I reviewed 2 published papers: One by an author Marik et al 2017; Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Interventions for Musculoskeletal Shoulder Conditions: A Systematic Review; https://ajot.aota.org/article.aspx?articleid=2591423 &

Another by an author Reijneveld et al 2016 - Clinical outcomes of a scapular-focused treatment in patients with sub-acromial pain syndrome: a systematic review. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/5/436

Reviewee comments for the first article: Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Interventions for Musculoskeletal Shoulder Conditions: A Systematic Review. https://ajot.aota.org/article.aspx?articleid=2591423

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This overview of the literature sought to update the evidence-base on the management of shoulder complaints among occupational therapists. The authors provide a clear rationale of the burden of the disease, clinical symptoms and management strategies for patients. They use robust methods, which allow for replication, address limitations and made appropriate recommendations. The authors also address a very broad but pertinent topic, enumerating the methodological flaws hindering definite clinical recommendations, which warranted an update of the evidence. Major points: Page 1: Abstract – please can the authors revise the presentation of the abstract use the PRISMA guidelines to improve clarity and do so within the main article. For example: Can the authors state clearly that this is an update of a previous review and not the first of its kind. I suggest the authors provide a suitable rationale for the search dates used? Can the authors kindly state the number of articles used against the interventions identified within the abstract? Can the authors clarify what is meant by mixed level of evidence in the body of the article or rephrase? Please, add numerical data to the results of the study.

Methodology: Page 2: I suggest that authors add the impact of a single reviewer during the initial stages of the review to their limitations as well? Page 2: Can the authors clearly state within the body of the articles how levels of evidence was judged? Page 2: Can the authors comment on the effect of publication bias on their results and the limitation of including only studies published in English? Page 2: Can the authors also, address limitations of not using a published protocol a prior as this could have been used to outline lists of preparatory activities? Page 2: Please, can the authors elaborate on their inclusion and exclusion criteria to provided clarity. The currently outlined criteria is quite vague. Page 3: Can the authors consider including the tables for data extraction & risk of bias assessments within the body of the text? Page 4: Please, check the link to online supplementary material of Appendix 1, to ensure it is a valid.

Minor points: Page 1: In the introduction (first paragraph), the authors note that "nearly all of the population", but did not specify which population the prevalence data was estimated from. Page 1: Please, can the authors provide contextual evidence of the prevalence and consider stating the major findings from the previous review?