Title: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Depression among Women with Advanced Pelvic
Organ Prolapse in Northwest Ethiopia: Cross-sectional Study
Version: 4 Date: 28 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
Prevalence and Associated Factors of Depression among Women with Advanced Pelvic Organ
Prolapse in Northwest Ethiopia
Authors:
1. Sileshi Ayele Abebe
2. Zelalem Mengistu Gashaw
3. Zelalem Ayichew
4. Dessie Abebaw
5. Endeshaw Asaye Kindie
EVALUATION
Please list your revision requests for the authors and provide your detailed comments, including
highlighting limitations and strengths of the study and evaluating the validity of the methods,
results, and data interpretation. If you have additional comments you can add them as well.
Thank you for inviting me to review this article. Overall, the study is potentially interesting,
however there are important methodological and grammatical issues that need to be explained
before proceeding to further consideration. A detailed review is provided below
Q1. Every journal has specific instructions for preparing manuscripts. Nevertheless, I didn't
observe line numbers and double line spacing in your manuscript.
Q2.There is also some Inconsistency of font type
Methodology:
Q3. Did you calculate Sample size for second objective? If you do so, what was the sample
size for it?
Q4. Ethical clearance Refno. Should be included
Results:
Q5. Median ±IQR??
Discussion:
Q6. In your study you mentioned as 32.4% of participants reports severe form of depression.
But you didn’t compared your finding with others finding? What others studies said about this?
Was this finding in line with others? Higher or lower? And the reason for discrepancy if any?
Q7. You mentioned as the odds of developing depressive symptoms were remarkably high
among rural residents and you put reason for it. But, Comparing to which studies those women
in rural areas have higher Odds of developing depression? I.e. is there any study which show
significant association between being rural resident and depression? If there please mention it.
And if there is discrepancy, please put the possible justification for it! What about for divorced
women? And what is the possible explanation it?
Q8. You tried to discuss the descriptive and then associated factors and finally you come back
to descriptive. This is not the way to discuss the findings, first you have to finish discussion of
major descriptive findings and then proceed to associated factors.
Ethical Clearance:
Q9. Reference number of Ethics should be included. What type of consent was obtained from
patient? Is it oral or written and signed?
Q10. Under Table 2: You classified Stage of POP as stage III and IV and also three is empty
row below it. Please remove it!
Q11. Under table 3: Age categorization, marital status, educational status, residence and all
variables throughout the table there is empty row. Please remove it!
Q12. Table 3: Table and any kinds of figure have its own standard and it should be self-
explanatory. I have seen so many empty row in your table and some confusing things. For
instance you use p-value for each variables associated to your outcome of interest, if you use
p-value why you are interested to use *??What is its significance? You use two star (**) for
0.03** and 0.002**, is there no difference in both p-value? When did we use *, ** and ***
please use appropriate symbols and put keys as footnote! Again in table 3. You transfer variables
which have confidence interval which include one in binary logistic regression into multivariable
logistic regression model? For instance, Age of respondent, and stage of POP. Did this not affect
the model? Did you check model fitness? If you do so, how you checked it and what was the
result?