Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: A cohort study (POP-UP
study)
Version: 
0 
Date: 
15 Jul 2020
Reviewer: 
Alas Alexandriah N
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective case control study evaluating uterine sparing surgery vs.
tradition sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.
Intro
Line 53: you say 1 in 3 and 1 in 10. Is this suppose to be a range- there is only
one reference and you are only referring to POP so not sure why it says
respectively.
Line 67: change family to childbearing
Line 68- what is your reference that surgery is the mainstay management. I do
not believe that surgery is the gold standard for prolapse treatment.
Materials and methods
Line 139: have you found that measuring mesh placement on 3D ultrasound is
clinically relevant to either surgeon or patient in reference to failure?
Line 145: point c failure is within tvl -2? It is unclear.
How is the primary outcome defined? Composite score? Popq alone? PFDI?-
please calrify
Results
Line 183: this paragraph should come after your table 1 data paragraph. This is
your primary outcome.
I would add specific number for operative time and EBL. Yes they are
significant but only by 5 minutes and a few ccs.
Line 187: what percentage had a failure?
Conclusion
I would mention further that although EBL and op time are longer are these
clinically relevant. If outcomes were the same 5 minutes longer would not make
a difference.
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
Are the methods appropriate and well 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 recommended, 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 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' below.
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 publish my name with my
report.