Reviewer’s report
Title: Prevalence and determinants of modern contraceptive utilization among rural lactating mothers:
Findings from the primary health care project in two northwest Ethiopian districts
Version: 0 Date: 31 Dec 2019
Reviewer: Zerihun Edossa
Reviewer's report:
Comments 
Method part
1.The number of lactating mothers in the study area was not mentioned, which would have
informed us about the representativeness of the calculated sample size. 
2.Page 5 line numbers 45-46: you should have written the aim of the current study rather than
writing the aim of the original project. 
3.After selecting 18 kebeles, how did the author/s select individual study unit/lactating mother?
4.Since the data were already collected why did not the authors use the entire data of lactating
mothers; what was the necessity of calculating sample size?
5.As mentioned by the authors there were previous studies in the study area, therefore, what new
does the current study add to the body of knowledge? 
Result part
6.Page 7 line 56, response rate: rather than writing the response rate, the authors should have
written about data completeness for lactating mothers included in the study. 
7.Even if the calculated response rate was appropriate, the figures stated in table one, page 7 line
numbers 19-23, are not in line with the figure stated in the response rate.
Discussion part
8.Page 10 line numbers 6-15, your population and the population with which you compared your
findings are not similar. 
9.Overall, the discussion part should be modified 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
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.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
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 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
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for 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 included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal