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.
We would like to thank the authors to attending to our comments.
I congratulate to the authors due to the manuscript has widely improved and the authors have responded all my prior comments. Thanks for your contribution to the physical therapy field.
The basic reporting is clear and professional English is used throughout.
Good experimental design.
Conclusions and supported by research findings.
The authors have revised the manuscript very well and have attended to all comments made.
Well done on this very interesting piece of work. Well done on providing very clear clinical implications.
The reviewers and I see considerable potential in this manuscript and therefore would like you to resubmit based on their suggestions.
3. okhas been used.
5. could be re-written to describe in brief.
The English language is appropiate, the background and literature references are correct, figures and tables are very useful, raw data is provided and relecant results are presented.
The aims are with the scope of the journal, the research question is well defined. Please, see comments to authors in order to improve this manuscript. Ehics information is added. Methods are well described.
The validity of findings is well described. Conclusion are supported by the study findings.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. This is a well designed clinical trial that provided importants considerations for the biomedical field. Please, consider the following issues/comments according to the presented manuscript:
-Please, consider add subheadings to the abstract.
-Paragraph from line 40 to 55: Please, a phrase linking sentral sentization to motor control alterations would be useful at the end of tis paragraph (please, reference this paargraph appropiately).
-The study was adequately designed and registered prospectively at clinicaltrials.gov.
-References to support inclusion and exclusion criteria would be useful. In addition, the Declaration of helsinki should be cited.
-Randomization, blinding and interventions were well-detailed.
-Reliability coefficients and minimum detectable changes were adequately provided for the primary outcome.
-Reliability coefficients need to be provided for some secondary outcomes tools such as Tampa scale, NDI and level of physical activity.
-A sample size calculation is lacking. Please, provide this calculation or if it is not possible, please, include this issue in limitations and detail this manuscript as a pilot study.
-Tables and figures were well presented and provided useful information.
-Please, consider to dicuss about some future studies comparing AO and MI with other interventions such as dry needling or ischemic compression of myofascial trigger points (Acupunct Med. 2019 Jun;37(3):151-163. doi: 10.1177/0964528419843913) and mobilization of the upper cervical region (J Oral Rehabil. 2019 Feb;46(2):109-119. doi: 10.1111/joor.12733) to improve cervical motor control in subjects with non-specific neck pain.
well written paper covering an interesting area of physiotherapy.
Please see attached comments.
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.