Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review

Vinicius Diniz Azevedo; Regina Márcia Ferreira Silva; Silvia Cristina de Carvalho Borges; Michele da Silva Valadão Fernades; Vicente Miñana-Signes; Manuel Monfort-Pañego; Priscilla Rayanne E. Silva Noll; Matias Noll

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293333

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 24, 2023
9 May 2023 Decision Letter - Esedullah Akaras, Editor PONE-D-23-08713Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferreira Silva, 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 Jun 23 2023 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, Esedullah Akaras 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. We note that Figure 3in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Additional Editor Comments: Dear Regina Márcia Ferreira Silva, Major Revisions have been requested. [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: 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: Dear authors, I am glad to have had the opportunity to review this study. Congratulations, it's a nice study with clinical outputs. I think that your research will contribute to the literature. I hope the comments contribute to your study. It will look better with some corrections. Study needs corrections and the authors should carefully address the following issues: - The article type was entered incorrectly, please correct it. - Pay attention to punctuation marks and spaces between characters. - Replace informal uses (we, our, etc.). - Annex or appendix? Prefer single use. - There is no appendix 2. Abstract - Generally acceptable. Introduction - Generally acceptable. Materials and Methods - 2.6 Reviewer training: “Lastly, the training process…” Detail or reference this process. - Spelling errors can be seen throughout the text. I will mention some of it, but it should be reviewed on this. Results - Page 12, line 180: Pay attention to dots and parentheses. - In Table 2, the reliability of reference 37 is given as Cronbach's alpha, check it. - Page 24: Delete the extra comma in the sentence above Table 3. Discussion: - Generally acceptable. - Also in the last paragraph, can you tell which instruments you would recommend using for pain or disability based on these results? Reviewer #2: Overall, I would like to appreciate the authors for their effort to provide this important and interesting work. This manuscript titled "Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic review". Accordingly, the authors should focus on the study question "Back pain in athletes". However, the authors started abstract with back and neck pain. Introduction: The authors should explain the importance of the study in detail. The authors should add the hypothesis of the study. Discussion: The strengths of this review should be demonstrated with detailed explanation. Future directions and recommendations need to be clarified. Conclusion: Add a brief message to readers and researchers. ****** 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: Halime ARIKAN 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: comments to authors.docx Attachment Submitted filename: comments to authors(1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.r001
Revision 1
20 Jul 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1 We would like to express our thanks to the editor and two reviewers for their thoughtful and in-depth comments concerning our manuscript. Your suggestions helped us improve the quality of our paper. We carefully considered every comment and made all the appropriate changes. Reviewer comments are detailed first, and our responses to the points raised follow (italics). We have highlighted the changes made to the body of the manuscript using red coloured text in this document. Additional Editor Comments 1. I am glad to have had the opportunity to review this study. Congratulations, it's a nice study with clinical outputs. I think that your research will contribute to the literature. I hope the comments contribute to your study. It will look better with some corrections. Study needs corrections and the authors should carefully address the following issues Author´s response: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. 2. The article type was entered incorrectly, please correct it. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. We made the correction as requested at the time of resubmission of the manuscript with corrections. 3. Pay attention to punctuation marks and spaces between characters. Author´s response: Thanks for your in-depth review. 4. Replace informal uses (we, our, etc.). Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. Informal usage has been replaced throughout the text, below are some examples: “Therefore, the aim of this study was to review the scientific literature related to validated questionnaires to evaluate BP in athletes.” (Lines 81-83) “In this review, only two of these three (66.6%) studies selected for methodological quality assessment were classified as having high quality (36, 37) compared to other studies, in which no article was rated as a high-quality study (120, 121). (Lines 374-376) “Limitations and strengths should be highlighted.” (Line 380) 5. Annex or appendix? Prefer single use. Author´s response: Thanks for your in-depth review. The title was corrected. “Annex 1” (Page 31) 6. There is no appendix 2. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. We agree with the reviewer The mention to “appendix 2” was removed, and replaced by the phrase " The search strategy for each database is presented in Annex 1" (Line 111). Abstract 7. Generally acceptable. Author´s response: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. Introduction 8. Generally acceptable. Author´s response: Thanks. Materials and Methods 9. 2.6 Reviewer training: “Lastly, the training process…” Detail or reference this process. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. A brief excerpt of the process details is included as follows: “The reviewers were trained on how to use the software to use the same selection criteria for the articles. In this case, at first, a reviewer included in the software a file with data from the articles and began the selection of those that fit the selection criteria by reading the titles and abstracts, including justifying the exclusions. Later, the second reviewer performed the same procedure.” (Lines 161-165) 10. Spelling errors can be seen throughout the text. I will mention some of it, but it should be reviewed on this. Author´s response: Thanks for your in-depth review. We performed a complete spelling correction. Results 11. Page 12, line 180: Pay attention to dots and parentheses. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. The error has been corrected, as follows: “The terms that defined the athletes’ competitive level, such as educational (education, university student, elite sports school), divisional (international, national, regional, and local), age (veterans), competition (professional or elite and recreational (club and intramural sports and Junior Olympic program) levels varied considerably between the studies.” (Lines 189-193) 12. In Table 2, the reliability of reference 37 is given as Cronbach's alpha, check it. Author´s response: Thanks for your in-depth review. We made de correction.. 13. Page 24: Delete the extra comma in the sentence above Table 3. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. The error has been corrected, as follows: “The authors of the tool used to assess the methodological quality information such that if insufficient information was provided in some items, the item would be marked with “no (46).” Details on the articles are outlined in Table 3.” (Lines 296-298) Discussion: 14. Generally acceptable. Author´s response: Thanks a lot. 15. Also in the last paragraph, can you tell which instruments you would recommend using for pain or disability based on these results? Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. Follow our recommendation: “Finally, based on the results identified in this review, if future research wants to investigate BP in athletes, it is suggested the Athlete Disability Index because it contains 12 general questions about pain, and its results are broader compared to other instruments such as the Micheli Functional Scale.” (Lines 415-418) 16. Overall, I would like to appreciate the authors for their effort to provide this important and interesting work. Author´s response: Thanks you very much. We are happy to know that our work is being recognized. Reviewer #2 We would like to express our thanks to the editor and two reviewers for their thoughtful and in-depth comments concerning our manuscript. Your suggestions helped us improve the quality of our paper. We carefully considered every comment and made all the appropriate changes. Reviewer comments are detailed first, and our responses to the points raised follow (italics). We have highlighted the changes made to the body of the manuscript using red coloured text in this document. Additional Editor Comments 1. Overall, I would like to appreciate the authors for their effort to provide this important and interesting work Author´s response: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. 2. This manuscript titled "Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic review". Accordingly, the authors should focus on the study question "Back pain in athletes". However, the authors started abstract with back and neck pain. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. We agree with the reviewer. We removed the word as suggested, as follow: “Back pain in athletes varies with sport, age, and sex, which can impair athletic performance, thereby contributing to retirement.” (Lines 15-16) Introduction 3. The authors should explain the importance of the study in detail. Author´s response: Thanks for your in-depth review. The importance of this study was highlighted in more details, as follow: “This study is relevant because the demand in health care, combined with the need to use evaluative instruments, has contributed to increase, for example, the pressure on health care professionals to ensure the implementation of evidence-based practice. Thus, publication of systematic review studies, as well as others that synthesize research results, is an important action for evidence-based practice. Moreover, this type of study serves to guide the development of projects, indicating new directions for future investigations.” (Lines 76-81) 4. The authors should add the hypothesis of the study. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. We also include our hypothesis in the introduction, as follow: “Therefore, the aim of this study was to review the scientific literature related to validated questionnaires to evaluate BP in athletes. The hypothesis is that there are few valid and reliable instruments to evaluate BP in athletes and that the existing ones contribute little to the specific assessment.” (Lines 81-84). Discussion 5. The strengths of this review should be demonstrated with detailed explanation. Author's Response: Thanks for your in-depth review. The strengths of this review are demonstrated, as follows: “Considered as strengths of this review the fact that this article is the first that summarizes instruments that assess BP specifically for athletes. Furthermore, this review selected articles in all languages and without fixing a publication date, and these criteria are relevant because they do not limit the ability to identify articles in the literature. Lastly, the search strategy was conducted in five recognized databases (Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus).” (Lines 389-394). Conclusion 6. Future directions and recommendations need to be clarified. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. Message to readers and researchers was reinforced, as follows: “To future readers and researchers in the area, we suggest new research articles and instruments, because the effectiveness of treatment and its follow-up depend on a reliable and valid pain assessment and measurement.” (Lines 431-434) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Letter reviewer #2 12 06.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.r002
17 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Esedullah Akaras, Editor PONE-D-23-08713R1Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferreira Silva, 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 01 2023 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, Esedullah Akaras 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. Additional Editor Comments: Your publication will be accepted after making the relevant minor corrections. [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 requested corrections have been corrected carefully but can be published with a correction of a few minor points. So thank you and congratulations to the authors. 1. Informal uses still exist in the text. Please correct using the "Find" option one by one. 2. The Reference 37's reliability stands as Cronbach alpha. Internal consistency is also an indicator of reliability, but this is included in the previous column. If ICC is not available, indicate it. ****** 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.0293333.r003
Revision 2
1 Sep 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: The requested corrections have been corrected carefully but can be published with a correction of a few minor points. So thank you and congratulations to the authors. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. 1. Informal uses still exist in the text. Please correct using the "Find" option one by one. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. Informal usage has been substituted in several passages of the text, as follow: “To support this review, was carried out and published an article on a systematic review…” (Lines 89-90) “Moreover, research has been carried out in other countries, such as in Norway…”(Lines 227-228) “This research identified 24 (43.7%) articles using ODI (103) and 14 (25.4%) using SNQ (104).” (line 258) “Here are some recommendations for creating a new instrument for assessing BP in athletes in the following text.” (line 399) “…, it is suggested new research articles and instruments, …” (line 433) 2. The Reference 37's reliability stands as Cronbach alpha. Internal consistency is also an indicator of reliability, but this is included in the previous column. If ICC is not available, indicate it. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. Can in use the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test/retest reliability. However, the authors of the text did not use ICC. As reliability can be verified by Cronbach's alpha, we agree with your suggestion to indicate internal consistency as an indicator of reliability. We have therefore made the correction in Table 2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Resposta ao revisor 28 08 2023.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.r004
18 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Esedullah Akaras, Editor PONE-D-23-08713R2Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferreira Silva, 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 02 2023 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, Esedullah Akaras 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 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 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. 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 made appropriate corrections. I am sure it will contribute to the literature and the journal. Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the authors for their responses to all previous comments. However, minor comments still need to be addressed as follows: - Discuss the implications and strengths of this review. Explain the limitations in detail. - Conclusion: add a brief message ".............." to readers and researchers. ****** 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: 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.0293333.r005
Revision 3
5 Oct 2023 Author Response PLOS ONE Decision: Revision required [PONE-D-23-08713R2] - [EMID:96f974367d29e64a] Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferreira Silva, 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. We would like to express our thanks to the editor and two reviewers for their thoughtful and in-depth comments concerning our manuscript. Your suggestions helped us improve the quality of our paper. We carefully considered every comment and made all the appropriate changes. Reviewer comments are detailed first, and our responses to the points raised follow (italics). We have highlighted the changes made to the body of the manuscript using red coloured text. Additional Editor Comments 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. Author´s response: The reference list was completely checked. We also inform you that no retracted reference was used in this manuscript. We also inform you that the manuscript was revised in English by native speaker. Reviewer #2: • Would like to thank the authors for their responses to all previous comments. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review • Discuss the implications and strengths of this review. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. A paragraph has been included which highlights more of the strengths of this review, as follow: Another strength of this review is that it presents a protocol previously structured by the same group of researchers, which synthesizes the authors’ ideas for carrying out a systematic review. Moreover, this review reduces controversies in the literature, since it does not result from the number of studies in favor of a particular intervention, but form the sum of several case studies, identified and published in specific databases that are widely used in the literature. Finally, another important positive element to be highlighted is the fact that this review directs future studies to different areas of activity, it can be used as a tool to contribute to research in medicine, physiotherapy, sport, among others. (Lines 403-410) • Explain the limitations in detail. Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. Sentences that further highlight the limitations of this review have been included, as follows: The lack of standardization leads researchers and professionals to use less accurate evaluation strategies. Moreover, the lack of standardization makes it difficult to identify faults and problems, can lead to recurring errors, generates excessive work and rework, and can have low reliability. (Lines 381-384) To find the right tool for a survey, it is necessary, for example, to decide what to measure and then select the most suitable instrument for measuring the results. The use of tools to improve the way research is carried out has a direct impact on the reliability of the results. (Lines 388- 391) • Conclusion: add a brief message “………” to readers and researchers Author´s response: Thanks for your careful review. Periods that further highlight the limitations of this review have been included, as follows: It is suggested that more precise and reliable tools for assessing pain in this population be developed in the future and that these tools can be used to make the assessment of back pain more precise and standardized. (Lines 450-452) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Cover Letter FINAL.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.r006
11 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Esedullah Akaras, Editor Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic review PONE-D-23-08713R3 Dear Dr. Ferreira Silva, 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, Esedullah Akaras Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.r007
Formally Accepted
25 Oct 2023 Acceptance Letter - Esedullah Akaras, Editor PONE-D-23-08713R3 Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: a systematic review Dear Dr. Ferreira Silva: 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. Esedullah Akaras Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.r008

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 .