Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Clinical relevance of routine transvaginal ultrasound in women referred
with pelvic organ prolapse
Version: 
1 
Date: 
20 Apr 2020
Reviewer's report:
Comments:
1. Please specify or give example on what is exactly meant by 'changes' in line
26-27 in the introduction. I assume it was referring to increased in
intraabdominal pressure or pelvic mass.
2. Line 4 - Page 5, it is mentioned that all women referred with POP were
included. This may be confusing when in line 17, it is mentioned that women
with POP but never had a TVS were excluded. Also, similar information is
repeated in the results section. Either reword it in a non-confusing manner in the
methodology OR leave it at the results section.
3. The 'double appearance' mentioned in line 19 is also mentioned in results (line
7, Pg 6). Again, this repetition is redundant.
4. Although this is a descriptive study, I still feel some stats between subgroup
especially between group with risk factors vs. those without.
5. The 60% mentioned in line 32, Pg 6 may be misunderstood as 60% of the
study population, when it was actually 60% of the 15 women with ovarian cyst.
Please state this as 60% (n=9/15)….
6. Please rephrase 'enlargement of pelvic organ' as pelvic mass.
7. I suggest authors rephrase the concluision i.e. "….is not very high risk.." Does
it mean low?
8. 
The study design and sample size were inadequate to come to such conclusion
and recommendation for clinical practise.
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.
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.
I recommend additional statistical review
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 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 under 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 included as
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal