Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prevalence and factors associated with modern contraceptive discontinuation among 
reproductive age group women. Community based cross sectional study in Humer a town, 
northern Ethiopia.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Chris Guure  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to your Journal.  
This manuscript as the title suggest looks at the Prevalence and factors associated with modern 
contraceptive discontinuation among reproductive age group women. Community based cross 
sectional study in humera town, northern Ethiopia. This is an important topic and the manuscript 
is generally okay but I have some concerns.  
Overall, the manuscript requires a proofreading (English editing).  
 
Abstract: This is a cross sectio nal study. Studies of this nature assess factors associated with an 
outcome and not to predict the outcome and therefore - predicting factors should be changed to 
associated factors. This change should be done throughout the manuscript.  
In authors response to reviewers comments, they did indicate that "As we didn't have participants 
of age less than 16, we intentionally left it from the manuscript" but in the methods section of the 
abstract and the entire manuscript, the age limit of the study is 15 -49. This is contradictory and 
needs to be revised accordingly.  
 
Background: The second paragraph, First time use of DHS must be in full.  
 
Methods:  
Study design and sampling; Why did the authors calculate a 10% non -response rate? What is the 
scientific justification for this? Please provide a citation for this. A previous study should have 
been conducted in this area and reported this as their non -response rate.  
Data management; Second paragraph, multivariate should be replaced with multiple i nstead.  
 
Results:  
First paragraph, response was 100%, implying that all the 321 participants responded to the 
questionnaire, this indicates an overestimation, how did authors account for this over estimation?  
Your minimum sample was enough to detect a dif ference if it existed. Note that large sample 
sizes without any scientific justification or bases could cloud your estimates and therefore show 
significance when indeed it does not exist.  
Table 4: Title indicates n=87 but the total number of frequencies i n the table is 106, why the 
difference.  
In page 10, line 36,  Of all participants, 319(99.4%) were utilizing the type of MC that they 
prefer to use while line 44, Fifty five (17.1%) of the participants stated that there are things that 
prohibit them from using MC in their community. The two statements contradict, please explain 
further.  
Under Factors associated with modern contraceptive discontinuation, the results as presented 
under this subheading have not been interpreted, authors just copied what is p resented in table 5, 
please interpret your results clearly especially with some of the significant and important 
variables.  
 
Discussion:  
Generally the discussion as is, is not acceptable. There are two many figures (percentages from 
previous studies) and i nterpretation of results in this section which is not appropriate. Please 
results and interpretation must go to the results section, keep results and too much figures out of 
discussion.  
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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statisti cal review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 al l 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 nam e 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 availabl e 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