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).
You adequately addressed all suggestions made by the reviewers of the original manuscript.
As you will see, both expert reviewers consider your manuscript a well written technical study that adds valuable approaches to the diagnosis of BV. Both reviewers provide some suggestions for further improvement of the paper. In addition, I would suggest you use the term microbiota rather than flora/microflora.
The paper is a technical paper. With some minor translational issues, it is well written and concise. The only technical comment I have is the use of the transport media to generate a Nugent slide. Some readers will state that the media may have a dilution effect on the specimen placed on the slide and could potentially alter a Nugent score. They will need a reference to support the approach, or a sentence discussing this as an experimental limitation.
1st sentence: “infection” to “infections”.
1st sentence: run-on sentence, split into two sentences.
2nd sentence: “gold standard” to “research gold standard”.
3rd sentence: “characteristic” to “characteristics”.
Line 49: “being” to “with”.
Line 49: “Fluorescence” to “fluorescence”.
Line 52: remove “Nowadays,”.
Lines 174 and 175: “sensibility” to “sensitivity”.
Table 1 is demographically interesting, but not really necessary to the content of the paper.
Table 1: add “With” to “Children”.
Delete Table 1 - it is confusing and adds nothing to the paper
The article is an original research that deserves to be published. Provides clinical data provide a novel diagnostic method. Figure recommend that have a lighter walk figure to explain each of the panels containing.
The experimental design seems appropriate
The data are robust, it worths to be published
This is a original manuscript that should be published, minor review in figure caption must be done and minor review in the references
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.