Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Risk Factors of Induced Abortion among Preparatory School Female Students, Guraghe 
Zone, Southern Region, Ethiopia: Cross -Sectional Study  
 
Version: 3 Date: 11 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Heidi Jones  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors have done a nice job with the revisions.  I just have a few minor points to consider:  
 
 
1. In the abstract, what do you mean, "Currently induced abortion is a human rights 
dilemma"?  I don't understand this statement.  In general, the paper reads as though the 
authors do not believe that women should have the right to an abortion.  Clearly the 
authors can have this opinion, but I would remove judgment from the paper to keep i t 
scientific/factual.  So, for example, I would start the abstract just stating that abortion is 
common.   
 
 
2. The description is of how the sample was selected is still confusing.  I do not understand 
the authors explanation of the random selection proces s.  But if it was truly random (that 
is if each female student had an equal probability of being included in the sample), than 
the authors should just describe this as "simple random selection".  
 
 
3. I would report all percentages and ORs to one decimal poi nt, and include the 95% CIs 
around the prevalence of abortion estimate in the abstract.  
 
 
4. It would help if you included the age range of preparatory school girls in the abstract, to 
put the prevalence in perspective.  In the US, lifetime prevalence is ar ound 25% for adult 
women.  So 14% does not seem high, although maybe for young adolescents it is high.  
 
 
5. The grammar needs to be reviewed/updated, line 9 rather than 'practices unsafe abortion' 
I would say 'experiences unsafe abortion'  
 
 
6. In the first paragraph, to put these findings in scientific perspective, please include a 
statement about the VERY low rate of complications when abortions are performed by 
trained physicians.  As previously mentioned, the background section, does not present a 
balance d view on the safety of abortion procedures.  The complication rate for abortions 
is FAR lower than that of complications from birth/delivery.  
7. In lines 29 -32 page 3, are these illegal abortions or legal abortions done in a clinical 
setting?  The author s need to accurately present the data which clearly distinguishes 
between high rates of complications from illegal abortions / those done by non -medically 
trained providers, and incredibly low complication rates when done by trained providers.   
 
 
8. On pag e 4 lines 14 -22, what is missing is what the complication rate is for the 100.000 in 
the facility vs. the 200.000 not done by a trained provider.  
 
 
9. Page 7,  I still do not understand what the authors mean by the knowledge question on 
'when life begins'?   What do you mean by this?  As previously mentioned, whether a 
zygote is considered a human being (i.e. having begun life) is a religious/ethical question, 
not a scientific/knowledge question.  I would remove this knowledge question from the 
analysis and table as people who understand biology can answer the question in different 
ways (there is not a clear right or wrong response).  
 
 
10. Page 8 lines 3 -5, the authors say that the abortion rates were 'disturbingly high' - they 
should only present the data/fa cts and not place their own judgment/value on these data 
facts.  Please remove the word 'disturbingly'.   
 
 
11. The paper would be greatly strengthened if it was reviewed/edited for English grammar 
and typos.  
 
 
Nice paper!  Hope these comments are helpful.  
 
 
 
Are the met hods 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
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 sa lary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the public ation 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 t hat my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be mad e 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, whi ch will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal