Assess the Diagnostic Accuracy of GeneXpert to Detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Rifampicin-Resistant Tuberculosis among Presumptive Tuberculosis and Presumptive Drug Resistant Tuberculosis Patients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript needs a deep check from a native English speaker. Some grammatical mistakes were reported (for example line 20: ‘Xpert MTB/RIF is a rapid molecular diagnostic tool capable of simultaneously detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. This study aimed to access (assess) the diagnostic….). Other grammatical errors are in the manuscript.

Similar articles were already written  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijregi.2022.09.001 and Rimal, R., Shrestha, D., Pyakurel, S. et al. Diagnostic performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF in detecting MTB in smear-negative presumptive TB patients. BMC Infect Dis 22, 321 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07287-5

Lines 24-27: In the abstract the Authors didn’t mention which was considered as Gold Standard. Please add in the abstract and in Materials and Methods. Please add a supplementary materials with the report of performance evaluation by the software using MedCalc for Windows, version 19.4 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium)

Line 27: In the abstract some words in acronym were not explained, for example EPTB.

Line 49: please data had to updated to 2023

Line 109: please explain the acronym Xpert MTB. Each acronym has to be explained the first time. In all parts of the manuscript the Authors did not it.

Line 126: please explain the acronym  AFB

Material and methods were not well explained. The Authors conducted a retrospective study by Xpert MTB and then?

Line 141: 2.4. Lymph nodes and other tissues sample processing for Xpert MTB/RIF assay from which population? It is not well explained.

In figure 1 the legend is missed. The flow chart is not understandable.

In figure 1: please change ‘sensitive’ with ‘susceptible’

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs a deep check from a native English speaker. Some grammatical mistakes were reported (for example line 20: ‘Xpert MTB/RIF is a rapid molecular diagnostic tool capable of simultaneously detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. This study aimed to access (assess) the diagnostic….). Other grammatical errors are in the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Reviewer's comments and suggestions are addressed carefully

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the questions. The manuscript can be accepted. 

Author Response

Thanks for authors valuable comments on this manuscript and suggestions are acknowledged

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken comments very well and improved the paper significantly. My only minor correction is that they could expand ETB, PPV and NPV in the abstract itself.

 

Author Response

Reviewer's comments are addressed carefully

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear all,

The Author improved the manuscript following the revisions suggested.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study by Ramachandra et al. assesses the utility of GeneXpert to detect tuberculosis specifically drug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-burden setting, such as the southern region of India. This study has utilized a good sample size to conclude the data. However, the manuscript must be edited extensively for better and broader readability.

Major critiques:

1.       The authors need to provide the full forms for the acronyms used right from the beginning (say abstract, for example: PPV, NPV, PTB, EPTB). Many acronyms (I understand might be well-known in TB field) must be defined in the manuscript. PL-HIV, FLA and SLA (Figure 1).

2.       Materials and methods:

i.                     Section 2.6 is a repetition of section 2.4.

ii.                   “The cartridge was loaded into the Xpert instrument as per the manufacturer’s instructions” is repeated in section 2.3 to 2.8 with different references. Could you please explain that?

iii.                 Kindly explain the statistical method used.

3.       Results:

i.                     Fig1 can be formatted better.

ii.                   Fig 2 can be converted to a table as the figure does not add any additional value and the numbers are hard to read.

Minor Critiques:

1.       In the introduction the authors should provide evidence that the region considered in the study is endemic for TB.

2.       Ln 51-54:” Eight countries in the world …” needs references.

3.       Ln 44: TB ill needs to be rephrased.

4.       Ln 368: Fig 3 is Table 3

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted after a few grammatical revisions. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript can be accepted after a few grammatical revisions.