All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors
Thank you for this important work in the area of Subacromial Impingement Syndrome. In agreement with the referees, I have decided to accept your paper
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The manuscript has been substantially improved. The authors replied satisfactorily to reviewers’ comments and took into account the suggestions given.
no concerns
no concerns
The manuscript is well written. There is a clear and professional use of English throughout the text. The introduction provides a good insight into subacromial impingement syndrome. Authors have added the hypothesis as suggested.
Methods have been explained in detail. Study methods have been explained in detail.
No comment
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
No comment
The ethical approval and the informed consent taken from the participants should be mentioned prior to the recruitment of the participants in the methods section. Please specify who will be diagnosing the cases of Subacromial Impingement Syndrome. The supporting references from where the idea was obtained for measuring Single-movement-pain and TSAP needs to be mentioned. Overall, the article is very useful in bridging the knowledge gap, and has good replicability.
No comment
The article is a novel approach to assess TSAP, and would be very much useful in assessing as well as managing SIS.
The manuscript entitled "A novel evaluation approach for functional impairment in subacromial impingement syndrome: focus on temporal summation of activity-related pain (TSAP)" has been reviewed. This cross-sectional study addresses an interesting and clinically relevant topic. The manuscript is written in clear and professional English. The introduction provides a solid background on subacromial impingement syndrome and the limitations of conventional pain assessments. The rationale for developing the TSAP is well-articulated. The manuscript is well-referenced, incorporating relevant prior studies to support its claims.
The research question is meaningful and fills an existing knowledge gap. The methodology is described in sufficient detail. However, the diagnostic criteria for shoulder impingement syndrome requires further clarification. "(2) a positive result on at least one of the orthopedic tests performed by a physical therapist, including the Hawkins impingement sign, Neerís impingement sign, painful arc sign, and/or Empty can test [10]" is inconsistent with what the referenced article suggested. Please carefully review the results and conclusions of the reference (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.05.015), and justify the diagnostic criteria used in your study.
The data is robust, and statistical analyses are appropriate. The authors claim TSAP is "superior" to conventional movement-evoked pain assessments, which appears to be overstated. The claim should be tempered unless a direct comparative validation is performed.
Though the article is well written, hypothesis should be clearly mentioned in the text.
There are a few observations regarding the exclusion criteria for the study:
1. There is no mention of the other conditions of upper extremity that could be a source of pain. Authors
should clarify if this point was addressed or not.
No comment
Though the manuscript is well written, authors should emphasize the need of this novel approach in a separate paragraph.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.