Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Second -trimester abortion attitudes and practices among mat ernal -fetal medicine and 
family planning subspecialists  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Mar 2019  
 
Reviewer: Thomas Farrell  
 
Review er's report:  
 
I think this is a nice piece of work exploring the impact of doctors on the decision making of 
patients who require termination of pregnancy.  
 
There is an obvious disparity in what is advised and why depending on MFM status or otherwise.  
 
As you rightly say the low response rate is a limitation of the study, however there is no real 
indication that the overall results would be different.  
 
One sli ght issue I have is the fact that the survey occurred 8 years ago. I am unfamiliar whether 
there has been any changes particularly with induced abortion pharmacological methods in the 
US over this time which would make the results dated. For instance is me dical termination now 
considered safer. Or have the MFM fellowships began to provide D&amp;E training.  
 
Is there a financial incentive to do D&amp;E over and above induced abortion that may 
contribute to the findings.  
 
Are the methods 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following question s: 
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
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 sha res in an organisation t hat 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 com peting 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 t o the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that 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 made 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, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal