On 2015 Oct 05, Siddharudha Shivalli commented:

I read this article with a great interest. Authors’ efforts are praiseworthy. It highlights the key factors associated with the risk of malaria in the study area and provides evidence for fine tuning of malaria control activities. However, following issues need to be addressed.

The prevalence of malaria should have been reported with 95% confidence intervals (n=83/1084, 7.7%; 95% CI: 6.2-9.4). Authors have mentioned in the abstract that the multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare the factors associated with malaria in pregnant women. However, the same is missing in ‘Data analysis’ part of methods. Moreover, authors mention that after adjusting for possible confounders, the use of insecticide spray (p<0.001) and young maternal age (p = 0.020) were the main factors associated with a reduced and an increased risk of malaria infection among pregnant women in Lagos, respectively [Table 5]. It is advisable to explicitly mention all the confounders used in the regression model to avoid ambiguity. Although the study sample was large (n=1084), a word about R2 (explaining the variance in the risk of malaria) of the applied regression model would have been more affirmative. Although bed net, ITN and Insecticide sprays are the major preventive measures, others like avoiding water logging and clean surroundings, proper covering of stored water, screening of the houses with wire mesh, clothes covering maximum body surface etc. are overlooked in this study.

None the less, I must congratulate the authors for investigating an important public health problem in the study area.

Competing interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest about this publication.

On 2015 Oct 05, Siddharudha Shivalli commented:

I read this article with a great interest. Authors’ efforts are praiseworthy. It highlights the key factors associated with the risk of malaria in the study area and provides evidence for fine tuning of malaria control activities. However, following issues need to be addressed.

The prevalence of malaria should have been reported with 95% confidence intervals (n=83/1084, 7.7%; 95% CI: 6.2-9.4). Authors have mentioned in the abstract that the multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare the factors associated with malaria in pregnant women. However, the same is missing in ‘Data analysis’ part of methods. Moreover, authors mention that after adjusting for possible confounders, the use of insecticide spray (p<0.001) and young maternal age (p = 0.020) were the main factors associated with a reduced and an increased risk of malaria infection among pregnant women in Lagos, respectively [Table 5]. It is advisable to explicitly mention all the confounders used in the regression model to avoid ambiguity. Although the study sample was large (n=1084), a word about R2 (explaining the variance in the risk of malaria) of the applied regression model would have been more affirmative. Although bed net, ITN and Insecticide sprays are the major preventive measures, others like avoiding water logging and clean surroundings, proper covering of stored water, screening of the houses with wire mesh, clothes covering maximum body surface etc. are overlooked in this study.

None the less, I must congratulate the authors for investigating an important public health problem in the study area.

Competing interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest about this publication.