Reviewer’s report
Title: 
"Locus minoris resistentiae" and connective tissue weakness in older
women: a case report and literature review on pelvic organ prolapse with
inguinal bladder hernia
Version: 
1 
Date: 
05 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical
knowledge, have educational value, or highlight the need for a change in clinical
practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches? 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to
understand the patient's symptoms and course of treatment? 
No - there are minor issues
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the
diagnosis, interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?
Yes, the work described is medically sound
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the
importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease
processes, diagnosis or treatment? Has an adequate literature review pertinent to
the case been included?
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED
version of this work represent a technically sound contribution?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: I find the manuscript hard to read. I think it would
benefit from an english editor. terms such as "old age", "interval of 6 months".
This is a case report and the manuscript would read easier if it was setup that
way. It seems that the authors have tried to write the manuscript as if it was a
typical "original research paper" . So would address the objective, the
methodology, case descriptions, and discussion. In the discussion enunciate how
this is important to identify, and what can be done.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Grammer. 
Be more concise and articulate for objectives.
Why identification of these issues as early as possible is of benefit (rationale).
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Grammer. no value is stating the median age when there are only 3 cases. avoid
"old age". 
Try to be concise and only focus on the relevant details. Eg. the first sentence of
the background (abstract) seems overly detailed for a case report abstract. Could
be inserted elsewhere in the document, but not in the first line of the abstract.
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?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes