Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Prevalence of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: A Saudi National Survey
Version: 
1 
Date: 
02 Jan 2022
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 approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor
to allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
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 authors have conducted a countrywide crosssectional study, with
representative sampling. The findings are therefore both accurate and important.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
General comments-
Some citation numbers are in bold, while others are not bold. Please be uniform.
P8 Sample size calculation - usual convention is to write the methods section in
past tense. This looks like a proposal.
Statistical analysis - Why did you use an univariate analysis to select variables to
include in the logistic regression? What kind of LR did you use? Forward/
backward/enter?
Results- With your defined inclusion criteria, how did you have 83 women who
were pregnant, non-Saudi, etc?
Table 2 needs a title - the current title is an explanatory statement
How was colorectal dysfunction evaluated?
Results - When reporting the findings about attitudes, why are you dividing the
sample based on symptoms? It is the same question and same sample, so the
results section is confusing.
Abstract
A third of a woman; 830 - punctuation missing
Inflicted - do you mean affected?
Colorectal dysfunction - this is not a standard term, so you need to specify what
this means or list individual disorders
P5 L10 - PFDs - You have already defined PFD as pelvic floor dysfunctions, so
what is PFDs?
P5 L12 - use the word "and" after the oxford comma
P5 L33 - The sentence "several predisposing risk factors…." Is probably an
introductory statement. It would be better at the beginning of the section on risk
factors, or please revise it to conform to your previous statements.
P6 L34 - Remove "then"
P8 L11 - Self reported, self-administered - use one term
P15 L28 - do you mean urinary incontinence?
P16 L12 - increases in older age among parous women after their first pregnancy
and with the number of natural births - this sentence is unclear
P15 L29 - demographics, study designs or clinical definitions - you will need to
discuss on these individually if you think they contributed to the difference
P15 L31 - On the other side, - not standard writing convention
P17 L19 - risk factors- you are discussing two
P17 L42 - older age
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The style of writing and grammar could be improved
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
No
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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research 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.
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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
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?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes