Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Apr 1;19(4):e0298319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298319

Adverse fetal birth outcomes and its associated factors among mothers with premature rupture of membrane in Amhara region, Ethiopia

Abebe Abrha Alene 1,*, Endalkachew Worku Mengesha 1, Gizachew Worku Dagnew 1
Editor: Kahsu Gebrekidan2
PMCID: PMC10984396  PMID: 38558073

Abstract

Background

Adverse birth outcomes are the leading cause of neonatal mortality worldwide. Ethiopia is one of the countries struggling to reduce neonatal mortality through different strategies, but neonatal mortality remains high for many reasons. Despite adverse birth outcomes being a public health problem in Ethiopia, the contribution of Premature rupture of the membrane to the adverse fetal birth outcome is neglected and not well explained in our country. This study aims to assess fetal birth outcomes and associated factors among mothers with all types of PROM at Specialized Hospitals in Amhara Region, Ethiopia.

Methods

A facility-based cross-sectional study design was applied among 538 mothers with premature rapture of the membrane at Amhara region specialized hospitals. A simple random sampling technique was employed to select the medical charts diagnosed with all types of PROM and giving birth in the hospital within the period from July 8, 2019, to July 7, 2021. The data was collected using a checklist, entered into EPI Data version 3.1, and analyzed using SPSS version 23. A binary logistic regression model was used to see the association between independent and dependent variables. A P-value <0.05 was used to declare the statistical significance. The AOR with 95% CI was used to measure the strength of the association.

Result

Adverse birth outcome among all types of Premature rupture of membrane mothers was 33.1% [95% CI 29.2–37.2]. Rural residents [AOR = 2.94, 95% CI:1.73–4.97], have a history of urinary tract infection [AOR = 6.87, 95% CI: 2.77–17.01], anemia [AOR = 7.51, 95% CI: 2.88–19.62], previous history of adverse birth outcome [AOR = 3.54, 95% CI: 1.32–9.47] and less than two years interpregnancy interval [AOR = 6.07, 95% CI: 2.49–14.77] were positively associated with adverse birth outcome compared to their counterparts.

Conclusion

The adverse birth outcome was high in the Amhara region as compared to the World Health Organization’s estimated figure and target; the target is less than 15%. History of the previous adverse birth outcome, residence, urinary tract infection, Anemia, and interpregnancy interval had an association with adverse birth outcomes. Therefore, strengthening close follow-up for mothers who had previous adverse birth outcomes, screening and treatment of urinary tract infection, anemia prevention, and maximizing birth interval are recommended for reducing adverse birth outcomes.

Introduction

Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) is a rupture of the membranes after the 28th week of gestation and before the onset of labor [1]. PROM occurs in 3–8% of all pregnancies [24]. This figure reaches around 14% in Ethiopia [5]. PROM has a great contribution to many fetal adverse birth outcomes, like; stillbirth, low birth weight, preterm birth, and congenital anomalies [6, 7].

PROM can cause stillbirth and other fetal adverse birth outcomes due to umbilical cord prolapse and compression. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Stillbirth is defined as a baby who dies after 28 weeks of pregnancy [8]. Preterm birth and Low birth weight are other adverse birth outcomes of PROM which is defined as babies born alive before 37 weeks of pregnancy and below 2,500 grams respectively [8, 9]. Congenital anomalies are another serious adverse birth outcome characterized by structural or functional anomalies that occur during intrauterine life [8, 10]. Rupture of the membrane can cause pulmonary hypoplasia, and positional deformities of the hands and feet [8, 11, 12].

Adverse birth outcomes are the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide, mainly in developing countries [7, 13]. Globally, PROM contributed to 20% of stillbirths, 33% of prematurity, 21% of early neonatal death, and 2% of congenital anomalies [7, 13, 14]. Besides, approximately 22% of women experienced unfavorable maternal outcomes due to PROM [15, 16].PROM is one of the complications linked to significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. The magnitude of the fetal adverse birth outcome among PROM varies in different countries. Evidence revealed that premature rupture of the membrane causes 14% to 63% of adverse birth outcomes [17]. Up to 50% of preterm births and 80% of maternalinfections have been associated with PROM [18, 19]. Ethiopia has been implementing different strategies and programs to achieve the neonatal health target set in the global sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the second national Health sectors transformation plan (HSTP-II). Of those, promoting maternal health continuum of care, new-born corners, helping babies breath, Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU), community, and facility-based Integrated Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illnesses (IMNCI), programs are now implemented in the country to save the lives of the fetus and neonates. However, Perinatal and neonatal mortality remains high in the country (31 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births), particularly in the Amhara region (33 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births) [20]. PROM-related adverse outcomes take the leading role in this unacceptably high perinatal and neonatal mortality [21].

Although the country failed to achieve the millennium development goals as well as the first national health sector transformation plan of reducing neonatal mortality to 28/1000 live births, as per the authors’ knowledge there is no evidence of the magnitude of adverse fetal birth outcome for the last 5–10 years. Recent evidence would be a good source of knowledge for public health experts to understand the implication of adverse birth outcomes among women with premature rupture of membranes and to visualize the area of intervention for reducing perinatal mortality.

This would also have a great contribution to achieving global and national goals. Therefore, this study aims to assess the fetal adverse birth outcomes and associated factors among PROM mothers who gave birth at specialized hospitals, in the Amhara region, Ethiopia.

Methods and materials

Study design and study area

A facility-based cross-sectional study was employed among PROM mothers in Amhara regional state specialized hospitals. Amhara region is the second most populous region in Ethiopia with around 24 million people living in the region. There are 52 primary hospitals, 9 general Hospitals, and 8 specialized hospitals in the Amhara region. Comprehensive specialized hospital covering a population of 3.5–5 million people. The hospitals that give a tertiary level of care including all obstetric emergencies and neonatal intensive care serve as referral centers from general and primary hospitals. The study was conducted in four specialized hospitals: Debre Brihan Specialized Hospital, Debre Tabor Specialized Hospital, Felege Hiwot Specialized Hospital, and Debre Markos Specialized Hospitals which are found in Amhara region, Ethiopia.

Sample size determination

The sample size was determined using the double population proportion formula using factors associated with adverse birth outcomes. Antenatal care follow-up status was taken in the previous study to determine the current sample [22]. Assumptions; two-sided level significance: 95%, power: 80%, percent with outcome among mothers who had no ANC follow-up:50%, percent with outcome among those who had ANC follow-up:30%, the ratio of sample size: 2, design effect for reducing the error due to multi-stage sampling: 1.5. Finally, the largest sample size was 538, which was the largest sample that determined using factors and single population proportion as well.

Sampling techniques

Of a total of eight specialized public hospitals in the Amhara region, four of them were selected using the lottery method. The study was conducted on four selected hospitals; Debere Tabor, Debre Markos, Felege Hiwot, and Debre Brihan specialized hospital. The computed sample size was allocated proportionally based on the last two-year PROM cases. The data were collected retrospectively from July 08, 2019, to July 07, 2021. All medical records of pregnant women diagnosed with all types of PROM during this period were included. The medical record were assessed from November 01,2022 to December 30,2022. The mother’s medical record was recruited using a computer-generated simple random sampling technique (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Sampling procedure and techniques to select mothers with all types of PROM in Amhara region specialized hospitals, Ethiopia, 2022.

Fig 1

Data collection tool and measurement

A written informed consent letter was obtained for data collection from each hospital on behalf of patients to use patients’ medical folder for this study. Four trained hospital matrons collected data from patients’ folders by using a data collection checklist. The checklist had four parts; sociodemographic variables, Health service utilization, obstetric history, and maternal and fetal outcomes. The checklist was prepared by reviewing different related research articles and guidelines [16, 23, 24]. Moreover, the tool was reviewed by four experts from the Amhara Regional Health Bureau and Bahir Dar University. Before finalized, the checklist was cross-checked with client charts to confirm the availability of data.

The outcome variable (Adverse birth outcomes) was declared when the mother with all types of premature rupture of the membrane had one or more of the following; stillbirth, prematurity, low birth weight, and congenital anomalies. Furthermore, Age, residence, Gravidity, History of Abortion, History of previous adverse birth outcome, Duration of PROM, Onset of Labour, Color of liquor, inter-pregnancy interval, Mode of delivery, sex of baby, Urinary tract infection, sexually transmitted disease, HIV/AIDS, DM, Anemia, and ANC service utilization were collected from medical charts as an independent variable. Those charts that had incomplete information were managed by a random replacement mechanism.

Data quality assurance

To ensure the quality of the data; before the actual data collection, a pretest was done in Felege Hiwot specialized hospitals on 5% of the current sample size to identify the missing variables on the checklist that are found in the clients’ records, as well as to correct the misrepresenting variables in the checklist for the final data collection. Two days of training were given for data collectors and supervisors on the objectives of the study and the overall process of data collection and handling. During the data collection, the supervisors and the principal investigators strictly followed the data collection process, and they provided corrective feedback to data collectors daily. After data collection, appropriate coding and handling of each data were done.

Data analysis

The collected data were coded and entered using EPI data and exported to SPSS version 23 for analysis. Descriptive analyses such as percentages, frequency distribution, and measures of central tendency were conducted. Then bivariate analyses between dependent and independent variables were performed using bivariate logistic regression. Finally, those variables showing association at a p-value less than 0.2 were considered into multivariable logistic regression analyses to control possible confounding and to identify independent predictor variables of adverse birth outcomes. To declare statistical significance p-value < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used. Efforts were made to confirm the fulfillment of the major assumption of logistic regression. The absence of multicollinearity was found to be satisfied. The goodness of fit was checked by the Hosmer and Lemeshow model fit-test, P>0.05.

Results

A total of 538 mothers with all types of PROM participated in the study, This study finding showed that the prevalence of fetal adverse birth outcomes among all types of PROM mothers was 33.1% (95% CI 29.2–37.2). Out of the adverse birth outcomes (60%) of the outcomes were prematurity, (26%) were LBW, (9%) were stillbirth, and (5%) were visible congenital anomalies.

Socio-demographic profile of the participant

The mean age was 27.00 years with a standard deviation of ± 5.00. More than one-third (38.3%) of mothers were in the age group of 25–29 years and teenage mothers were 40 (7.4%). More than half of the respondents (64.9%) lived in an urban setting. Regarding to region of residency, 509 (94.6%) mothers were from the Amhara region (Table 1).

Table 1. The socio-demographic characteristics of a mother’s diagnosis with PROM at Amhara, a region-specialized hospital from July 08, 2019, to July 07, 2021, (n = 538).

Variables Categories Frequency Percent (%)
Maternal Age 15–19 40 7.4
20–24 148 27.5
25–29 206 38.3
30–34 90 16.7
35–39 43 8
40–44 11 2
Residence Urban 349 64.9
Rural 189 34.1
Region of residency Amhara 509 94.6
Oromia 19 3.5
Others 10 1.9

Medical and health service utilization factor

Most of the mothers, 518 (96.3%) had at least one ANC follow-up. Regarding the mothers’ medical conditions, 108 (20.1%) had a diagnosis of urinary tract infection, 114 (21.2%) had anemia, seven (1.3%) had HIV infection, 10 (1.9%) had a history of other STI, and nine (1.7%) mothers had a history of known DM (Table 2).

Table 2. The health service and medical characteristics of mother’s diagnosis with PROM at Amhara, region specialized hospitals from July 08, 2019, to July 07, 2021, (n = 538).

Variables Categories Frequency Percent (%)
ANC follow-up Yes 518 96.3
No 20 3.7
HIV status Positive 7 1.3
Negative 531 98.7
UTI Yes 108 20.1
No 430 79.9
History of STI Yes 10 1.9
No 528 98.1
History of DM Yes 9 1.7
No 529 98.3
History of previous HTN Yes 2 0.4
No 536 96.6
Anemia Yes 114 21.2
No 424 78.8

Obstetric factor

Among the study participants, 222 (41.2%) were primigravida. Thirty-nine (7.2%) mothers had a history of previous adverse birth outcomes. Regarding the current birth, 207 (38.4%) mothers had less than two years of birth interval, seven (1.3%) mothers had APH, and 22 (4.1%) mothers had pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. A total of 379 (70.4%) mothers initiated their labor spontaneously and 368 (68.4%) mothers had a spontaneous vaginal delivery (Table 3).

Table 3. The obstetric factors of mother’s diagnosis with PROM at Amhara, region specialized hospitals from July 08, 2019, to July 07, 2021, (n = 538).

Variables Categories Frequency Percent (%)
Number of pregnancies Primigravida 222 41.2
2–3 223 41.5
≥4 93 17.3
Interpregnancy interval < 2years 207 38.4
≥ 2years 109 20.2
Antepartum hemorrhage Yes 7 1.3
No 531 98.7
Pre-eclampsia/Eclampsia Yes 22 4.1
No 516 95.9
Onset of labor Spontaneous 379 70.4
Induced 159 29.6
Color of liquor Clear 462 85.9
Meconium S. 65 12.1
Bloodstained 11 2
Mode of delivery SVD 368 68.4
C/S 133 24.7
Instrumental 37 6.9
Duration of PROM to reach the hospital <12 hrs. 294 54.6
>12 hrs. 244 55.4
The total duration of PROM to delivery <24 hrs. 327 60.8
>24 hrs. 211 39.2

Factors associated with adverse birth outcome

On bivariate analysis residency, gravidity, birth interval, history of abortion, anemia, UTI, and previous history of adverse birth outcomes were candidate variables for multi-variable analysis at a P-value less than 0.2. On multivariable analysis residency, birth interval, UTI, Anemia, and previous history of abortion were significantly associated with adverse birth outcomes at a P-value less than 0.05.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that mothers who lived in rural areas had higher odds of experiencing adverse birth outcomes as compared to those who lived in an urban area [AOR = 2.94, 95% CI (1.73–4.97)]. Mothers who had urinary tract infections were 7 times more likely to experience adverse birth outcomes than those mothers who didn’t have urinary tract infections [AOR = 6.87, 95% CI (2.77–17.01)]. Similarly, mothers with a hemoglobin level less than 11 gm/dl had odds of developing adverse birth outcomes than those mothers with a hemoglobin level greater or equal to 11 gm/dl [AOR = 7.51, 95% CI (2.88–19.62)]. Mothers who had a history of previous adverse birth outcomes were 4 times more likely to experience adverse birth outcomes compared to their counterparts [AOR = 3.54, 95% CI (1.32–9.47)]. There were higher odds of adverse birth outcomes among women who had less than two years of the inter-pregnancy interval as compared to those who had more than two years [AOR = 6.07, 95% CI (2.49–14.77)] (Table 4).

Table 4. Multivariable analysis adverse birth outcome and associated factors of mother’s diagnosis with PROM at Amhara, region specialized hospitals from July 08, 2019, to July 07, 2021, (n = 538).

Variables Adverse birth outcome COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Yes No
Residency Rural 85 104 2.25(1.55–3.27) ** 2.94 (1.73–4.97) *
Urban 93 256 1 1
UTI Yes 79 29 9.11 (5.63–14.74) ** 6.87 (2.77–17.01) **
No 99 331 1 1
Hemoglobin <11gm/dl 94 20 19.01 (11.11–32.6) ** 7.51 (2.87–19.62) **
>11gm/dl 84 340 1 1
History of Abortion Yes 44 25 4.4 (2.59–7.48) * 1.59 (0.73–3.43)
No 134 335 1 1
History of previous adverse birth outcome Yes 31 8 9.27 (4.16–20.66) ** 3.54 (1.32–9.47) **
No 147 352 1 1
Interpregnancy interval <2years 113 94 11.90 (5.87–24.09) ** 6.07 (2.49–14.77) **
> 2years 10 99 1 1
Gravidity 2–3 73 150 1.51 (1.00–2.29) 1.19 (0.15–9.49)
≥4 51 42 3.77 (0.25–0.68) * 0.9 (0.44–1.81)
Primigravida 54 168 1 1

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

Discussion

Premature rupture of the membrane is one of the complications linked to significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Adverse fetal birth outcomes are the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide, mainly in developing countries [7, 9].

The main objective of this study was to assess the fetal adverse birth outcome among PROM mothers. This study finding showed that the prevalence of fetal adverse birth outcomes among PROM mothers was 33.1% (95% CI 29.2–37.2). Rural residents [AOR = 2.94, 95% CI:1.73–4.97], have a history of urinary tract infection [AOR = 6.87, 95% CI: 2.77–17.01], anemia [AOR = 7.51, 95% CI: 2.88–19.62], previous history of adverse birth outcome [AOR = 3.54, 95% CI: 1.32–9.47] and less than two years interpregnancy interval [AOR = 6.07, 95% CI: 2.49–14.77] were positively associated with adverse fetal birth outcome.

The prevalence of adverse fetal birth outcomes in this study was higher than the WHO estimation of fetal adverse birth outcomes of 15.5% (7% for most developed countries and 18.5% for developing countries) [9].

The finding of this study was in line with the study conducted at Mizan Aman in the southern part of Ethiopia, 31% [16]. However, the current finding is lower than the study conducted in Egypt, 61.3% [6]. The lower adverse birth outcome in the current study might be a result of the higher number of smokers (10%) and teenage (15%) mothers in a study done in Egypt than in the current study. Smokers and teenage pregnancies are more at risk for fetal adverse birth outcomes [25]. The other reason might also be the difference in study participants; in a study done in Egypt, the study participants were mothers with gestational age below 37 weeks, whereas all types of PROM mothers were included in the current study. Evidence revealed that fetal adverse birth outcome is higher among Mothers who have preterm PROM than mothers who develop PROM after 37 weeks of gestation [26].

On the other hand, the finding of this study was higher than the study findings done in Germany, 25% [27]. The higher magnitude of fetal adverse birth outcomes in the current study might be due to the low accessibility and quality of maternal health services in Ethiopia as compared to Germany and other socioeconomic and knowledge differences might also have contributed to the observed differences.

This study revealed that the odds of fetal adverse birth outcomes among rural study participants were higher than the odds among urban study participants. This finding was supported by the previous studies conducted in Ethiopia [28, 29]. It would have been ideal, in a developing country like Ethiopia maternal healthcare service distribution were not equal in urban and rural residence. Also, the awareness of rural mothers about maternal care services is low compared to urban mothers. Agricultural pesticide and insecticide exposure might be another reason for the higher adverse birth outcomes among women who reside in rural areas. Agricultural pesticide and insecticide exposure can cause 5–9% of adverse birth outcomes [30].

Mothers who have UTIs were positively associated with developing adverse birth outcomes compared to those who didn’t have UTIs. This is in line with the studies done in Debre Tabor, Uganda, and India [4, 22, 31]. Urinary tract infections are potential reservoirs for bacteria they pass through the vagina and ascend through the cervical canal to the membranes where they cause localized inflammation. Also, the subsequent prostaglandin production resulting from localized inflammation leads to occult contractions with increased shearing stress at the cervical os resulting in the premature rupture of the membrane and it may lead to preterm labor (giving birth too early) and low birth weight [31]. As a result, the WHO guideline recommends that all mothers with a positive pregnancy experience be screened for asymptomatic bacteriuria and treated if the results become positive on their ANC contacts [32].

This study also revealed that mothers who had anemia had more odds of developing fetal adverse birth outcomes as compared to the mothers who didn’t have it. This finding was concurrent with previous studies done in Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Canada [17, 33, 34]. A lower level of hemoglobin is associated with up to a three-fold increased risk of adverse birth outcomes [35, 36]. The reason could be linked to the effect of anemia on the oxygen-bearing capacity and its transportation to the placental site for the fetus. A low level of hemoglobin or anemia causes a decreased amount of oxygen transported to the tissues, potentially increasing the risk of premature rupture of membranes due to hypoxia in the tissues. Anemia can lead to hypoxia in the tissues, this could cause the fetus not to grow to a healthy weight, may arrive early (preterm birth), or have a low birth weight. Iron deficiency anemia may increase serum concentrations of norepinephrine that cause fetal distress [27].

The mothers with a previous history of adverse birth outcomes were positively associated with current adverse birth outcomes [37]. This finding was in line with a study conducted in Shire town of Northern Ethiopia and Uganda [4, 38]. The previous history of adverse birth outcomes increased the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and they may have the chance of adverse birth outcomes in the future pregnancy [39]. Preconception care is one of the recommended evidence-based practices to solve the occurrence of similar abnormal birth outcomes in subsequent pregnancies [40].

The finding of our study shows Short inter-pregnancy interval is also found to be a determinant of adverse birth outcomes. The odds of having an adverse birth outcome were higher among mothers having an inter-pregnancy interval of fewer than two years as compared to mothers having a birth interval of more than two years. This finding is in agreement with the other studies conducted in Southern Ethiopia, Uganda, and America [4, 23, 41]. This can happen because of the negative effect of a short inter-pregnancy period on the Mom’s body, which does not have enough time to replace nutrient stores before becoming pregnant again, so, obstetrics-related services are important to prevent nutritional deficiencies and other infectious diseases.

This study has some limitations; due to the cross-sectional nature; the study does not show the cause-effect relationships between the predictor and the outcome variables. Further research using primary data is recommended to assess some potential predictor variables missed in the secondary data; maternal occupation, dietary practice, smoking, and alcohol intake habits.

Conclusion

The prevalence of adverse birth outcomes was high in the Amhara region as compared to the World Health Organization’s estimated figure and target. History of the previous adverse birth outcome, residency, Urinary tract infection, Anemia, and inter-pregnancy interval were the predictors for developing adverse birth outcomes among PROM mothers. Therefore, strengthening close follow-up for mothers who had previous adverse birth outcomes, early screening and treatment of urinary tract infection, anemia prevention, and maximizing birth interval is paramount to reducing the adverse birth outcomes among PROM mothers.

Acknowledgments

We would like thanks to Bahir Dar University College of Medicine and Health Sciences for providing an ethical clearance to conduct this study. Besides, we would like to appreciate all study hospitals’ maternal and child health service unit staff and card room officers. Finally, our gratitude extends to all data collectors and supervisors for their invaluable work.

List of abbreviations

ANC

Antenatal Care

ABO

Adverse birth outcome

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

APH

Ante-Partum Hemorrhage

CI

Confidence Interval

CS

Caesarian Section

DM

Diabetes Mellitus

GA

Gestational Age

NRFHR

None Reassuring Fetal Heart rate

PNA

Perinatal Asphyxia

PROM

Premature Rupture of Membrane

RD

Respiratory Distress Syndrome

RH

Reproductive Health

SVD

Spontaneous Vaginal Delivery

UTI

Urinary Tract Infection

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Mercer BM. Preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2003;101(1):178–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.TC O, Enwereji J, Okoro O, Adiri C, Ezugwu E, Agu P. The incidence and management outcome of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) in a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2014;2(1):14–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gahwagi MM, Busarira MO, Atia M. Premature rupture of membranes characteristics, determinants, and outcomes of in Benghazi, Libya. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;5(09):494. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Byonanuwe S, Nzabandora E, Nyongozi B, Pius T, Ayebare DS, Atuheire C, et al. Predictors of premature rupture of membranes among pregnant women in rural Uganda: a cross-sectional study at a tertiary teaching hospital. International journal of reproductive medicine. 2020;2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Addisu D, Melkie A, Biru S. Prevalence of preterm premature rupture of membrane and its associated factors among pregnant women admitted in Debre Tabor General Hospital, North West Ethiopia: institutional-based cross-sectional study. Obstetrics and Gynecology International. 2020;2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/4034680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Abouseif HA, Mansour AF, Hassan S, Sabbour S. Prevalence and outcome of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) among pregnant women attending Ain Shams maternity hospital. Egyptian Journal of Community Medicine. 2018;36(2):99–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Middleton P, Shepherd E, Flenady V, McBain RD, Crowther CA. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Winter S. Gender trouble: The World Health Organization, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-11 and the trans kids. Sexual health. 2017;14(5):423–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Health Organization. Global nutrition targets 2025: low birth weight policy brief. WorldHealth Organization. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.DeSilva M, Munoz FM, McMillan M, Kawai AT, Marshall H, Macartney KK, et al. Congenital anomalies: Case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2016;34(49):6015. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gedamu S, Sendo EG, Daba W. Congenital Anomalies and Associated Factors among Newborns in Bishoftu General Hospital, Oromia, Ethiopia: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2021;2021. doi: 10.1155/2021/2426891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Woldeyohannes D, Kene C, Gomora D, Seyoum K, Assefa T. Factors associated with preterm birth among mothers who gave birth in Dodola town hospitals, Southeast Ethiopia: institutional based cross-sectional study. Clinics Mother Child Health. 2019;16(317):2. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Blencowe H, Cousens S, Jassir FB, Say L, Chou D, Mathers C, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2016;4(2):e98–e108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Barros FC, Bhutta ZA, Batra M, Hansen TN, Victora CG, Rubens CE. Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (3 of 7): evidence for the effectiveness of interventions. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2010;10(1):1–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Akbarian Rad Z, Yazdani S, Galeshi M, Eftekhari N, Shafizadeh F. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in cases of premature preterm rupture of membranes and the effect of latency periods (rupture of membranes to delivery) on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research (JOGCR). 2022;7(1):45–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Endale T, Fentahun N, Gemada D, Hussen MA. Maternal and fetal outcomes in terms of premature rupture of membrane. World journal of emergency medicine. 2016;7(2):147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tchirikov M, Schlabritz-Loutsevitch N, Maher J, Buchmann J, Naberezhnev Y, Winarno AS, et al. Mid-trimester preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM): etiology, diagnosis, classification, international recommendations of treatment options and outcome. Journal of perinatal medicine. 2018;46(5):465–88. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2017-0027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Boskabadi H, Zakerihamidi M. Evaluation of maternal risk factors, delivery, and neonatal outcomes of premature rupture of membrane: A systematic review study. Journal of Pediatrics Review. 2019;7(2):77–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Faucett AM, Metz TD, DeWitt PE, Gibbs RS. Effect of obesity on neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2016;214(2):287. e1-. e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.09.093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mengistu BA, Yismaw AE, Azene ZN, Mihret MS. Incidence and predictors of neonatal mortality among neonates admitted in Amhara regional state referral hospitals, Ethiopia: a prospective follow-up study. BMC Pediatrics. 2020;20:1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Aziz RA. Risk-adjusted multi-stage Bayesian performance monitoring model for maternal healthcare. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kassahun EA, Mitku HD, Getu MA. Adverse birth outcomes and its associated factors among women who delivered in North Wollo zone, northeast Ethiopia: a facility based cross-sectional study. BMC Research Notes. 2019;12(1):1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Workineh Y, Ayalew E, Debalkie M. Interpregnancy Interval and Adverse Birth Outcome in Term Premature Rupture of Membrane, 2017. The Korean Journal of Food & Health Convergence. 2019;5(2):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Adane AA, Ayele TA, Ararsa LG, Bitew BD, Zeleke BM. Adverse birth outcomes among deliveries at Gondar University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2014;14(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-90 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wong SP, Twynstra J, Gilliland JA, Cook JL, Seabrook JA. Risk factors and birth outcomes associated with teenage pregnancy: a Canadian sample. Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology. 2020;33(2):153–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2019.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sirak B, Mesfin E. Maternal and perinatal outcome of pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Teaching Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J. 2014;52(4):165–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hanke K, Hartz A, Manz M, Bendiks M, Heitmann F, Orlikowsky T, et al. Preterm prelabor rupture of membranes and outcome of very-low-birth-weight infants in the German Neonatal Network. PloS one. 2015;10(4):e0122564. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Abdo R, Endalemaw T, Tesso F. Prevalence and associated factors of adverse birth outcomes among women attended maternity ward at Negest Elene Mohammed Memorial General Hospital in Hosanna Town, SNNPR, Ethiopia. J Women’s Health Care. 2016;5(4):324. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gebremeskel F, Gultie T, Kejela G, Hailu D, Workneh Y. Determinants of adverse birth outcome among mothers who gave birth at hospitals in Gamo Gofa zone, southern Ethiopia: a facility based case-control study. Qual Prim Care. 2017;25(5):259–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Larsen AE, Gaines SD, Deschênes O. Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Nature communications. 2017;8(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Iqbal F, Naqvi KZ, Ashfaq S, Memon E, Aziz S, Sultan S, et al. Association of Maternal Lower Urinary Tract Infection with Adverse Fetal Outcome in Terms of Preterm Labor and Low Birth Weight. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Pak. 2017;7(1):33–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience: World Health Organization; 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Perveen A, Ashraf F, Zakaria RE, Khanam R, Haq AZ, Begum H. Effect of Anemia on Pregnancy Outcome in Labour Ward: Study in a Tertiary Level Public Hospital. Journal of Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College. 2019;11(2):155–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dars S, Malik S, Samreen I, Kazi RA. Maternal morbidity and perinatal outcome in preterm premature rupture of membranes before 37 weeks gestation. Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 2014;30(3):626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cherie N, Mebratu A. Adverse Birth Out Comes and Associated Factors among Delivered Mothers in Dessie Referral Hospital. North-East Ethiopia. 2018:1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Idrisa A, Pius S, Bukar M. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in premature rupture of membranes at University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital, Maiduguri, North-Eastern Nigeria. Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2019;36(1):15–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Qin J-B, Feng T-J, Yang T-B, Hong F-C, Lan L-N, Zhang C-L, et al. Risk Factors for Congenital Syphilis and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Offspring of Women With Syphilis in Shenzhen, China. Sexually transmitted diseases. 2014;41(1):13–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Teklehaimanot N, Hailu T, Assefa H. Prevalence and factors associated with low birth weight in Axum and Laelay Maichew districts, North Ethiopia: a comparative cross-sectional study. Int J Nutr Food Sci. 2014;3(6):560–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Su D, Samson K, Garg A, Hanson C, Berry ALA, Lin G, et al. Birth history as a predictor of adverse birth outcomes: Evidence from state vital statistics data. Preventive medicine reports. 2018;11:63–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Batra P, Higgins C, Chao SM. Previous adverse infant outcomes as predictors of preconception care use: an analysis of the 2010 and 2012 Los Angeles mommy and baby (LAMB) surveys. Maternal and child health journal. 2016;20(6):1170–7. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1904-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kangatharan C, Labram S, Bhattacharya S. Interpregnancy interval following miscarriage and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Human reproduction update. 2017;23(2):221–31. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kahsu Gebrekidan

5 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-07962Adverse Birth Outcomes and Its Associated Factors Among Mothers with Premature Rupture of Membrane in Amhara Region, Ethiopia:PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alene,

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 Oct 20 2023 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: 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,

Kahsu Gebrekirstos Gebrekidan

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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://juniperpublishers.com/jgwh/pdf/JGWH.MS.ID.555920.pdf

https://www.scirp.org/

https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/393307.pdf

https://www.belitungraya.org/BRP/public/journals/1/BNJ%20Vol%204%283%29-Full.pdf.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address the comments forwarded from reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: General Comments

There is no novelty in this study because most of factors detailed in this manuscript have been reported repeatedly within various literatures and standard text books. In addition the study design and the method of data collection used are not ideal for such type of studies.

Title

Lacks clarity. It is not clear whether it is maternal or neonatal adverse outcome. In addition it would have been good if the type of PROM were specified.

Introduction

Clearly put, the magnitude of the problem, efforts done to reduce the impact (if any), the identified gaps of those efforts and why your study is particularly useful among others,

Methods and Materials

I am not sure there exits the so called A retrospective facility-based cross-sectional. How can a study design can be a retrospective and cross sectional at the same time? It would have been better if such studies were conducted prospectively.

Be consistent with the numbers of Comprehensive specialized hospital in the region

Include Schematic presentation of sampling procedure

The way the outcome variable declared was not conventional. Did you confident enough that stillbirth, prematurity, low birth weight, and congenital anomalies are adverse birth outcomes solely due to PROM??

It would have been good if validated tool were used for data collection

No mechanism mentioned regarding encountering incomplete medical records

The covariates (independent variables) are few in number, many intrapartum and immediate postpartum variables with potential effect on the outcome variable are missed

The reason why Logistic regression was selected for analysis is not justified using model fitness and other relevant tests

Result

Non respondents are not expected from record review

The result of the first objective is not separately presented

Discussion

Most of the literatures used for discussion are not comparable with your study

Reviewer #2: The authors need to arrange introduction section. Join the paragraphs and rewrite some paraphrase so, the readers will understand what you wanted to convey from messages. The authors should make sure that missing references are written within the introduction section. They also need to make sure to clearly mention the significant of your study. Also, please check grammar to make sure it is more readably for the readers.

**********

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: Mihretu Molla Enyew

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zalikha Al-Marzouqi

**********

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Adverse Birth Outcomes and Its Associated Factors Among Mothers with Premature Rupture of Membrane in Amhara Region, Ethiopiadocx.docx

pone.0298319.s001.docx (18.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kahsu Gebrekidan

30 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-07962R1Adverse Fetal Birth Outcomes and Its Associated Factors Among Mothers with Premature Rupture of Membrane in Amhara Region, Ethiopia.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abebe,

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 Jan 14 2024 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: 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,

Kahsu Gebrekidan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #2: the authors addressed all the comments and they changed according to the comments provided to them. I wish all the best for the authors to publish the study

Reviewer #3: 1. Still the availability of data from client charts is under question since it is secondary data. Since the documentation of client charts in Ethiopia is knowingly poor. Is ethnicity documented in the client chart? Is only replacing mechanism can reduce the bias due to incomplete information?

2. Why pre-test in the same hospital?

3. The discussion section needed some rewriting by using good research discussion section writing steps: - Step 1: Summarize your key findings. Start this section by reiterating your research problem and concisely summarizing your major findings. ...Step 2: Give your interpretations. ...Step 3: Discuss the implications. ...Step 4: Acknowledge the limitations. ...Step 5: Share your recommendations.

4. The manuscript needs some English grammar corrections.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Zalikha Al Marzouqi

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: feedback PONE adverse fetal birth review 2.docx

pone.0298319.s003.docx (20.4KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Apr 1;19(4):e0298319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298319.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Dec 2023

Thank you for your valuable comment! without your comment we can't produce this amazing article. Thank you once again!

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

pone.0298319.s004.docx (16.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Kahsu Gebrekidan

23 Jan 2024

Adverse Fetal Birth Outcomes and Its Associated Factors Among Mothers with Premature Rupture of Membrane in Amhara Region, Ethiopia.

PONE-D-23-07962R2

Dear Mr Abebe,

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,

Kahsu Gebrekidan

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: There are no other concerns. The authors have adequately addressed my comments raised in a previous round of review

**********

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 #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Kahsu Gebrekidan

21 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-07962R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alene,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Kahsu Gebrekidan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Adverse Birth Outcomes and Its Associated Factors Among Mothers with Premature Rupture of Membrane in Amhara Region, Ethiopiadocx.docx

    pone.0298319.s001.docx (18.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0298319.s002.docx (18KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: feedback PONE adverse fetal birth review 2.docx

    pone.0298319.s003.docx (20.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    pone.0298319.s004.docx (16.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES