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.
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript is acceptable in its current form.
Dear Authors,
please make corrections as suggested by reviewer#3.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Manuscript has improvement, but not concise enough. I find authors response to be combative rather than using reviewers feedback to improve the manuscript. It is not reviewers job to proofread and edit the manuscript,
It is puzzling that the authors claim their own prospective cohort as retrospective analysis, The cohort enroll infants and collected data with primary aim of quantifying incidence of RSV and pertussis infection. So, what makes this particular manuscript's data analysis retrospective?
The study has cohort enrollment timing flaw for RSV season. Figure 2a is an evidence for missing RSV peak and capturing pertussis peak. Admitting this flaw and presenting the manuscript in this context would be helpful.
Results are valid and important
While I am in favor of publishing these results from low income countries where such data are hard to come by, the authors need to carefully proofread and edit the manuscript for concise reporting. I also think this manuscript looks at the data from different angle at what has bee already published by the same authors, but calling it retrospective is not persuading to me. I like how qPCR was used in this cohort although it is a challenging problem to distinguish if higher CT values false negative or or true negative without additional tools such as RNA-seq.
Dear Authors,
Please make corrections as suggested by the reviewers or write a detailed rebuttal on a point-by-point basis.
[# 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. #]
There seems to be an insufficient amount of tables, figures and graphical data supporting the research
This is not an original research, but indeed a widespread issue that needs to be adressed
no comment
The use of inappropriate antibiotics for treating various bacterial, even viral diseases are a widespread medical issue that needs to be appropriately addressed. This article provides an insight into the actual problem which is lack of knowledge in prescribing appropriate antibiotics and staying up to date with new diagnostic and therapeutic issues.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The manuscript has redundant paragraphs. For example, methods were reproduce in the first section of the results.
Example of typos include "logistic generalized linear models (GLMs)" on line 274.
Manuscript can be shortened by much. very long unnecessary informations.
- As admitted by the authors, the study design did not capture the RSV season for the region. Therefore, I was not clear on what useful information could be obtained from this study with regards to authors achieving their goal: " A) the frequency of symptomatic RSV and pertussis infections, and B) the associated frequency of non-macrolide antibiotic use to treat these two off-target pathogens."
In US, we observe about 50-60% of RSV infection in infants during peak season. How does this study inform the incidences of both RSV and B. pertussis in Southern Africa?
The study is valid. However, the contribution of this paper should be framed within use of antibiotics for viral infection and antibiotic resistance, The attempt to quantify incidence of RSV infection when the study design clearly does not capture the RSV season was not convincing.
I also don't understand why adult symptom was compared to infants. Why anyone expect adults to have worse symptom(if any)?
It would be helpful to conduct analysis on what leading factors were associated with antibiotics prescription for viral infections? What are the incidence of opportunistic bacterial infection in those infants with RSV and B. pertussis infections?
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.