Photobiomodulation for Correction of Systemic Disorders of Experimental Pain Syndromes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The Introduction of the paper is very general and can be improved. The authors only highlight the characteristics and benefits of the method of PBM and LA compared to traditional physiotherapy. A few particular examples of previous PBM literature works and their findings should be described in the Introduction. This will also help the reader to appreciate better the motivation and novelty of the present work.

2. More details about the characteristics of the laser device that was used in the experiments should be given in lines 55 and 56. Also, in line 59 only the laser beam wavelength and average power are mentioned. What about the pulse width, pulse repetition rate (in case a pulsed and not CW laser was used), and beam diameter? Also, the authors mention that the laser beam wavelength was varied within 30 nm around the central value of 810 nm, namely the laser beam wavelength was 810±30 nm. This is a large error considering the fact that lasers are used in practice simply because they offer electromagnetic radiation with a precise wavelength!

3. In Table 2 the authors give the heart rate, beats/min with the accuracy of decimal points (two). I am not sure if any decimal points in the value of a heart rate have any physical meaning (?).

4. The authors mention about laser intensity but the intensity of the laser radiation is not given in the paper. The intensity of the laser beam should be given in W/cm².

Author Response

Hello, dear reviewer!

We express our deep gratitude for your time and attention to our work! You are absolutely right, the article could have been improved, and we tried to do it taking into account all the proposed accents.

The changes affected the introduction with the expansion of the section on the mechanisms of action of the PMB. However, in this work we used the method of punctuated PBM, which was the basis for a comparative analysis of the therapeutic possibilities of these two exposure options.

According to your proposal, in the section "Materials and methods", instead of the general parameters of the Elmedlife M light module specified in the technical data sheet of the device, specific energy parameters of radiation (including intensity) that were used in the experiment are given.

Table 2 has also undergone changes – the heart rate is represented by integer values.

With best wishes, the team of authors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors demonstrate here development of anti-pain technologies in the complex treatment of pain syndromes which is one of the most urgent tasks of modern medicine. They showed a placebo-controlled experimental study of the therapeutic potential of low-intensity laser radiation when applied to acupuncture points, which are directly related to the autonomic nervous system. The results of the experimental study show that photo-biomodulation (PBM) has a positive effect on systemic disorders developing in the acute phase of pain stress. They further exhibited that the effect of low-intensity laser radiation in these energy parameters on acupuncture points associated with the autonomic nervous system stimulates the development of anti-stress autonomic, vascular and metabolic adaptation reactions in the absence of side effects on the body.

Overall the study subject is good, but I saw several loopholes in the manuscript:-

1. The abstract and conclusion are not coherent and authors have not mentioned any numeric (values) or key findings. Authors need to revise both abstract and conclusion part.

2. Apart from the Placebo study, the authors have not provided any other data in the manuscript to support their claims.

3. The legends in Y -axis in all the plots are overlapping and seems the authors didn't care to check that before submitting.

4. Authors should merge some figures and provide multipanel figures (Max 4).

 

Author Response

Hello, dear reviewer!

We express our deep gratitude for your time and attention to our work! You are absolutely right, the article could have been improved, and we tried to do it taking into account all the proposed accents.

The beginning and conclusion have tried to supplement and concretize.

In this work, we did not single out an additional control group of animals that were not irradiated with AP after modeling pain stress. The data obtained earlier demonstrated significant differences in favor of the therapeutic effectiveness of punctuation in a variety of types of pathology, which makes it possible to consider the issue of additional injury to animals irrational.

The drawings were also changed and made multi-panel.

With best wishes, the team of authors.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very interesting article 

Author Response

Hello, dear reviewer!

We express our deep gratitude for your time and attention to our work!

With best wishes, the team of authors.