Reviewer’ s report
Title: Factors associated with induced abortion among women of reproductive age attending
selected health facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A case control study.
Version: 1Date: 24 Oct 2019
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several testable
research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: The subject of determinants of abortion is important in maternal health
though can be difficult to study. The authors have made a good attempt to study the subject andgot some important comments from previous reviewers which they have responded to fairly wellpoint by point. A lot more improvements are however needed. First, the authors say that abortionsare commoner in developing than developed countries. This is an error of fact and needs to becorrected. Refer to Guttmacher reports on this issue, e.g. on this link and make corrections https://
www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide. Secondly induced abortion should
be defined using WHO conventional definition. Third and most important the researchers have
attempted to make the study a case control study. In actual fact however the study is a cross-sectional survey of women undergoing and those not undergoing abortion. If it were a case controlstudy a clear definition of what constitutes a case, the exposure being studied and who qualifies tobe a control would have been clearer. Further, in the analysis the disease prevalence in the casesand controls would have been calculated and odds ratios too calculated to define risks of exposure.This is not possible in this study and therefore it does not qualify as a case control study.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Correct the view that induced abortions are commoner in developing countries. Define induced
abortion using WHO definition. Change study design to cross sectional survey of womenundergoing and those not undergoing abortion. Based on this change review analysis of your datato fit.ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:Language editor should check language errors.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal