Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Peer Review Reports for: “Minimal clinically important difference” estimates of 6 commonly-used performance tests in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain completing a work-related multidisciplinary rehabilitation program

Back to article

Pre-publication versions of this article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
8 Nov 2017 Submitted Original manuscript
22 Nov 2017 Author responded Author comments - Charles Benaim
Resubmission - Version 2
22 Nov 2017 Submitted Manuscript version 2
6 Dec 2017 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Craig Wassinger
27 Aug 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Tatiane Mota da Silva
3 Oct 2018 Author responded Author comments - Charles Benaim
Resubmission - Version 3
3 Oct 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 3
16 Oct 2018 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Craig Wassinger
31 Oct 2018 Author responded Author comments - Charles Benaim
Resubmission - Version 4
31 Oct 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 4
17 Nov 2018 Author responded Author comments - Charles Benaim
Resubmission - Version 5
17 Nov 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 5
5 Dec 2018 Author responded Author comments - Charles Benaim
Resubmission - Version 6
5 Dec 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 6
12 Dec 2018 Author responded Author comments - Charles Benaim
Resubmission - Version 7
12 Dec 2018 Submitted Manuscript version 7
Publishing
18 Dec 2018 Editorially accepted
5 Jan 2019 Article published 10.1186/s12891-018-2382-2

How does Open Peer Review work?

Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Advertisement