Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

 

thank you for the opportunity to review the paper titled Analysis of the efficacy of universal screening of coronavirus disease with antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests at point-or-care settings and sharing the experience of admission protocol. This is now extremely actual and sharing the experience is very important. Although the study has some limitations, authors were aware of those and discussed them at the end of discussion. The manuscript is well written and interesting to read. However, there is always something that can be approved. 

Line 53: RT-PCR is usually used for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and not for real time (RT).

line 194: 24.4% had sputum...maybe this could be rephrased

Table 2: in the sections in which Ct values are shown are the stated Ct values average values? Please add number of specimens positive (total N) and if it is possible number of positive and negative for each gene target.

Table 3: cut off values are the highest values at which the RDT result was still positive?

Important limitation of this study is that virus is not cultured from the obtained samples and we could not be sure up to which Ct value would be viable, but it was stressed before the conclusion.

Still, it is important to share these type of experience with others to improve patient management.

Best regards!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully read this manuscript. This is a well written paper. I have no major observations. The authors must check all references according to this journal instructions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.