Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Mechanisms of Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Managing Urinary
Incontinence in Women: A Scoping Review
Version: 
0 
Date: 
02 Jan 2022
Reviewer: 
Rui Viana
Reviewer's report:
I consider the theme extremely interesting and important for the evaluation and
intervention of the physiotherapist in the pelvic floor muscles training (PFMT).
Authors wrote many keywords. Authors should write 5 or 6 keywords most
representative of the study.
INTRODUCTION:
In the Introduction, I suggest that the authors add more recent scientific evidence
related to the proposed theme, namely references from 2020 and 2021, as they
have many references that are many years old, which may make the Introduction
outdated in some aspects of the PFMT.
I suggest looking at the following articles for prevalence of the UI: 
An International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for pelvic
floor muscle assessment 
Neurourol Urodyn. 2021; 1-44. 
Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence in High-Impact Sport Athletes: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Human Kinetics 73 1 (2020): 279-288. 
I suggest looking at the following articles for PFMT:
Evaluation of the pelvic floor muscles training in older women with urinary
incontinence: a systematic review. Porto Biomed. J. (2018) 3:2(e9)
Pelvic Floor Muscle Training in Female Athletes: A Randomized Controlled
Pilot Study. International Journal of Sports Medicine 41 04 (2020): 264-270.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
What is the reason for the research option to have been carried out from 1990
and after? Did the authors intend to study the evolution of techniques and their
effects? Do the authors consider that these topics fall within the aim of the
review study?
For exemple: In the inclusion criteria, the authors included the sports modalities,
as well as the level of impact?
In the exclusion criteria, the authors must mention whether the existence of
pelvic prolapse are exclusion criteria. And whether the inability in performance
to contract the PFM was exclusion criteria?
RESULTS
In the tables, I suggest that the authors write more characteristics of the
participants in the "Sample" section.
In the tables, I also suggest that the authors write the country of their research in
the Author & Year section.
DISCUSSION
In the Discussion, I suggest adding more recent studies on PFM in female
athletes, namely studies from 2020 and 2021 to corroborate results and possible
extrapolations.
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.
None.
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