Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Validation of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Simple Screening Inventory (POPSSI) in a 
populatio n of Ethiopian women.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 17 Dec 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Laura Elizabeth  Dodge  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Introduction  
 
1. Line 50: Should this be "87.4% sensitivity"?   
 
 
Methods  
 
2. Lines 21 -23: It would likely be useful to the reader to mention here why women with a 
chief complaint of prolapse were excluded.  
 
3. Lines 26 -27: How were the controls specifically identified? For example, were they the 
next consecutive pat ient without prolapse?  
 
4. Line 53: "Rations" should be "ratios."  
 
5. Line 54: "Receiver operating curve (ROC)" should be "receiver operating characteristic 
(ROC) curve."  
 
 
Discussion  
 
6. Lines 20 -26: It would be helpful to the reader to describe the reaso ns why these results 
differ.  
 
7. Lines 35 -40: As discussed in prior comment #9, these sentences should be reworded to 
make it clear that the higher sensitivity may be due to increased severity of POP in the 
Ethiopian population and not simply increased pr evalence, which would not affect the 
sensitivity and specificity of the test.   
 
8. Lines 56 -58: "The POPSSI can predict POP in approximately 90%" would be better 
worded as "the POPSSI can detect POP in 90% of affected patients."  
 
Are the methods appropriate and we ll described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is re commended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do yo u hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript ? 
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the  above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will  be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available unde r an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as  confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal