Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Clinical relevance of routine transvaginal ultrasound in women referred
with pelvic organ prolapse
Version: 
1 
Date: 
13 Apr 2020
Reviewer's report:
It was a pleasure to read this paper. Nice overview on what happens in every day
clinic. Provides new insights and issues are well discussed. 
What I would add to the discussion is that omitting TVS is only possible in case
of high standards on vaginal examination as well. It is written in the discussion
that good history taking is needed and I fully agree. But the same holds true for
your examination other than TVS. 
The age in the table seems to have a very low SD. Is it correct? 
Only one-third had prolapse in more than 1 copmpartment which seems very
low. What was the definition of POP in a compartment? Please add to methods.
In the flowchart there seems a flaw, because the description of women without
indication for TVS but with incidental findigs seem to be missing in this box: 
Women with POP
without incidental
findings on TVS
n = 507
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.
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.
Not relevant to this manuscript
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
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