The Role of Pharmacies in Providing Point-of-Care Services in the Era of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence: An Updated Review of Technologies, Regulation and Socioeconomic Considerations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authers present a review of point-of-care testing at pharmacies.  

My largest concern is the authors claim in the abstract that "the present paper is the first comprehensive review of the evolution of pharmacy POC services worldwide" which is a bit of an overstatement based on a few publications such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309067/ , https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/5/e034298 , https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10463283/#Sec21 and https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12590572/ .This statement should be tempered.  The reivew is not as comprehensive asI would expect (more of a summary) and also not as focused on worldwide issues as I would expect based on this claim and predominantly EU centric.

The authors do not specify the use of AI in this manuscript and if the authors did use AI it is important to specify how and what was used.

The 7 sections were a little disjointed and there was not much flow or interleaving between them.  I did appreciate the AI discussion which is very relivant as we move forward.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER COMMENTS_healthcare-4032390

We are grateful to the Reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to providing his/her valuable comments which helped us considerably improve our submission. In following, we respond to each of his/her comments in detail:

Comment

The authors present a review of point-of-care testing at pharmacies.  

My largest concern is the authors’ claim in the abstract that "the present paper is the first comprehensive review of the evolution of pharmacy POC services worldwide" which is a bit of an overstatement based on a few publications such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309067/ , https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/5/e034298 , https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10463283/#Sec21 and https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12590572/ .This statement should be tempered. 

The review is not as comprehensive as I would expect (more of a summary) and also not as focused on worldwide issues as I would expect based on this claim and predominantly EU centric.

Response

• We agree with the Reviewer that several reports have been previously published about pharmacy-based POCT services. However, the advent of both the COVID 19 pandemic and AI-applications in digital health necessitated updated information. In this respect, we added the following text at the beginning of the last paragraph of the Introduction section:

Previous reviews [12-15] have focused on the increasing role of pharmacies in providing POCT services for communicable and non-communicable diseases, especially in low- and middle-income countries. However, the advent of both the COVID 19 pandemic and AI-based applications in digital health have reshaped the on-site testing, pharmacy-based landscape. Therefore, ….

Whereas newly added references [12-15] correspond to the references mentioned by the Reviewer above.

• In addition, the title was changed into:

The Role of Pharmacies in Providing Point-of-Care Services in the Era of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence: an Updated Review of Technologies, Regulation and Socioeconomic Considerations

• Furthermore, the statement “…the first comprehensive review…” in the Abstract (line 16) was changed into “…an updated, in-depth review…”.

Comment

The authors do not specify the use of AI in this manuscript and if the authors did use AI it is important to specify how and what was used.

 

Response

No AI was used in preparing the manuscript, although reviewing the use of AI in POCT testing is a subject of the manuscript.

Comment

The 7 sections were a little disjointed and there was not much flow or interleaving between them. 

Response

A new Figure (Figure 2) was added at the end of the Introduction section, summarizing the main content and subsection flow of the entire article.

 

__________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review summarized the role of pharmacies in providing Point-of-Care Services in the Era of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence. The review can be considered for publication in "healthcare" after revising the following questions. The comments are below.

1) A diagram summarizing the main content of the entire article should be drawn and placed at the beginning of the article.

2) In the main text, the author should consider incorporating some images from actual research to assist in explaining the main content rather than using a large number of diagrams and flowcharts.

3) There are quite a few formatting issues that need to be corrected. For instance, in Table 6, the format of the references does not match that of the main text. All the formulas should be uniformly numbered. In Table 2, there are extra rows that should be removed.

4) The author should focus on the latest research findings of Pharmacies at present. Now, the length of these contents is even shorter than that of the research background.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER COMMENTS_healthcare-4032390

We are grateful to the Reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to providing his/her valuable comments which helped us considerably improve our submission. In following, we respond to each of his/her comments in detail:

Comment

A diagram summarizing the main content of the entire article should be drawn and placed at the beginning of the article.

Response

The diagram has been added as a new Figure 2 at the end of the Introduction section.

Comment

In the main text, the author should consider incorporating some images from actual research to assist in explaining the main content rather than using a large number of diagrams and flowcharts.

Response

The following text was added at the end of section 3.1., followed by a new Figure 4:

An even more advanced version of POC electrochemical biosensors is represented by the cell-based bioelectric biosensor developed by Mavrikou et al. [61] in which living mammalian cells act as the primary biorecognition and signal-transduction elements. The application of this novel technology was demonstrated in the clinical screening for SARS-CoV-2 in saliva using membrane-engineered SK-N-SH cells bearing electroinserted human anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 antibodies, which transduced antigen–antibody binding events into rapid, measurable changes in cell membrane potential, recorded via a portable potentiometric platform (Figure 4).

Comment

There are quite a few formatting issues that need to be corrected. For instance, in Table 6, the format of the references does not match that of the main text. All the formulas should be uniformly numbered. In Table 2, there are extra rows that should be removed.

Response

Corrected – we sincerely apologize for this oversight.

Comment

The author should focus on the latest research findings of Pharmacies at present. Now, the length of these contents is even shorter than that of the research background.

Response

Both Sections 3.1 “Biosensor Technologies and Diagnostic Integration” and 6.2. “Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support for Pharmacy-Based Point-of-Care Testing” were expanded to include in pharmacy-based analytical applications and POCT implementation. We feel that we should mention that our intended approach in our review was a balanced approach between technology update, socioeconomic and regulatory considerations, with emphasis given on the latter two aspects. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(will be shown to authors)

1. Strengthen critical analysis: The review would benefit from a more critical synthesis of the literature rather than predominantly descriptive reporting. Explicit discussion of controversies, limitations, and unresolved challenges especially regarding AI reliability, regulatory harmonization, and analytical uncertainty in real-world pharmacy settings is recommended.

2. Reduce excessive technical detail: Some analytical chemistry and regulatory descriptions are overly detailed for a review article and could be condensed or moved to supplementary material to improve focus.

3. Clarify claims related to AI and economics: Statements on AI-driven decision support, economic benefits, and population-level impact should be more cautiously framed and clearly supported by high-quality evidence. Where data are limited, this should be explicitly acknowledged.

4. Enhance practical implications: A concise section summarizing actionable recommendations for policymakers, educators, and pharmacy managers would improve the translational value of the review.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER COMMENTS_healthcare-4032390

We are grateful to the Reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to providing his/her valuable comments which helped us considerably improve our submission. In following, we respond to each of his/her comments in detail:

Comment

Strengthen critical analysis: The review would benefit from a more critical synthesis of the literature rather than predominantly descriptive reporting. Explicit discussion of controversies, limitations, and unresolved challenges especially regarding AI reliability, regulatory harmonization, and analytical uncertainty in real-world pharmacy settings is recommended.

Response

Section 6.2. (“Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support for Pharmacy-Based Point-of-Care Testing”) was entirely rewritten to include discussion on most aspects of AI-related challenges in pharmacy-based analytical applications and POCT implementation.

Also, a new Table (Table 7) (s. also below) was added to summarize regulatory heterogeneity, workforce preparedness, quality assurance gaps, economic sustainability and the emerging challenges of AI-assisted diagnostics in community pharmacies.

Comment

Reduce excessive technical detail: Some analytical chemistry and regulatory descriptions are overly detailed for a review article and could be condensed or moved to supplementary material to improve focus.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful comment and fully agree that review articles should balance technical rigor with readability. In revising the manuscript, we have carefully evaluated all sections with this principle in mind.

We would like to clarify, however, that Section 3 (“Biosensor Technologies and Diagnostic Integration”) has been intentionally retained in its current level of technical detail. This section provides foundational, non-redundant information on the analytical principles, biosensor architectures and signal-integration mechanisms that underpin point-of-care testing in community pharmacy settings. As such, it establishes the technical basis necessary for understanding subsequent sections addressing AI-assisted interpretation, regulatory constraints and clinical decision support.

Importantly, this level of technical exposition was also explicitly requested by Reviewers 2 and 4. We therefore believe that further condensation of Section 3 would risk oversimplification and could compromise the internal coherence of the review.

Comment

Clarify claims related to AI and economics: Statements on AI-driven decision support, economic benefits, and population-level impact should be more cautiously framed and clearly supported by high-quality evidence. Where data are limited, this should be explicitly acknowledged.

Response

Please see comment above and revision of Section 6.2. (“Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support for Pharmacy-Based Point-of-Care Testing”)

Comment

Enhance practical implications: A concise section summarizing actionable recommendations for policymakers, educators, and pharmacy managers would improve the translational value of the review.

Response

A new text and accompanying Table were added at the end of Section 7, to summarize said recommendations, as follows:

In the following Table 7, recommendations are summarized on regulatory heterogeneity, workforce preparedness, quality assurance gaps, economic sustainability and the emerging challenges of AI-assisted diagnostics in community pharmacies. These recommendations directly reflect findings on regulatory heterogeneity, workforce preparedness, quality assurance gaps, economic sustainability and the emerging challenges of AI-assisted diagnostics in community pharmacies. Collectively, they aim to support safe scaling, professional credibility and long-term integration of pharmacies into decentralized, digitally enabled healthcare systems.

 

Table 7. Actionable recommendations for key stakeholders in pharmacy-based POCT

 

Stakeholder	Priority Area	Actionable Recommendation
Policymakers & Regulators	Regulatory clarity	Establish explicit national frameworks recognizing community pharmacies as decentralized diagnostic units, aligned with CLIA-waived principles (USA) or IVDR 2017/746 (EU).
	Quality & safety	Mandate participation of pharmacies in standardized internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assessment (EQA) schemes, proportionate to test complexity.
	AI governance	Introduce regulatory guidance for AI-assisted POCT covering transparency, post-market performance monitoring, dataset shift management and accountability under medical-device legislation.
	Reimbursement	Develop sustainable reimbursement models that value analytical accuracy and reduced diagnostic delay (e.g., value-of-information–based reimbursement rather than fee-per-test alone).
Educational Institutions &       Professional Bodies	Curriculum design	Integrate applied analytical chemistry, biosensor principles, quality management (ISO 15189:2022 & 22870:2016) and diagnostic interpretation into undergraduate pharmacy curricula.
	Continuing education	Implement accredited, competency-based continuing professional development programs focused on POCT operation, quality control, data interpretation and AI-assisted decision support.
	Interdisciplinary training	Promote joint training modules involving pharmacists, laboratory professionals and clinicians to strengthen interprofessional trust and referral pathways.
Pharmacy Owners & Managers	Infrastructure & workflow	Invest in dedicated POCT spaces ensuring biosafety, privacy and controlled environmental conditions, with clear workflow separation between testing and dispensing activities.
	Quality management	Establish simplified but robust quality management systems (QMS) including documentation, traceability, routine QC review and corrective-action protocols.
	Strategic positioning	Position POCT as a value-added professional service integrated with counselling, referral and preventive care, rather than as a standalone retail offering.

 

______________________________

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript aims to review the various aspects of Point of Care Testing in pharmacies. Different dimensions of the phenomenon are described: analytical, financial, quality assurance and the role of AI and mobile Health. The authors described both potential benefits and challenges of POCT introduction to pharmacies. The main strengths of the manuscript are as follows: clinically relevant topic, broad presentation of the topic, the use of well established models (NAB, CPAR) well stated research aim. The manuscript is well written, the tables are helpful to readers, the cited literature is up to date. I would raise some points that could be better addressed by authors:

• The main issue is that in some instances the authors provide very general claims without providing real-life data to substantiate them: e.g. In line 305 authors wrote: “several studies suggested benefits” please provide counts of studies and effect sizes (e.g., % reduction in antibiotic prescribing with CRP POCT, % change in HbA1c attainment)
• In line 236 authors wrote: ‘Analytical performance routinely reaches CV < 5 % with correlation coefficients > 0.98 versus standard clinical analyzers’. Please, provide studies or examples of devices that meet those numbers.
• In line 303 authors wrote: ‘An increasing number of pharmacies around the world are providing POC services’. What is the state of current POCT practice in pharmacies? Please provide data on how widespread these services are in previously analyzed regulatory areas, e.g. US, EU, etc.
• In line 307 authors wrote: ‘On a broader level, a healthcare system benefit involving POC services is the decrease in morbidity and mortality and better health management among the population. POC services in pharmacies have the potential to improve outcomes for patients with chronic illnesses’ Please provide some specific examples how patients benefited from POC, taking into consideration solid health outcomes.
• In table 2 authors listed improved adherence as one of benefits of POC. Please provide literature examples for this benefit.
• Although POC provides benefits for pharmacies, please discuss the practical challenges associated with its wider implementation, e.g. percentages of pharmacies meeting space/privacy requirements, expected ratio of staff to POCT volume, etc.
• In line 405 the authors wrote: ‘However, global curricula audits reveal that fewer than 40 % of accredited programs dedicate more than one semester to practical diagnostic chemistry’ The paper you’ve cited is about pharmacy informatics, not diagnostic chemistry. And it never stated 40%.
• In line 591 authors wrote: ‘Patient perspectives and satisfaction with pharmacy point-of-care services are equally important factors that can affect the effectiveness of these services.’ What are those patients perspectives then? Please provide e.g. satisfaction scores, net promoter scores, wait times, willingness‑to‑pay data.
• Authors praised AI for its potential benefits in POC testing. What could be some metrics for measuring the impact of AI? Add pre‑post or controlled metrics.

 

Minor issues:

• Figure 1 is not very informative. I suggest it could be skipped. Instead some figure could present different test predominantly offered in pharmacies in regard to their reliability, how difficult it is to perform them (training needed for pharmacists), economic impact on pharmacy, benefit for patients in regard to disease management.
• Some information on Figure 2 is unclear. What is ‘Cholecterel’? Is glucose molecule presented correctly? What does ‘Ho’ in the upper part of the figure stand for? In the second picture sample is indicated two times. Is it correct?
• Some abbreviations have not been explained in the text: Au NP (line 230), LAMP, RPA (line 254)

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER COMMENTS_healthcare-4032390

We are grateful to the Reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to providing his/her valuable comments which helped us considerably improve our submission. In following, we respond to each of his/her comments in detail:

Comment

The main issue is that in some instances the authors provide very general claims without providing real-life data to substantiate them: e.g. In line 305 authors wrote: “several studies suggested benefits” please provide counts of studies and effect sizes (e.g., % reduction in antibiotic prescribing with CRP POCT, % change in HbA1c attainment)

Response

Subsection 4.1. (“Benefits and Challenges”) was rewritten as follows:

An increasing number of pharmacies around the world are providing POC services, which include a variety of clinical services such as screening, diagnostic tests, health risk assessment and monitoring of disease or medication. This process is being partly driven by driven by the need for increased access, chronic disease management, and the legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic, but its dynamic different among regions. Roughly 51.6% of U.S. community pharmacies hold a CLIA-waiver, a massive increase from 17.9% in 2015. In some states, adoption is as high as 87.9% (https://seed.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/CLIA-Waived-Tests.pdf). Practice in Eu-rope is fragmented due to country-specific regulations, though the European POCT market is projected to reach over $33.6 billion by 2033 with a growth rate of 9.4% [70].

Several studies suggested benefits of POC services related to the healthcare system, pharmacy sector, patients and society overall; yet, in contrast, numerous challenges have also been reported. For example, in their 2020 systematic review of community pharmacy POCT Albarsi et al. [13] identified 13 studies (covering over 23,000 patients, though many were in primary care settings, with a growing number specific to pharmacies). A prelimi-nary pilot study on CRP-POCT in community pharmacies showed a 16% reduction in non-prescription antibiotic dispensing [71]. Using the same example, Martínez-González et al. [72] reviewed 13 studies comprising 9844 participants for evidence on the impact of CRP-POCT on antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care. They found out that POC tests significantly reduced immediate antibiotic prescribing compared with usual care (RR 0.79, 95%CI 0.70 to 0.90). In the case of glycemic control, as another example, Al Hayek et al. [73] reported the results of a study including 75 diabetic patients where the mean HbA1c level has significantly improved after POCT implementation compared to the traditional HbA1c laboratory testing before POCT implementation [8.34 ± 0.67 and 8.06 ± 0.62, respectively, p < 0.001).

Comment

In line 236 authors wrote: ‘Analytical performance routinely reaches CV < 5 % with correlation coefficients > 0.98 versus standard clinical analyzers’. Please, provide studies or examples of devices that meet those numbers.

The following text was added/modified in Section 3.1.:

Analytical performance routinely reaches CV < 5 % with correlation coefficients > 0.92 versus standard clinical analyzers [60], including glucose, lactose, Hb, uric acid, choles-terol testing and total blood cell count. 

[60]Pezzuto, F.; Scarano, A.; Marini, C.; Rossi, G.; Stocchi, R.; Di Cerbo, A.; Di Cerbo, A. Assessing the Reliability of Commercially Available Point of Care in Various Clinical Fields. Open Public Health J. 2019, 12, 342–368.

Comment

In line 303 authors wrote: ‘An increasing number of pharmacies around the world are providing POC services’. What is the state of current POCT practice in pharmacies? Please provide data on how widespread these services are in previously analyzed regulatory areas, e.g. US, EU, etc.

Response

The following text was added at the end of the first paragraph of Section 4.1.:

This process is being partly driven by driven by the need for increased access, chronic disease management, and the legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic, but its dynamic different among regions. Roughly 51.6% of U.S. community pharmacies hold a CLIA-waiver, a massive increase from 17.9% in 2015. In some states, adoption is as high as 87.9% (https://seed.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/CLIA-Waived-Tests.pdf). Practice in Eu-rope is fragmented due to country-specific regulations, though the European POCT market is projected to reach over $33.6 billion by 2033 with a growth rate of 9.4% [70].

Comment

In line 307 authors wrote: ‘On a broader level, a healthcare system benefit involving POC services is the decrease in morbidity and mortality and better health management among the population. POC services in pharmacies have the potential to improve outcomes for patients with chronic illnesses’ Please provide some specific examples how patients benefited from POC, taking into consideration solid health outcomes.

Response

The following statement was added:

An illustrative example is glycemic control, mentioned above, as well as early interven-tions in the diagnosis and treatment of respiratory tract infections, evidently experienced during the COVID 19 pandemic and the wide application of rapid tests at pharmacies. Another one could be the impact on reducing the spread of communicable disease, e.g. by increasing HIV POCT.

Comment

In table 2 authors listed improved adherence as one of benefits of POC. Please provide literature examples for this benefit.

Response

A footnote was added at the end of the Table mentioning that adherence refers to the reduction of antibiotics [71,72] and lifestyle-based glycemic control [73]

Comment

Although POC provides benefits for pharmacies, please discuss the practical challenges associated with its wider implementation, e.g. percentages of pharmacies meeting space/privacy requirements, expected ratio of staff to POCT volume, etc.

Response

The following text was added after Section 7, Table 6:

Despite the perceived clinical and economic benefits of pharmacy-based POCT, its large-scale implementation could also face substantial practical constraints related to in-frastructure, staffing and workflow integration. One of the most frequently cited barriers is space and privacy. Surveys across Europe and North America suggest that only part of community pharmacies currently meet recommended requirements for a dedicated con-sultation or testing area that ensures visual and acoustic privacy, biosafety and workflow separation from dispensing activities, for example when implementing HIV POCT [126]. Smaller, high-throughput urban pharmacies are disproportionately affected, often lacking sufficient floor area to accommodate POCT without structural redesign.

Workflow disruption and limited human resources present additional practical challenges. POCT introduces pre-analytical (sample collection, patient consent), analytical (test execution, QC) and post-analytical (result interpretation, documentation, referral) steps that are not natively aligned with traditional pharmacy workflows [127]. Without dedicated scheduling or appointment systems, ad hoc testing can create bottlenecks, increase waiting times and elevate the risk of procedural errors, especially during peak dispensing hours [126].

[126] McKeirnan, K.; Kherghehpoush, S.; Gladchuk, A.; Patterson, S. Addressing Barriers to HIV Point-of-Care Testing in Community Pharmacies. Pharmacy 2021, 9, 84.

[127]Larkins, M.C.; Zubair, M.; Thombare, A. Point-of-Care Testing. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2025; updated 9 December 2025. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK592387/ (accessed on 17 January 2026).

Comment

In line 405 the authors wrote: ‘However, global curricula audits reveal that fewer than 40 % of accredited programs dedicate more than one semester to practical diagnostic chemistry’ The paper you’ve cited is about pharmacy informatics, not diagnostic chemistry. And it never stated 40%.

Response

The statement in question was modified as follows:

However, global curricula audits revealed that the majority (>50%) of the surveyed curric-ula lacked formal routine review for the laboratory medicine [94].

Reference [94] was replaced by the following:

[94]        Mahendra, C. Clinical chemistry education for medical students. Ed. Med. J. 2023,15, 1–16.

Comment

In line 591 authors wrote: ‘Patient perspectives and satisfaction with pharmacy point-of-care services are equally important factors that can affect the effectiveness of these services.’ What are those patients perspectives then? Please provide e.g. satisfaction scores, net promoter scores, wait times, willingness‑to‑pay data.

Response

The following text was added/modified at the beginning of the fourth paragraph of Section 7 (“Future Directions, Implementation Barriers and Opportunities for Pharmacies in Point-of-Care Services”):

Patient perspectives and satisfaction with pharmacy point-of-care services are equal-ly important factors that can affect the effectiveness of these services. Such would, for ex-ample, include administrative efficiency (waiting area, opening hours, etc.), technical competency (professionalism of the personnel, technical expertise) and convenience of the location. Relative studies have indicated that administrative and technical competency, including pharmacist attitude, were the most important factors influencing prospective patients to opt of pharmacy-based POCT services [121, 122].

Comment

Authors praised AI for its potential benefits in POC testing. What could be some metrics for measuring the impact of AI? Add pre‑post or controlled metrics.

 Response

The following text was added at the end of Subsection 6.2. (“Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support for Pharmacy-Based Point-of-Care Testing”):

The impact of AI in pharmacy-based point-of-care testing can be assessed using a combination of pre–post and controlled-comparison metrics spanning analytical, clinical, operational and system-level domains. At the analytical level, improvements in accuracy, precision, drift correction and test validity before and after AI-assisted calibration—or rel-ative to non-AI workflows—provide objective evidence of added value. Clinically, AI im-pact can be measured through changes in decision concordance with guidelines, referral rates and inter-operator variability. Operational metrics such as time to result, staff time per test and throughput capture workflow efficiency, while patient-reported satisfaction and trust reflect service quality. Finally, system-level and governance metrics—including prescribing patterns, model stability, override frequency and explainability indica-tors—are essential to demonstrate not only performance gains but also the reliability, ac-countability and sustainability of AI-assisted POCT in real-world pharmacy settings.

Minor issues:

Comment

Figure 1 is not very informative. I suggest it could be skipped. Instead some figure could present different test predominantly offered in pharmacies in regard to their reliability, how difficult it is to perform them (training needed for pharmacists), economic impact on pharmacy, benefit for patients in regard to disease management.

Response

Figure 1 was revised to become more illustrative by adding, in each one of the presented POCT categories, four different color codes and respective ranking regarding (a) reliability (b) user-friendliness (c) patient benefit and (d) pharmacy-based return on investment.

Comment

Some information on Figure 2 is unclear. What is ‘Cholecterel’? Is glucose molecule presented correctly? What does ‘Ho’ in the upper part of the figure stand for? In the second picture sample is indicated two times. Is it correct?

Response

Figure 2 (New Figure 3) was redrawn and typing errors were corrected – we apologize for this oversight.

Comment

Some abbreviations have not been explained in the text: Au NP (line 230), LAMP, RPA (line 254)

Response

The new abbreviations were added.

 

___________________________

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have worked to address my previously listed concerns and the manuscript is signficantly improved.  Overall a very nice review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscript as suggested.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing my previous peer-review comments so thoroughly. I appreciate the effort you have put into revising the manuscript. The improvements have significantly enhanced the clarity and quality of your manuscript. I believe the paper is now well-prepared and suitable for publication.