PONE-D-24-25181Patient-reported dyspareunia and satisfaction with the outcome after spontaneous second-degree tear compared to episiotomy: a register-based cohort studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Josefsson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 11 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fereshteh Behmanesh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to thank all participants in the Perineal Laceration Registry who took their time to complete the questionnaires. This research was funded by the Region Uppsala Research and Development Grant and by the General Maternity Hospital Foundation.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“MLJ received funding by the Region Uppsala Research and Development Grant and by the General Maternity Hospital Foundation. The sponsors did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author

The reviewer’s comments are below:

These are my comments for this paper:

1. In the summary, the year and the place of the study should be mentioned.

2. In the conclusion, a summary should be written “considering that..............................., it is suggested …. .... .... (write your suggestions for clinical practice and scientific research )

3. In Table 3, bold the main variables to distinguish them from the sub-variables, such as : delivery mood, pain at 8 weeks, postpartum infection, etc., or use indentation.

4. Although breastfeeding causes vaginal dryness, it does not lead to reportable dyspareunia, however, please find more references for this issue, otherwise delete the sentence.

5. According to the very good study that has been done and the insight that the researchers have found on the subject, it is suggested to propose a questionnaire development study for designing a tool investigated the consequences of spontaneous and non-spontaneous vaginal tears so that it can be used by other researchers and also policymakers could be familiar with further variables that must be included into the registries.

Comments to the Author

-Unfortunately, in my opinion, this article hasn't any novelty and is one of the most repeated articles that have been studied from all aspects.

- There is no innovation, the results are predictable before the evaluation A study with a larger sample size showed that episiotomy causes dyspareunia. What is the gap of the study? The results are predictable before the review

- According to Table 1, two groups have significant differences in terms of labor and postpartum complications, which affects the results

-- The conclusion should be written as a statement, not repeating the results

- Grammar errors and languages. There are many grammar errors in the manuscript that require substantial improvement.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: These are my comments for this paper:

1. In the summary, the year and the place of the study should be mentioned.

2. In the conclusion, a summary should be written “considering that..............................., it is suggested …. .... .... (write your suggestions for clinical practice and scientific research )

3. In Table 3, bold the main variables to distinguish them from the sub-variables, such as : delivery mood, pain at 8 weeks, postpartum infection, etc., or use indentation.

4. Although breastfeeding causes vaginal dryness, it does not lead to reportable dyspareunia, however, please find more references for this issue, otherwise delete the sentence.

5. According to the very good study that has been done and the insight that the researchers have found on the subject, it is suggested to propose a questionnaire development study for designing a tool investigated the consequences of spontaneous and non-spontaneous vaginal tears so that it can be used by other researchers and also policymakers could be familiar with further variables that must be included into the registries.

Reviewer #2: Comments to the Author

-Unfortunately, in my opinion, this article hasn't any novelty and is one of the most repeated articles that have been studied from all aspects.

- There is no innovation, the results are predictable before the evaluation A study with a larger sample size showed that episiotomy causes dyspareunia. What is the gap of the study? The results are predictable before the review

- According to Table 1, two groups have significant differences in terms of labor and postpartum complications, which affects the results

-- The conclusion should be written as a statement, not repeating the results

- Grammar errors and languages. There are many grammar errors in the manuscript that require substantial improvement.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: ok

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to the Author.docx

Patient-reported dyspareunia and outcome satisfaction after spontaneous second-degree tear compared to episiotomy: a register-based cohort study

PONE-D-24-25181R1

Dear Dr. Mette L Josefsson

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fereshteh Behmanesh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Dear editor of PLOS ONE

This manuscript id “Patient-reported dyspareunia and outcome satisfaction after spontaneous second degree tear compared to episiotomy: a register-based cohort”

As the authors state, sexual function in women had a key role in women’s quality of life and dyspareunia is a problem that affects women's lives. Studies in this field are valuable.

- In the Method and material section, On line 103, enter a reference for the BMI classification.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********