Title: A Large-Scale Study on the Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Patients Referred to
Medical Laboratories in Urmia, Northwest Iran
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I express my thanks for selecting such vital topic entitled " A Large-Scale Study on the
Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Patients Referred to Medical Laboratories in Urmia,
Northwest of Iran". In fact, such type of researches, although not presenting new idea, but
are continuously needed to supports us with updated information on IPI prevalence and
epidemiological situation especially when performed on large scale samples.
However, there are some drawbacks regarding the manuscript which need many improvements.
Please consider all issues mentioned here in the report carefully.
General comments
Comment #1
-At first there are no page numbering or line numbering which made it difficult to precise the
page number and line of comments>>> could you please add
Comment #2
- There are typos and grammatical errors which need an extensive review by native English
language spoken person>>> better refer to the whole manuscript
Comment #3
- Font type and size isn’t uniform along the whole manuscript, and some paragraphs are not
justified>>> Correct
Abstract:
Comment #4
you mentioned that positive samples are Two hundred three IPI were identified in 184 (6.5%)
>>>> But after that in the result section, positive samples were 209 parasitic infections in 184
(6.5%) out of 2845 humans>>> There is mismatching between data >>>> please correct
Introduction:
Comment #5
-Some expressions are better considered such as:
-differ among individuals >>>>> better than "are different in every individual"
- has recently arisen >>>>> better than "recently has arisen"
Materials and method:
Comment # 6
Samples collection>>>>> better than Sample collection
Comment #7
- What about the criteria of collected patients and their manifestations??? Were some of them
complaining of gastrointestinal manifestations? Such as abdominal colic, vomiting, diarrhea,
etc >>>Please illustrate
Comment #8
- In the paragraph: "Two months after the initiation of sampling covid 19 quarantine began in
Iran, thus 649 samples were collected before the covid pandemic quarantine and 2194 samples
during pandemic quarantine". >>>> Sum of these samples not equal to the total collected
samples (2845) >>>Please illustrate
Comment #9
-non-unidentifiable parasitic organisms>>> delete non
Comment #10
-Variables in quandaries>>> what's is meant by this statement???
Results:
Comment #11
One of the limitations of the study that it mainly depended on stool analysis and just staining
which is not satisfactory for estimating prevalence in an area.>> Clarify
Comment #12
- How you diagnosed Enterobius vermicularis? Is Only by stool analysis?? However as known,
and also you had mentioned in discussion that stool examination is not recommended in the
diagnosis of enterobiasis, and that eggs are rarely detectable in stool>>> So clarify why you
depended only on stool analysis which gives underestimated percentage. You had better use
perianal swab for diagnosis.
Comment #13
- What about Schistosomes and Soil transmitted helminths including Ascaris, Strongyloides
spp., etc?? One of the drawbacks in the study that you didn’t assess their prevalence by specific
methods or technique of diagnosis. For examples by culturing on specific agar plates to detect
Strongyloides species which resulted in missing these species
Comment  #14
-  Children were one of the categories of patients in this study in large sample size. But you didn’t
comment on   Taenia, and H. nana in particular they are common among school children>>>
Please illustrate
Comment #15
There are two titles concerning ethics:  "Ethical Concerns on human studies" and "Ethics
approval and consent to participate" >>>> you could merge both titles
Discussion:
Comment #16
Discussion is unrelated to arguing results of the authors. It is mainly a review data on different
parasites (Blastocystis, endolimax, etc.) and that isn’t the main target of discussion. Only the
authors enumerated 3 studies >>>> add other studies correlated to prevalence of IPI
Title: A Large-Scale Study on the Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Patients Referred to
Medical Laboratories in Urmia, Northwest Iran
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I express my thanks for selecting such vital topic entitled " A Large-Scale Study on the
Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Patients Referred to Medical Laboratories in Urmia,
Northwest of Iran". In fact, such type of researches, although not presenting new idea, but
are continuously needed to supports us with updated information on IPI prevalence and
epidemiological situation especially when performed on large scale samples.
However, there are some drawbacks regarding the manuscript which need many improvements.
Please consider all issues mentioned here in the report carefully.
General comments
Comment #1
-At first there are no page numbering or line numbering which made it difficult to precise the
page number and line of comments>>> could you please add
Comment #2
- There are typos and grammatical errors which need an extensive review by native English
language spoken person>>> better refer to the whole manuscript
Comment #3
- Font type and size isn’t uniform along the whole manuscript, and some paragraphs are not
justified>>> Correct
Abstract:
Comment #4
you mentioned that positive samples are Two hundred three IPI were identified in 184 (6.5%)
>>>> But after that in the result section, positive samples were 209 parasitic infections in 184
(6.5%) out of 2845 humans>>> There is mismatching between data >>>> please correct
Introduction:
Comment #5
-Some expressions are better considered such as:
-differ among individuals >>>>> better than "are different in every individual"
- has recently arisen >>>>> better than "recently has arisen"
Materials and method:
Comment # 6
Samples collection>>>>> better than Sample collection
Comment #7
- What about the criteria of collected patients and their manifestations??? Were some of them
complaining of gastrointestinal manifestations? Such as abdominal colic, vomiting, diarrhea,
etc >>>Please illustrate
Comment #8
- In the paragraph: "Two months after the initiation of sampling covid 19 quarantine began in
Iran, thus 649 samples were collected before the covid pandemic quarantine and 2194 samples
during pandemic quarantine". >>>> Sum of these samples not equal to the total collected
samples (2845) >>>Please illustrate
Comment #9
-non-unidentifiable parasitic organisms>>> delete non
Comment #10
-Variables in quandaries>>> what's is meant by this statement???
Results:
Comment #11
One of the limitations of the study that it mainly depended on stool analysis and just staining
which is not satisfactory for estimating prevalence in an area.>> Clarify
Comment #12
- How you diagnosed Enterobius vermicularis? Is Only by stool analysis?? However as known,
and also you had mentioned in discussion that stool examination is not recommended in the
diagnosis of enterobiasis, and that eggs are rarely detectable in stool>>> So clarify why you
depended only on stool analysis which gives underestimated percentage. You had better use
perianal swab for diagnosis.
Comment #13
- What about Schistosomes and Soil transmitted helminths including Ascaris, Strongyloides
spp., etc?? One of the drawbacks in the study that you didn’t assess their prevalence by specific
methods or technique of diagnosis. For examples by culturing on specific agar plates to detect
Strongyloides species which resulted in missing these species
Comment  #14
-  Children were one of the categories of patients in this study in large sample size. But you didn’t
comment on   Taenia, and H. nana in particular they are common among school children>>>
Please illustrate
Comment #15
There are two titles concerning ethics:  "Ethical Concerns on human studies" and "Ethics
approval and consent to participate" >>>> you could merge both titles
Discussion:
Comment #16
Discussion is unrelated to arguing results of the authors. It is mainly a review data on different
parasites (Blastocystis, endolimax, etc.) and that isn’t the main target of discussion. Only the
authors enumerated 3 studies >>>> add other studies correlated to prevalence of IPI
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A Large-Scale Study on the Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Patients Referred to
Medical Laboratories in Urmia, Northwest Iran
Version: 2 Date: 15 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
I express my thanks for selecting such vital topic entitled " A Large-Scale Study on the
Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites in Patients Referred to Medical Laboratories in Urmia,
Northwest of Iran". In fact, such type of researches, although not presenting new idea, but
are continuously needed to supports us with updated information on IPI prevalence and
epidemiological situation especially when performed on large scale samples.
However, there are some drawbacks regarding the manuscript which need many improvements.
Please consider all issues mentioned here in the report carefully.
General comments
Comment #1
-At first there are no page numbering or line numbering which made it difficult to precise the
page number and line of comments>>> could you please add
Comment #2
- There are typos and grammatical errors which need an extensive review by native English
language spoken person>>> better refer to the whole manuscript
Comment #3
- Font type and size isn’t uniform along the whole manuscript, and some paragraphs are not
justified>>> Correct
Abstract:
Comment #4
you mentioned that positive samples are Two hundred three IPI were identified in 184 (6.5%)
>>>> But after that in the result section, positive samples were 209 parasitic infections in 184
(6.5%) out of 2845 humans>>> There is mismatching between data >>>> please correct
Introduction:
Comment #5
-Some expressions are better considered such as:
-differ among individuals >>>>> better than "are different in every individual"
- has recently arisen >>>>> better than "recently has arisen"
Materials and method:
Comment # 6
Samples collection>>>>> better than Sample collection
Comment #7
- What about the criteria of collected patients and their manifestations??? Were some of them
complaining of gastrointestinal manifestations? Such as abdominal colic, vomiting, diarrhea,
etc >>>Please illustrate
Comment #8
- In the paragraph: "Two months after the initiation of sampling covid 19 quarantine began in
Iran, thus 649 samples were collected before the covid pandemic quarantine and 2194 samples
during pandemic quarantine". >>>> Sum of these samples not equal to the total collected
samples (2845) >>>Please illustrate
Comment #9
-non-unidentifiable parasitic organisms>>> delete non
Comment #10
-Variables in quandaries>>> what's is meant by this statement???
Results:
Comment #11
One of the limitations of the study that it mainly depended on stool analysis and just staining
which is not satisfactory for estimating prevalence in an area.>> Clarify
Comment #12
- How you diagnosed Enterobius vermicularis? Is Only by stool analysis?? However as known,
and also you had mentioned in discussion that stool examination is not recommended in the
diagnosis of enterobiasis, and that eggs are rarely detectable in stool>>> So clarify why you
depended only on stool analysis which gives underestimated percentage. You had better use
perianal swab for diagnosis.
Comment #13
- What about Schistosomes and Soil transmitted helminths including Ascaris, Strongyloides
spp., etc?? One of the drawbacks in the study that you didn’t assess their prevalence by specific
methods or technique of diagnosis. For examples by culturing on specific agar plates to detect
Strongyloides species which resulted in missing these species
Comment  #14
-  Children were one of the categories of patients in this study in large sample size. But you didn’t
comment on   Taenia, and H. nana in particular they are common among school children>>>
Please illustrate
Comment #15
There are two titles concerning ethics:  "Ethical Concerns on human studies" and "Ethics
approval and consent to participate" >>>> you could merge both titles
Discussion:
Comment #16
Discussion is unrelated to arguing results of the authors. It is mainly a review data on different
parasites (Blastocystis, endolimax, etc.) and that isn’t the main target of discussion. Only the
authors enumerated 3 studies >>>> add other studies correlated to prevalence of IPI
assistant