Comments on abstract, title, references

Thank you for giving the opportunity to review this article.

Abstract: 1. Mention about the background of the study stating low back pain and its treatment procedures. 2. The objective or aim of the study is missing. 3. Include the selection criteria of the participants and the study setting. 4. The blinding statement and the statistical test used was missing. 5. In the results part, seventy patients were eligible to take part in the study, but n=61 were randomised. Make it clear this statement. 6. In the methods section only, RMDQ measurement was mentioned. but in the results, ODI was also included - please make it clear this. 7. Avoid abbreviations in the conclusion.

Title: 1. The title is too long and also, the study is all about recurrent low back pain - the term recurrent is missing in the title.

Reference: 1. The references are arranged properly as per author guidelines.

Comments on introduction/background

1. The acronym of the abbreviations like LBP, MCI, SMCE.....should be mentioned before.
2. The measures of patient outcome have to be mentioned (ref no 12 - 13)
3. The specific characters of the population (subacute NS LBP) have not been discussed.
4. The role of SMCE exercise and its beneficial effects on LBP has not been explained.
5. Statement of the research problem is lagging justification.

Comments on methodology

1. Mention the acronym of RMDQ and SF-36.
2. The inclusion criteria are missing an important component of selection - recurrent LBP, because in the conclusion it was described for recurrent LBP., Hence make it clear.
3. The reliability and validity of the MCI and SLR tests are not indicated.
4. The reliability and validity of primary and outcome measures were not mentioned.(RMDQ, PSFS and ODI).
5. What about the blinding of participants and their home instructions?
6. Test for measuring sample homogeneity was not mentioned.

Comments on data and results

1. The acronym of NNT has to be described.
2. In Table2 mention the units of height, weight and age.
3. In Figure 2- caption - the word baseline evaluation is missing.
4. The effect size of different outcome measures of different treatment groups is missing.
5. Make the interpretation through the obtained results.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

1. The study often using the term recurrent NSLBP, but this type of LBP is not prioritised.
2. The MCID value of RMDQ has to mention clearly and should discuss in detail.
3. The application of home-based training was not mentioned in the methods section.
4. The mechanism of improvement in the (RMDQ) disability score in chronic NSLBP with adequate available reference is missing.
5. The strengths of this study are missing.
6. Avoid abbreviations when stating the conclusion.