Review Reports
by
- Mathieu Gendrot1,2,3,*,
- Marylin Madamet1,2,3,4 and
- Bruno Pradines1,2,3,4
- et al.
Reviewer 1: David Rockabrand Reviewer 2: Hesam Babahosseini
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very minor questions and edits. See attached PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Pp 1, paragraph 1, line 5: reference?
Response: Two references were added.
Pp 2, paragraph ‘’2.2. Sample collection’’: How long did it take between collection and testing?
Response: It took less than 48 hours. The sentence was changed to ‘’ The samples were stored and transported at 4 °C from the moment of sampling until we receive the samples within 48 hours.’’
Pp 3, paragraph 1, line 5: Is there a reference for using this 10 field method?
Response: We are sorry, there is no reference.
Pp 4, paragraph 1, line 5: Did you consider running negatives as a control?
Response: No. As part of our mission of French National Reference Centre for Imported Malaria, we only receive positive samples.
Pp6, paragraph 3, lines 37 to 39: ‘’ There was no issue with sample preservation due to the short timescale (which was?) within which the samples were sent to the CNR and the fact that the transport was maintained at 4°C, controlled by temperature tracker in each package.’’
Response: less than 48 hours. The sentence was changed to “There was no issue with sample preservation due to the short timescale (less than 48 hours) within which the samples were sent to the CNR and the fact that the transport was maintained at 4°C, controlled by temperature tracker in each package.”
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is to compare between 10 different RDTs for malaria detection. The authors investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the RDTs against four species of Plasmodium (except P. knowlesi). They found out that one of explored RDTs show the highest sensitivity to all species. However, other important detection factors especially specificity and LoD are critical for a RDT which are missing in this study. In general, this study could have a comprehensive comparison between the RDTs based on their sensitivity to individual species and all of species to introduce the best RDT in this regard.
Author Response
This study is to compare between 10 different RDTs for malaria detection. The authors investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the RDTs against four species of Plasmodium (except P. knowlesi). They found out that one of explored RDTs show the highest sensitivity to all species. However, other important detection factors especially specificity and LoD are critical for a RDT which are missing in this study. In general, this study could have a comprehensive comparison between the RDTs based on their sensitivity to individual species and all of species to introduce the best RDT in this regard.
Response: We agrre with the reviewer, specificity and LoD are missing. As part of our mission of French National Reference Centre for Imported Malaria, we only receive positive samples. So we only evaluated sensitivity.