Reviewer's report
Title:Pregnancy-related anxiety and wealth quartile in interaction with partner
relationship associated with antenatal depression in pregnant women in Northern
Tanzania: a cross-sectional study
Version:2Date:2 April 2015
Reviewer: Alexandre Faisal-Cury
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
Abstract
page 2 line: They stated that "risk factors for AD...". There are several studies in
LIC or LMIC.
page 2 line 18: the sentence started with the number 33.8%. Is it Ok according
the journal rules?
page 3 line 1: there is a word missing after OR ("have an OR for antenatal
depression")
apge 3 line 4: Is this first sentence right (depression evident) ?
Background
page 4 line 10: the association between perinatal depression and adverse
obstetrical outcome is controversial (see for example Faisal-Cury et al, Common
mental disorders during pregnancy and adverse obstetric outcomes. J
Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2010,31(4):229-35). There are evidence that
negative impact of AD varies according to socioeconomic status from pregnant
women more than the depression itself) . This controversy should be mentioned
in one sentence.
page 5 line 7 : they used the words systematic revie twice to refered to the same
article (see page 4 line 23)
page 6 line 14: pelase check the construction of the sentence
page 6 line 17: is the word realize right?. Or should it be accomplished (reach)
page 6 line 18: I would use the word prevalence instead of proportion
page 6 line 18 and 2: the authors should use ither depressive symptoms or
antenatal depression, nut not boyh at the same time.
page 6 line 2. The senetnce could be "we aimed to estimate the prevalence of
antenatal depression and its associated factors among ....". It is shorter and
clearer.
Methods
page 7 line 14: it is surprising that all pregnant women agreed to participate.
page 7 line 18: urgent health care needs and obstetrical emergencies are not
well defined. How many were eligible?. This is more important for external
validity than internal validity. Nevertheless it should be defined in this part of the
text.
page 8 line 8 and 9: i dont think the last part of the sentence makes any sense
*there are no context of physical or emotional transition in high income
countries?". What transitions are the authors talking about ?")
page 8 line 13-16. This part of the text shoud be either eliminate, reduced to
(womne's with infection status were not eligible) or replaced in the text (it could
be placed in one previous paragraph)
page 9 line 15: the word question appeared twice
page 10 line 12. the authors should explained why they collapsed the
socio-economic variable.
page 10 line 19: considering that the prevalence of the outcome is so high
(33.8%) it was better to use Poisson estimates instead of multiple logistic
regression.
Results
page 12 line 13: it is so surprising that 15.4% of participants had a history of
lossing a child. Is this true?
page 12 line 18: as suggested previouslu I would use prevalence insead of
Proportion
page 13 line : natures of prvious delivery should be (better defined in the
methodology section
Discussion
page 16 line 5: I dont see any particular reason to categorize marital status in
"married, cohabiting and others". Are really diferent being married and
cohabiting?. If the authors agree withs this statement the analysis should be
reviewed.
page 16 line 12: the reference is missing
page 17 lne 10: the senetnce does not reflect the true (see for example
Faisal-Cury A, Menezes P, Araya R, Zugaib M. Common mental disorders during
pregnancy: prevalence and associated factors among low-income women in São
Paulo, Brazil: depression and anxiety during pregnancy. Arch Womens Ment
Health. 2009 Oct;12(5):335-43)
Tables
Table 1: It is much interesting including the Prevalence Ratios for each exposure
variables than presenting two columns.
Tabel 2: there is a mistake in this table. See the line "pregnancy decision"
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests