Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Clinical analysis of pain after transvaginal mesh surgery in patients with
pelvic organ prolapse
Version: 
1 
Date: 
17 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Clinical analysis of pain after
transvaginal mesh surgery in patients with pelvic organ prolapse" (BMWH-D-
20-00702R1), which falls within the aim of BMC Women's Health. The Authors
aimed to investigate the relevant factors of pain after transvaginal mesh surgery
for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, and to analyze the management and
relief of the pain. 
In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers'
attention. Nevertheless, the authors should clarify some points and improve the
discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic.
Authors should consider the following recommendations:
- The Manuscript should be further revised by a native English speaker in order
to improve readability.
- The Authors did not mention the sample size calculation for their study. It is
essential to specify this data in order to guarantee an adequate significance of the
results obtained by the Authors.
- In the Results section, the Authors have simply reported the p values from
which however it is not possible to deduce the real clinical relevance of the
highlighted statistical significance. In order to better understand the results
obtained, I strongly suggest reporting not only the p values but also the
corresponding confidence intervals and the effect size of the comparisons.
- What are the actual clinical implications of this study? it is important to report
the results obtained by the authors in the context of clinical practice and to
adequately highlight what contribution this study adds to the literature already
existing on the topic and to future study perspectives.
- Although several approaches are able for the management of POP, the best
strategy in case of recurrence after vaginal vault prolapse still remains debated. I
would discuss the available evidence about novel techniques, referring to: PMID:
29675427; PMID: 29038834.
- Pelvic organ prolapse is a very common condition in female population with a
severe impact on quality of life and a significant impairment of sexual function;
for this reason, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended for an accurate
management. I would stress this point, discussing some key articles: PMID:
29672997; PMID: 29508043; PMID: 28589780.
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
No
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