Next Article in Journal
Impact of Reduced Image Noise on Deauville Scores in Patients with Lymphoma Scanned on a Long-Axial Field-of-View PET/CT-Scanner
Previous Article in Journal
Chemerin and Chemokine-like Receptor 1 Expression in Ovarian Cancer Associates with Proteins Involved in Estrogen Signaling
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Vancomycin and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus Isolates from a Tertiary Care Center in India

Diagnostics 2023, 13(5), 945; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050945
by Mallika Sengupta 1,*, Riya Sarkar 2, Soma Sarkar 3, Manideepa Sengupta 4, Sougata Ghosh 4 and Parthajit Banerjee 5
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Diagnostics 2023, 13(5), 945; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13050945
Submission received: 3 January 2023 / Revised: 24 February 2023 / Accepted: 28 February 2023 / Published: 2 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-The current study is interesting; however, the authors should address the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:


 

1. The abstract must illustrate the used methods and the most prevalent results (give more hints about methods and results). Besides, rephrase the aim of the work and the main conclusion of your findings.
2. Discuss more on significant results of this study, specially about linezolid resistance.
3. Please discuss more alarming results of this research in discussion section. 
4. Minor spacing problems exist between the words in some parts of the text.
5. The English of the manuscript should be reviewed and syntax and errors should be corrected before publication.
6. It is better to use the latest version of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript described the characteristics of enterococci isolated from a tertiary care center in India. The vancomycin resistant isolates were explained with simple Van gene detection. There should be explanation for each table but only one (Table 3) was mentioned in the manuscript and others were not explained well. Please check the names of bacteria and capital letters carefully again. Please see the detailed comments below.

 

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diagnostics/instructions

 

Please check the affiliation names and location again. Affiliation information usually does not include position of the authors. Also, please add the country name ‘India’.

 

Abstract

Abs_Results_L1: Bacterial genus and species names (Enterococcus) should be italicized. Please check it throughout the manuscript. (Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis)

Introduction

VRE is alarming because of the high mortality by the reference (2) but it doesn’t mean that the high mortality rate made VRE on the rise. Please re-write the sentence.

Second paragraph: How can you treat resistant enterococci with glycopeptide? It should be explained in detail with proper references or re-write the sentence.

Please add ‘, India’ after the location name Assam since it’s an international journal and it would be better for readers to understand.

Materials and methods

M&M_L3: Abbreviations (CSF) should be explained at its first appearance.

What are the standard microbiological techniques? There should be at least one reference for the methods (identification and AMR test) used in this study.

Data analysis – excel -> Excel. Please add a product information for SPSS. Chi square -> Chi-square

Although this journal accepts free-format submission, Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption. Please change the titles for the tables. For example, Table 1. Sampling location of 371 Enterococcus spp. isolates obtained in this study.

Results: Many MDR isolates were detected and what about their resistance patterns? The resistance patterns of the isolates, such as up to how many classes of antimicrobials were resistance, should be explained.

Do the numbers in the Table 4 indicate susceptible isolates or resistant isolates?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the changes made, the manuscript can be published.

Author Response

As the reviewer has not suggested any further changes, Kindly accept the article for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should address point-to-point response to the review comments.

Comment such as 'modified as suggested' cannot give full explanation for the comments and It is hard to find the revised writing for some of the writing.

Introduction: VRE is alarming because of the high mortality by the reference (2) but it doesn’t mean that the high mortality rate made VRE on the rise. Please re-write the sentence.

Introduction Second paragraph: How can you treat resistant enterococci with glycopeptide? It should be explained in detail with proper references or re-write the sentence.

Results: Many MDR isolates were detected and what about their resistance patterns? The resistance patterns of the isolates, such as up to how many classes of antimicrobials were resistance, should be explained.

 The resistance rate can be found from the Table 3 but it is hard to find up to how many classes of antimicrobials from each isolate found to be resistant. To see the resistance patterns of the MDR isolates, please provide the overall resistance of isolates in this study.

Author Response

Please find the attached explanation

All changes are made in track changes mode in red

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript was revised as suggested and the point-to-point response was provided by authors.

Back to TopTop