All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Please revise the manuscript as the reviewers suggested.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The discussion of adverse outcomes is vague. Specify the adverse outcomes associated with scarred uterus and provide evidence from reputable studies to support the claims made. For example, mention increased risks of uterine rupture, surgical complications, neonatal asphyxia, and infections, citing specific studies.
Provide a detailed overview of the study design, including information about the sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data collection methods. This will allow readers to understand the study's methodology and determine its validity and generalizability.
Clarify the specific criteria used to assess abdominal wall scar status. Specify how the scoring system was developed and evaluated for reliability and validity. This information is essential for reproducibility and consistency among different researchers.
Mention the specific tools or techniques used for transperineal pelvic floor ultrasound imaging. Provide a brief explanation of how this modality allows for the assessment of pelvic muscle damage and strength. This will enhance readers' understanding of the methodology and its relevance to the research question.
It's good!
It's good!
None.
This study aimed to investigate the predictive value of abdominal wall scar score in relation to pelvic floor function rehabilitation, vaginal microecology, and complications following cesarean section. A total of 120 pregnant women who underwent cesarean section were divided into an observation group (score ≥ 60) and a control group (score < 60) based on their preoperative abdominal wall scar scores. The results showed significant differences between the two groups regarding postpartum muscle fiber strength, pelvic floor muscle potential, abnormal rates of Le and nag (vaginal bacteria), and the incidence of postpartum complications. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed that the abdominal scar score had a predictive value for pelvic floor function rehabilitation (AUC = 0.806), vaginal microecology (AUC = 0.871), and complications (AUC = 0.844). The specificity and sensitivity values were also reported for each outcome. Overall, the abdominal scar score was found to have a certain predictive effect on the recovery of pelvic floor function, vaginal microecology, and postpartum complications after cesarean section. This score can serve as a preoperative auxiliary examination, enabling medical staff to adjust treatment measures in a timely manner. However, further research is needed to validate these findings and determine the broader applicability of the abdominal scar score in clinical practice. Here are a few suggestions may boost the preciseness of this manuscript.
1. The introduction lacks a clear research objective. It should explicitly state the purpose of the study.
2. The introduction lacks proper citations. Claims and statements should be supported by relevant sources.
3. The introduction lacks background information on assisted reproductive technology and the second child policy.
4. The introduction lacks a clear rationale for studying the predictive value of abdominal scar score.
good
good
good
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.