Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting article.
I’d like to commend James McLoughlin for developing this article, it is well written and addresses important issues with high clinical relevance.
I have offered some opinions below that I hope can be useful in developing the article and numbered these for ease of reference.
- You provide a comprehensive list labels for ‘treatments’ or ‘movement training interventions’ and make the point that there is potential for inconsistencies when describing these interventions, making ‘information dissemination incredibly challenging’. I wonder if you would consider developing this to clarify that any inconsistent labelling might also be due to journal publication guidelines and restrictions. Is this to do with a lack of treatment fidelity or is it a reporting issue? Or could it be a bit of both?
A minor point: the word ‘incredibly’ is perhaps better replaced by a less emotive adverb?
Actual and Predicted Bodily State.
- I suggest avoiding the use of exclamation marks to make a point (‘…why we cannot tickle ourselves!’).
- This sentence needs rewriting to make more sense: ‘Whiplash and concussion patients show deficits in cervical joint position error of the head in space’.
Cognitive Selection and Planning
- The second sentence (‘These motor chunks…’) needs supporting with a citation.
Practice and Variability
- The Birkenmeier et al (2010) study included 15 patients (humans) and I am therefore not certain how your statement regarding dose of practice having shown promise in animal studies can be supported by this source. Please clarify.
- Regarding this sentence: ‘For some movements, very high movement repetition numbers will be needed to drive neuroplasticity and functional change, however the benefits of high repetitions for stroke upper limb rehabilitation still reach a plateau in terms of functional effectiveness (Lang et al., 2016).’
These authors interpreted their findings in a way that does not seem to quite support the sentiment of your sentence. They found overall small treatment effects with no evidence of a a dose-response effect. They did see plateau effect but only for one of the four groups. I suggest reviewing this section to reflect the apparent paucity of research supporting any correlation between high movement repetition number and positive change.
- The last sentence in this section includes the word ‘enormous’ and I suggest using less emotive language to reduce any perceptions – rightly or wrongly – of bias.
- Regarding this sentence: ‘Tendinopathy, osteoporosis and osteoarthritis exercises all need individualized management of load, in addition to those recovering from ligament sprains, stress fractures and muscle strains (Drew & Finch, 2016).’
When I look at this review I can’t see any mention of any of the conditions listed. Please clarify (and apologies if I’ve missed something obvious).
Beliefs and Self-efficacy.
- Regarding this sentence: ‘Fear of movement in pain states and beliefs around certain ‘safe’ or ‘correct’ postures result in kinesiophobia (Vaegter et al., 2018).’
Firstly, this was a relatively small study and it would therefore be problematic to use this study to support this absolute causative claim. Further, the authors do not seem to present empirical data to support this link. I have only looked at the abstract of the study so realise that I might have missed relevant information.
- There are some apparent inconsistencies in citation style, some author first names and/or initials are included whilst most citations do not include these.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. I agree with James McLoughlin that MTPs have relevance across many domains and I congratulate the author on his achievement.