Immediate Quantitative Sensory Testing of the Fascial Counterstrain Method: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for presenting their research on FCM quantitative sensor and pain pressure threshold testing.

The paper looks well-presented and the introduction is clear enough to give readers an accurate background about the topic under consideration, alongside the well-argued reasons to undertake this research. I am having, however, some important observations that would like authors to thoughtfully address as follows:

1. The aim of the paper is presented as to determine the diagnostic validity and therapeutic efficacy of the manual therapy technique fascial counterstrain (FCS). However, authors do not properly define those specific efficacy and validity measures/standards.
2. Although authors address the issue of sample size, using one single patient to draw the type of outcomes mentioned in the paper appears scientifically unsound.
3. Authors also mentioned a “…significant improvement in three-trial average PPT measures”. How is “significant” measured in this context?
4. [Second line, first page, introduction section] The figure if 635 billion dollars is not properly quoted.
5. [Last two sentences, first introductory paragraph] Did authors attempt to conduct an actual comparison between FCS and direct manual therapy techniques? If yes, it is not shown in the paper. If it is not, why did the authors not consider this important comparison?
6. [First sentence, Section 2, Materials and Methods] Authors seem to introduce a new aim of the paper. That is, “…to objectively assess the ability of a certified FCS practitioner”. I think this is not the paper’s purpose.
7. [Page 3, first sentence, second paragraph] Clarification is needed as to whether FCS is used as a tool for diagnostic or a technique for treatment (or both).
8. Following all the above (specially point 2), it seems that authors cannot conclude that “..the results provide objective evidence supporting FCS diagnostic and treatment…”. In addition, the results do not seem to support the idea that IIS is a significant factor in the development and maintenance of chronic somatic dysfunction.

I will be happy to assist the authors in giving further explanations on my comments.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript requires a significant amount of improvement in:

 

 

What is known about the topic? (Background)
What is not known? (The research problem)
Why the study was done? (Justification)

 

Fill the following point inside the manuscript

1. Clinician and patient-assessed outcomes
2. Changes in therapeutic intervention (with rationale)
3. Important follow-up diagnostic and other test results
4. Adverse and unanticipated events
5. The patient should share their perspective in one to two paragraphs on the treatment(s) they received

Author Response

Please see attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for the effort and time spent to significantly improve the key points of their manuscript. After the changes, the paper looks now sound and ready for publication.