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.
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.
Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, MD
PeerJ Academic Editor
An additional method of comparison might further validate the findings of the article.
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.
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.
Data regarding the worldwide and local epidemiology is missing.
In the statistical section there is no reference to sample size and power calculation
I suggest avoiding using phrases such as may be useful and could be accurate
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.
The manuscript is written clear english throughout following professional article structure.
Research question is clear, well defined, relevant & meaningful. However, as many controls are missing, the results do not fully support authors conclusion.
There is a minimal impact and novelty in this manuscript. Data are not robust and credible.
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.
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.
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
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.