You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Tamara Kastrin1,*,
  • Verica Mioč1 and
  • Aleksander Mahnič2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Mudassar Iqbal Arain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Kastrin et al. conducted a study investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on community antibiotic consumption and the resistance of invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae in Slovenia. They found that the National interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic substantially decreased outpatients’ antibiotic consumption, as well as incidence and resistance of invasive S. pneumoniae.

The methodology is well designed and results are presented clearly. Discussion of results is appropriate. Conclusions support the study hypothesis. Manuscript is overall well written. This reviewer has only a few minor suggestions for the authors:

1. Are there related published studies from other countries, if so, the authors may discuss their findings briefly and compare the results obtained in Slovenia to the results reported from other countries. 

2. L70: decreased.....

3. L79 and 82: S. pneumonie- should be italics.

4. DID and IPD in abstract should be spelled out. 

English language is fine. Minor typos exist. 

Author Response

We have revised our manuscript according your suggestions:

  1. A simmilar study from national surveillance in Spain was published. We have added it in the Discussion chapter.
  2. Comments under the points 2., 3. and 4 have been corrected.
  3. We have rewritten the abstract, added additional data in the Introduction and Discussion.
  4. All revisions are marked up using "Track Changes"

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the topic is the current need of the society. Abstract is written well but significant results are missing. So, advice to restructure the abstract. Introduction is well written but data from high- and low-income countries are missing like what are the antibiotics consumptions? So, address this also in your introduction. Method section is well defined but duration of study and how to collect the data and what the steps of collections are not clearly defined so add some more details. Results needs more results because only few tables and figures are insufficient. Discussion may rewrite after addition of results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx