restrictions on the publication language of the study.” Lines 462-465: “Second, despite the comprehensive literature search by the authors, potentially related articles in languages other than English, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese may have been excluded. This is because although this review did not limit the language of publication, it was not possible to search local medical databases of all countries using acupuncture.” A bias risk assessment was recommended for all included studies to clarify the evidential value level of the results. � Thank you for the comments. We have added an assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies in this revised manuscript. Lines 201-208: “Also, the methodological quality of the studies included in this review was assessed. Corresponding assessment tools were used to assess methodological quality depending on the type of study included. Since the study design of the included studies in this review were RCTs and before-after studies, the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (31) and Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (URL: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools) were used, respectively. The methodological quality of the included studies was conducted by two independent researchers (DWK and SHK), and in case of a disagreement in the evaluation process, the disagreement was resolved by their discussion.” Lines 335-345: “Methodological qualities of included studies Among the four RCTs (17, 32, 33, 34) included, two (17, 32) were considered to use random sequence generation with a low risk of bias. Only one study (32) performed and described allocation concealment. All studies (17, 32, 33, 34) were rated as unfavorable in terms of double-blindness. There was only one study (32) reporting blinding of outcome assessment. All five included before-after studies (35, 36, 37, 38, 39) clearly stated the purpose of the study. However, only one study (37) clearly stated the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of participants. Except for one study (38), the interventions used were clearly described in the remaining studies. Two studies (37, 39) clearly described the use of the outcome used. Only one study (37) reported blinding of outcome assessment. Follow-up was conducted in one study (39), but the loss to follow-up was more than 20%. In three studies (37, 38, 39), appropriate statistical analysis was performed for before-and-after comparisons, p-values were presented, and multiples times outcome indicators were evaluated after intervention (S2 Appendix).” It is recommended to include references to individual sources, e.g "The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture reporting guideline was used for the detailed analysis of the acupuncture regimen used." � Thank you for the comment. In this revised manuscript, we have cited proper references that were insufficiently cited. Line 116: “… the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines (26).” (26) Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169(7):467-73. Line 197: “The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture reporting guideline (30) was used …” (30) MacPherson H, Altman DG, Hammerschlag R, Youping L, Taixiang W, White A, et al. Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): Extending the CONSORT statement. J Evid Based Med. 2010;3(3):140-55. Further standardize the language of the article, e.g "(4) what was the appropriate length of acupuncture treatment for MPD management?", inaccuracy of expression. � Thank you for the comment. After making efforts to revise this manuscript based on the above comments, we requested a review from an English proofreading company and received professional academic English review and proofreading services. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reply.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286671.r002
22 May 2023 Decision Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor Effects of acupuncture on earthquake survivors with major psychiatric disorders and related symptoms: A scoping review of clinical studies PONE-D-23-07499R1 Dear, 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, Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Ph.D.,M.Phil., Pharm-D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286671.r003
Formally Accepted
31 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Shahzad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-23-07499R1 Effects of acupuncture on earthquake survivors with major psychiatric disorders and related symptoms: 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. Muhammad Shahzad Aslam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286671.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 .