Reviewer's report
Title:Descriptive cross sectional study on prevalence, perceptions, predisposing
factors and health seeking behaviour of women with stress urinary incontinence
Version:1Date:8 April 2014
Reviewer: Binjwala Shrestha
Reviewer's report:
Descriptive cross sectional study on prevalence, perceptions, 1 predisposing
factors and health seeking behavior of women with 2 stress urinary incontinence
Reviewer: Binjwala Shrestha, Assistant Professor
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined?
Comment 1: The research problem posed is not new in the context of Urinary
health problem, however in the context of health care seeking behavior in the
context of Srilanka , this study is relevant for strategic health promotion program.
Therefore the study problem is relevant in the Shrilanka context.
Comment 2
Page 3 line 73 delete this is redundant
Background
Comment 3
Page 3, line 77-79 add reference
Comment 4:
Add : review literature related to pelvic organ prolapse to include risk factor of
SUI
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details
provided to replicate the work?
Comment 5:
Comment 5.1
Page 6 line150-155
How author decided 400 study participants, please elaborate and what was the
sampling frame , please describe
Comment 5.2.
Page 6 line 159-160
Make clear whether gynecological exam done or not done to exclude pelvic
organ prolapse
Comment 6:
Page 8 line 204-205
Please move to discussion, this is not your result, this seems your literature
review result
3. Are the data sound and well controlled?
Comment 7. For this it would be better if commented by expert from statistics
background
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Comment 8: Take comment from statistician
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Comment 9
page 8 line 215
replace word high by within the range of
Comment 10
Page 9 line 234 : replace word subjects by study participants
Comment 11: Result and discussion are well balanced however arguments and
result of this study mentioned in discussion mostly found to be not very new
findings. Author should explain what new result explored from this study in the
context of south east region and Shrilanka cultural context and accessibility and
availability of service as well.
Comment 12
Page 10, line 261
move to limitation of study
Comment 13
add limitation of study at the end of Discussion
Comment 14 Conclusion
Page 11, line 272-73:
Rephrase according to result ,
Comment 15
Page 11 line 281-285
Be precise according to the result of this study and be specific to
recommendation of prevention and care of SUI in given socio cultural context.
Comment 16:
Page 11 line 279-280
move to last para of Discussion : recommendation of further study from
conclusion
6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Comment 11; Abstract : it is well covered
i7. Is the writing acceptable?
It would be acceptable after revision in specific minor comments
- Major Compulsory Revisions
not much except stat review according to stat expert
- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1. Edit background
2. Clarify sampling process and frame
3. Respond the specific comments in result, discussion and conclusion section
Advice for publication
After reviewing the response on these comments we can decide for publication
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I do not have any competing interest with this research paper