Evidence on Vector-Associated Dissemination of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella in the Philippines Food Supply Chain: A One Health Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Check the attachment for details, thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your kind time to read and improve our manuscript. We have addressed your concerns and extensively revised our manuscript. Please see the attach file for our responses.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Brian Harvey A. Villanueva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Bernaldo et al. is important and timely, as there is increasing interest in the role of wild animals and vectors in the dissemination of multidrug-resistant bacteria within the One Health continuum. However, the following comments should be addressed:

The title appears to be overreaching and misleading because it implies that vector-mediated transmission has been conclusively demonstrated throughout the Philippine food supply chain, whereas the manuscript acknowledges that there is limited Philippine evidence on arthropod-mediated transmission. A more cautious and evidence-based title, such as “Evidence on Vector-Associated Dissemination of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella in the Philippine Food Supply Chain: A One Health Scoping Review” or “One Health Perspectives on Vector-Associated Antimicrobial-Resistant Salmonella in the Philippine Food System: A Scoping Review”, should be considered.

In the Abstract, the statement “Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted…” is an incorrect methodological description (lines 31–33) because PRISMA-ScR is a reporting guideline, not a methodology. Consider revising it to: “This scoping review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines.” There is also confusing use of the term “systematic review” (lines 31–33), whereas the study is described as a “scoping review,” which represents a distinct methodology. Furthermore, the claim that “Results indicate that intensive swine and poultry farming are primary drivers…” (lines 36–44) is unsupported by the included studies, which are mostly observational or descriptive. More cautious wording such as “suggests” and “may” should replace categorical expressions in the sentence. Similarly, the claim “serving as critical biological and mechanical bridges” (lines 38–39) overstates the role of vectors because the study does not provide sufficient Philippine evidence to justify the use of the word “critical.” There is also a need for quantitative synthesis in the abstract showing the types of studies included, geographic coverage, and major evidence gaps. The authors should include the number of Philippine versus non-Philippine studies, the main evidence categories, and the major gaps identified.

In the Introduction, grammar revision is needed for the statement “Local studies further developed the widespread presence…” and specifically the phrase “developed the widespread presence” (lines 60–64). Repetition of MDR terminology (lines 55–76), such as “multidrug-resistant Salmonella,” “AMR Salmonella,” and “MDR-Salmonella,” should be reduced and sentence structures varied because the repetition affects readability. The phrase “three health systems, namely: human, animal, and environment” (lines 66–68) oversimplifies the One Health concept; consider using “the interconnected human, animal, and environmental sectors” instead. The claims in lines 77–85 emphasizing vector-mediated dissemination are insufficiently supported because much of the evidence cited later is indirect or extrapolated from non-Philippine studies. The manuscript should explicitly distinguish evidence directly demonstrated in the Philippines from evidence inferred from comparable settings. The research questions (lines 87–100) are verbose and repetitive, making them difficult to follow; they should be condensed and simplified.

Regarding the Methods section, there is concern about methodological transparency because no prospective protocol registration was performed (lines 109–111). Therefore, justification for the absence of protocol registration, as well as discussion of this as a limitation, is warranted. Inadequate manuscript preparation is also evident from the inclusion of publisher instructions (lines 119–125), which should never appear in a submitted manuscript. The search strategy (lines 113–127) is incomplete. The exact search strings, search dates, independent reviewer process, and conflict-resolution methods should be clearly described. The selection criteria are subjective and not operationally defined in lines 132–137, particularly the statement “directly comparable to those of the Philippine tropical environment.” Explicit criteria for comparability should therefore be defined.

There is also concern regarding the exclusion criteria (lines 141–142), which state that studies “used data published before 2010 that no longer reflect the contemporary AMR landscape,” because this may introduce bias, as older studies may still be important for historical epidemiology. Stronger justification for the 2010 cutoff is needed.

What were the criteria for judging unclear methodological quality (lines 166–168)? Either a structured quality assessment should be conducted, or subjective exclusion based on methodological quality should be avoided, since scoping reviews do not always require formal appraisal.

In the Results section, the PRISMA flow numbers “584 → 502 → 170 → 151 → 32” (lines 172–182) should be carefully checked because the flow appears insufficiently transparent. The authors should explicitly state the number of papers excluded at each stage and clarify whether overlapping exclusions existed.

Table 2 lacks depth because it is largely descriptive and does not provide information on study design, sample size, country, resistance patterns, or vector species details. The table should therefore be substantially expanded.

There is frequent overinterpretation of findings beyond what was demonstrated in the cited studies, such as the statement “contributing to MDR in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae” (lines 194–200). The authors should maintain focus on Salmonella.

Speculative language also appears in lines 241–243, 267–269, and 423–433, including phrases such as “suggests an upstream environmental reservoir,” “self-sustaining ecological niches,” and “critical catalytic link,” respectively. Claims unsupported by the available evidence also appear in lines 387–389, which state that the findings “provide definitive evidence of a transmission pathway,” whereas whole-genome similarity alone does not establish definitive transmission.

The manuscript also contains excessive narrative language that reads more like an opinion essay than a scientific synthesis, including terms such as “terminal recipient,” “catalytic mobility,” and “self-sustaining cycle.”

In the Discussion section, many findings already presented in the Results are unnecessarily repeated. Greater emphasis should instead be placed on interpretation, implications, and comparison with existing literature. The statement “antimicrobial misuse in agriculture directly compromises the efficacy of human medicine” (lines 442–444) is plausible, but this review does not establish direct causality. Consider revising it to “may contribute to reduced effectiveness of clinically important antimicrobial agents.” The limitations of the review should also be discussed more extensively, including limited Philippine vector data, reliance on extrapolated evidence, heterogeneity of included studies, lack of meta-analysis, and possible publication bias.

For the Proposed Framework, the interventions mentioned (lines 501–555), including probiotics, botanical antimicrobials, IPM, and LAMP diagnostics, were not systematically evaluated in the included studies. The authors should clarify that these are conceptual recommendations rather than evidence-based interventions derived directly from the review. In addition, practical implementation considerations, including economic feasibility, regulatory barriers, and implementation challenges in low-resource settings, should be discussed.

The Conclusions section (lines 559–572) presents stronger conclusions than the available evidence supports, particularly given the limited direct evidence available. The statements should therefore be tempered.

The References should also be thoroughly checked to verify alignment between claims and cited sources, as several in-text claims appear stronger than what the cited studies likely support. In addition, most of the references are from 2023–2026, which may have contributed to the omission of earlier foundational evidence. Older studies on vector ecology and related transmission dynamics should therefore be included.

       

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your kind time to read and improve our manuscript. We have addressed your concerns and extensively revised our manuscript. Please see the attach file for our responses.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Brian Harvey A. Villanueva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's a nice article especially when we focus on pre-harvest food safety. However, I felt that quantitative data are missing though the facts are explained. I have the following comments. 

Lines 122-126 - I am not sure about the writing over here. It is just like pasting some guidelines you copied from somewhere. Please arrange the language there. 

Line 190-191 - You are talking that Salmonellosis as a major cause of foodborne disease. Do you have any quantitative data?

Line 195, 196, 259, 410, 536 - When you write the genes, you need to italicize the text.

Line 201, 320 - Follow scientific nomenclature for bacteria

Line 202 - Add this part. In Philippine hog farming, antibiotics such as .....(your list). Do you have any idea about the concentrations used for these antibiotics? 

Line 204-205 - Though you are talking about increased AMR in agricultural environments, what the environments are not clear. Also, do you have any quantitative data to show the increased prevalence? What is the range of time for the measurements (within how many years?)

Line 210  - You need a reference to say the effect of Salmonella in hog farming. 

Line 214 - It is not clear to me your idea? Additionally, there were MDR....are you talking about hogs? 

line 220 - Poultry products are high risk vehicles for.....what type of infections in Philippines? 

Line 231-233 - Any quantitative information of presence of Salmonella in rat droppings?

Line 245-248 - What are the irrigation water standards in Philippines? 

Line 280 - Primary reservoir .....is that for Salmonella?

Line 283 - Remove [into feed and water sources]

Line 286 - Are you talking about Salmonella prevalence is layer hens or their fecal matter?

Line 337 - Use transfer instead of transition

Line 345-350 - Any studies related to Salmonella biofilm formation? Do you have any information to prove the higher prevalence due to biofilms? It is not clear what you are talking here. 

Your study is about Salmonella in Food Supply Chain. It is complete if you have information related to pre-harvest produce safety as well. Otherwise, this is just about meat supply chain. You may change the topic then. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your kind time to read and improve our manuscript. We have addressed your concerns and extensively revised our manuscript. Please see the attach file for our responses.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Brian Harvey A. Villanueva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is on vector-mediated dissemination of multidrug-resistant Salmonella in the Philippine food supply chain. Overall changes was made accordingly to previous submitted version. The authors followed PRISMA guidelines, registered their protocol in OSF. The review integrates animal, environmental, and human health data, with regional proxy studies to contextualize Philippine findings.

However the data in table 2, are dense with technical details. Consider simplifying or spitting into thematic table - Can check attachment for example. 

Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We thank you for taking the time to read our manuscript. Please see the attached file for our comments.

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made significant effort in addressing my comments. However, table 2 should be rearranged to make it concise and compact

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We are grateful for your time and comments, which helped improve our manuscript. 

Please see the attached file for our response.

Thank you very much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf