Reviewer's report
Title:Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an
early viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin
treatment
Version: 3Date:27 October 2009
Reviewer: Peter Ferenci
Reviewer's report:
MS: 7084361742234292
Research article
Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an early
viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin treatment
Eiichi Ogawa et al
I am still puzzled by the data. The authors have not really addressed all my
comments.
Major Compulsory Revisions
I asked for the individual data of pts. being Taqman neg but Monitor positive at
any given time point. Although mentioned in their response letter, I do not find
this data! This is a quite a substantial problem and requires an explanation. Why
is the more sensitive assay negative if the less sensitive one yields detectable
virus!
Actually the Taqman assay gives 3 different results: undetectable (=< LOD),
detectable but unquantifiable (< 15 IU /ml), and quantifiable.
According to the methods Taqman was repeated from frozen samples – how
were the samples stored. Did the authors test the stability of HCV RNA levels in
stored samples?
Assessment:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described - questionable
3. Are the data sound –depend on the validity of the diluted Monitor assay and
the definition of “negativity” by the Taqman assay
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data questionable
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated No
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
published and unpublished - yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found: yes
9. Is the writing acceptable: yes
Recommendation: REJECT: With all the uncertainties regarding assays
conditions I am not sure that the contribution of this paper to enlarge our
knowledge is substantial
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an
early viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin
treatment
Version: 3Date:27 October 2009
Reviewer: Peter Ferenci
Reviewer's report:
MS: 7084361742234292
Research article
Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an early
viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin treatment
Eiichi Ogawa et al
I am still puzzled by the data. The authors have not really addressed all my
comments.
Major Compulsory Revisions
I asked for the individual data of pts. being Taqman neg but Monitor positive at
any given time point. Although mentioned in their response letter, I do not find
this data! This is a quite a substantial problem and requires an explanation. Why
is the more sensitive assay negative if the less sensitive one yields detectable
virus!
Actually the Taqman assay gives 3 different results: undetectable (=< LOD),
detectable but unquantifiable (< 15 IU /ml), and quantifiable.
According to the methods Taqman was repeated from frozen samples – how
were the samples stored. Did the authors test the stability of HCV RNA levels in
stored samples?
Assessment:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described - questionable
3. Are the data sound –depend on the validity of the diluted Monitor assay and
the definition of “negativity” by the Taqman assay
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data questionable
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated No
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
published and unpublished - yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found: yes
9. Is the writing acceptable: yes
Recommendation: REJECT: With all the uncertainties regarding assays
conditions I am not sure that the contribution of this paper to enlarge our
knowledge is substantial
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an
early viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin
treatment
Version: 3Date:27 October 2009
Reviewer: Peter Ferenci
Reviewer's report:
MS: 7084361742234292
Research article
Excellent superiority and specificity of COBAS TaqMan HCV assay in an early
viral kinetic change during pegylated interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin treatment
Eiichi Ogawa et al
I am still puzzled by the data. The authors have not really addressed all my
comments.
Major Compulsory Revisions
I asked for the individual data of pts. being Taqman neg but Monitor positive at
any given time point. Although mentioned in their response letter, I do not find
this data! This is a quite a substantial problem and requires an explanation. Why
is the more sensitive assay negative if the less sensitive one yields detectable
virus!
Actually the Taqman assay gives 3 different results: undetectable (=< LOD),
detectable but unquantifiable (< 15 IU /ml), and quantifiable.
According to the methods Taqman was repeated from frozen samples – how
were the samples stored. Did the authors test the stability of HCV RNA levels in
stored samples?
Assessment:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described - questionable
3. Are the data sound –depend on the validity of the diluted Monitor assay and
the definition of “negativity” by the Taqman assay
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data questionable
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated No
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
published and unpublished - yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found: yes
9. Is the writing acceptable: yes
Recommendation: REJECT: With all the uncertainties regarding assays
conditions I am not sure that the contribution of this paper to enlarge our
knowledge is substantial
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant