Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Online reported women's experiences of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal 
birth  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Jul 2019  
 
Reviewer: Victor Ngozi Chilaka  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I think that the paper is submitted in good faith, and addresses a contentious issue in our 
everyday life.  
The information  however is collected from a chat forum that is likely to consist of opinionated 
group who already have a position on the issue being discussed and therefore does not represent 
public opinion.  
Childbirth is a natural process and the percentage of women wh o develop major pelvic floor 
damage is small. From this small group a small percentage will need secondary surgery and these 
were not reflected in the paper. There is therefore a tacit hint in the paper childbirth is not safe 
and that can misinform women.  
In the analysis, all forms of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse has been lumped together and 
analysed. There are more than 20 types of operations for pelvic organ prolapse. These operations 
often reflect the type of injury sustained and so cannot be treat ed as one.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by  the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended,  please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
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 th at 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, eith er now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you 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 t o 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 tha t 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 und er 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 include d as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal