Title: Perceptions of pelvic floor dysfunction and rehabilitation care amongst women in
southeast China after radical hysterectomy: a qualitative study
Version: 2 Date: 22 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript and offer the following commentary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL:
- I was surprised to see that a Master Student (X-yJ) occupied the position as senior author on
the paper (i.e. last position), when from looking at your author contribution, it appears that LG
is noted as carrying what appears to be the senior author role.
- The JPEG of the ethics approval is of no practicable use for those who are not familiar with the
local language.  We just need a simple statement explaining what the ethical procedures were.
- Occasionally some odd phraseology is used such as: 'one-on-one semistructured...' (Abstract),
'mental state was normal' (Methods), 'asexual life' (Results).  I would recommend a throrough
proofread and potentially engagement with a native English speaking proof reading/editing
service to further strengthen the manuscript.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT:
- Please remove the citation from the abstract - it is superfluous here.
- After the first mention of pelvic floor dysfunction, please put the acromnym in brackets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION:
- Very concise and conveys all the messages required to lay the background for the study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METHODS:
- I am really unsure as to why you recruited according to education level?
- Why do you present the median age and not the mean age - the latter is more commonplace.
- Your theme names are quite long and not very catchy - I would suggest they need a little more
analytic refinement.
- Were the quotations used translated - if so we need to know how they were translated and by
whom to get them from Mandarin to English.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESULTS:
- The way you go onto discuss your themes is really unclear.  You need to use appropriate
grammar, inverted commas around each category, or numbering, or capitalise the words so that
we can understand what the different categories were, because at the moment, they just look like
long lists of categories and it is impossible to know where to separate them from one another.
- If you are going to present data in text for one theme/category, you need to present data in
text for all themes/categories.  I am unsure why there are some data presented, but it is sporadic
and is also not assigned to a particular person as they have no participant identifier (i.e. number
or pseudonym).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION:
- You appear to be repeating the introduction in the results - please don't introduce new literature
such as systematic reviews here.  This should be a comparison of your findings to the wider
literature not telling us what the existing literature states without drawing comparisons with your
findings.  We need to hear what you results mean in the context of the wider literature.
- It is a bit too long and could be written much more succinctly.
- I would recommend this section is entirely re-written with the focus given to your findings
and not those of the other studies you are comparing to.  What is important for the disucssion
is that we understand what YOUR findings mean in the context of other published work.  At
present it is hard to see your work shine through and the discussion reads much more like another
introduction.