Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Uterine Preservation: A survey of female
gynaecologists (POP-UP survey)
Version: 
0 
Date: 
14 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
I read with great interest the Manuscript titled "Pelvic Organ Prolapse and
Uterine Preservation: A survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey)"
(BMWH-D-20-00571). 
The authors performed a survey study aimed to investigate the personal views of
female gynecologists regarding the management of POP. I was particularly
pleased to review this paper. In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting
enough to attract the readers' attention. Methodology is accurate and conclusions
are supported by the data analysis. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some
point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the
topic and discussing limitations of the study that are not evidenced in the
discussion.
In general, the Manuscript may benefit from several minor revisions, as
suggested below:
- All the text needs a language revision in order to improve some typos and
grammatical errors.
- I would suggest checking the guidelines for the Authors to conform the
manuscript and the reference style. 
- Methods. I would suggest clarifying how female gynecologist were identified
and how the survey was administered. 
- I would suggest reporting as supplementary material the questionnaire. 
- Regarding the response rate, I would suggest reporting the actual number of
gynecologist target of the survey and how many of them did not answered. 
- Are demographic characteristics of responders available? Regardless the asked
assumption, if demographic variables are available, I would suggest reporting
them. 
- Please, revise figure 3 and 4. 
- I would suggest clarifying how was possible to answer at each question. Was
the responder allowed to provide multiple answers to the same question? Figure
1 suggests that responders were able to choose multiple preferred management.
How was this question actually presented? The same for figure 2. 
- I would suggest improving the discussion about the management of pelvic
organ prolapse, highlighting, at least briefly, the role of a multidisciplinary
management involving psychological support. Refer to: PMID: 31975987.
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 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?
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