Title: Clinical and Microbiological Profile of Patients with Diarrhea Evaluated Using the
Gastrointestinal Panel in a High-Complexity Center
Version: 4 Date: 14 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Regarding the study, my observations are:
There is no appropriate definition of the cases for study or analysis.  The authors only says that
were patients with diarrhea.  It does not clarify whether any of these patients were already being
treated or were undergoing a diagnostic approach for chronic diarrhea or if they were carriers
of diseases that produce chronic diarrhea such as inflammatory bowel disease or celiac disease.
It does not adequately define whether there were exclusion criteria.
It does not properly spell the scientific names of microorganisms.  A virus name should never
be italicized (norovirus is the correct form), only the virus species is always written in italics.
The words enteroaggregative or enteropathogenic or enterotoxigenic that precedes Escherichia
coli should never be written in italics.  This reveals a lack of knowledge of basic microbiological
aspects.  Use updated name of bacteria; although the panel still maintains the name Clostridium
difficile, the author must use the current name in his paper of Clostridioides difficile.
There is summation in the tables that do not coincide.  There were 350 patients but when
analyzed by place or site the sample was taken, they do so based on 348, that means they lose
that information from two patients.  Could it have been better if they excluded those 2 patients
from the beginning?
The tables are confusing.  For example, it says: Number of bacteria identified: 350.  This aspect
of confusion is repeated in several tables.
The wording of some English expressions needs to be improved.  Avoid for example the use of
decimal description in prose "Thirty-nine point one".
Title: Clinical and Microbiological Profile of Patients with Diarrhea Evaluated Using the
Gastrointestinal Panel in a High-Complexity Center
Version: 4 Date: 14 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Regarding the study, my observations are:
There is no appropriate definition of the cases for study or analysis.  The authors only says that
were patients with diarrhea.  It does not clarify whether any of these patients were already being
treated or were undergoing a diagnostic approach for chronic diarrhea or if they were carriers
of diseases that produce chronic diarrhea such as inflammatory bowel disease or celiac disease.
It does not adequately define whether there were exclusion criteria.
It does not properly spell the scientific names of microorganisms.  A virus name should never
be italicized (norovirus is the correct form), only the virus species is always written in italics.
The words enteroaggregative or enteropathogenic or enterotoxigenic that precedes Escherichia
coli should never be written in italics.  This reveals a lack of knowledge of basic microbiological
aspects.  Use updated name of bacteria; although the panel still maintains the name Clostridium
difficile, the author must use the current name in his paper of Clostridioides difficile.
There is summation in the tables that do not coincide.  There were 350 patients but when
analyzed by place or site the sample was taken, they do so based on 348, that means they lose
that information from two patients.  Could it have been better if they excluded those 2 patients
from the beginning?
The tables are confusing.  For example, it says: Number of bacteria identified: 350.  This aspect
of confusion is repeated in several tables.
The wording of some English expressions needs to be improved.  Avoid for example the use of
decimal description in prose "Thirty-nine point one".
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical and Microbiological Profile of Patients with Diarrhea Evaluated Using the
Gastrointestinal Panel in a High-Complexity Center
Version: 4 Date: 14 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Regarding the study, my observations are:
There is no appropriate definition of the cases for study or analysis.  The authors only says that
were patients with diarrhea.  It does not clarify whether any of these patients were already being
treated or were undergoing a diagnostic approach for chronic diarrhea or if they were carriers
of diseases that produce chronic diarrhea such as inflammatory bowel disease or celiac disease.
It does not adequately define whether there were exclusion criteria.
It does not properly spell the scientific names of microorganisms.  A virus name should never
be italicized (norovirus is the correct form), only the virus species is always written in italics.
The words enteroaggregative or enteropathogenic or enterotoxigenic that precedes Escherichia
coli should never be written in italics.  This reveals a lack of knowledge of basic microbiological
aspects.  Use updated name of bacteria; although the panel still maintains the name Clostridium
difficile, the author must use the current name in his paper of Clostridioides difficile.
There is summation in the tables that do not coincide.  There were 350 patients but when
analyzed by place or site the sample was taken, they do so based on 348, that means they lose
that information from two patients.  Could it have been better if they excluded those 2 patients
from the beginning?
The tables are confusing.  For example, it says: Number of bacteria identified: 350.  This aspect
of confusion is repeated in several tables.
The wording of some English expressions needs to be improved.  Avoid for example the use of
decimal description in prose "Thirty-nine point one".
assistant