Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 13th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 14th, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 8th, 2017 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 19th, 2017.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,

I would like to compliment with you for the efforts provided in addressing the Reviewers' comments.

All Reviewers fell that your manuscript has reached the level of publication and can be accepted in its current form.

Best regards

Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, MD
PeerJ Academic Editor

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

An additional method of comparison might further validate the findings of the article.

Comments for the author

While the authors have not provided any further experimental evidence to address the comments / concerns raised previously, they have addressed them in the discussion and via other textual changes.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Authors,

The Reviewers found your manuscript very interesting.

I would suggest you to take into consideration the Reviewers' comments and discuss or incorporate them within your manuscript in order to reach the level requested for publication.

·

Basic reporting

Data regarding the worldwide and local epidemiology is missing.

Experimental design

In the statistical section there is no reference to sample size and power calculation

Validity of the findings

I suggest avoiding using phrases such as may be useful and could be accurate
when concluding.

Comments for the author

I enjoyed reading the manuscript. It is well written and is quite clear.

"Urine samples processed with the HPV GenoArray assay may be useful for the clinical management of HPV infection and the technique could be an accurate, noninvasive method for monitoring HPV infections in women."
This sentence should be rephrased. The test does not change management. Something like - Urine sample with the GenoArray is an alternative for women declining to undergo PAP smear however now days and using current technology it is not the first line screening option.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is written clear english throughout following professional article structure.

Experimental design

Research question is clear, well defined, relevant & meaningful. However, as many controls are missing, the results do not fully support authors conclusion.

Validity of the findings

There is a minimal impact and novelty in this manuscript. Data are not robust and credible.

Comments for the author

Developing a noninvasive HPV detection method may be useful and significant, particularly for people in developing countries. However, this manuscript by Nilyanimit et al. provide limited value.

The results of HPV prevalence in this study are not consistent with other previous studies. For example, the percentage of HPV16 positive samples is unusually low among the samples showing that less than 20% (12 out of 65) of HPV-positive samples have HPV16 DNA. As the authors did not use any positive and negative controls, it is concerned if the procedures and methods used here were appropriate.

Additionally, the overall concordance percentage (65.2%) between the cervical swab and urine samples is not impressive and thus, it is not sure the urine test that the authors suggest is useful at all.

It is impossible to understand what the authors exactly did in this study, because many important descriptions about experimental procedures and data are missing. The authors should explain in detail how they extracted DNA, normalized the samples, validated the assays and specimens, etc.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

1. It would make the paper stronger if the authors could show an alternate method for HPV detection other than the two they compare, which would show if the the HPV Genoarray is the most superior non-invasive method for detection.
2. It would also be interesting if the authors could discuss the rationale for choosing the current GenoArray method compared to other existing methods.

Validity of the findings

1. It might be better if the authors can provide a clear gap in knowledge and state the necessity and importance of such a study.
2. The authors should also consider discussing the differences they observe with sensitivity to the other existing methods, since these other methods are currently used as well. The authors have discussed the difference with the other GenoArray based study but not with studies involving other methods

Comments for the author

The manuscript "Comparison of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection in urine and cervical swab samples using the HPV GenoArray Diagnostic assay" discusses the use of non- invasive methods for HPV detection, which is crucial given the rising incidence of HPV. The manuscript is well written and discusses the results and aspects of the assay in required detail. It might make the manuscript stronger to discuss the gap in knowledge with current HPV genearray studies and also discuss the differences seen compared to the other available methods as this might further highlight the importance of this manuscript.

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.