Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Referee Comments: Referee 1

Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 13 May 2008 at 19:45 GMT

Referee 1's Review:

N.B. These are the comments made by the referee when reviewing an earlier version of this paper. Prior to publication, the manuscript has been revised in light of these comments and to address other editorial requirements.

Here are my remarks about the article:

1) I think the authors point out in the article the most relevant aspects on tuberculosis` transmission dynamics evaluation.

2) About the citations, some of them was not published yet, what prejudices evaluation of the adequate parameters tuberculosis acquisition.

3) The model seems to be efficient, allowing correct evaluation of the proposed strategies.

4) The figure based on the results achieved according to different strategies is helpful to a complete model understanding.

5) The parameters in the table are also correct; I mean that if the parameter is a rate, as so it will be classified by the authors.

6) The sensitive analysis also seems to be appropriate.

7) Finally, I would like to point out inconsistencies in the model denomination. First, they called it as a “mathematical model”; then, they named it as “stochastic compartmental model”.
I wouldn`t call it as a stochastic model since I consider the parameters as probabilities. The model is in truth a mathematical compartmental which embraces sensitivity analysis, never characterizing a stochastic model. Thus, I think you could try to maintain a consistence in the name and I would like to suggest “a mathematical model for which uncertainty and sensitivity analysis is performed”.

8) I think also that the term “DOTS” (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course) need to be clarified in the text for a better understanding.