Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A 36-year-old lady with type three Female Genital Mutilation
(Infibulation) – its long-term complications: a case report and literature review
Version: 
0 
Date: 
12 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for giving me the opportunity to
read this type of work. Female genital mutilation is a little known phenomenon
that requires scientific work to provide health science professionals with tools.
Background
In addition to defining FGM, generate a geographical context and clarify the
types and consequences of the practice. It is recommended to include a brief
paragraph contextualizing the rationale and/or justification used for the practice.
The analysis of the motivations from a gender perspective may facilitate the
reader's overall contextualization of traditional practices. 
Presentation of the case. 
It is recommended that the presentation of the case data be structured. Currently
this section is somewhat chaotic and does not present an adequate order to
facilitate its reading. It is recommended to follow the structure of CARE
guidelines to clarify the section: 
- Patient Information. 
- Clinical Findings. If possible, this information should be ordered by systems (in
the case of medicine) or patterns (in the case of nursing).
- Timeline. The inclusion of a timeline can help the authors to clarify graphically
the information included in the clinical case.
- Diagnostic Assessment
- Therapeutic Intervention. Description of both the disinfibulation procedure and
psychosexual treatments.
- Follow-up and Outcomes
Include ethical aspects and consent collection process.
Discussion
- Correct age in the first paragraph of the discussion, according to the title and
clinical data the patient's age is 36 years. The discussion indicates that the patient
is 35 years old. Clarify this aspect.
- This section is written as an introductory or contextualizing section on the
negative consequences for women's health of type 3 FGM. However, there is no
explicit discussion between the literature (theoretical framework) and the
complications found in the case presented. A new wording is recommended to
clarify the discussion and the explanation of divergences and coincidences. 
- A section on limitations should be included. 
- The patient's perspective is not included at any time. Would it be possible to
include aspects related to the patient's experience of the process, including a
post-disinfibulation follow-up?
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?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (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 Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “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 Web of Science, 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. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
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 Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
Yes