Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Reliability and Validity of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength Assessment
Using the MizCure Perineometer
Version: 
1 
Date: 
20 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respectable Editor 
Thank you to give me the opportunity to review the article entitled (Reliability
and Validity of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength Assessment Using the MizCure
Perineometer)
The study aimed to clarify the reliability and validity of pelvic floor muscle
(PFM) strength assessment using the MizCure perineometer in healthy women.
The study concluded that measurement of PFM strength using the MizCure
perineometer is a
reliable and valid method in healthy women.
The authors used structured abstract with informative title.
In the introduction, authors specify the magnitude of the problem (Thus, vaginal
pressure measurement has high clinical importance. It is necessary to perform an
objective evaluation of the PFM to be able to properly treat, give feedback, and
document changes in PFM function during rehabilitation. Additionally, PFM
evaluation is recommended by the International Continence Society and
considered essential to assess a post-therapeutic
44 intervention effect). In addition, they stated that the reliability and validity of
the MizCure have not been verified. This explains why their study was designed
(explaining the aim of their study).
The authors methodology, they mentioned the study time, inclusion, exclusion
criteria and the sample size calculation. In addition, to the assesment tools and
procedures (the Peritron 9300 perineometer and the MizCure perineometer). 
The results of the study are clear with clear well-designed results including,
within-session intra-rater reliability, between-session intra-rater reliability, and
within- and between-session inter-rater reliabilities.
In the discussion, they compared their findings with others finding and
mentioned the limitation and suggested future recommendations.
The authors used clear conclusion reflecting their results and relevant references.
Finally, the manuscript presents an interesting, well-designed study, which can
be accepted for publication after revision and correction of the highlighted minor
typing errors in the attached PDF file.
Regards 
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 upon publication of the manuscript. 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 decalre no conflict of interest in relation to this article
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 publish my name with my
report.
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?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes