Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Current use of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System in clinical
practice among Korean obstetrician-gynecologists
Version: 
2 
Date: 
01 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respectable Editor 
Thank you to give me the opportunity to review the article entitled (Current use
of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System in clinical practice among
Korean obstetrician-gynecologists), which aimed to assess current use of the
POP-Q system for the evaluation of POP and surgical decision-making among
Korean obstetrician-gynecologists.
Authors used a clear informative title and structured abstract.
In the introduction, they mentioned the there are few reports on the use of the
POP-Q system in clinical practice. Surveys of American Urogynecologic Society
(AUGS) and International Continence Society (ICS) members in 2004 and 2011
showed that the POP-Q is not widely used in their clinical practice despite its
endorsement by relevant professional societies. The main reason for not using
the POP-Q was the lack of perceived clinical relevance compared to the time and
effort involved in its used, and this explains the aim of their study.
In the methods section, the authors mentioned the study design, participants, and
data collection.
They provide clear results, and in the discussion, they compared their results by
the first he first survey in 2004 and second survey in 2011.
They mentioned also, the strength (their study was the first study to assess the
use of the POP-Q system in the evaluation of POP and surgical decision-making
among Korean obstetrician-gynecologists), and the limitation of their study in
the discussion section. 
Authors reached a conclusion reflecting their results and they used relevant
references.
In my opinion, its well-designed, and interesting article, which can be accepted
for publication without any suggested changes from my side.
Regards 
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. 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
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 conflict of interests in relation to this article
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.
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