Title: Prevalence of Rhesus D Negativity among Reproductive Age Women in Southern
Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Jan 2021
Reviewer:  Tesfaye Hambisa Mekonnen
Reviewer's report:
Review Report
Reviewer: Tesfaye Hambisa (MPH, (Assistant professor), University Of Gondar, Ethiopia.
General comments
The authors tried to respond to some comments (I have seen the responses attached separately).
But many of the response were not incorporated in the main manuscript paper. Below are my
comments (Highlighted with red color)
1. Abstract
Background
-Improved
Methods and materials
-Improved
Result
-Improved
Conclusion
--Still requires clarification
For example, The sentence ‘The study revealed a high prevalence of Rh D negative factor
among women when compared to the reports ofother African countries’ is not correct both
grammatically and scientifically. If there is no concrete evidence to say a higher or lower finding
is reported compared to certain parameter, it will be better to say: This study showed high
prevalence of Rh D negative factor among women in AM Zuria.
-Spacing :---ofother to of other
- educationon to education on and so on
-Regarding the recommendations suggested: I do not think provison of health education would
be a solution to avoid potential risk related Rh D negative
2. Introduction
- The reference containing authors: Landsteiner and Alexander S. Wiener is not reuired since
[3] enough
-Still many spacing and typo errors
-e.g. ABOgroup to ABO group
- The sentence:”The Rh system consists of two related proteins, RhD and RhCE, which express
the D and CE antigens, respectively[10]. People who have the D antigen on their RBCs are
said to be RhD positive, whereas those who do not are said to be RhD negative [10].” Can be
summarized with a single reference or the second sentence can be avoided because it gives no
intuitive sense
-Similar concern to sentences with [11], [15] and  [13,14] citations
3. Methods and materials
Study setting, design and population
-Spacing:  April2019.
Sample size determination
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
-space:  havethe
Sampling technique
* The major concern of this study is the type of sampling method the authors employed.
Not addressed suffieciently
-Its quit strange why they used simple random sampling while the procedure they employed
never corroborate this method. The study could have deserved a multisatge sampling method
with a design effect (from district to kebeles) and the authors should justify why they selected
this method over the recommended one
- Not addressed suffieciently
-In Ethiopia, health post (HP) is the lowest structure of health system and below health centers
(HC). There are altleast 2-3 HCs in a given district based on the width of that district. Therefore,
the authors should elaborate why they skiped HCs and prefered to HPs or why also they did not
consider HCs additionally?
Not addressed suffieciently
- It is also not clear why it was important to prepare sampling frame as one of the assumptions
for Simple random sampling is the availabiliy of frame
-.  Not addressed suffieciently
*How the authors contacted the participants and from how many women (target /source
population) the sample 422 was selected is theoretical.
-Not addressed suffieciently
*And what was the inclusion critera to contact them? These two points are the other major
concerns.
-Not addressed
Data collection methods
-How did the authors assess sociodemographic (and which) variables and why this is important?
This should be implicitly explained in this section.
-Not addrssed
Data quality control
-What where contents of the two days training?
-Improved
Data processing and analysis
-The authors indicated that they used figures to present the finding. But nothing is presented in
the results using figures.
4. Results
- Blood group profile of the study population section needs to be discribed with important
sociodemographich characteristics
-Not addressed
5. Discussion
-This section appears shallow and therefore is not tough
-It also seems merely descriptive
-The strength and limition of the study should also be discussed
-No need to provide a separate heading
Conclusions and recommendations
-See comment in abstract section
6. The manuscript should be edited for language (several grammar and typo errors)
-The manuscript is not edited for grammar and typo errors
-There are several grammatical and typing errors all over the manuscript
-Therefore, it must be edited by a language expert