Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Cervical microbiota in women with cervical intra -epithelial neoplasia, prior to and after 
local excisional treatment, a Norwegian cohort study.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Dec 2018  
 
Reviewer: Yi-Chang Su  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I agree the author said: "Even with the limitations in study design we believe it is valuable to 
present our res ults to the scientific community. We think it is interesting that we found a less 
diverse microbiota and a tendency towards an increase of Lactobacillus after LEEP confirming 
the findings by Zhang et al - to the best of our knowledge the only study publish ed comparing 
microbiota before and after LEEP so far."  The two studies have different racial groups and 
different tracking times. And these two studies have similar conclusions that are meaningful 
findings. However, there are still some statements that ne ed to be revised in the title of the article 
and the narrative of the discussion.  
1. In the title of the article: The results of the study are limited to the Norwegian region only.  
 
2. In the discussion: The limitations on this study must still be clearly s tated, such as the 
menopausal status, participants a few days before the sampling time whether there is sexual 
activity and menstration, and antibiotics/probiotics for other diseases. The purpose is to make 
future correlation studies aware of the interfere nce factors that influence the results of the 
study.  
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 th e 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  
 
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 comm ents 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal