Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jul 10;15(7):e0235888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235888

Predictors of puerperal menstruation

George Uchenna Eleje 1,2,*, Emmanuel Onyebuchi Ugwu 3, Victor Okey Dinwoke 4, Perpetua Kelechi Enyinna 4, Joseph Tochukwu Enebe 4, Innocent Igwebueze Okafor 4, Livinus Nnanyere Onah 4, Osita Samuel Umeononihu 1, Chukwudi Celestine Obiora 4, Sylvester Onuegbunam Nweze 4, Ekene Agatha Emeka 5, Chinekwu Sochukwu Anyaoku 5, Frank O Ezugwu 4
Editor: Alessio Paffoni6
PMCID: PMC7351153  PMID: 32649685

Abstract

Background

Puerperal period is an important and thought-provoking period for puerperal mothers. Surprisingly, reports have indicated that there is increasing number of women resuming menstruation within six weeks of childbirth (puerperal menstruation). To the best of knowledge, there is no prior study on predictors of puerperal menstruation.

Objective

To determine frequency and predictors of puerperal menstruation.

Methods

This was a single tertiary health institution cross-sectional study at ESUT Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Nigeria that included data from May 2015 to December 2018. Women were interviewed at the end of the first six weeks of their childbirth. Women with HIV positive or had uterine rupture or peripartum hysterectomy were excluded. Bivariate analysis was performed by the chi-squared test and conditional logistic regression analysis was used to determine variables associated with puerperal menstruation. Statistical significance was accepted when P- value is <0.05.

Results

A total of 371 women met the inclusion criteria. The return of menses within 6 weeks was present in 118(31.8%) women versus 253 (68.2%) women without puerperal menstruation, given a ratio of 1:3. Of the 371 women, 249 (67.1%) were on exclusive breastfeeding. The significant associated risk factors were age (p = 0.009), parity (p<0.001), early use of family planning (p = 0.001), socio-economic status (p<0.001) and manual removal of placenta (p = 0.007). At conditional logistic regression analysis, early use of family planning (p = 0.001), exclusive breastfeeding (p = 0.027) and manual removal of placenta (p = 0.012) were independently associated with puerperal menstruation. Induction/augmentation of labor, postpartum misoprostol use and mode of delivery were not statistically significant (p>0.05, for all)

Conclusion

One in 3 women resumes menstruation within 6 weeks of childbirth. The major predictor was early initiation of family planning, and exclusive breastfeeding with manual removal of placenta a major protective factor. These interesting issues require further investigation to better understand the mechanism of puerperal menstruation.

Introduction

Puerperal period is an important and thought-provoking period in the life of puerperal mothers. It is a period that receives relatively less attention than pregnancy and delivery and such neglect may trigger unintended pregnancy [1, 2]. This is because, women are frequently fecund postpartum before they realize it [2]. Thus, if a woman in her puerperal period has resumed coital activity and is not on any effective method of family planning, she may be at risk of becoming pregnant before her resumption of menstruation [2, 3].

Four mechanisms related to the resumption of normal menstrual cycles after childbirth have been described in the literature [4, 5]. While the first two (weaning and infant mortality) have a direct causal effect, the third (breastfeeding patterns of women who menstruated while they were still breastfeeding) and fourth (maternal nutrition and health status) may have indirect causal effects [4, 5]. The physiological mechanism underlying these observed relations originates in the hypothalamus [6] and the pituitary gland [7], which all could be influenced by external factors [811]. Thus, the longer the return of menses is delayed, the more likely it is that ovulation will precede menses return and lack of menstruation does not preclude initiation of ovulation [12].

Published studies indicate that among women practicing postpartum abstinence, irregular sexual activity may occur early, progressing to regular coital activity later [13, 14]. Individual studies have drawn linkages between return of menses and initiation of contraceptives [13, 14]. Adanikin et al found that family planning use is most likely in the month following menses return especially male condom use and withdrawal method [14]. By extrapolation, the data in Nigeria is alarming because, the overall levels of contraceptive use are low in Nigeria since in the 2008 national demographic health survey (NDHS), 15 percent of currently married women were using any contraceptive method, and only 10 percent were using a modern method [15]. Currently, Nigeria has set a goal of a 36% contraceptive prevalence rate by 2018 [6].

In low-income country settings, a significant number of women experience pregnancy complications such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancies and miscarriages. These lead to fetal wastage or death of the newborn. Data from a study in Iran showed that, on average, child survival increases the duration of postpartum amenorrhea and subsequent fall in postpartum sexual abstinence [16]. In Nepal, the median duration of post-partum amenorrhea was more than twice lower among women whose children died early compared to those without child loss [17]. Additionally, a few HIV positive women avoid breastfeeding and opt for exclusive breast milk substitutes to prevent mother to child transmission. All these factors may affect the duration of postpartum amenorrhea. Although, there have been previous studies on postpartum practices among parturients, none has studied the timing of initiation of menses in a Nigerian population [1, 18]. Again, anecdotal reports have indicated that there is increasing number of women resuming menstruation within six weeks of childbirth irrespective of exclusive breastfeeding [personal communication]. Furthermore, a recent Nigerian study has demonstrated that the uptake of modern contraception is very poor especially in the postpartum period [19]. The consequence of all these is an increasing prevalence of short inter-birth interval in the study population with its attendant risks on maternal and neonatal health [19]. Therefore, studying the duration of puerperal amenorrhea and the factors associated with the return of menses will help in patients counseling as well as in designing policies/strategies aimed at increasing the duration of inter-birth interval. This study therefore is aimed at determining the frequency and predictors of resumption of menstruation within the first six weeks of childbirth (puerperal menstruation).

Materials and methods

The study was conducted in postnatal care clinic at the ESUT Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Nigeria. This is a state tertiary hospital that manages all issues relating to pregnant women from within and outside the state. The study included postnatal women seen in the clinic between 1st May 2015 and 31st December 2018. At the time of postnatal clinic visits, the women received brief information about the study and were invited to participate in the study by the researchers. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.

This is a cross-sectional descriptive study using an interviewer-administered structured pretested questionnaire on the women's socio-demographic characteristics (age, marital status, parity, booking status, and educational status, retroviral status, etc), postpartum activities (time at resumption of menses and coitus postpartum), use of contraceptives (whether natural or modern method), induction of breastfeeding, perineal tear/ episiotomy at child birth, and type of peri-parturm activities of the women. Any woman who has attended and registered at least one antenatal clinic prior to delivery or labor is said to be booked.

The natural family planning or fertility awareness included the method of contraception that does not use any drugs or devices. It included any of the calendar or rhythm method, cervical mucus method or the basal body temperature method [3].The following steps were involved in the questionnaire development and validation. Firstly, the questionnaire’s face validity was established by having it reviewed by two different experts (obstetrician-gynecologist and measurement and evaluation expert in test construction). The obstetrician-gynecologist ensured that the questions successfully captured the topic on puerperal menstruation. The measurement and evaluation expert ensured that our questionnaire did not contain common errors such as confusing, leading, or double-barreled questions. Secondly, we ran a pilot test by selecting 40 of our intended postpartum women. These helped us to weed out weak or irrelevant questions. Thirdly, we cleaned the collected data, and fourthly, we used principal analysis which validated what the questionnaire was actually measuring and fifthly we revised the questionnaire based on the information we gathered from the analysis.

Social class stratification was determined in accordance to Olusanya et al [20]: classes 1, 2, and 3 were considered high class, and classes 4 and 5 considered low social class. Tertiary education was defined as polytechnic or university education. The sample size was obtained using the formula [21] N = Z2alphaPQ/d2 where: Z = standard normal deviation at 95% confidence interval; P = prevalence of the problem (median prevalence rate for return of menses by 6 months postpartum in a recent Cochrane review by Van der Wijden and Manion was put at 25.3% [5]); Q = 1-p and d = 0.05. The ultimate was adjusted to allow a non-inferiority sample size of 289 obtained and rounded up to 347 to cater for 20% attrition or non-response.

All eligible and consenting women seen at the end of the first six weeks of their childbirth were recruited. The eligible women were consecutively recruited from post-natal clinic of the hospital. Pregnant women or HIV positive women, including those that had uterine rupture or hysterectomy or secondary postpartum hemorrhage, or who were less than six weeks (≤5th week) postpartum or women more than six weeks (≥7th week) postpartum at the time of interview were excluded.

Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the research and publication ethics committee of ESUT Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Nigeria. Three doctors including the researchers were involved in the interviewing and collection of data from the women on arrival at study site. In order to maintain the absolute confidentiality of the respondents, there were no identifying marks on the questionnaires.

Data was entered after checking completeness, cleaning and coding into computer Epi info version 7.0 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA) and the results were displayed in tables. To determine the relationship between puerperal menstruation and childbirth, chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test and t-test whenever appropriate, were performed in the bivariate analysis. Conditional logistic regression was employed in the multiple regression analysis to determine variables associated with puerperal menstruation, while controlling for other confounding variables (age, booking status, parity, mode of delivery, socio-economic class and gestational age at delivery). In this analysis, the odds ratio and confidence interval was set at 95% and p<0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Three hundred and seventy one respondents met the inclusion criteria and their questionnaires were correctly filled. The mean age of the respondents was 29.5±5.1 years (range = 20–44 years). All the respondents were married and majority, 174 (46.9%) have tertiary level of education. The socio-demographic characteristic of the respondents’ is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Variables Frequency (N = 371) Percentage
Age
20–24 70 18.9
25–29 112 30.2
30–34 137 36.9
35–39 41 11.1
40–44 11 2.9
Booking Status
Booked 296 79.8
Un-booked 75 20.2
Parity
1 123 33.2
2–4 184 49.5
≥5 64 17.3
Educational level
Primary 39 10.5
Secondary 158 42.6
Tertiary 174 46.9
Social Class
I 13 3.5
II 33 8.9
III 30 8.1
IV 193 52.0
V 102 27.5

All the respondents were currently breastfeeding their babies. Of the 371 women, 118 (31.8%) had their menses resumed within the first 6 weeks of childbirth while 253 (68.2%) women did not resume menstruation within 6 weeks of childbirth.

The association between the resumption of menses and respondents’ socio-demographic and peripartum characteristics is shown in Table 2. The gestational age at delivery, oxytocin augmentation in labor/induction of labor, route of delivery, evacuation of retained product of conception and misoprostol insertion after child birth had no significant association with resumption of menses at 6 weeks postpartum (p > 0.05).

Table 2. Association between resumption of menses and respondents’ characteristics based on bivariate test.

Variables/subgroup Menses Group (N = 118) No menses group (N = 253) P-value
Mean Age 25.9±3.9 years 29.6±5.5 years *0.009
Booking Status
Booked 89 (75.4) 207 (81.8) 0.154
Unbooked 29 (24.6) 46 (18.2)
Parity
Primiparous 18 (15.3) 105 (41.5) *<0.001
Multiparous 100 (84.7) 148 (58.5)
Socio-economic Class
High 59 (50.0) 17 (6.7) *<0.001
Low 59 (50.0) 236 (93.3)
Mode of Delivery
Vaginal 83 (70.3) 195 (77.1) 0.164
Cesarean section 35 (29.7) 58 (22.90
Episiotomy/ Perineal tear
Yes 65 (55.1) 136 (53.8)
0.811
No 53 (44.9) 117 (46.2)
Oxytocin augmentation/ induction
Yes 47 (39.8) 99 (39.1) 0.898
No 71 (60.2) 154 (60.9)
Misoprostol use after child birth
Yes 35 (29.7) 70 (27.7) 0.692
No 83 (70.3) 183 (72.3)
Manual removal of placenta
Yes 5 (4.2) 34 (13.4) *0.007
No 113 (95.8) 219 (86.6)
Evacuation of retained product of conception
Yes 11 (9.3) 11 (4.3) 0.059
No 107 (90.7) 242 (95.7)
Gestational age at Delivery
≥37 weeks 95 (80.5) 189 (74.7) 0.220
<37 weeks 23 (19.5) 64 (25.3)
Coitus
Yes 59 (50.0) 83 (32.8) 0.279
No 59 (50.0) 170 (67.2)
Exclusive Breastfeeding
Yes 89 (75.4) 160 (63.2) * 0.020
No 29 (24.6) 93 (36.8)

Of the 118 women with puerperal menstruation, 71 (60.2%) were already on family planning method, while 41 (16.2%) of the 253 women without puerperal menstruation were on family planning. Of the women on family planning methods, 18 (25.4%) of 71 women with puerperal menstruation were on modern family planning methods, while 9 (22.0%) of the 41 women without puerperal menstruation were on modern family planning methods.

Regarding puerperal menstruation, the menstrual group and the non-menstrual group were compared using multiple logistic regression, while controlling the effects of possible confounding variables, such as the age, booking status, parity, mode of delivery, socio-economic class and gestational age at delivery. This is shown in Table 3. The results showed that the risk of puerperal menstruation approximately was two times higher in those women who had early initiation of family planning compared to those who did not [(P<0.001), odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.07 (1.59 to 2.70)].

Table 3. Association between resumption of menses and respondents’ postpartum activities based on bivariate test and multiple logistic regression.

Variables/subgroup Menses Group No menses group Unadjusted OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95%CI)
(N = 118) (N = 253) P-value P-value
Manual removal of placenta
Yes 5 (4.2) 34 (13.4) *0.007 0.29 (0.14–0.55) *0.012 0.38 (0.13–0.57)
No 113 (95.8) 219 (86.6) Reference Reference
Family planning
Yes 71 (60.2) 41 (16.2) *0.001 2.73 (1.89–3.94) *0.001 2.07 (1.59–2.70)
No 47 (39.8) 212 (83.8) Reference Reference
Exclusive Breastfeeding
Yes 89 (75.4) 160 (63.2) *0.020 1.06 (0.77–1.46) *0.027 1.08 (0.78–1.49)
No 29 (24.6) 93 (36.8) Reference Reference

Conditional logistic regression was employed (P<0.1) in the multiple regression analysis to control confounding variables: age, booking status, parity, mode of delivery, socio-economic class and gestational age at delivery.

Abbreviations: 95%CI = 95% Confidence interval; OR = Odds ratio.

Discussion

The present study is the first study in Nigeria, which examined the frequency and predictors of puerperal menstruation. Remarkably, our results revealed that the frequency of puerperal menstruation was 31.81% and younger age, multiparity, early use of family planning; high socio-economic status, exclusive breastfeeding and manual removal of placenta had a significant relationship with the early return of menses within 6 weeks of childbirth.

These findings are noteworthy. For instance individual studies have drawn linkages between menses return and initiation of contraceptive use [3, 14]. Adanikin et al in their study found that family planning use is most likely in the month following menses return [14]. However, the finding is in contrast to a recent Cochrane review where median prevalence of 25.3% of breastfeeding women were seen to have resumed menstruation by six months postpartum, but not six weeks postpartum [5]. This is despite the fact that majority were said to be practicing exclusive breastfeeding.

The findings also highlighted that exclusive breastfeeding was associated with puerperal menstruation, even though majority of the women in the puerperal menstruation group were practicing exclusive breastfeeding. This is despite the fact that prolonged lactation expectedly suppresses the production of certain types of hormones, thereby extending the postpartum anovulatory period. This finding is not consistent with findings of studies in different countries [4, 2224]. Although this study did not assess the frequency and intensity of sucking of the infant, it may have been suboptimal in the majority of women studied.

In the previous studies, the death of the index child during infancy was associated with the early return of menstruation [16, 17]. This too is not consistent with findings of our study. In our study, all the respondents had living index child. Ideally, it is the death of a child during infancy that cuts short the duration of breast feeding, which results in earlier resumption of menses and ovulation.

The effects of mode of delivery, booking status and gestational age at delivery were not significant. The risk of resumption of menses for women who had cesarean section was lower than those that had vaginal delivery, though this too did not reach statistically significant difference. Nevertheless, younger age, multiparity, early use of family planning and high socio-economic status had a significant relationship with the early return of menses within the first 6 weeks of childbirth. The shorter duration for return of menses among high socio-economic women was perhaps due to the fact that the educational level and employment status were higher in them than women of low socio-economic group. This finding agrees with a previous published report by Aryal who revealed that educated women had a 1.5 times higher risk of returning menstruation early compared to their uneducated counterpart [17]. The exact explanation for this finding is difficult. However, it is possible that the respondents of higher socio-economic class have high nutritional status which has been shown to influence early return of menses [4, 5]. Furthermore, it is possible that most educated and employed mothers did not have enough time to breastfeed their children (despite being on exclusive breastfeeding mode) as they work outside and, thus, tend to lactate for a shorter period and also probably provide food supplements to their children much earlier. Further studies are necessary to confirm this assumption.

With regard to age and parity, the early return of menses was seen more in younger aged women and in women with high parity. Therefore, women who may be most affected are those of our younger women folk who have given birth to two or more children at their young age. Interestingly, Aryal in 2010 had come to similar conclusions in his study of Nepalese women [17]. Aryal report revealed that younger mothers are most likely to terminate breastfeeding early as compared to older counterparts and this invariably will potentiate their early return of their menstruation. The risk of resumption of menses for urban women was higher than rural women in one study [4]. This may also explain the early return of menses in some groups because the location of the study hospital is urban [4].

Current use of contraception in Nigeria has increased from 6 percent of currently married women in 1990 to 13 percent in 2003 and 15 percent in 2008. Currently, Nigeria government has set a goal of a 36% contraceptive prevalence rate by 2018 [6]. There has been a corresponding increase in the use of modern contraceptive methods, from 4 percent in 1990 to 8 percent in 2003 to 10 percent in 2008 [15]. Thus, in this study, the use of the modern method of family planning was seen in 25.8% of the women with puerperal menstruation versus 22.0% without puerperal menstruation. This finding agrees with previous study by Ezebialu and Eke in Nnewi, Nigeria where 21.5% of mothers used a modern family planning method during the early postpartum period [25]. Modern methods of contraception may be viewed with suspicion especially within six weeks of childbirth. This may explain why more than 70% of women on family planning methods as seen in this study practiced natural form of family planning.

The findings of this interpretative study failed to confirm that initiation of coital activity within 6 weeks of childbirth is highly influenced by the return of menses. This is because, although 50.0% of women that resumed menstruation within 6 weeks of childbirth have already commenced coital activity in contrast to only 32.8% in women whose menses have not resumed, such difference failed to reach statistical significance (p>0.05). In all, the rate of resumption of coital activity within six weeks of childbirth in the women studied was higher than the previous report by Ezebialu and Eke in Nnewi, Nigeria where they reported a rate of only 29.7% [25].

Interestingly, this study reveals that initiation family planning method within 6 weeks of childbirth could be highly influenced by the early return of menses. This is because 60.2% of women that had puerperal menstruation were already on family planning method. In contrast, only 16.2% of women that have not resumed menstruation within six weeks were on family planning and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001). This finding is understandable and may not be novel as research has consistently shown that women who were menstruating regularly are more likely to use contraception in the postpartum period because resumption of menses is a signal to return of ovulation and high possibility of pregnancy [3, 14]. The early return of menses is again associated with other possible explanatory variables in many ways in the study subjects due to the diverse socio-economic and intrapartum events such as manual removal of placenta.

It is intriguing to observe the association between the manual removal of placenta and decreased incidence of puerperal menstruation. As long as we know, our study appears to be the first to report such potential association showing that women that underwent manual removal of placenta have significantly decreased incidence of puerperal menstruation. This finding is not surprising as manual removal of the placenta can also be a risk factor for acute postpartum endometritis [26]. However, when there is established puerperal menstruation in women with recent history of successfully managed retained placenta, the history of delayed hemorrhage or postpartum endometritis must be ruled out [26].

The main limitation of our study is lack of information on nutritional status as this is likely to influence the amenorrhea in the postpartum period. Although we excluded all women who were ≥7 weeks postpartum, the potential for recall bias among the respondents cannot be completely ruled out. The risk factors may be associated with each other and so, further analysis with adjustment may give some more insight. Another limitation, is the small probability that some of these women may have continued with postpartum (delayed) bloody lochia, and did not presented a real menstrual period which follows the ovulation two weeks before, especially when most women were breastfeeding. However, this study tried to exclude such bloody lochia. Also, there was a long interval of data collection which may have introduced bias of double counting in the study. This study is a single center study and so a multi-center, multi-regional study is needed for future studies on the topic. Such future study should also assess the frequency and intensity of sucking of the infant in the breastfeeding women.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our data show that approximately one third of the parturients achieve puerperal menstruation and the significant associated risk factors include younger age, multiparity, early use of family planning, high socio-economic status, ‘exclusive breastfeeding’ and manual removal of placenta. Of these, the major predictor was early initiation of family planning, while exclusive breastfeeding with manual removal of placenta was a major protective factor. These study findings could be useful to understand among the clinicians and patients the importance to increase prevention strategies aimed at avoiding unintended pregnancies during the postpartum period, especially in younger women. This study has raised interesting issues and requires further investigation to better understand the mechanism of puerperal menstruation.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The current work had taken great efforts from all colleagues that work in the ESUT Teaching Hospital, Enugu, Nigeria, who kindly participated in the questionnaire distribution. Great thanks for all who shared and helped to put this work in its final form.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Okeke TC, Ugwu EO, Ezenyeaku CCT, Ikeako LC, Okezie OA. Postpartum Practices of Parturient Women in Enugu, South East Nigeria. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013. Jan-Mar; 3(1): 47–50. 10.4103/2141-9248.109486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Borda MR, Winfrey W, McKaig C. Return to sexual activity and modern family planning use in the extended postpartum period: an analysis of findings from seventeen countries. Afr J Reprod Health. 2010. December; 14(4 Spec no.):72–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shen J, Che Y, Showell E, Chen K, Cheng L. Interventions for emergency contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. January 20;1:CD001324 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Singh NS, Singh NS, Narendra RK. Postpartum amenorrhoea among Manipuri women: a survival analysis. J Health Popul Nutr. 2012. March;30(1):93–8. 10.3329/jhpn.v30i1.11288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Van der Wijden C, Manion C. Lactational amenorrhoea method for family planning. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. October 12;(10):CD001329 10.1002/14651858.CD001329.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Austin A. Unmet contraceptive need among married Nigerian women: an examination of trends and drivers. Contraception. 2015. January;91(1):31–8. 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dwivedi LK. Maternal Nutritional Status and Lactational Amenorrhea in India: A Simulation Analysis. Statistics in Transition new series. 2013; 14 (1):107–128 [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Prokai D, Berga SL. Neuroprotection via Reduction in Stress: Altered Menstrual Patterns as a Marker for Stress and Implications for Long-Term Neurologic Health in Women. Int J Mol Sci. 2016. December 20;17(12). pii: E2147. 10.3390/ijms17122147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Labbok MH. Postpartum Sexuality and the Lactational Amenorrhea Method for Contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015. December;58(4):915–27. 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sharma IK, Byrne A. Early initiation of breastfeeding: a systematic literature review of factors and barriers in South Asia. Int Breastfeed J. 2016. June 18;11:17 10.1186/s13006-016-0076-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Özsoy S, Aksu H, Akdolun Balkaya N, Demirsoy Horta G. Knowledge and Opinions of Postpartum Mothers about the Lactational Amenorrhea Method: The Turkish Experience. Breastfeed Med. 2018. January/Feb;13(1):70–74. 10.1089/bfm.2017.0046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sridhar A, Salcedo J. Optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes with postpartum contraception: impact on breastfeeding and birth spacing. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2017. January 13;3:1 10.1186/s40748-016-0040-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alum AC, Kizza IB, Osingada CP, Katende G, Kaye DK. Factors associated with early resumption of sexual intercourse among postnatal women in Uganda. Reprod Health. 2015. November 19;12:107 10.1186/s12978-015-0089-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Adanikin AI, Awoleke JO, Adeyiolu A, Alao O, Adanikin PO. Resumption of intercourse after childbirth in southwest Nigeria. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20(4):241–8. 10.3109/13625187.2014.971742 Epub 2014 Nov 5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.NPC, National Population Commission, and ICF Macro. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission, Nigeria and ICF Macro; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Erfani A, Nojomi M, Hosseini H. Prolonged birth intervals in Hamedan, Iran: variations and determinants. J Biosoc Sci. 2017. June 19:1–15. 10.1017/S0021932017000232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Aryal TR. Determinants of post-partum amenorrhea among Nepalese rural mothers: a multivariate analysis. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2010. Jan-Mar;8(29):5–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Anzaku A, Mikah S. Postpartum resumption of sexual activity, sexual morbidity and use of modern contraceptives among Nigerian women in Jos. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014. March;4(2):210–6. 10.4103/2141-9248.129044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dim CC, Ugwu EO, Iloghalu EI. Duration and Determinants of Inter-Birth Interval amongst Women in Enugu, South Eastern Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33: 175–9. 10.3109/01443615.2012.747494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Olusanya O, Okpere EE, Ezimokhai M. The importance of social class in voluntary fertility control in a developing country. West Afr J Med 1985;4(4):205–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Noordzij M, Tripepi G, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, Tanck MW, Jager KJ. Sample size calculations: Basic principles and common pitfalls. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(5):1388–93. 10.1093/ndt/gfp732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dasgupta ANZ, Zaba B, Crampin AC. Postpartum uptake of contraception in rural northern Malawi: A prospective study. Contraception. 2016. November;94(5):499–504. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.007 Epub 2016 May 27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Abraha TH, Teferra AS, Gelagay AA. Postpartum modern contraceptive use in northern Ethiopia: prevalence and associated factors. Epidemiol Health. 2017. March 20;39:e2017012 10.4178/epih.e2017012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kouyaté RA, Ahmed S, Haver J, McKaig C, Akter N, Nash-Mercado A, et al. Transition from the Lactational Amenorrhea Method to other modern family planning methods in rural Bangladesh: barrier analysis and implications for behavior change communication program intervention design. Eval Program Plann. 2015. June;50:10–7. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.11.008 Epub 2014 Dec 3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ezebialu IU, Eke AC. Resumption of vaginal intercourse in the early postpartum period: determinants and considerations for child spacing in a Nigerian population. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012. May;32(4):353–6. 10.3109/01443615.2011.652701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Perlman NC, Carusi DA. Retained placenta after vaginal delivery: risk factors and management. Int J Womens Health. 2019;11:527–534. 10.2147/IJWH.S218933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Iratxe Puebla

23 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-23514

Predictors of puerperal menstruation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ELEJE,

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.

The manuscript has been assessed by two reviewers; their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of major concerns that need attention in a revision, the reviewers note that further information should be reported about the recruitment of participants and the statistical analyses undertaken, and they raise that the lack of information on nutritional status is a major limitation as this is likely to influence the amenorrhea postpartum period.

In addition to the items raised by the reviewers, I have the following concerns which I ask you also address during your revision:

  • Please provide further information under the Methods section on how the questionnaire was developed and validated prior to its use in this study. Please also include a copy of the questionnaire with the revised manuscript, in its original language and also a translation if this was not in English.

  • The study is based on a single center, the manuscript needs to provide some further justification on how the population involved is representative of the population of women in the country.

  • This statement in the Conclusions is not supported and must be deleted of revised ‘The acceptance of family planning was highly influenced by the early resumption of menses although the acceptance or use of modern family planning methods is low’ the study is cross-sectional by design and as a result a temporal link cannot be established between family planning and early resumption of menses, the study can only establish associations.

  • The findings regarding exclusive breastfeeding require clarification, the abstract refers to exclusive breastfeeding as a major predictor, however, the discussion indicates ‘breastfeeding was not associated with a lower risk for return of menstruation’.

Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address the comments raised?

Please note that the revised manuscript will need to undergo further review, we thus cannot at this point anticipate the outcome of the evaluation process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Iratxe Puebla

Deputy Editor-in-Chief, PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

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: 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: Method

The authors have not paid attention to the work and there are a number of inconsistencies in the work. For example, in the sample size calculation, the authors indicated on page 7 line 19 that they used 32.3% of women who return to menses after 6 months, however on page 8 line 3, they indicated that they used 25.3%.

Again the method section looks scanty and lacks details of the sampling method used. Though, it is stated that "all eligible and consenting women seen at the end of the first six weeks of their childbirth were recruited" (line 6 page 8), It is hard to believe that in a tertiary hospital that manages all issues relating to pregnant women from within and outside the state, only 371 postnatal mothers were recruited over a 3 and half year period. How was the recruitment done?

Again, it is stated that participants "were recruited until the calculated sample size was reached". How then was it possible for the sample size of 347 to be overachieved (371)?

The authors need to check whether they used multiple logistic regression or multivariate logistic regression. The results in Table 3 suggest a binary multiple logistic regression was used as opposed to multivariate logistic regression.

Results:

There are several inconsistencies in the results presented few are shown below:

Parity: Table 1 shows 253 women were multiparous, however, Table 2 shows 248 (100 + 148).

Booking: 283 booked (table 1) compared 296 (table 2)

Social Class: 200 high (table 1) compared to 76 (Table 2)

Discussion

On page 14 line 16 and 17, the authors indicated that "what matters most is the frequency and intensity of sucking of the infant which may be suboptimal in the majority of women studied", however, no data was presented in the results section on "frequency and intensity of sucking of the infants". What then is the basis for that assertion?

Reviewer #2: In general I think the paper has a strong justification, taking into account the low prevalence of family planning in this country and probably the high prevalence of unmet need for postpartum family planning. The conclusions could be useful to understand among the clinicians and patients the importance to increase prevention strategies to avoid unintended pregnancies during the postpartum period, especially in younger patients.

Regarding the content, I have some minor comments:

• Page 4, line 2: Grammar mistake: To add “The” Puerperal mothers and remove “the” before nursing mothers

• Page 4, line 20: The acronym FP is not explain in the previous or in the subsequent paragraphs, it is well known that it refers to Family Planning but it is better to clarify.

• Page 5, line 15-16: The statement “there have been previous studies on postpartum practices among parturients, none has studied the timing of initiation of menses“applies only for Nigeria or worldwide? If only applies for Nigeria, would be better to clarify.

• Page 8, line 21: What do you refer with booking status? Could you please clarify

• The lack of variable nutritional status is a limitation of this study because it has a direct influence on the amenorrhea postpartum period.

• Another limitation, is the small probability that some of these women have continued with postpartum loquios, and did not presented a real menstrual period, maybe would be good to clarify which is this probably according other studies.

• Within the discussion I recommend to extend the analyses about the association between the manual removal of placenta and return of menses.

Thank you very much,

**********

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: No

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 10;15(7):e0235888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235888.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Apr 2020

01-04-2020

From

Corresponding author (George Eleje)

To

Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear editors:

Re: Submission of Response to Reviewers’ comments on Manuscript ID PONE-D-19-23514 entitled “Predictors of puerperal menstruation”.

Please find enclosed a point-by-point response (and highlights in yellow and in track changes in the manuscript) to the comments by the editors. We hope that the editors and reviewers will find the revisions acceptable.

REVIEWER COMMENT

• Dear Dr. ELEJE,

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.

The manuscript has been assessed by two reviewers; their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of major concerns that need attention in a revision, the reviewers note that further information should be reported about the recruitment of participants and the statistical analyses undertaken, and they raise that the lack of information on nutritional status is a major limitation as this is likely to influence the amenorrhea postpartum period.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the commendations and thank you for finding merit to our manuscript. We have addressed ALL the concerns adequately. We have appended under limitations as follows: Our lack of information on nutritional status is a major limitation as this is likely to influence the amenorrhea postpartum period.

REVIEWER COMMENT

In addition to the items raised by the reviewers, I have the following concerns which I ask you also address during your revision:

• Please provide further information under the Methods section on how the questionnaire was developed and validated prior to its use in this study. Please also include a copy of the questionnaire with the revised manuscript, in its original language and also a translation if this was not in English.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

• Many thanks for the remarks. The following steps were involved in the questionnaire development and validation: Firstly, the questionnaire’s face validity was established by having it reviewed by two different experts (obstetrician-gynecologist and measurement and evaluation expert in test construction). The obstetrician-gynecologist ensured that the questions successfully captured the topic on puerperal menstruation. The measurement and evaluation expert ensured that our questionnaire did not contain common errors such as confusing, leading, or double-barreled questions. Secondly, we ran a pilot test by selecting 40 of our intended postpartum women. These helped us to weed out weak or irrelevant questions. Thirdly, we cleaned the collected data, and fourthly, we used principal components analysis which validated what the questionnaire was actually measuring and fifthly we revised the questionnaire based on the information you gathered from the principal components analysis.

• WE have appended under method section of the manuscript as follows:

• The following steps were involved in the questionnaire development and validation: Firstly, the questionnaire’s face validity was established by having it reviewed by two different experts (obstetrician-gynecologist and measurement and evaluation expert in test construction). The obstetrician-gynecologist ensured that the questions successfully captured the topic on puerperal menstruation. The measurement and evaluation expert ensured that our questionnaire did not contain common errors such as confusing, leading, or double-barreled questions. Secondly, we ran a pilot test by selecting 40 of our intended postpartum women. These helped us to weed out weak or irrelevant questions. Thirdly, we cleaned the collected data, and fourthly, we used principal analysis which validated what the questionnaire was actually measuring and fifthly we revised the questionnaire based on the information we gathered from the analysis.

• REVIEWER COMMENT

• The study is based on a single center, the manuscript needs to provide some further justification on how the population involved is representative of the population of women in the country.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. Although, it is a single center, the city is centrally located with available international airport and receives referral from neighboring states and beyond. The hospital is a major referral tertiary health institution in eastern Nigeria. It is dominated by three major tribes in Nigeria. However, a multi-center, multi region study is needed for future studies on the topic. We have appended it as one of the limitations of the study as follows: This study is a single center study and so a multi-center, multi-regional study is needed for future studies on the topic.

• REVIEWER COMMENT

• This statement in the Conclusions is not supported and must be deleted of revised ‘The acceptance of family planning was highly influenced by the early resumption of menses although the acceptance or use of modern family planning methods is low’ the study is cross-sectional by design and as a result a temporal link cannot be established between family planning and early resumption of menses, the study can only establish associations.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

• Many thanks for the remarks. As suggested, the entire statement has been deleted in the conclusion part of the manuscript.

• REVIEWER COMMENT

• The findings regarding exclusive breastfeeding require clarification, the abstract refers to exclusive breastfeeding as a major predictor, however, the discussion indicates ‘breastfeeding was not associated with a lower risk for return of menstruation’.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

• Many thanks for the remarks. We have now clarified the discussion statement on exclusive breastfeeding and that of the abstract. This is now appended as follows: “The findings also highlighted that exclusive breastfeeding was associated with puerperal menstruation, even though majority of the women in the puerperal menstruation group were practicing exclusive breast feeding. This is despite the fact that prolonged lactation expectedly suppresses the production of certain types of hormones, thereby extending the postpartum anovulatory period. This finding is not consistent with findings of studies in different countries [4, 22-24]

REVIEWER COMMENT

Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address the comments raised?

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

We have revised the manuscript and have addressed the comments adequately. The details are still running as seen below.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Please note that the revised manuscript will need to undergo further review, we thus cannot at this point anticipate the outcome of the evaluation process.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

• Many thanks for the remarks. We strongly anticipate favorable response or approval.

REVIEWER COMMENT

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks.

REVIEWER COMMENT

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

We do not wish to make further changes in our financial disclosure.

REVIEWER COMMENT

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

• Many thanks for the remarks. We have included the three requested documents.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks.

Kind regards,

Iratxe Puebla

Deputy Editor-in-Chief, PLOS ONE

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Thank you.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

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

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks. It has also improved with the revision.

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

We have improved on the statistical analysis.

________________________________________

REVIEWER COMMENT

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

We have now included the questionnaires with the resubmission.

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: Yes

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for your commendation.

REVIEWER COMMENT

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)

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Reviewer #1: Method

The authors have not paid attention to the work and there are a number of inconsistencies in the work. For example, in the sample size calculation, the authors indicated on page 7 line 19 that they used 32.3% of women who return to menses after 6 months, however on page 8 line 3, they indicated that they used 25.3%.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. We apologize for the inconsistencies. We have deleted the issue in the sample size calculation, that the authors indicated on page 7 line 19 that they used 32.3% of women who return to menses after 6 months. The sample size was based on the recent Cochrane review of 25.3% of median prevalence rate for return of menses by 6 months postpartum in a recent Cochrane review by Van der Wijden and Manion.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Again the method section looks scanty and lacks details of the sampling method used. Though, it is stated that "all eligible and consenting women seen at the end of the first six weeks of their childbirth were recruited" (line 6 page 8), It is hard to believe that in a tertiary hospital that manages all issues relating to pregnant women from within and outside the state, only 371 postnatal mothers were recruited over a 3 and half year period. How was the recruitment done?

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. A number of reasons were responsible: 1. We used a strict criteria such that women who were less than six weeks (≤5th week) postpartum or women more than six weeks (≥7th week) postpartum at the time of interview were excluded, among other exclusion criteria. Secondly, there were multiple industrial actions that affected the patient during the study period that affected the frequency of recruitment of women. However, we remained focused till the end of the study period. We have also appended it as one of the limitations of the study as follows: Also, there was a long interval of data collection which may have introduced bias of double counting in the study.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Again, it is stated that participants "were recruited until the calculated sample size was reached". How then was it possible for the sample size of 347 to be overachieved (371)?

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. We totally agree with the perspective of the reviewer. We have now deleted the statement: were recruited until the calculated sample size was reached" Overall, 371 women were recruited.

REVIEWER COMMENT

The authors need to check whether they used multiple logistic regression or multivariate logistic regression. The results in Table 3 suggest a binary multiple logistic regression was used as opposed to multivariate logistic regression.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Multiple logistic regression analysis applies when there is a single dichotomous outcome and more than one independent variable. The 'multiple' applies to the number of predictors that enter the model (or equivalently the design matrix) with a single outcome (Y response), while 'multivariate' refers to a matrix of response vectors. In multivariate logistic regression, we have multiple dependent variables and multiple independent variables. Therefore a multiple logistic regression was used. Thank you.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Results:

There are several inconsistencies in the results presented few are shown below:

Parity: Table 1 shows 253 women were multiparous, however, Table 2 shows 248 (100 + 148).

Booking: 283 booked (table 1) compared 296 (table 2)

Social Class: 200 high (table 1) compared to 76 (Table 2)

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

We regret the inconsistencies. The values in table 1 is now consistent with Table 2 in parity, booking status, social class and other parameters.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Discussion

On page 14 line 16 and 17, the authors indicated that "what matters most is the frequency and intensity of sucking of the infant which may be suboptimal in the majority of women studied", however, no data was presented in the results section on "frequency and intensity of sucking of the infants". What then is the basis for that assertion?

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

We have adjusted the sentence to read as follows: Although this study did not assess the frequency and intensity of sucking of the infant, it may have been suboptimal in the majority of women studied. We have also appended it as one of the limitations of the study, as follows: Such studies should also assess the frequency and intensity of sucking of the infant in the breastfeeding women.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Reviewer #2: In general I think the paper has a strong justification, taking into account the low prevalence of family planning in this country and probably the high prevalence of unmet need for postpartum family planning. The conclusions could be useful to understand among the clinicians and patients the importance to increase prevention strategies to avoid unintended pregnancies during the postpartum period, especially in younger patients.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the commendable comments.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Regarding the content, I have some minor comments:

• Page 4, line 2: Grammar mistake: To add “The” Puerperal mothers and remove “the” before nursing mothers

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. We have reflected the needed changes.

REVIEWER COMMENT

• Page 4, line 20: The acronym FP is not explain in the previous or in the subsequent paragraphs, it is well known that it refers to Family Planning but it is better to clarify.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. FP is family planning. This has been corrected.

REVIEWER COMMENT

Page 5, line 15-16: The statement “there have been previous studies on postpartum practices among parturients, none has studied the timing of initiation of menses“applies only for Nigeria or worldwide? If only applies for Nigeria, would be better to clarify.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. We have appended the statements as follows: Although, there have been previous studies on postpartum practices among parturients, none has studied the timing of initiation of menses in a Nigerian population [1, 18].

REVIEWER COMMENT

• Page 8, line 21: What do you refer with booking status? Could you please clarify

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. Any woman who has attended and registered at least one antenatal clinic prior to delivery or labor is said to be booked.

REVIEWER COMMENT

• The lack of variable nutritional status is a limitation of this study because it has a direct influence on the amenorrhea postpartum period.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. We agree with the perspective of the reviewer. Of course, we have appended it as a limitation of the study as follows: Our lack of information on nutritional status is a major limitation as this is likely to influence the amenorrhea in the postpartum period.

REVIEWER COMMENT

• Another limitation, is the small probability that some of these women have continued with postpartum loquios, and did not presented a real menstrual period, maybe would be good to clarify which is this probably according other studies.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the remarks. We have similarly append as a limitations of the study as follows: Another limitation, is the small probability that some of these women may have continued with postpartum (delayed) bloody lochia, and did not presented a real menstrual period which follows the ovulation two weeks before, especially when most women were breastfeeding.

REVIEWER COMMENT

• Within the discussion I recommend to extend the analyses about the association between the manual removal of placenta and return of menses.

Thank you very much,

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

We are happy to extend the analyses about the association between the manual removal of placenta and return of menstruation. We have now appended under discussion as follows: It is intriguing to observe the association between the manual removal of placenta and decreased incidence of puerperal menstruation. As long as we know, our study appears to be the first to report such potential association showing that women that underwent manual removal of placenta have significantly decreased incidence of puerperal menstruation. This finding is not surprising as manual removal of the placenta can also be a risk factor for acute postpartum endometritis [26]. However, when there is established puerperal menstruation in women with recent history of successfully managed retained placenta, the history of delayed hemorrhage or postpartum endometritis must be ruled out [26].

REVIEWER COMMENT

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.

REVIEWER COMMENT

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for your detailed review.

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

AUTHORs’ RESPONSE

Many thanks for the commendations.

Thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ELEJE-PLOS ONE-REPLY REVIEWER COMMENTS.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alessio Paffoni

17 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-23514R1

Predictors of puerperal menstruation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ELEJE,

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.

==============================

Both reviewers agree that the revised version of the manuscript has satisfied previous doubts and that it meets PLOS ONE's publicatioon criteria. After my evaluation of the manuscript, the following changes are required for acceptance.

- Abstract:  “childbirth” instead of “child birth”

- Last sentence of introduction: “This study therefore IS AIMED AT DETERMINING..”

- M&M, line 10: close parentheses:  (time at resumption of menses and coitus postpartum) .

- M&M Line 19: “validation. Firstly” instead of “validation: Firstly”. “Face validity of the questionnaire”

- page 10, line 24; remove  “given a ratio of 1:3”

- page 14, line 21, and following: “breastfeeding” instead of “breast feeding”

- page 15, line 3-4. Check spaces and -suboptimal

- page 15,line 20:   “counterpart” instead of “counter-part”

- discussion: “The main strength of this study was that this study appears to be the first study that attempts to describe puerperal menstruation. However, we could not by this study validate the determinants of other variables such as nutritional status of the women which could increase the risk of early return of menses [4, 5].”. I suggest to remove these sentences  and to begin the paragraph with: “The main limitation of our study is... “

- conclusion: remove “this study appears to be the first study to date that attempts..” and begin the paragraph with “Our data show that..”

- in table 3, indicate the ref value as suggested by Reviewer #1 (see below)

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2020 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,

Alessio Paffoni, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: In Table 3, the reference should be stated for each of the independent variables. This will make it easier to interpret the odds ratios.

Reviewer #2: The authors adressed all the comments I did in the previous revision. They enlarged the information that was required. Many thanks.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Lina María Garnica Rosas

[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.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 10;15(7):e0235888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235888.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Jun 2020

23-06-2020

From

Corresponding author (George Eleje)

To

Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear editors:

Re: Submission of Response to Editors and Reviewers’ comments on Manuscript ID (Submission ID: PONE-D-19-23514R1) entitled "Predictors of puerperal menstruation”.

Please find enclosed a point-by-point response to the comments by the editors. We hope that the editors and reviewers will find the revisions acceptable.

Dear Dr. ELEJE,

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.

==============================

Both reviewers agree that the revised version of the manuscript has satisfied previous doubts and that it meets PLOS ONE's publication criteria. After my evaluation of the manuscript, the following changes are required for acceptance.

- Abstract: “childbirth” instead of “child birth”

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- Last sentence of introduction: “This study therefore IS AIMED AT DETERMINING..”

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- M&M, line 10: close parentheses: (time at resumption of menses and coitus postpartum) .

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- M&M Line 19: “validation. Firstly” instead of “validation: Firstly”. “Face validity of the questionnaire”

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- page 10, line 24; remove “given a ratio of 1:3”

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- page 14, line 21, and following: “breastfeeding” instead of “breast feeding”

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- page 15, line 3-4. Check spaces and –suboptimal

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- page 15,line 20: “counterpart” instead of “counter-part”

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed.

- discussion: “The main strength of this study was that this study appears to be the first study that attempts to describe puerperal menstruation. However, we could not by this study validate the determinants of other variables such as nutritional status of the women which could increase the risk of early return of menses [4, 5].”. I suggest to remove these sentences and to begin the paragraph with: “The main limitation of our study is... “

- conclusion: remove “this study appears to be the first study to date that attempts..” and begin the paragraph with “Our data show that..”

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now effected the changes needed. For instance: We have concluded as follows: In conclusion, our data show that approximately one third of the parturients achieve puerperal menstruation and the significant associated risk factors include younger age, multiparity, early use of family planning, high socio-economic status, ‘exclusive breastfeeding’ and manual removal of placenta. Of these, the major predictor was early initiation of family planning, while exclusive breastfeeding with manual removal of placenta a major protective factor. These study findings could be useful to understand among the clinicians and patients the importance to increase prevention strategies aimed at avoiding unintended pregnancies during the postpartum period, especially in younger women. This study has raised in¬teresting issues and requires further investigation to better understand the mechanism of puerperal menstruation.

- in table 3, indicate the ref value as suggested by Reviewer #1 (see below)

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now indicated the reference value (Reference) as needed in table 3.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2020 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,

Alessio Paffoni, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Thank you.

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Thank you.

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Thank you.

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Thank you.

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Thank you.

________________________________________

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: In Table 3, the reference should be stated for each of the independent variables. This will make it easier to interpret the odds ratios.

Reviewer #2: The authors adressed all the comments I did in the previous revision. They enlarged the information that was required. Many thanks.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

As suggested, we have now indicated the reference value (Reference) as needed in table 3.

________________________________________

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Lina María Garnica Rosas

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Thank you.

[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: RETURN OF MENSES-2ND REPLY TO [JUNE 2020] REVIEWERS-PONE.docx

Decision Letter 2

Alessio Paffoni

25 Jun 2020

Predictors of puerperal menstruation

PONE-D-19-23514R2

Dear Dr. ELEJE,

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,

Alessio Paffoni, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Alessio Paffoni

30 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-23514R2

Predictors of puerperal menstruation

Dear Dr. ELEJE:

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. Alessio Paffoni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ELEJE-PLOS ONE-REPLY REVIEWER COMMENTS.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RETURN OF MENSES-2ND REPLY TO [JUNE 2020] REVIEWERS-PONE.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES