Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Overshunting between Low and Medium Pressure Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts in Dogs with Severe Hydrocephalus Using Frameless Stereotactic Ventricular Shunt Placement
Next Article in Special Issue
Paratuberculosis, Animal Welfare and Biosecurity: A Survey in 33 Northern Italy Dairy Goat Farms
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Implications of Immune Checkpoints and the RANK/RANK-L Signaling Pathway in High-Grade Canine Mast Cell Tumors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Presence of Non-Tuberculous Mycobacteria Including Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis Associated with Environmental Amoebae
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/ani13121889
Review Report
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

High-Impact Risk Factors for Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis in Dairy Herds in Germany

Animals 2023, 13(12), 1889; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121889
by Mette Krieger 1,*, Susanne Eisenberg 2, Karsten Donat 3 and Amely Campe 1
Reviewer 1:
Nicolai Denzin
Reviewer 2:
Sergio Migliore
Animals 2023, 13(12), 1889; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121889
Submission received: 7 May 2023 / Revised: 25 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 6 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mycobacterium avium Subspecies Paratuberculosis Infection in Ruminants—Agent, Disease, Diagnosis, and Control)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors!

Thank your for this sound work and manuscript!

Some minor recommendations / hints:

Line 19: „These“ not „This“.

Line 33: Comma before „respectively“

Line 74: Better: „…the highest impact on…

Line 207: “33%-quantile” not “quartile” (implies 25, 50 or 75 %)

Line 203: CI 0.43-3.81 but p=0.01?????

Line 219. Why “also”? The comparison is here different than above: Calves from other farms / only own calves versus No calf rearing / only own calves – I am struggling with the logic of “also”!

Lines 226 and 228: For the sake of consistency report CI

Line 232: Maybe better “risk” than “chance”

Lines 236-237: CI 1.09-19.17 but p=0.22?????

Line 389: Not necessarily “underestimated”, depends on distribution of false-negatives, maybe better: “biased”

Line 391: For consistency, “univariable”, not “univariate”

 

Line 404: From all around the world?Line 19: „These“ not „This“.

 

Good quality, only minor issues...

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled “High impact risk factors for Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis in dairy herds in Germany” by Krieger et al. provides an in-depth risk analysis for MAP infection to complement a cross-sectional study on paratuberculosis infection in dairy cattle in Germany already published in another manuscript.

This study is well designed and analysed the main recognized risk factors for MAP infection in cattle herds related to German breeding systems. Nonetheless, the study can be overlaid in other countries with similar breeding structure.

Even if the risk factors analysed are known in the transmission and maintenance of MAP, the results obtained confirm that the disease is multifactorial and each risk element must be classified according to priority.

In my opinion, I feel to recommend the publication of this study on “Animals” journal.

To follow, a couple of suggestions to make reading more enjoyable.

Lane 83: I suggest to explain the term “PraeRi”

Lane 102 – 128: I found it difficult to follow this part of the text, I suggest changing the form and schematizing the variables in a more effective and immediate way.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop