Comparison of 7 surgical interventions for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A network meta-analysis and systematic review

Hang Zhang; Junmao Gao; Qipeng Xie; Mingxin Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309343

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 5, 2024
5 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Kentaro Yamada, Editor PONE-D-24-22399 Comparison of 7 Surgical Interventions for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Network Meta-analysis and Systematic Review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gao, 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 2024 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, Kentaro Yamada, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2192568217745063 https://www.painphysicianjournal.com/current/pdf?article=NzI1OA%3D%3D&journal=136 In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 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: This article is interesting and could be published. The topic is interesting and very useful. The study is serous and with well design. The result is interesting. Also the article had good discussion as well. Reviewer #2: Thanks for the opportunity to review the important and interesting topic at the core of this paper. It compared 7 surgical interventions for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. However, this article also has some shortcomings. It may not be accepted at present. 1. It was not searched systematically according to the principles of PICO, the MeSH were not clear, and the free words were not comprehensive. 2. The retrieval database is not comprehensive, and the databases that must be retrieved for meta analysis: pubmed, embase, cochrane library; Database to be retrieved as far as possible: web of science, clinicalrials gov，Google Scholar. 3. the registration of the plan had not been completed in PROSPERO. 4. The studies included in the meta-analysis should follow the principle of homogeneity, and the combination of RCT and retrospective study can only increase the heterogeneity. It is recommended that RCT and retrospective study be subgrouped. ****** 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: Chang, Chien-Chun 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.0309343.r001
Revision 1
12 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and reviewers Re: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-22399R1 and Title: Comparison of 7 Surgical Interventions for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Network Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Comparison of 7 Surgical Interventions for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Network Meta-analysis and Systematic Review”(ID: PONE-D-24-22399R1). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research, We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the editor's and reviewer's comments are as follows: Responds to the editor's comments: We are grateful to the reviewers and editorial team for the time and effort they put into evaluating our manuscript. We made detailed revisions to the manuscript as requested. Modify as follows: 1. We have revised the title and figure captions according to the style template of the PLOS ONE manuscript and reflected them in the manuscript. 2. We made changes where there was overlap with the previous publication and this is reflected in the manuscript. (lines 66-70) 3. We have sorted out the raw data needed for this study and uploaded it as supporting information. At the same time, we have attached the description of supporting information files at the end of the manuscript.( line 158 and lines 379-398) 4. We have uploaded the full PRISMA checklist as support information. Responds to the reviewer's comments: Reviewer #1: We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions, which have greatly facilitated our research. Reviewer #2: 1. Response to comment:( It was not searched systematically according to the principles of PICO, the MeSH were not clear, and the free words were not comprehensive.) Response: We think this is an excellent comment. We possess a profound comprehension of the principles of PICO significance in clinical research, and the meticulous exploration of pertinent literature is paramount. Consequently, we have refined the MeSH and free words of this study, conducted additional searches for related studies, and integrated the revised MeSH and free words into the manuscript.(lines 99-109) 2. Response to comment:(The retrieval database is not comprehensive, and the databases that must be retrieved for meta analysis: pubmed, embase, cochrane library; Database to be retrieved as far as possible: web of science, clinicalrials gov,Google Scholar.) Response: We appreciate your valuable comments. Yes, a comprehensive search of articles from different databases is essential, so we researched relevant articles in different databases again, for example, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, meanwhile, the results of the search are integrated into the manuscript. (lines 97-99 and Fig.1) 3. Response to comment:( the registration of the plan had not been completed in PROSPERO.) Response: Thank you very much for your comments. the registration of the study had been completed in PROSPERO (Prospero registration number: CRD42024545798). (lines 113-115) 4. Response to comment:( The studies included in the meta-analysis should follow the principle of homogeneity, and the combination of RCT and retrospective study can only increase the heterogeneity. It is recommended that RCT and retrospective study be subgrouped.) Response: We appreciate your valuable comments. Yes, In the meta-analysis, the included study should follow the principle of homogeneity in order to improve the credibility of the evidence, which we deeply agree with. At the same time, the subgroup analysis of RCT and retrospective studies will help to further improve the credibility of the conclusions. We sincerely thank you for your suggestion. In this study, we are also aware of this, but considering that in the clinical study of orthopedic surgery, The RCT is challenging because the choice of surgical methods will be affected by the choice of patients, although some studies have described randomized controlled trials. At the same time, in the included study, the number and sample size of randomized controlled trials are relatively small, which is also one of the limitations of this study. If we analyze the randomized controlled trials in groups, there is a risk of chance. Therefore, after a detailed discussion, we combined randomized controlled trials with a retrospective study in this study. Meanwhile considering the heterogeneity of the study, we adopt the random effect model to analyze and draw a conclusion. We deeply recognize the limitations and shortcomings of this study, so in future research, we will include more high-quality, low-risk randomized controlled trials for analysis, increase the sample size, reduce the risk of heterogeneity, and improve the shortcomings of the study. Thank you for your valuable advice again. As researchers, we deeply recognize the importance of the review comments. We tried our best to improve the manuscript which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for editors' and reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Best regards! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309343.r002
12 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Kentaro Yamada, Editor PONE-D-24-22399R1 Comparison of 7 Surgical Interventions for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Network Meta-analysis and Systematic Review Professor Junmao Gao PLOS ONE Dear Professor Gao, The PLOS ONE has rescinded the decision on manuscript PONE-D-24-22399R1. Kind regards, Melanie Española Support Staff - Editorial PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309343.r003
Revision 2
12 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Editor Re: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-22399R1 and Title: Comparison of 7 Surgical Interventions for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Network Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. We sincerely apologize for the delay resulting from our researchers' misinterpretation of the submission format and requirements for original research data. We are immensely grateful to the editorial team for their willingness to review and assess our manuscript again. We have reorganized and provided the required research data and reflected it in the manuscript. Modify as follows: 1. Response to comment:(A numbered table of all studies identified in the literature search, including those that were excluded from the analyses. This should be numbered table with rows from 1-54 and include all publications assessed for eligibility as stated in your PRISMA flowchart. a. For the 24 excluded studies, the table should include a column which lists the reason(s) for exclusion. b. If any of the included studies are unpublished, include a link (URL) to the primary source or detailed information about how the content can be accessed.) Response: We have collated 54 eligible studies and provided DOI numbers, while listing the reasons for excluding 34 studies.(Supplementary table 6) 2. Response to comment:(A second table of all data extracted from the primary research sources for the systematic review and/or meta-analysis. This table should be a numbered table from 1-20 and include all of the studies included in the systematic review as stated in your PRISMA flow chart. The table must include the following information for each study: a. A column for the Name of data extractors and a column for the date of data extraction b. A column for the confirmation that the study was eligible to be included in the review. c. A column (or columns) that states all data extracted from each study for the reported systematic review and/or meta-analysis that would be needed to replicate your analyses. For example, include a column for clinical outcomes and a column for complications etc.) Response: We have collated the 20 studies included in this analysis, providing the name of data extractors and the date of data extraction, and collated all the raw data used for the analysis in each study, including visual analogue scale, Oswestry disability index, complications and recurrence(Supplementary table 5). In addition, we also summarized the data used in the Networkmeta-analysis and presented them in the Supplementary table 4. 3. Response to comment:(A third table showing the completed risk of bias and quality/certainty assessments for each study or outcome. Please ensure this is provided for each domain or parameter assessed. For example, if you used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, provide answers to each of the signalling questions for each study. If you used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence, provide judgements about each of the quality of evidence factor. This should be provided for each outcome.) Response: We have employed different risk bias assessment tools tailored to the specific type of each study and provide answers to each of the signaling questions for each study, while summarizing the evaluation results in Supplementary Table 8. Furthermore, we utilized the GRADE methodology to assess the research results, which are presented in Supplementary Table 7. At the same time, since the initial submission of the manuscript, we have made revisions in accordance with the recommendations of peer review and editor, as follows: 1. We have refined the MeSH and free words of this study, conducted additional searches for related studies, and integrated the revised MeSH and free words into the manuscript. (lines 99-109) 2. We researched relevant articles in different databases again, for example, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, meanwhile, the results of the search are integrated into the manuscript. (lines 97-99 and Fig.1) 3. The research has been successfully registered in PROSPERO and is reflected in the manuscript(Prospero registration number: CRD42024545798). (lines 113-114) 4. We have revised the title and figure captions according to the style template of the PLOS ONE manuscript and reflected them in the manuscript. 5. We made changes where there was overlap with the previous publication and this is reflected in the manuscript. (lines 66-70) 6.We have uploaded the full PRISMA checklist as support information. In addition, we have added a schematic of a Network Meta-Analysis of different interventions to this revision.(Fig 2) As researchers, we fully acknowledge the critical importance of submitting valid raw data. We have made every effort to enhance the manuscript. We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the editorial team for their dedicated efforts and sincerely hope that this revision will be favorably received. Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Best regards! https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309343.r004
1 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Kentaro Yamada, Editor Comparison of 7 Surgical Interventions for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Network Meta-analysis and Systematic Review PONE-D-24-22399R2 Dear Dr. Gao, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Kentaro Yamada, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309343.r005
Formally Accepted
11 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Kentaro Yamada, Editor PONE-D-24-22399R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gao, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Kentaro Yamada Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309343.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 .