Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  One in five women suffer from pelvic floor disorders in Kersa district Eastern Ethiopia: A 
community -based study  
 
Version: 2 Date: 23 May 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Marlene  Egger  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Many thanks to the authors for providing additional details and explanation in response to th e 
reviewers' questions!  
 
I think I understand now that the Kersa sampling frame *is*the relevant stratum, and so no 
survey weighting is needed.   
 
The authors have further clarified that they created their assessment instrument using the 
questions from se veral extant instruments, they cannot use a VAS scale due to the level of 
population numeracy and literacy concerns, they have now provided the questions to the 
reviewers, they ascertained face validity using a panel of experts, they pretested the instrume nt, 
and they give a coefficient alpha for internal consistency of the distress items in the revised 
paper. Of course, there are additional measures of reliability and validity (e.g., the EPIQ has test -
retest reliability, and it has criterion validity with the clinical diagnosis of POP and SUI when 
used with specified VAS cutpoints) but the authors have now provided documentation that their 
instrument is at least partially validated.  
 
I was not always sure that the authors added explanation to the paper, e.g ., for comment 2.1 
about restriction of the sample to ever -married women. Has a brief version of that explanation 
and/or references been added to the paper?  
 
Are the methods appropriat e 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.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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 o r 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 r eply 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 a ccepted 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