Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Women’s empowerment and child growth faltering in Ethiopia: evidence
from the Demographic and Health Survey.
Version: 
0 
Date: 
31 Dec 2020
Reviewer: 
Kedir Abegaz
Reviewer's report:
Title: Women's empowerment and child growth faltering in Ethiopia: evidence
from the Demographic and Health Survey.
Manuscript Number: BMWH-D-20-00989
Overall, I appreciate this study, which is tried to assess the relationship between
Women's empowerment and child growth faltering at National level, in Ethiopia,
which is submitted to BMC Women's Health. However, as a reviewer, I have
some concerns to be considered for correction before getting published. More
specifically, I need to suggest the following comments;
Abstract
Page 2, Abstract has to be corrected after consideration of the comments
forwarded
Page 2 line 29, … better to replace as "a nationally representative household
survey on Healthcare or Public health". Because there are so many HH surveys
in Ethiopia
Page 2 line 32,… you stated "A multivariable logistic regression model that
accounted for cluster-level random effects…" better to replace with "Multilevel
logistic regression"
Page 2 line 39, …. (AOR= 0.95; 95% CI: 0.89-1.00; p=0.049), … at this point it
is difficult to accept social independence is a factor with this CI. Better to
consider it again because the CI contains 1, which is the reference category of
the variable's AOR.
Page 2 line 48, … good to add keywords like EDHS, and Nutrition.
Introduction
Page 4 line 86, … has not been investigated within the… better to say "we
couldn't find a published document on …
Page 4 line 95,… low decision-making ability than their counterparts…better to
mention the counterparts here to understand the point.
Page 5 line 112-113, …the sustainable development goals…better to make
specific to your study, like SDG related to Undernourishment or…
Methods
Page 5 line 134, it is stated as "…Z score less than minus two standard
deviations (SD)…" this looks hard to understand so better to rewrite like "Less
than negative 2 SD"
Page 5 line 136, … the reference median,…is this median or mean? Or just you
want to mention an average?
Page 6 line 140, … the SWPER index that used by Ewerling…good to mention
the citation after Ewerling. 
Page 6 line 156, in the explanation part of the formula, it will be interesting if
you mention what lambda is and how many components do you have?
Page 7 line 179, … [34] were adjusted in the analysis… better to mention how
you adjusted too.
Page 7 line 181, Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the…
here, the word estimate is hard to understand in categorical data analysis. So
better to replace to see the association or to identify factors related or…any
suitable phrase.
Page 7 line 187-188, this concept is a starting point for your multi-level model
but it has not to be hypothetical, so if you want to prove this you have to check
the Intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient or caterpillar plots to see whether
there is a significant difference among clusters
Page 7 line 190, use the term "Multilevel logistic regression with two levels" if
ICC is high enough
Page 7 line 191, about …melogit…if this is a command for multilevel logistic
regression, the model part will be more attractive if you mention the following
steps
* Model one, null model which presents that there is high ICC, which is >0 that
decides whether to use ML analysis.
* Model two will be individual-level factors or fixed effect, maybe child or
mother x-sticks...
* Model three will be contextual factors or second-level factors or random effect,
maybe HH level variables...
* Model 4 will be combined with fixed effect and random effect models...
Results
Page 8 line 197, did you checked how many children have 
height, age and
weight in common..? the analysis (since you have a big number of observations)
will be clear if the data is cleaned based on the outcome variables in common
than making analysis differently
Page 8 line 198…better to add % on 5207.
Page 10 line 216, …domains were standardized, with mean of 0 and SD of
1….better to clarify what Standardized means. I 
mean, which assumption of a
multi-level is fulfilled here?
Page 10 line 222-242, … when you interpret the result you were stating a 1SD
increase in…what is mean by 1SD increase or 1SD decrease? How can
policymakers understand this point?
Page 12 Table 4, have you presented only the Crude OR? Can you conclude the
significance with Crude OR?
Page 12 Table 4, better to change the title of the table as Fixed and random effect
of the model to assess…
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you
will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be
able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help
editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
No