All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All the comments have been well-addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the reviewer’s comments.
The Authors have to check Reference style of PeerJ carefully. It's not appropriate citation in this article, esp. for sentence line 264.
no comment
Line 199: Because of MIC breakpoint of colistin records NO susceptible value for Enterobacterales according to CLSI. M100-S30 (Table 2A, P.38), and the Authors also deleted Colistin data in the table, this sentence line 199 might be deleted.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The authors have justify all the comments raised during the first review. I have no extra comment for the revised manuscript.
This is a very important study that reported the cases of drug-resistant pathogens isolated from sterile sites in 45 centers. However, the manuscript need extensive English editing and expansion of the writeup on Methods and Discussion. I would like to see more comparison among the centers and trends observed.
Also, please clarify whether part of the isolates were reported in the manuscript published in Microb Drug Resist. 2022 Mar;28(3):338-345. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2021.0231.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
1. The usage of English language in the manuscript not clear and full of mistakes.
2. References section contains numerous errors.
1. It would be helpful to provide a detailed description of the Network for the Research and Surveillance of Drug Resistance.
2. Reference 16 provides the basis for interpreting susceptibility testing results, as follows:
Reference 16: Institute C and LS. CLSI. M100-S30. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Twenty-Second Informational Supplement. 30th ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standars Institute; 2020.
The reference contains a number of errors. Moreover, M100-S30 and “Twenty-Second Informational Supplement” are very different. The authors should review the breakpoint criteria from the forty-five centers carefully.
3. The methods lack many details and are not clearly explained. As an example, the results of levofloxacin are not determined in Pseudomonas.
1. Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most commonly detected bacterial species in blood and CSF, raising concerns about contamination during the study.
** Line 259: The reference (11) does not mention about blood culture contamination due to S. epidermidis. Please provide the correct reference.
** Line 151-152: There are several versions/editions for CLSI standards. Please complete additional information in the text.
** Line 161: This sentence for standard operation procedure could be referenced.
** Line 194 & Table 1a: According to CLSI. M100-S30, which was cited as (16) in this article, MIC breakpoint of colistin records NO susceptible value for enterobacterales(Table 2A, P.38).
** There are separate numbers for each antibiotics in the Table 1-6, however, I could not know the total number for each microorganisms in blood, CSF and pleural fluid respectively. The authors might described in the text and complete the information in every tables.
** Line 169-170: "The most frequently detected bacterial species in blood and CSF was Staphylococcus epidermidis." Regarding CSF and pleural fluid section below, this sentence might be modified precisely.
** Line 170: "When this bacterial species was not considered for blood samples, ...." does not make sense, please redraft more specifically.
** Line 227: "E. faecalis" should be replaced with "E. faecium".
** Line 277: "20%" should be replaced with "20.5%".
** Line 243: "75.85" should be replaced with "75-85".
Please check the grammar and please improve the English.
The reported finding can enhanced the knowledge on antimicrobial resistance profile of bacteria that isolated from sterile site. This can help infectious disease physician to decide the possible empirical therapy to treat the infections. Since the author focus on AST profile of the bacteria in the study, I suggest the author to include the possible antimicrobial therapy on infections that caused by antimicrobial resistance bacteria in the "Discussion". This can add value to the finding.
The antimicrobial susceptibility profile of the bacteria was retrospectively collected from different institutions and the system used was different as mentioned by the author in "Methods". The accuracy of different system used was not mentioned in the "Methods". This is acceptable if these data was published as National antimicrobial surveillance report, but if the data published in research article, it is better if the AST profile was obtained using same system. Furthermore, only one bacteria species "Streptococcus pneumoniae" was chosen in comparing broth microdilution and conventional method used by different institutions. The author reported that there is discrepancy in the result between broth microdilution and conventional method used. Hence, this again raise a concern that whether the result produced by different systems is comparable. I suggest the author to at least include and mention the accuracy of each system used in Method/Result, or at least carry out a comparison test on all the bacteria species involved in the study.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.