Duration of birth interval and its predictors among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia: Gompertz gamma shared frailty modeling

Getayeneh Antehunegn Tesema; Misganaw Gebrie Worku; Achamyeleh Birhanu Teshale

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247091

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 11, 2020
1 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor PONE-D-20-31922 Duration of birth interval and its predictors among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia: Gompertz Gamma Shared Frailty Modeling PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tesema, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Two experts in the field handled your manuscript, and we are very thankful for their time and contributions. Although some interest was found in your study, several major concerns arose that overshadowed the enthusiasm for your results. Please address ALL of the reviewers' comments in your revised manuscript. In addition, you must contact a copyeditor of your choosing to proof your revised manuscript for grammar and standard English. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: -The study topic is important, however the manuscript is mainly prepared as a report not an original paper. -The abstract provides well-known facts, and the conclusion is a repetition of the results. -The introduction should be summarized. -More information should be provided about geographical and socio-demographic factors of the area under study, especially for comparison of data related to different cities. -The discussion section should begin with the information and message(s) of the current study, but it is begun by items presented in the introduction section. -The interpretation of findings should be expanded in the discussion section. -The study limitations should be expanded. -The conclusion is too vague. -The English writing should be improved. Reviewer #2: - The study aimed to investigate the birth interval and its predictors among reproductive age women in Ethiopia. - The authors used EDHS-2016 online accessible dataset and applied statistical tests for survival analysis by Gompertz gamma shared frailty modeling. - However, the predictors determined by the authors as maternal education, parity, economic status, contraceptive use are already well known factors responsible for lesser birth intervals (Hailu and Gulte, 2016; Molitoris, 2018). Authors may emphasize their findings with respect to existing literature (in other populations/Ethiopia population if any). In addition, the quality of the manuscript would be improved if the authors can include or use these predictors to predict the birth interval and make it available online as a tool. - The manuscript can be re-checked for grammatical errors. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Roya Kelishadi Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247091.r001
Revision 1
21 Dec 2020 Author Response Point by point response for editors/reviewers comments Manuscript title: Duration of birth interval and its predictors among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia: Gompertz Gamma Shared Frailty Modeling Manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-31922 Dear editor/reviewer. Dear all, We would like to thank you for this constructive, building, and improvable comments on this manuscript that would improve the substance and content of the manuscript. We considered each comment and clarification questions of editors and reviewers on the manuscript thoroughly. Our point-by-point responses for each comment and question are described in detail on the following pages. Further, the details of changes were shown by track changes in the supplementary document attached. Editors comment 1. Although some interest was found in your study, several major concerns arose that overshadowed the enthusiasm for your results. Please address ALL of the reviewers' comments in your revised manuscript. Besides, you must contact a copyeditor of your choosing to proof your revised manuscript for grammar and standard English. Authors’ response: Thank you editor for the comments. We extensively modified the sentence structure, wording, spelling, and punctuations with the help of language experts at the university. Besides, we address all the comments raised by the reviewers. Response to reviewer’s comment Reviewer#1 1. The study topic is important; however, the manuscript is mainly prepared as a report not an original paper. -The abstract provides well-known facts, and the conclusion is a repetition of the results. Authors’ response: Thank you reviewers for the comments. We used the EDHS data for this study to investigate the duration of birth interval and its predictors, as the EDHS reported only the descriptive statistics and did not address what are the factors associated with birth interval duration. Besides, the median duration of the birth interval was not reported using advanced statistical models such as frailty models to take into account the hierarchical nature of EDHS data to draw a valid conclusion. Therefore, we have done this study to estimate the median duration of birth interval and identify significant predictors that determine the length of the birth interval. We extensively rewrite the abstract of the manuscript including the conclusion section. (See the revised manuscript, Abstract section, line 12-40, page 2-3) 2. The introduction should be summarized. Authors’ response: Thank you editor for the constructive comment. We extensively organize literature and summarized the introduction section. (See the revised manuscript, line 41-71, page 4-5) 3. More information should be provided about geographical and socio-demographic factors of the area under study, especially for comparison of data related to different cities. Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. As per your critical recommendation, we incorporated the geographical and socio-demographic characteristics of the country such as fertility rate, total population size, and the number of regions as these variables are linked with our outcome variables "birth interval". (See the revised manuscript, line 73-81, page 5) 4. The discussion section should begin with the information and message(s) of the current study, but it is begun by items presented in the introduction section. The interpretation of findings should be expanded in the discussion section. Authors’ response: Thank you for the comments. We begin the discussion section with the current findings of the study and the interpretation of the findings in the discussion section is expanded with appropriate citations. (See the revised manuscript, Discussion section, line 172-227, page 9-12) 5. The study limitations should be expanded. The conclusion is too vague. Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. We accept the comments and modified the limitation and conclusion section of the study. (See the revised manuscript, Line 219-236, page 11-12) 6. English writing should be improved. Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. We extensively edited the whole document for any grammatical error and sentence structure with the help of language experts in the university. (See the revised manuscript) Reviewer #2 1. The study aimed to investigate the birth interval and its predictors among reproductive age women in Ethiopia. The authors used EDHS-2016 online accessible dataset and applied statistical tests for survival analysis by Gompertz gamma shared frailty modeling. However, the predictors determined by the authors as maternal education, parity, economic status, contraceptive use are already well known factors responsible for lesser birth intervals (Hailu and Gulte, 2016; Molitoris, 2018). Authors may emphasize their findings with respect to existing literature (in other populations/Ethiopia population if any). In addition, the quality of the manuscript would be improved if the authors can include or use these predictors to predict the birth interval and make it available online as a tool. Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. As you stated very well most of the variables are reported by previous researchers but our study is based on the weighted nationally representative data using advanced statistical models such as Gompertez gamma shared frailty modeling to make valid inferences. Besides, big data were used in this study and therefore, the study has a high power to detect the true effect of the variables. We have incorporated the tool/independent variables we used in the study in the form of a table. (See Table 1) 2. - The manuscript can be re-checked for grammatical errors. Authors’ response: Thank you reviewer for the comments. We extensively modified the manuscript for editorial as well as typographical errors. (See the revised manuscript) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Point by point response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247091.r002
2 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor Duration of birth interval and its predictors among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia: Gompertz Gamma Shared Frailty Modeling PONE-D-20-31922R1 Dear Dr. Tesema, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The revised paper has improved in terms of scientific and structural aspects. Authors have succeeded to make necessary revision. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Roya Kelishadi https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247091.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Feb 2021 Acceptance Letter - Frank T. Spradley, Editor PONE-D-20-31922R1 Duration of birth interval and its predictors among reproductive-age women in Ethiopia: Gompertz Gamma Shared Frailty Modeling Dear Dr. Tesema: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Frank T. Spradley Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247091.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .