Reviewer’s report
Title: 
How is pain associated with pelvic mesh implants measured? Refinement
of the construct and a scoping review of current assessment tools
Version: 
1 
Date: 
05 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this manuscript. It addresses an important
question relating to the variability, reliability and validity of PROMS used to
measure vaginal/pelvic mesh related pain.
Here are some comments for authors' consideration:
- The introduction is too long and a big section of it seems to be part of the
conduct of the study which is unusual. Are the data presented in table 1 part of
this work? If so then they need to be moved to the relevant methods and results
sections. However, if this work is related to previously undertaken work then it is
unusual to present other work as a table in the introduction of a manuscript.
Please revise the paragraphs starting from line 5 page 4 to line 27 page 5.
- Page 4 line 49: What is see [26]? Is this the reference number? It does not
appear in table 1 and why is the reference numbering not chronological?
- The main and secondary aims of the work should be clearly stated at the end of
the introduction or the beginning of the methods. It is not clear particularly when
sentences like " The primary focus of the second stage...." are used. Please
clearly state the differed stages of the study and the primary and secondary aims
of each. A flow chart or diagram might help.
- The tables in the results section are not appearing in chronological order. Table
3 is listed before 2!
- The authors do not clearly justify why they undertook a scoping review rather
than a full review. Related to this, although it is more acceptable to have one
reviewer undertaking the study selection with a second doing random checks in a
scoping review, it should still be stated as a limitation.
- How many reviewers did the psychometric review.
- Was the PPI work mentioned in the introduction part of this work? Was ethical
approval sought for this work. Please clarify.
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
Yes
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
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?
Yes
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