Use of ProMED as a Surveillance System for Emerging and Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases in Brazil from 2015 to 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Use of ProMED as a surveillance system for emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in Brazil from 2015 to 2020" by Rocha et al provides a comprehensive analysis of ProMED-PORT reports concerning Brazil during this period.

I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and currently have no additional comments or suggestions. The content appears comprehensive and well-presented. At this time, I have no additional comments or suggestions, as the content is both scientifically rigorous and highly relevant to the field.

Author Response

Comment 1) The manuscript "Use of ProMED as a surveillance system for emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in Brazil from 2015 to 2020" by Rocha et al provides a comprehensive analysis of ProMED-PORT reports concerning Brazil during this period.

I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and currently have no additional comments or suggestions. The content appears comprehensive and well-presented. At this time, I have no additional comments or suggestions, as the content is both scientifically rigorous and highly relevant to the field.

Response 1) The authors are delighted that the reviewer appreciated the paper's content and thank the time dedicated to evaluating it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

“Use of ProMED as a surveillance system for emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in Brazil from 2015 to 2020” describes the ProMED database which contains data about different infections including those occurring in Brazil. The manuscript is well written, contains all necessary parts.

However, I have some comments:

General remark – The ProMED database contains information not only about viruses, but also about bacteria (in particular, you mention rickettsia). In this regard, the question arises, wouldn't it be worth publishing the manuscript in another journal related to infectious diseases, and not just viruses?

Moreover, it is unclear what conclusions follow from your analysis of the data obtained from the ProMED database? So far it looks like only a description of what can be obtained from it, and this is not something new, because as far as I understand, this database is not your product.

Also, some minor issues:

L58-59 – “ProMED-PORT reports…” – what is “ProMED-PORT”? Description is needed.

L170 – “EuroTravNet surveillance data” – the reference to resource is needed.

L182 – “Haemagogus” - should be in italic.

References section – all references contain no doi, it is better to add this.

Author Response

Comment 1) “Use of ProMED as a surveillance system for emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in Brazil from 2015 to 2020” describes the ProMED database which contains data about different infections including those occurring in Brazil. The manuscript is well written, contains all necessary parts.

Response 1) The authors thank the reviewer for the time dedicated and the suggestions for improving the manuscript.

 

Comment 2) General remark – The ProMED database contains information not only about viruses, but also about bacteria (in particular, you mention rickettsia). In this regard, the question arises, wouldn't it be worth publishing the manuscript in another journal related to infectious diseases, and not just viruses?

Response 2) The paper highlighted that viral diseases were Brazil's leading emerging and reemerging infections reported in humans and animals. Therefore, despite citing diseases related to other pathogens, the paper focused mainly on viruses, which are under the journal's scope.

 

Comment 3) Moreover, it is unclear what conclusions follow from your analysis of the data obtained from the ProMED database? So far it looks like only a description of what can be obtained from it, and this is not something new, because as far as I understand, this database is not your product.

Response 3) This descriptive study uses secondary data, which is classical in Epidemiology. Using secondary data is increasingly vital in an era when data from different sources, not necessarily directly produced by the researchers, may contribute to a better understanding of various phenomena, as exemplified by big data approaches. Therefore, using the ProMED database does not diminish the scientific character of this study. Despite the presentation of individual reports on the ProMED database, our effort in calculating the frequencies of the events permits us to understand the most important emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in the country, which is difficult based only on reading individual reports. We concluded that ProMED identified leading emerging and reemerging diseases in Brazil, mainly viral infections, such as those transmitted by arthropods, serving as an information source for local and international health authorities.

 

Comment 4) L58-59 – “ProMED-PORT reports…” – what is “ProMED-PORT”? Description is needed.

Response 4) We included a description of ProMED-PORT in the methods, lines 60 and 61: ProMED-PORT presents the reports in Portuguese, the official language of Brazil.

 

Comment 5) L170 – “EuroTravNet surveillance data” – the reference to resource is needed.

Response 5) We included the reference source in lines 171 to 173: “Unsurprisingly, according to EuroTravNet surveillance data (www.eurotravnet.eu), reports of imported cases of these arboviruses in Europe, including those from Brazil, have been increasing in the last 20 years [16].”

 

Comment 6) L182 – “Haemagogus” - should be in italic.

Response 6) We formatted the gender to italics, line 184.

 

Comment 7) References section – all references contain no doi, it is better to add this.

Response 7) We included the doi in all references. Please check lines 281 to 347.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you very much for the work done, all issues have been corrected.

Concerning my general comments and your responses to them - ok, I accept your point of view and arguments.

There are no more comments from my side.