Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Reliability and Validity of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength Assessment
Using the MizCure Perineometer
Version: 
1 
Date: 
25 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading
your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated
versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your
report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
Report 
BMC Women's Health
Reliability and Validity of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength Assessment Using the
MizCure Perineometer -
Manuscript Number: BMWH-D-20-00792R1 
Full Title: Reliability and Validity of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength Assessment
Using the MizCure Perineometer 
Generally 
Reliability and Validity of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength Assessment Using the
MizCure Perineometer 
The title reflects the study accurately. 
I think this is an important subject and exciting idea and might not add new
knowledge to medical literature. 
Massage is clear 
It is not original 
Sartori DV, Gameiro MO, Yamamoto HA, et al. Reliability of pelvic floor
muscle strength assessment in healthy continent women. BMC Urol. 2015;15:29.
Published 2015 Apr 10. doi:10.1186/s12894-015-0017-6
Background 
An excellent introduction to the subject
Abstract: 
Objective: is clearly written 
The purpose of this study was to clarify the reliability and validity of pelvic floor
muscle (PFM) strength assessment using the MizCure perineometer in healthy
women. 
It is a good summary it is well written in the English language (a few mistakes). 
Very nice introduction written in the English language easy to understand 
Some text is taken from the web 
Ishizuka, M., et al. "C39 BIOMARKERS AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS IN
ILD: Validation Of New Prediction Score In Inhalation Provocation Test For
Chronic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis." American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine, vol. 195, American Thoracic Society, Jan. 2017.
Materials and Methods 
Twenty healthy women (age 20-45 years) participated in this study. Sample size
why 20
The vaginal pressure measurements using the MizCure and Peritron
perineometers were repeated during PFM contraction in the supine and standing
positions. 
All women were evaluated twice by examiners 1 and 2. Following the
measurements in the first session (Test 1), they were repeated after an interval of
between 2 and 6 weeks (Test 2). Within- and between-session intra- and inter-
rater reliabilities in vaginal pressure were analyzed using intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICC) (1, 1) and (2, 1), respectively. 
Validity was assessed by Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient and
Spearman's rank correlation analysis. 
Results: 
Within-session intra-rater reliabilities for both examiners 1 and 2 for all vaginal
pressures in Tests 1 and 2 were 0.90 to 0.96 for both perineometers. 
Between-session intra-rater reliability for the MizCure was 0.72 to 0.79 for both
positions for examiner 1, and 0.63 in the supine position and 0.80 in the standing
position for examiner 2. Interrater reliability for Test 1 was 0.91 in the supine
position and 0.87 in the standing position for the MizCure. 
The vaginal pressures using the MizCure and Peritron were significantly
associated with the supine position (r = 0.68, P < .001) and the standing position
(r s = 0.82, P < .001). 
Conclusion: 
Measurement of PFM strength using the MizCure perineometer is a reliable and
valid method in healthy women.
The manuscript is written in (English language with few spelling and grammar
mistakes.) 
Methods Design: it is just a pilot study 
Data gathering from ( 28 references )
No ethical approval?? And No consent 
The length of the manuscript is appropriate 
Results: number of the table are four very good to illustrate the result very
clearly, and the name of the figure are two need more explanation.
The statistical method and analysis are appropriate 
Plagiarism .. There are few sentences in the manuscript taken from the web 
No conflicts of interests 
References; 28 references some were old (before 2010 ) need to be checked and
some not validated 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you
will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be
able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help
editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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 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'
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes