PONE-D-21-28401DETERMINANNTS OF EARLY NEONATAL OUTCOMES AFTER EMERGENCY CESSARIAN DELIVERY AT HAWASSA UNIVERSITY COMPRHENSSIVE SPECIALISED HOSPITAL, HAWASSA, ETHIOPIAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Temesgen Tantu

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 17/1/2022. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesca Crovetto

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. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“The study data collection was funded by College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Hawassa University, Ethiopia. The funding body has no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Comments to the Author

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Very informative study

1.It it possible to find out how many babies were FGR, <3rd centile and 3rd to 10th centile (Intergrowth 21) in place of just mentioning low birth weight <2500 grams.?

Just to know, like how many babies could have been delivered earlier to prevent intrapartum complications . how many babies were diagnosed and electively induced?

2. What do you mean by ANC care? How may visit?? were all participants booked adequately?

3. Were there any neonates with congenital malformation?? adding to the neonatal morbidity

Reviewer #2: GENERAL: There are several grammatical and spelling errors as well as wrong use of tenses that need to be corrected. The referencing of statements is not entirely sequential. In the introduction, the authors jumped from number 16 to 18 and then in the discussion number 26 to 28.There is no number 27.

TITILE: The spelling of caesarean should be corrected.

ABSTRACT: NICU should be written in full. In the conclusion, the 1st sentence is not clear as to what the authors are comparing their prevalence of adverse early neonatal outcome with. Did they mean -the prevalence of adverse neonatal outcome was high--?

INTRODUCTION: lines 2-3 1st paragraph is not clear. Paragraph 3, 1st sentence should be referenced.

METHODS: KM should be written in full 1st before abbreviating. Under exclusion criteria, what do the authors mean by negative foetal heart beat? Under data collection, the 1st sentence should be recasted. The authors should explain clearly how the collected information from the mothers, the type instrument used and when and how this was done. Prior to obtaining information form the women, they should have been educated and informed about the study. When and where was this done? In line 8, what do the authors mean by contact to maternal? The authors should explain how follow up of the mothers was done by phone, who made the phone call to all the mothers? There should be a statement on ethical considerations in the methods section.

RESULTS: What was the total number of mothers enrolled into the study? Under obstetric complications, premature rupture of membrane should be premature rupture of membranes. Several spelling errors that need to be corrected. MSAF and LFSOL should be written in full 1st. In table 4, how did the authors determine the causes of neonatal death, were autopsies conducted on all the babies that died?

DISCUSSION: In the last paragraph before the discussion, lines 6-11 are not clear and should be recasted.

CONSENT: This section is not clear and should be re-written for clarity. Who specifically did the authors obtain consent form and what type of consent was obtained? When were the mothers educated and informed about the study prior to their accepting to participate in the study and obtaining consent? Ethical considerations may be used as a subheading instead.

REFERENCES: Numbers 1, 10 and 30 do not appear complete

DETERMINANNTS OF EARLY NEONATAL OUTCOMES AFTER EMERGENCY CESSARIAN DELIVERY AT HAWASSA UNIVERSITY COMPRHENSSIVE SPECIALISED HOSPITAL, HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA

PONE-D-21-28401R1

Dear Dr. Tantu

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,

Francesca Crovetto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE