Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Secnidazole for treatment of bacterial vaginosis: A systematic review  
 
Version: 1 Date: 11 Jul 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear  
objective that addresses a testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a 
clear objective)?Yes - there is a clear objective  DESIGN - Is the current a pproach (including 
controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?  Yes - the app roach is 
appropriate  EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical r igor 
to allow confidence in the results?  Yes - experiments and analyses were performed 
appropri ately  STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscrip t appropriate?  Not sure - 
I am not able t o assess the statistics in this study  INTERPRETATION - Is the current 
interpretation/discussio n of the results reasonable and not overstated?  Yes - the author's 
interpretation is reasonable  OVERALL MANUSCRIPT  POTENTIAL - Is the current version 
of this work technically sound ? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically 
sound?  Probably - with minor revisions  PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL 
COMMENTS: The systematic revi ew is done well in terms of the selection of clinical trials 
to include in this study. The need for this s tudy is justified. The analysis of the study could 
have been better demonstrated by including a  comparison of the significance levels of each 
different parameter looked at. REQUESTED REVISIONS : To improve the statistical 
methods by analyzing the results of all the trials considered by the authors.  
 
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 th e 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 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 quest ions:  
 
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  
manuscrip t, 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 manuscrip t, 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 inte rests 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Resea rch Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under  a Creative Commons Attribution 
License attributed to Research Square and was paid  a small honorarium for  completing the 
review within a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of 
the reviewer recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be 
included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my 
named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the websi te 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 name d report can be in cluded as 
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal