Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.     The patient selection and inclusion criteria must be given more detailed. Did they use a valid questionnaire to diagnose urge incontinence?

2.     Who performed the initial examination and pelvic examination? Were they the same clinicians?

3.     Including patients who also have stress-incontinence might affect results. I suggest to exclude those patients and make the statistics again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the publication is good, and the method deserves to be studied and presented to a Western audience. However, it seems strange that more than 30 years of successful clinical experience in Russia is ignored. This information is available from the manufacturers of the device.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Having similar heterogenous two groups does not constitute a homogenous  group.