Title: Maternal and perinatal outcomes of oligohydramnios in late term and post term
pregnancies at public hospitals in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 27 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer Report
To: BMC Women’s Health Journal [Ref: Submission ID 87d98c4b-3275-46a1-
b84f-0f237ef6690a]
Title: Maternal and perinatal outcomes of oligohydramnios and associated factors in late-term
and post-term pregnancies at public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study
General Comment
I am so grateful for having such a great opportunity to review a scientific paper titled “Maternal
and perinatal outcomes of oligohydramnios and associated factors in late-term and post-term
pregnancies at public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study” by Dr.
Matiyas and Colleagues. I found it the findings are very relevant to the field.
Abstract:
- Background and aim of the study should be merged into one paragraph
- Use ‘Methods’ instead of ‘methodology’
- It would be nice if you could give tips about the number of study participants, sampling
procedure and data collection method.
- Comparison of induction with SVD or elective CS may confuse readers, it would be nice if
authors could compare induction with SVD and elective CS, separately.
- The conclusion in the abstract section is very bold, I would like to recommend the authors
use a very moderate conclusion considering their design strength ‘…. could not a significant
difference between …. on maternal and perinatal outcome….’
- What is the conclusion or suggestion of authors for action?
Methods
- As a manuscript, the methods section should be broken into different sub-topics to make
approaches easily understandable by readers.
- The design of the study is not clear. Was it a prospective study with some follow-ups or just
a snap shoot of capturing information?
- The cases look rare (9.7%), and the authors used a relatively small sample size (149), the
generalizability of findings may be compromised due to the sample size
- How was the data collected? Was it an interview or filling the checklist by observation? Was
it a record review? examinations accordingly? Was it a follow-up study? Having no comparison
group made the design weak with massive consequences on the generalizability of the finding.
- Were physicians involved in this study? Or were only trained midwives involved in the data
collection?
- Applying logistic regression analysis from a non-random sample is very problematic.
Results
- The reported should be sub-grouped into different sub-topics
- The denominator matters, the outcome was measured only among pregnant women with
oligohydramnios. It lacks comparison and methodological rigour
- Kindly move “…Composite adverse fetal outcome was defined if one of the following
occurs: first minute APGAR less than seven, NICU admission, stillbirth or early neonatal death.
Individual or composite adverse outcomes of women who had induced were not significantly
different from those who had spontaneous labour and/or who had elective CS. (Table 6 and 7)
…” to the method’s section
- Were the maternal and perinatal birth outcomes among women with oligohydramnios different
from women who had no oligohydramnios?
- What is the implication of this finding to program and policy in combating maternal health
challenges in low-resource settings?
- The discussion should be within the scope of the study, please
- What should be done based on this finding? What should the program implementers,
policymakers, and clinicians do?
Thanks