Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  The levonorgestrel intrauterine device in Australia:  analysis of prescribing data 2 008 - 
2012  
 
Version: 1 Date: 10 Mar 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Sarah  Prager  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Thank you for this interesting paper about LNG -IUD use in Australia.  It is well written and has 
clear conclusions.  I do have a few points of feedback.   
 
1. In the introduction, you indi cate that IUD use is commensurate with use in countries such as 
Germany and the US, which have rates of 3 -6% reported.  The rates reported in this paper, 
however, are lower by a factor of 10, unless copper IUD use is significantly more than LNG -IUD 
use.  I  would not call that commensurate.  Also, IUD use in the US now is significantly higher 
than reported, though 5.3% is a reasonable statistic for 2008 -2012, if that is what you are 
intending.   
 
2. In the results section, you report both prescription rates a nd uptake rates in separate places.  
Are you differentiating between these?  I don't think you are, as you comment in your conclusion 
that you can only measure pharmacy prescription, not actual IUD placement.  I would use 
consistent language so as not to b e confusing. This is most confusing when comparing the results 
in the paragraph from lines 180 -185 to the following paragraph lines 187 -191. 
 
3. I agree that a major limitation to the accuracy of the data is the absence of data from the 
AMSs.  Are you able to estimate what the use of LNG -IUD is through those clinics?  That would 
help a lot to give a more accurate picture of IUD use.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Qual ity of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the au thors' 
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I  do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal