Aim of the workMusculoskeletal disorders (MSD) represent a significant occupational problem among hospital staff; however, data on musculoskeletal health of hospital staff are sparse. This study sought to determine the prevalence of MSD, their epidemiologic data and the associated risk factors.MethodsA previously self administered questionnaire sought information on demographics, prevalence and pattern of MSD, associated risk factors was employed as the survey instrument. A total of 520 questionnaires were distributed to hospital staff but only 433 questionnaires was valid. Eighty-seven of the returned questionnaires were excluded because of incomplete data.ResultsThe prevalence of MSD among hospital staff was 65.4%. Musculoskeletal disorders occurred mostly in low back (74.5%), neck (38.1%), and knees (31.1%).Factors associated to MSD were age (P<0.001), female gender (P<0.001), years of service (P<0.001) as well as prolonged standing or sitting (P=0.016 and 0.023, respectively). No significant association was found between repetitive movement, uncomfortable postures, heavy load handling, working on night shifts, stress and the presence of MSD.ConclusionA high proportion of hospital staff reported MSD at some body site with the low back being injured most often. Education programs on prevention and coping strategies for musculoskeletal disorders are recommended for hospital staff in order to reduce the rate of occupational hazards and also promote efficiency in patient care

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.