Association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia: A matched nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Globally, postpartum hemorrhage is the leading preventable cause of maternal mortality. To decrease postpartum hemorrhage-related maternal mortalities, identifying its risk factors is crucial to suggest interventions. In this regard, little is known about the link between primary postpartum hemorrhage and inter-pregnancy interval in Ethiopia, where more than half of pregnancies occur shortly after the preceding childbirth. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with an inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia.
METHODS: A community-based matched nested case-control study was conducted among a cohort of 2548 pregnant women. All women with primary postpartum hemorrhage during the follow-up (n = 73) were taken as cases. Women who were randomly selected from those without primary postpartum hemorrhage (n = 292) were taken as controls. Cases were individually matched with controls (1:4 ratio) for age group and location. A conditional logistic regression analysis was done using R version 4.0.5 software. Statistically, a significant association was declared using 95% CI and p-value. Attributable fraction (AF) and population attributable fraction (PAF) were used to estimate the public health impacts of the inter-pregnancy interval.
RESULTS: This study found out that more than half (66%) of primary postpartum hemorrhage was attributed to inter-pregnancy interval <24 months (AF = 66.3%, 95% CI: 37.5, 82.5%). This could be prevented if the inter-pregnancy interval was increased to 24-60 months. Likewise, nearly half (49%) of primary postpartum hemorrhage in the study population could be prevented if the inter-pregnancy interval <24 months was prevented. Additionally, primary postpartum hemorrhage was attributed to antepartum hemorrhage, prolonged labour and multiple pregnancies.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary postpartum hemorrhage was associated with inter-pregnancy interval under 24 months, highlighting the need to improve postpartum modern contraceptive utilization in the community. Counseling couples about how long to wait until subsequent pregnancy and the risk when the inter-pregnancy interval is short need to be underlined.

Introduction

Primary postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is generally defined as a loss of 500 ml or more amounts of blood within 24 hours after vaginal birth or 1000 ml or more blood following cesarean delivery [1]. It is a common form of PPH, as more bleeding occurs within this time frame after delivery. Bleeding during delivery in small amount is a natural phenomenon. But, it can be massive life-threatening condition and causes maternal death when the bleeding is profuse or ongoing and cause changes in vital signs [2].

Globally, PPH is recognized as the leading preventable cause of maternal mortality, which accounts for nearly one quarter (25%) of all maternal deaths annually [1-4]. PPH accounts for 8% of maternal deaths in developed countries and 20% of maternal deaths in developing countries [5]. PPH affects about 18% of all deliveries [6]. Specifically, primary PPH is a common one, contributing to 19.7% of all pregnancy-related maternal deaths worldwide [7]. Those mothers who survived from death often face serious complications following immediate PPH such as shock, myocardial ischemia, and anemia that has long-term clinical effects on the women and subsequent births [8, 9]. These acute and chronic complications of PPH cause considerable suffering for mothers who are the victims of bleeding and their families, especially the newborn who needs immediate care and support from the mother such as breastfeeding and good temperature from skin-to-skin contact. PPH disturbs these crucial cares for the newborn because the mother herself needs life-saving care during the condition. Moreover, the complications cause a heavy burden on health systems in general [10]. Low and middle-income continents such as Africa and Asia take the highest burden of PPH-related morbidities and mortalities due to inadequate access and unavailability of quality obstetric services including lack of surgical management of atony in these settings [11]. However, recent publications have reported that the rate and related maternal morbidities were increasing in high-income countries such as Canada (6.2%) [8], the United States (2.9%) [12], United Kingdom (13.8%) [13], Japan (8.7%) [14] and Ireland (4.1%) [15]. Prevalence of postpartum hemorrhage was 26% in Africa, 13% in North America and Europe, and 8% in Latin America and Asia [16]. The prevalence of primary PPH in Ethiopia ranges from 5.8% in Dessie [17] and 7.6% in Debre Tabor [18] to 16.6% in the South region [7].

Previously conducted studies identify factors that put mothers at a higher risk of developing PPH such as previous history of PPH [19], age ≥ 35 years [20, 21], uterine over-distention (due to multiple pregnancy [20, 22] and fetal macrosomia [20, 23]), multiparty [17, 21, 24], prolonged labour [17, 24], induced or augmented labour [24, 25], pre-eclampsia [22], chorioamnionitis [26], caesarean section [20, 25] and episiotomy [2, 23]. Inter-pregnancy interval (IPI) (a time elapsed from live birth to subsequent conception or woman’s last menstrual period) <18 months [27] and <24 months [28] were reported to increase the risk of primary PPH. However, a recent study from Tanzania has shown that IPI <24 months has no effect on primary PPH [29]. It was also noted that about 20% of PPH cases could present without known risk factors [2, 7].

The exact mechanism that how short IPI results in adverse maternal outcomes such as PPH remain unclear. However, it is hypothesized based on the theory of maternal depletion, which suggests that short intervals between pregnancies do not allow the mother to recover from the abnormal conditions during the preceding pregnancy and childbirth, such as abnormal process of remodeling of the endometrial vessels, incomplete healing of uterine scar that further leads to utero-placental bleeding disorders such as retained placenta, uterine atony, and uterine rupture [29-31].

In Ethiopia, maternal mortality remains one of the highest in the world, 412 per 100,000 live births [32]. Hemorrhage, specifically, PPH is the main direct cause of maternal death [33-35]. Ethiopia has to go a long journey to achieve the target set to reduce maternal mortality to below 70 per 100,000 live births or not exceed its double (140 per 100,000 live births) by 2030 [35]. The maternal mortality ratio is still highest and can be difficult to reduce to the desired level (70 per 100,000 live births) unless PPH is substantially reduced. Moreover, there is a high rate of fertility and half of the second and higher pregnancies occur to women within a short duration after preceding childbirth [36]. However, whether the short interval (IPI<24 months) between pregnancies has an effect on primary PPH or not is understudied. Available studies (aforementioned) reported inconsistent results. Our study was supposed to supplement those results. Additionally, the world health organization (WHO) called for further research on the effect of IPI on adverse pregnancy outcomes, including primary PPH [37].

Based on these rationales, we hypothesized that IPI<24 months increases the risk of primary PPH as compared to IPI 24–60 months. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the association between primary PPH and IPI in urban South Ethiopia. The finding will contribute to reducing IPI-related PPH and subsequent risk of maternal death by improving maternal health services at local and national levels.

Methods

Study design and setting

A community-based matched nested case-control study design was applied to this study. It is a part of a community-based prospective cohort study that was conducted among pregnant women in five urban settings (Hossana, Shone, Gimbichu, Jajura and Homecho) in the Hadiya zone, South Ethiopia. Hadiya zone is one of the zones in southern nations, nationalities and peoples region in Ethiopia. The zone is located 232 km far from the capital city, Addis Ababa, and 294 km far from its regional capital city, Hawassa. In the zone, there are 1 general hospital, 3 primary hospitals, 62 health centers and 311 health posts that offer health services for the community (Hadiya Zone Health Bureau report-unpublished).

Participants

For this study, a cohort of pregnant women were enrolled at the end of 1st trimester of confirmed pregnancy (after 12 weeks of gestation) via house-to-house identification and registration every three months, for a total of nine months. An enrolment was done from July 08/2019 to March 30/2020 by trained midwives. During the recruitment, study participants were included in the study based on the eligibility criteria for the main exposure variable (inter-pregnancy interval). The inclusion criteria were women who: were pregnant at the time of recruitment, had a live birth during the most recent childbirth, and were able to recall the date of last childbirth. Women who had a recent stillbirth, a recent abortion, and those who did not show a willingness to be followed were excluded.

A total of 2578 pregnant women were enrolled and the enrolled pregnant women were followed until September 30/2020. Of 2578, 1273 were pregnant women with IPI <24 months (exposed group) and 1305 were those with IPI 24–60 months (unexposed group), based on World health organization (WHO) recommendation for pregnancy spacing [37]. For this particular study, all primary PPH cases occurring during a follow-up time (July 08/2019 to September 30/2020) were taken as cases. The controls were women delivering without primary PPH. A 1:4 ratio was used because cases (primary PPH) were relatively small in size. Hence to increase the statistical power, four controls were selected for each case. For every primary PPH case, four controls were randomly selected from the frame of the cohort (risk set) by using a random numbers generator in open-Epi software [38]. We matched a case with four controls each for age group and location or kebele (the lowest administrative unit in Ethiopia). The individual matching approach was applied to pair cases with controls. Age is categorized in five years intervals (as age is subjective and less accurately reported in most people in Ethiopia due to the absence of a vital registration system so far). Location (kebele) was easily identifiable (objective) so that simply matched without recoding into intervals or groups. Thus, individual matching possibly makes the cases to be very similar to controls. Matching in location (kebele) also makes the cases and controls very similar for many unobserved sources of heterogeneity. For example, it makes the distance to the health facility, the health facility that they receive maternal health services (such as antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care), social, cultural, and other neighborhood circumstances. Thus, reduce geographic disparities as this study was conducted in multiple (five) locations (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Schematic presentation of sampling procedure for the study of primary PPH in the urban South Ethiopia, July 2019-September 2020.

Variables and definitions

Outcome variable

The dependent/outcome variable was primary PPH (a hemorrhage that occurred within 24 hours after delivery of a child).

Exposure variable

The main exposure variable was inter-pregnancy interval (a time elapsed from live birth to subsequent conception or woman’s last menstrual period) [37].

Covariate/Confounding variables

Covariate/confounding variables were: 1) Socio-demographic and economic variables such as maternal age, marital status, education, occupation, family size and wealth status. 2) Reproductive and maternal health service-related characteristics such as parity, contraceptive use, number of antenatal care visits, type of pregnancy, antepartum hemorrhage (APH), pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, the progress of labour, prolonged/obstructed labour, mode of delivery, receiving oxytocin and weight of the new-born. Definitions for some technical terms are as follow:

Parity: is the number of times a woman gives birth, irrespective of the birth outcome.

Antepartum hemorrhage: is vaginal bleeding after 28 weeks of gestation.

Pre-eclampsia: is pregnancy-related high blood pressure (140/90 mmHg) and protein in the urine.

Eclampsia: is when a woman with pre-eclampsia develops convulsion or comma.

Prolonged labour: is a duration of true labour that exceeds 12 hours, irrespective of the stages.

Type of pregnancy: refers to the number of babies born at the time of delivery (single or multiple).

Mode of delivery: is whether a woman gives birth spontaneous vaginally, assisted vaginally with instruments (forceps and vacuum) or via cesarean section.

Progress of labour: mean whether labour was going on its natural course or assisted via augmentation or induction.

Birth weight: the weight of the new-born at birth measures in grams.

Data sources

Before baseline data collection, the questionnaire was prepared from existing related literature (published articles and Ethiopia Demographic and Health Surveys) based on the study objectives [7, 27, 36, 39]. English version was translated to Amharic version by two native speakers of Amharic language (one was public health and the other was English language and literature in professions). Then back translation to English was done by another two individuals who could speak English (again one was from public health and the other from English language and literature). The questionnaire was pre-tested on 50 pregnant women in Durame town where the actual study population is culturally related. The investigators have amended the pre-test.

Baseline data about sociodemographic and reproductive variables including the main exposure variable (IPI) were collected at the household level during enrolment via face-to-face interviews. Outcome (primary PPH) and other clinical data such as pre-eclampsia, prolonged labour, the progress of labour, mode of delivery, and weight of baby were collected from clients’ charts, during the time of delivery before discharge made. Ten trained midwives collected data and five public health professionals made supervisions. The data collectors at each health facility were assigned and the list of participants was given for each of them. The birth attendants were informed to consult a nearby gynaecologist in a zonal hospital and emergency medicine specialist in district primary hospitals to make the diagnosis of PPH in addition to their expertise.

Measurements

Outcome ascertainment

There is no standardized tool that quantifies the amount of blood loss that works in all setups to diagnose PPH. Visual estimation is one of the commonly used methods and is also used in our health facilities supplemented with vital signs such as the drop in blood pressure, 10% reduction in hemoglobin from prepartum and increase in heart rate (tachycardia). Signs of hypovolemic shock and cases with blood transfusion were also used to diagnose PPH in addition to visual estimation. For this study, in particular, we used clinically diagnosed PPH based on the combination of those methods and taken from clients’ charts. Then primary PPH was categorized as a binary variable (0 = absent, 1 = present).

Exposures ascertainment

The exposure variable (IPI) was ascertained by asking women about the date of most recent childbirth and the last menstrual period. IPI was computed by subtracting the date of recent childbirth from the date of the last menstrual period (LMP). For women who had difficulty in recalling the date of LMP, Ultrasound was used to estimate gestational age. LMP was computed by subtracting the duration of gestation, and then the value of IPI was calculated [37]. To be in line with the WHO recommendation, women with IPI <24 months were categorized as exposed group and IPI 24–60 months as unexposed group.

Covariate/Confounding ascertainment

Potential confounding variables (such as age, parity, education) are those variables that have an association with an exposure (IPI) and an outcome (primary PPH). Covariates were those factors that have an association with the outcome (primary PPH) but not with the exposure (IPI). These covariates/confounders were identified by prior theoretical knowledge and literature [17, 20, 21, 24, 40]. The covariates/confounders were measured according to their definitions mentioned above (variables and definition section) and as follows: Antepartum hemorrhage assessed for recent pregnancy in two ways: firstly from the patient chart if data is available. Secondly, by interviewing the woman if she had any vaginal bleeding after seven months of gestation (after 28 weeks). If at least one data was obtained from the two sources, she would have been diagnosed as having APH (0 = absent, 1 = present). Pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, prolonged labour, management of the third stage of labour, and other clinical data were taken from clients’ charts and categorized as 0 = absent, 1 = present.

Wealth index was measured using household assets for urban residence, which consists of the following items: owner of the house, number of rooms, the material of the roof, material of the floor, material of the exterior wall, source of drinking water, type of latrine, type of cooking materials (1 = electricity, 0 = wood/charcoal/biogas/natural gas, etc.), source of income, and presence or absence of; cell phone, refrigerator, radio, television, stove, chair, table, watch, modern bed, bicycle, Bajaj, motorcycle, car, donkey/horse cart, and bank account. Each item was categorized into two (1 = yes and 0 = no). Latrine and water sources were categorized as an improved and unimproved facility based on the world food program and WHO recommendations. Principal component analysis was done to generate the components. Finally, the ranking was done into three quintiles (low, middle and high).

Sample size

In nested case-control studies, the size of the sample is often dependant on the number of observed cases from a cohort study and their corresponding controls. Therefore, for this matched case-control study, a sample size of 365 (73 cases and 292 matched controls) was considered.

Analysis

Data was entered in Epi-data version 3.1 software [41] and exported to R version 4.0.5 software [42] for the analysis. Frequencies and percentages using cross-tabulation were calculated for categorical variables and discreet continuous variables. For missing data a complete case analysis approach was applied. A conditional binary logistic regression analysis for matched data was fitted (a case matched and paired with 4 controls for the same age group and location). All independent variables which have shown significant association with primary PPH in binary conditional logistic regression model at P<0.25 were included in the multivariable conditional logistic regression model. Then statistically significant association was declared at P<0.05 and confidence intervals for odds ratio that did not include 1. The results were presented using odds ratio and interpreted using attributable fraction. Attributable fraction (AF) was calculated from the adjusted odds ratio to estimate the impact of public health of the exposures (IPI).

Quality control measures

Data collectors and supervisors were trained for two days on the concept of the questionnaire and how to approach the participants ethically. A pre-test was done in a similar setting (Durame town). Supervisors checked the data collection process closely. To minimize recall bias, we limited the date of recent childbirth in the last five years to help women in recalling data of last childbirth. Family members such as husband, grandparent, and mother-in-law were also involved to recall the date of childbirth. To minimize selection bias, we used community-based recruitment to include pregnant women during the study period using predefined eligibility criteria. Additionally, Ultrasound was used for those women who had difficulty in remembering the date of LMP due to different reasons such as contraceptive use and breastfeeding. A sensitivity analysis was done to check the impact of misclassification (if it exists) of exposure (IPI), as it depends on the ability of women in recalling the dates of last childbirth and last menstrual period. Epi-data was used to control errors during data entry. Data were explored to check outliers and missing values. We applied matched and paired analysis (conditional logistic regression) which also helps to reduce bias due to confounding in addition to multivariable analysis.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional review board (IRB) of the University of Gondar, with registration number: O/V/P/RCS/05/1051/2019. Permission was obtained from regional and local health offices. Study participants were informed about how they were included in the study, the purpose of the study, their rights to withdraw or continue, and potential benefits and harms of the study. A written informed consent form was prepared and attached with the questionnaire to obtain approval from each study participant by signature or fingerprint.

Results

Cohort information

During the study period, a follow-up was made for 2578 pregnant women. Of these, 29 (1.14%) were lost of follow-up (21 due to end of the study period, 8 no information at all including via phone calling) and their pregnancy outcomes could not be ascertained. Of 29 lost of follow-up, 14 were from exposed and 15 from unexposed groups. The pregnancy outcomes were ascertained for 2549 study participants. At the end of a follow-up, 73 (2.9%) women had primary PPH (S1 Fig).

Socio-demographic and economic information

The mean age of both cases and controls was 27.1 years ± 3.1 and 27.5 years ± 3.5 respectively. More controls 231 (79.1%) were attended formal education (1–12 grade or above) than the cases 55 (75.3%) (Table 1).

Table 1

Socio-demographic and economic variables of the participants in urban South Ethiopia, July 2019-September 2020.

Variables	Cases = 73	Matched controls = 292
	n (%)	n (%)
Religion
Protestant	68 (93.2)	264 (90.4)
Orthodox	2 (2.7)	13 (4.5)
Catholic	1 (1.4)	6 (2.1)
Muslim/Apoplectics	2 (2.7)	9 (3.1)
Ethnicity
Hadiya	70 (95.9)	270 (92.5)
Kembata/ Siltie/Guragie	3 (4.1)	22 (7.5)
Maternal educational status
No formal education	18 (24.7)	61 (20.9)
Attended formal education	55 (75.3)	231 (79.1)
Maternal occupation
Employed	5 (6.8)	26 (8.9)
Housewife	58 (79.5)	210 (71.9)
Merchant/vender	10 (13.7)	56 (19.2)
Family size (n = 363)
< 5	59 (80.8)	230 (78.8)
≥ 5	14 (19.2)	62 (21.2)
Wealth status
Low	29 (39.7)	116 (39.9)
Middle	10 (13.7)	63 (21.6)
High	34 (46.6)	112 (38.5)

Reproductive and maternal health service-related characteristics

The mean age of women at first childbirth for cases and controls was 21.9 ± 2.9 years and 21.3 ± 2.8 years respectively. For current pregnancy, more proportion of controls 264 (90.4%) had given birth via spontaneous vaginal mode as compared to the cases 62 (84.9%). More proportion of cases had given birth via cesarean section 4 (5.5%) and instrumental delivery 7 (9.6%) than controls (Table 2).

Table 2

Reproductive and maternal health service-related characteristics of the participants in urban South Ethiopia, July 2019-September 2020.

Variables	Cases = 73	Matched controls = 292
	n (%)	n (%)
Inter-pregnancy interval in months
<24	54 (74)	142 (48.6)
24–60	19 (26)	150 (51.4)
Modern contraceptive use after the recent childbirth (n = 363)
Used	34 (46.6)	131 (45.2)
Not used	39 (53.4)	159 (54.8)
Pre-eclampsia/eclampsia
Present	3 (4.1)	7 (2.4)
Absent	70 (95.9)	285 (97.6)
Progress of labour
Unassisted/normally progressed	66 (90.4)	260 (89)
Augmented/induced	7 (9.6)	32 (11)
Parity
1	31 (42.5)	99 (33.9)
2	19 (26)	89 (30.5)
≥ 3	23 (35.1)	104 (35.6)
Birth weight
≤ 4000gm	64 (87.7)	284 (97.3)
> 4000gm	9 (12.3)	8 (2.7)
Mode of delivery
Spontaneous vaginally	62 (84.9)	264 (90.4)
Cesarean section	4 (5.5)	11 (3.8)
Instrumental	7 (9.6)	17 (5.8)
Antepartum hemorrhage
Present	11 (15.1)	7 (2.4)
Absent	62 (84.9)	285 (97.6)
Number of antenatal care visits (n = 363)
<4	39 (54.2)	196 (67.4)
≥ 4	33 (45.8)	95 (32.6)
Prolonged labour
Present	20 (27.4)	20 (6.8)
Absent	53 (72.6)	272 (93.2)
Type of pregnancy
Singleton	65 (89)	285 (97.6)
Multiple (twins)	8 (11)	7 (2.4)
Oxytocin during 3rd stage of labour
Given	69 (94.5)	268 (91.8)
Not given	4 (5.5)	24 (8.2)

Association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with inter-pregnancy interval

In the binary conditional logistic regression model, eight variables: IPI, parity, mode of delivery, APH, prolonged labour, number of ANC visits, the weight of baby, and type of pregnancy were associated with primary PPH at P<0.25. When these variables fitted in the multivariable conditional logistic regression model, four variables: IPI, APH, prolonged labour, and type of pregnancy were found to be associated with primary PPH with 95% CI at P<0.05.

In this study, women who had a pregnancy within 24 months after the preceding childbirth were nearly three times (AOR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.6, 5.7) more likely to experience primary PPH as compared to those who had 24–60 months intervals. This means about 66% of primary PPH was attributed to IPI <24 months as compared to 24–60 months (AF = 66.3%, 95% CI: 37.5, 82.5%) (Table 3).

Table 3

Multivariable conditional logistic regression model for the association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with the inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia, July 2019-September 2020.

Variables	Crude OR (95%CI)	Adjusted OR (95%CI)	AF (95%CI)
Inter-pregnancy interval in months
<24	2.99 (1.7, 5.3)***	2.97 (1.6, 5.7)***	66.3% (37.5, 82.5)
24–60	1	1	1
Parity
1	1	1
2	0.51 (0.23, 1.1)▪	0.56 (0.21, 1.5)
≥ 3	0.35 (0.11, 1.1)▪	0.46 (0.10, 2.1)
Number of antenatal care visits
<4	1	1
≥ 4	1.9 (1.1, 3.4)*	1.8 (0.92, 3.46)
Antepartum hemorrhage
Present	6.9 (2.6, 18.9)***	4.9 (1.5, 16.2)**	79.6% (33.3, 93.8)
Absent	1	1	1
Type of pregnancy
Singleton	1	1	77.8% (23.1, 93.5)
Multiple (twins)	4.6 (1.7, 12.6)**	4.5 (1.3, 15.3)*	1
Prolonged labour
Present	4.8 (2.4, 9.5)***	3.2 (1.2, 8.5)*	68.8% (16.7, 88.2)
Absent	1	1	1
Mode of delivery
Spontaneous vaginally	1	1
Cesarean section	1.5 (0.46, 5.0)	0.87 (0.19, 3.8)
Instrumental	1.8(0.69, 4.5)▪	0.82 (0.24, 2.8)
Birth weight
≤ 4000gm	1	1
> 4000gm	4.9 (1.8, 13.2)**	3.3 (0.87, 12.8)

Keys: Significant

*** = P<0.001,

** = P<0.01,

* = P<0.05.

▪ = P<0.25

OR: Odds Ratio. CI: Confidence Interval. 1 = reference category. AF: Attributable Fraction.

Sensitivity analysis

We conducted a sensitivity analysis to whether the cutoff 24 months resulted in misclassification of exposure (IPI) by decreasing and increasing 1 month as follow: firstly, when IPI cutoff decreased by 1 month (IPI<23 vs 23–60 months), the AOR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.3, 4.2. Secondly, when IPI cutoff increased by 1 month (IPI<25 vs 25–60 months), the AOR = 3.82, 95%CI: 1.9, 7.8. In both cases, the AORs fall within the reported 95% CI: 1.6, 5.7. Thus, misclassification of IPI, in case it exists, did not affect the observed conclusion even though some difference from the reported estimate (AOR = 2.97) occurs.

The sensitivity analysis was conducted to see whether the conditional logistic regression analysis for the nested case-control study could have affected the estimates and the association when full cohort data (2548 sample) was analyzed by using the classic (unconditional) logistic regression. Accordingly, there is no significant discrepancy between the two approaches. The estimates (odds ratios) are nearly the same: for the nested case-control study (conditional logistic regression), AOR = 2.97 or 3.0, 95% CI (1.6, 5.7), while for the cohort study (unconditional logistic regression), AOR = 3.26 or 3.3, 95% CI (1.9, 5.7) (S1 Table).

Discussions

This study aimed at elucidating the association between primary PPH and inter-pregnancy interval. Accordingly, primary PPH was associated with IPI <24 months.

In this study, primary PPH was found to be attributed to IPI under 24 months. The finding of this study suggests that preventing pregnancies that are occurring within 24 months after a live birth will contribute to reducing primary PPH. According to the result, about half (49%) of primary PPH in the study population could have been prevented if IPI under 24 months was prevented. This could probably be due to the hypothesis that adequately spacing pregnancies help the uterine wall to recover from the abnormal process of remodeling of endometrial vessels, incomplete healing of uterine scars, hormonal imbalance, and nutritional depletion, and then make it ready for subsequent pregnancy [29, 31]. Besides, when the inter-pregnancy interval is optimal, the uterine muscle will get an adequate tone for contraction after delivery thereby reduce the risk of atonic uterus-related PPH and subsequent risk of maternal death [31]. Increased interval also avoids lactation stress and pregnancy-breastfeeding overlaps that can potentially deplete maternal nutrition (such as folate, iron, and vitamins) via breastfeeding for the baby already born and trans-placental sharing for the fetus in the womb [31, 43]. The result of this study was supported by the studies from Tanzania [27] and Nigeria [28] where shortly spaced pregnancies were identified as risk factors for PPH. However, it is opposed to the latter study conducted in Tanzania [29] which has reported IPI <24 months had no relation with PPH as compared to those 24–60 months. The difference might be explained by a variation like the nature of data obtained, study design, sample size, analysis, and skill of health care providers as well. Data obtained in the Tanzanian study was 15 years of retrospective, from zonal referral hospital (single source) where higher number of referral cases could probably be detected in excess (high detection rate) and the care providers could be hyper-vigilant so that the result might be over-represented the maternal complications as explained by the authors in their limitation. Study design could be the other possible source of variation; we conducted nested case-control from prospective cohort which is more robust to elucidate temporal relationship than retrospective studies. Some potential PPH cases might be managed early so that no more PPH could occur even in the presence of known risk factors. It is also reported that no maternal complications, like PPH, due to short IPI could occur when women are referred early and get appropriate care such as active management of the third stage of labour using utero-tonic drugs [43]. Oxytocin was given for all women, as active management of the third stage of labour, which can prevent postpartum hemorrhage even if there is a potential for bleeding. Even if IPI was a risk factor for PPH, giving oxytocin might have prevented the occurrence of PPH and the diagnosis becomes no PPH, which might have diluted the association towards null. These conditions might have resulted in the difference between the two studies. The relationship between IPI and PPH is one of the understudied conditions and needs further prospective studies to replicate the findings. We used both matching and stratification in addition to multivariable adjustment to control confounding and bias in our analysis. Nested case-controls studies are efficient with matching and stratification. Therefore, we could not ignore IPI as a risk factor for PPH. Rather we suggest family planning programs and organizations working on it to give due attention for spacing pregnancies. Even in the urban settings where modern contraceptive options are widely accessible, half (50%) of women were not utilizing the services [32]. This may potentially put them at risk of getting pregnant within a short duration after childbirth and subsequent risk of PPH. To benefit women, their families, and the country at large, increasing contraceptive utilization rate via information, education, and communication of the effects of shortly spaced pregnancies need to be underlined.

Primary PPH can significantly be reduced by administering utero-tonic drugs during the third stage of labour for all women since a considerable proportion of women without any historical risk factor may present with PPH. Thus, birth attendants need to check every woman after delivery for potential bleeding before making a discharge from the health facility.

A nested case-control study is usually born from cohort studies. As a result, it has some of the benefits of a cohort study; it resolves temporal relationships that classic case-control studies frequently cannot. The nested case-control study could be improved by applying conditional logistic regression to sparse data or rare outcomes, as matching reduces bias related to confounding. However, a nested case-control study is prone to loss of power and selection bias as it is born from a sub-sample of a cohort study. Power could be improved by increasing the number of controls per case to some extent. Random sampling of controls from the cohort study (risk set) would help to minimize selection bias, particularly when the cohort study is from a defined population [44, 45].

Despite the attempts made to reduce, this study might have the following limitations: firstly, some cases of PPH might remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. The reported PPH might be underestimated as it mainly depends on visual estimation. Secondly, to some extent, selection and recall biases might have occurred as some woman might not be included during recruitment and unable to remember the date of the last childbirth. Despite the limitations, the findings of this study can be generalized for urban places in Ethiopia with a similar population and contexts.

Conclusions

Primary postpartum hemorrhage was associated with inter-pregnancy interval under 24 months, highlighting the need to increase IPI by improving postpartum modern contraceptive utilization in the community. Counseling couples and educating the community at large about the risk of PPH when IPI is under 24 months need to be underlined.

Flow diagram of the cohort study.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Measures taken against potential sources of bias.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DTA)

Click here for additional data file.

Sensitivity analysis using full cohort data, unconditional logistic regression.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

20 May 2022

Association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia: a matched nested case control study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jena,

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 Jul 02 2022 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.

23 May 2022

To: PLOS ONE Journal, Editorial Office

Subject: Submitting a revised version of manuscript and response to Editor and Reviewers.

Ref: Submission ID PONE-D-21-27673

Title of Article: " Association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia: a matched nested case control study"

Authors:

Belayneh Hamdela Jena, Gashaw Andargie Biks, Yigzaw Kebede Gete, Kassahun Alemu Gelaye

We would like to thank the Editor for facilitating, commenting and giving the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are also grateful to reviewers for sharing their views and constructive comments. The comments are very important which will improve the quality of our manuscript. The point-by-point responses for each of the comments and the revised manuscript are provided in the attached documents.

Regards,

The authors!

Editor’s comments:

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.

Authors’ response: Dear editor, thank you again for your time and contribution. We looked at the PLOS ONE style requirements to edit the whole manuscript and revised accordingly.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor, we edited the ‘funding information’.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We would like to thank the University of Gondar and Wachemo University for their financial support. We are very much thankful to study participants, data collectors, supervisors and health workers for their contributions.”

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

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

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

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

Authors’ response: Dear editor, we have revised the financial disclosure statements. We revised as “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

In addition, we removed funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Authors’ response: Dear editor, we have uploaded dataset as supporting information (S1 Dataset).

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

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor, we provided data set as supporting information (S1 Dataset). We stated in online system as “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files”.

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

Authors’ response: Dear editor, thank you we put ethics statement in the methods section.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an interesting study to assess the association between inter-pregnancy interval (IPI) and postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). The authors used a nested matched case-control in a cohort of pregnant recruited after the first trimester in a rural community. They provide a good reason for such an approach (improve statistical efficiency). Usually, this design as well allows the investigators to put extra resources (usually few) in a subsample (in this case use them in 365 rather than in the whole 2546).

Issues:

1. The background is good. However, we still lack a clear description of the potential mechanism the IPI would lead to PPH. And please, provide us with the concept of “primary PPH”.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor for your time and contribution to this manuscript. Your inputs will improve the quality of our manuscript. We acknowledge your comments. In the revised manuscript we added 1 paragraph about potential causal mechanisms. As we defined early in the paragraph, and subsequent paragraphs of the introduction section, primary PPH is excess bleeding that occurs within 24 hours after delivery. Primary refers to the time (within 24 hours). It is commonly due to direct causes such as uterine atony, retained placental tissues, uterine rupture/lacerations, etc, and the main cause of maternal death, as we reported in the introduction. If bleeding occurs after 24 hours but before 12 weeks after delivery, then it is defined as secondary PPH. Secondary PPH is usually secondary to puerperal sepsis/infection and other causes. Our focus was on primary due to its impact and feasibility of data on the diagnosis.

2. Please put citations for the software used including open-Epi, Epidata, Stata and R. And please write Stata not STATA.

Authors’ response: Dear editor, thank you! We put citations for each software inside the text of the revised manuscript, and we showed in the highlighted-text. Note: when removing post-hoc power analysis we also removed Stata, as you commented on comment number 6 below.

3. Why line 120 says cohorts?

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor, it was editorial problem. Now we corrected it, as ‘a cohort’.

4. Lines 134 and 135 are critical as they define the controls. Please clarify, does this mean only women delivering without PPH; or women still at observation without the outcome?

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor. We mean that ‘women delivering without PPH’. It did not include those who were lost of follow-up, and abortion cases. We corrected it in the text.

5. Correct the title. It should be “case-control” not “case control”.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor, we corrected as “case-control” throughout the manuscript.

6. The Power/Sample details suggest being a post-hoc power calculation. It is quite strange the authors would know in advance that the OR would be 2.97. Please clarify. If it is a post-hoc power please remove from the text.

- Please a similar concerns by the reviewer below.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor for the comment. We acknowledge your view. It was pot-hoc power, which was just to estimate whether the sample size was adequate or not. Now we removed it.

7. Line 71 - please correct. Africa and Asia are not countries. Are continents.

Authors’ response: thank you dear editor, we corrected as ‘continents’.

8. The bracket opened at the beginning of the line 83 never closes. Please check.

Authors’ response: Dear editor, we checked it, and closed the bracket.

9. Tables 1 and 2 please make sure all percentages have one decimal place.

Authors’ response: Dear editor, we checked for it, and all have only one decimal, except P-values in Table 1 and 2. Thank you!

10. In the limitations. Please move the sensitivity analysis to somewhere in the results.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor, now we moved the sensitivity analysis in the result section under the regression table. Just before, discussion section. Thank you for the input.

Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1

This manuscript reports a nested case control study looking at the association between interpregnancy interval (IPI) and the risk of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in Ethiopia and found that short IPI (<24 months) was associated with an increased chance of primary PPH. The data collection, study design and analysis are appropriate and the paper is reported clearly. I have a few queries and suggestions below:

1. It is not clear why a nested case control approach was used. If a cohort of 2456 pregnant women were recruited and classified on the basis of their most recent IPI, why was a cohort study not undertaken?

Authors’ response: Thank dear reviewer for your time and contribution to this manuscript. Your comments will improve the quality of our manuscript. We acknowledge your views. We considered a nested case-control study for the following reasons: we faced the outcome (primary PPH) was rare (for statistical purpose). In this case, case-control study is efficient (for rare case). We want to apply more robust statistical methods (matched and paired analysis). We did a matched analysis to increase the strength of analysis for more valid estimate. Matching for known confounder (e.g. age) in addition to adjustment for other risk factors in multivariable model increase statistical efficiency. Matching for a variable in the whole cohort is not feasible. In addition, matching for ‘location (kebele)’ makes some unobserved sources of variation more similar such as neighborhood and health service related characteristics. Kindly, see additional reasons in your comment number 4 below!

2. It seems a little odd that exactly half the cohort had a short IPI. Was this deliberately done at the time of recruitment?

Authors’ response: Thank you dear reviewer for this crucial comment. At the beginning of the study, our thinking was just to take equal number of exposed and unexposed groups. While completing the enrollment, we randomly excluded 32 individuals (as we showed in Sl flow diagram in previous submission) from the unexposed group just to equalize the sample size for both group. A similar comment as you was given by other reviewer in one of our study related to this (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04325-z ), and the reviewer suggest us to go back to collect the outcomes status of those 32 individuals data dropped. Later, we the authors discussed, and decided to include the outcome data of the 32 participant by going back to the health facilities since we already had a baseline data at hand together with their addresses. So we trace back and collected the outcome data to include in the analysis. Thereby we also collected the data for the primary PPH too. Therefore, in this revised manuscript we added the information about those 32 participants in the sample size, flow diagram and figure as well. Of course, we could not get a woman diagnosed for primary PPH among those 32 participants. We also checked if they should be matched for age and location (kebele). However, the data of the 32 participants were not eligible for the matching and stratification. Thus, we did not include them in the analysis of the nested case-control study. Rather we report in sample size sections, figure and flow diagram in the revised manuscript. Dear reviewer as you really commented, and the same comment from the other reviewer in related article, it is not mandatory to take equal number of exposed and unexposed group for cohort study. Thank you again for your input.

3. Table 3 should present the variables adjusted for as the adjusted odds ratio.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear reviewer, we revised Table 3. Kindly, see the table 3 in the text in the revised manuscript.

4. "Despite the limitations, nested case control studies are efficient in elucidating temporal relationships, especially when supplemented with matching and stratification (conditional analysis)". This sentence in the discussion should be rephrased. I am not sure that this really qualifies as a nested case control study as the approach was that of a matched case control. Why is matching and stratification superior to adjustment - which has also been done in this analysis?

Authors’ response: Thank you dear reviewer, we removed it from the discussion as it was repeatedly used. Of course, we applied both matching & stratification and adjustment as well. Both matching and adjustment are used to control confounding. We are not making matching and stratification superior to adjustment. We matched for “age” as it is a well-known biological confounder in many of health-related outcomes including PPH. Matching for location makes cases and controls more similar in terms of neighborhood circumstances, so that the cases and controls represent the population from where they come from. For sparse data, data from different geographic location, and rare conditions, nested case-control study via applying conditional analysis (matched and paired analysis) is appropriate. Using both matching and adjustment increase statistical strength.

END!

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jun 2022

9 Jun 2022

To: PLOS ONE Journal, Editorial Office

Subject: Submitting a revised version of manuscript and response to Editor and Reviewers.

Ref: Submission ID PONE-D-21-27673R1

Title of Article: " Association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia: a matched nested case control study"

Authors:

Belayneh Hamdela Jena, Gashaw Andargie Biks, Yigzaw Kebede Gete, Kassahun Alemu Gelaye

We would like to thank the Editor for facilitating, commenting and giving the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are also grateful to reviewers for sharing their views and constructive comments. The comments are very important which will improve the quality of our manuscript. The point-by-point responses for each of the comments and the revised manuscript are provided in the attached documents.

Regards,

The authors!

Editor’s comments:

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.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor for your time, immense contribution, and giving the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We acknowledge your constructive comments, and suggestions, which will improve the quality of our manuscript indeed. We have checked the references for any retraction, and no retracted references found.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for responding to all our comments and questions.

The nested case-control design is not yet a commonly known design. This design is born within a cohort from which cases are identified. Then matched controls are found from the cohort by a density sampling (your case here) or baseline sampling.

The main advantage is that extra (and usually expensive measurements like, for example, biomarkers) information can be collected for this relatively small sample. In particular, the density sampling in a case-control can help approximate a relative-risk without the need for the low risk/incidence condition in the overall population. However, the case-control still potentially suffers from selection bias and we have to agree with the reviewer there is a lot calculations involved to analyse this.

Therefore, I would suggest:

1) Please, do the extra analysis (if data is available as the reviewer recommends)

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor, we acknowledge your suggestion, and reviewer’s as well. We already have full data for the participants. Primary postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) was one of the outcomes hypothesized to have association with inter-pregnancy interval during designing the study. Thus, we have conducted the sensitivity analysis using 2548 sample data for which the outcome was ascertained, as suggested by reviewer#1, using logistic regression. The result of the sensitivity analysis (full data containing the regression analysis) was presented in supplementary table 1 (S1 Table).

We have included the result of the sensitivity analysis in the result section of the revised manuscript, under sensitivity analysis section, and supplementary table was also cited.

2) Comment about those results and put those tables in the Supplementary materials.

Authors’ response: Dear editor, as you can see from the supplementary table 1, no significant difference on the conclusion and the direction of association was observed between the two approaches (nested case-control study and cohort study), except very few difference on the estimates; that means AOR=2.97~3.0, 95% CI (1.6, 5.7) for the nested case-control study while AOR=3.26 ~3.3, 95% CI (1.9, 5.7) for the cohort study. In both study designs, the results are nearly the same, and the interpretation is the same: the odds of primary postpartum hemorrhage was 3 times higher for women with inter-pregnancy interval under 24 months as compared to women with inter-pregnancy interval 24-60 months. Since the data on primary postpartum hemorrhage was rare, and sparse because the primary PPH was from five urban settings, which are geographically diverse. For such sparse data, nested case-controls studies highly appropriate. Nested case-controls study is efficient with matching for known biological confounders such as age. Such matching, when needed, is not feasible for large sample of cohort, like ours 2548, when the outcome is rare or sparse. As you really mentioned above, nested case-control study is primarily relevant for rare conditions like biomarkers, it is also commonly being applicable for disease, death and behavioral conditions. Kindly, I have included just few literature (of course many) on nested case-control studies regarding the areas of application.

- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5757-2.

- DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0159390.

- DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-017-2933-4.

- https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v9.i1.99.

- https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2014.74

3) Please, add in the strengths and limitations a discussion about this particular design.

Authors’ response: Thank you dear editor, we have added one paragraph about the strengths and limitations of nested case-control study, including some references.

Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1

I am still not clear why matching, stratification and adjustment was required for accounting for confounding. I would urge the authors to conduct logistic regression analysis adjusting for all potential confounders at least as a sensitivity analysis including all women recruited in the cohort. I am a great advocate for keeping things simple and it always worries me when complicated statistical analysis is done without any substantial gain.

Authors’ response: Thank you again for your time and immense contribution. We acknowledge your comments, which will improve the quality of our manuscript. The main reason for matching is to control confounding like age, and matching in location reduces geographic disparities for such sparse data. Matched analysis (conditional logistic regression) is highly appropriate to manage sparse data problem or sparse data bias.

We also appreciate your suggestion to conduct sensitivity analysis to see whether the conditional logistic regression analysis for nested case-control study could have affected the estimates and the association when full cohort data was analyzed by using the classic (unconditional) logistic regression. According to the sensitivity analysis (supplementary table 1), there is no much discrepancy between the two approaches. The estimates (odds ratios) are nearly the same: for the nested case-control study (conditional logistic regression) AOR=2.97~3.0, 95% CI (1.6, 5.7) while for the cohort study (unconditional logistic regression) AOR=3.26 ~3.3, 95% CI (1.9, 5.7). Since both approaches estimated nearly similar estimates the interpretations are the same; the odds of primary postpartum hemorrhage was 3 times higher for women with inter-pregnancy interval under 24 months as compared to women with inter-pregnancy interval 24-60 months.

END!

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jun 2022

Association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia: a matched nested case-control study

PONE-D-21-27673R2

Dear Dr. Jena,

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,

Orvalho Augusto, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Just few outstanding issues:

- Tables 1 and 2 - Please remove the total column and the Chi-squared statistic (just leave the p-value).

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all comments and suggestions. The manuscript now reads better and should be acceptable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sohinee Bhattacharya

**********

8 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-27673R2

Association of primary postpartum hemorrhage with inter-pregnancy interval in urban South Ethiopia: a matched nested case-control study

Dear Dr. Jena:

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. Orvalho Augusto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE