Multidrug resistance pattern of Acinetobacter species isolated from clinical specimens referred to the Ethiopian Public Health Institute: 2014 to 2018 trend anaylsis

Zeleke Ayenew; Eyasu Tigabu; Elias Syoum; Semira Ebrahim; Dawit Assefa; Estifanos Tsige

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250896

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 1, 2020
5 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Monica Cartelle Gestal, Editor PONE-D-20-27426 Multi drug resistance pattern of Acinitobacter species isolated from clinical specimens refereed to Ethiopian public health institute, Ethiopia: a retrospective study. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ayenew, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Monica Cartelle Gestal, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]. At this time, please address the following queries: Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript describes the increase of resistance rates in Acinetobacter spp. strains, isolated from different types of samples, in Ethiopia. Although the authors presented interesting results, it is difficult for me to recommend this paper for publication in PLOS ONE in its present form. 1- The authors must include line numbers, as well as page numbers to help with the correction. 2- The authors should revise the English and the style of the text. There are two types of fonts along the text. 3- The authors should correct the nomenclature, in many cases, they have written Acinitobacter instead of Acinetobacter, and on several occasions, the word appears without italics. 4- The authors should homogenize the names of the antibiotics, whether with or without a capital letter, but all the same. The same applies for the percentages, between or not a parenthesis, but all the same in the same paragraph. 5- The acronym HAI has two different explanations, one in the introduction and another one in the results. Introduction: 6- Line 7: The authors should explain the meaning of TU. 7- The first time the name of a bacteria is mentioned should be written with its complete name. The subsequent times should be written in the reducing form of its name. 8- Line 30: b-lactamase should be changed to β-lactamase. Material and Methods 9- The section “Study period and area” is partially missing. 10- It is not clear if “Sampling technique” is a section that includes the next ones, or if the content of this section is missing. 11- The authors should explain which antimicrobial susceptibility test and how they performed it. 12- Line 12: The authors may scape the r from strains. 13- The authors should explain what statistical test they have used. Results 14- It would be interesting if the authors could provide data relating the resistance rates of the strains with the empirical treatment received by the patients. 15- Figure 1: The authors should include the complete name of the labels. 16- Line 9: The authors should explain the meaning of CSF. 17- Line 11: Why the authors tested carbapenem susceptibility only in 37 strains, instead of in all the 102 samples? 18- Line 11: The reference to Figure 2 should be in the previous sentence. 19- The percentage of ceftriaxone for 2018 in the text does not correspond with the 2018 percentage in the table. 20- Figure 2: The authors should explain the meaning of EPHI. 21- Figures 3 and 4: The authors should include the label of the Y-axis. 22- Figures 3 and 4: I recommend the elimination of the grey background from both figures to facilitate the differentiation between the different line colours. 23- Figures 3 and 4: the meaning of the antibiotic acronyms should be explained. Discussion 24- Line 10: What is the meaning of x^2? 25- The authors should revise the style and the content of the discussion, especially the last three paragraphs. Reviewer #2: English needs improvement. Absolute numbers may not be mentioned when percentage is given. Introduction: at risk people may be described in a single sentence. Study period: the sentence seems incomplete. More than half of the samples were collected from two hospitals. How was the hospitals selected for this study? Figures should be in percentage. The references are not uniformly written. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Manas Pratim Roy [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250896.r001
Revision 1
11 Nov 2020 Author Response Response to reviewers Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response –Thank you editor, we have edited our manuscript based on the PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]. At this time, please address the following queries: a. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Response – thank you editor! The authors received no specific funding for this work.” We have included this in updated cover letter. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. Response –thank you we included in the method section. 4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Response –thank you we referred Figure 4 in the text with some modification. Reviewer #1: The manuscript describes the increase of resistance rates in Acinetobacter spp. strains, isolated from different types of samples, in Ethiopia. Although the authors presented interesting results, it is difficult for me to recommend this paper for publication in PLOS ONE in its present form. 1- The authors must include line numbers, as well as page numbers to help with the correction. Response – thank you reviewer for the suggestion to follow submission guidelines we included the line numbers and page number. 2- The authors should revise the English and the style of the text. There are two types of fonts along the text. Response – thank you we revised the English and make the fonts uniform ‘Arial’. 3- The authors should correct the nomenclature, in many cases, they have written Acinitobacter instead of Acinetobacter, and on several occasions, the word appears without italics. Response –yes we admitted this and we use ‘find and replace’ Acinitobacter with Acinetobacter throughout the text. Thank you for this important comment. 4- The authors should homogenize the names of the antibiotics, whether with or without a capital letter, but all the same. The same applies for the percentages, between or not a parenthesis, but all the same in the same paragraph. Response – thank you, we make it small letter for and antibiotics and make it uniform for percentages, between or not a parenthesis, throughout the texts as highlighted yellow. 5- The acronym HAI has two different explanations, one in the introduction and another one in the results. Response –thank you reviewer we make it uniform as the acronym HAI means to show hospital acquired infection. Introduction: 6- Line 7: The authors should explain the meaning of TU. Response –thank you -this is a genomic species of Acinetobacter which is given by taxonomy classification in addition to species level. 7- The first time the name of a bacteria is mentioned should be written with its complete name. The subsequent times should be written in the reducing form of its name. Response – thank you for your comment also with exception at the beginning of a sentence, we wrote it in reduced form. 8- Line 30: b-lactamase should be changed to β-lactamase. Material and Methods Response –we thank you. Change has been made as β-lactamase as highlighted yellow 9- The section “Study period and area” is partially missing. Response – yes, it was missing. We filed it appropriately here after. Thank you! 10- It is not clear if “Sampling technique” is a section that includes the next ones, or if the content of this section is missing. Response – thank you again! we mean data extraction method from archived records of the laboratory. 11- The authors should explain which antimicrobial susceptibility test and how they performed it. Response – thank you for the comment. The test protocol for the antimicrobial susceptibility test was Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method. 12- Line 12: The authors may scape the r from strains. Response- thanks you! Corrected as highlighted in the text as ‘strains’ 13- The authors should explain what statistical test they have used. Descriptive ,crosstab, chi-square ,ratio, proportion, Results 14- It would be interesting if the authors could provide data relating the resistance rates of the strains with the empirical treatment received by the patients. Response – thank you! , we have included that in figure 2. 15- Figure 1: The authors should include the complete name of the labels. Response- thank you we wrote the complete name 16- Line 9: The authors should explain the meaning of CSF. Response – thank you! we mean cerebrospinal fluid as highlighted in the text yellow. 17- Line 11: Why the authors tested carbapenem susceptibility only in 37 strains, instead of in all the 102 samples? Response –thank you! There was a shortage of the carbapenem drug during testing. 18- Line 11: The reference to Figure 2 should be in the previous sentence. Response – thank you! We have moved fig 2 to previous 19- The percentage of ceftriaxone for 2018 in the text does not correspond with the 2018 percentage in the table. Response –thank you! We mean 98.6% and that has been corrected 20- Figure 2: The authors should explain the meaning of EPHI. Response –thank you we mean Ethiopian public health Institute. 21- Figures 3 and 4: The authors should include the label of the Y-axis. Response –thank you we included the label of Y-axis. 22- Figures 3 and 4: I recommend the elimination of the grey background from both figures to facilitate the differentiation between the different line colours. Response –thank you we eliminated the background color. 23- Figures 3 and 4: the meaning of the antibiotic acronyms should be explained. Response –thank you, we wrote in long form. Discussion 24- Line 10: What is the meaning of x^2? Response –thank you x2 we mean a symbol of chi-square 25- The authors should revise the style and the content of the discussion, especially the last three paragraphs. Response –thank you so much we have corrected the last three paragraphs Reviewer #2: English needs improvement. Response –thank you we have attempted to revise the English grammar and spelling errors. Absolute numbers may not be mentioned when percentage is given. Response –thank you we opted to use percentage and edit again in the abstract and result section Introduction: at risk people may be described in a single sentence. Response:Thank you for the comments. Correction has been made per the comment given. Study period: the sentence seems incomplete. Response .thank you, it was missed we incorporated and fill the incomplete as highlighted yellow More than half of the samples were collected from two hospitals. How was the hospitals selected for this study? Response –thank you, the study included all health facilities referring specimens however specimens were no growth for Acinetobacter species during culturing in some facilities. They are high load government hospitals refer sample for microbiology culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. This study analyzed the isolates only i.e. we excluded the no growth specimens Figures should be in percentage. Response .Thank you we have made change to percentage The references are not uniformly written. Response –thank you we revised and have written it in Vancouver style. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250896.r002
13 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Monica Cartelle Gestal, Editor PONE-D-20-27426R1 Multidrug resistance pattern of Acinetobacter species isolated from clinical specimens referred to Ethiopian Public Health Institute: a retrospective study. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ayenew, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please pay special attention to the comments suggested by the reviewers are they still highlight major concenrs that will improve the quality and clarity of the manuscrtpt. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Monica Cartelle Gestal, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper has been clearly improve, but I would recommend the authors to revise again due to some italics, antibiotic names as well as some spaces that are missing. Reviewer #3: the manuscript needs some attention on the following - 1. Introduction- please clearly define the multi-drug resistance of Acinetobacter species. globally and regional data supporting the severity of multi-drug resistance of the organism (eg-mortality or morbidity) would make the context stronger. 2. Methods- Inclusion criteria are not mentioned clearly. 3. Discussion- The result of empirical therapy is not discussed. please discuss with significance. 4. Conclusion- Please rephrase the 1st line of conclusion. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Iffat Ara Ifa [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250896.r003
Revision 2
29 Jan 2021 Author Response Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The paper has been clearly improved, but I would recommend the authors to revise again due to some italics, antibiotic names as well as some spaces that are missing. Response – thank you! We have made changes in our revision some italics, antibiotic names as well as some spaces missed. Reviewer #3: the manuscript needs some attention on the following - 1. Introduction- please clearly define the multi-drug resistance of Acinetobacter species. globally and regional data supporting the severity of multi-drug resistance of the organism (eg-mortality or morbidity) would make the context stronger. Response – thank you for the comments to be added and we incorporate definition of MDR –Acinetobacter species, global and regional data supporting the severity of the disease in the introduction part. 2. Methods- Inclusion criteria are not mentioned clearly. Response – thank you we have added the inclusion criteria of the study in method part 3. Discussion- The result of empirical therapy is not discussed. please discuss with significance. Response – thank you for the comment regarding missed discussion of empirical therapy. We have added with significance in line number 205 on page 11 4. Conclusion- Please rephrase the 1st line of conclusion. Response – we rephrase the 1st line of conclusion in line 243 on page 13 of the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250896.r004
16 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Monica Cartelle Gestal, Editor Multidrug resistance pattern of Acinetobacter species isolated from clinical specimens referred to the Ethiopian Public Health Institute: 2014 to 2018 trend anaylsis PONE-D-20-27426R2 Dear Dr. Ayenew, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Monica Cartelle Gestal, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Thanks to the author for the corrections properly. I have no other issues regarding this article. If there is any minor issue please correct it. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Iffat Ara Ifa https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250896.r005
Formally Accepted
21 Apr 2021 Acceptance Letter - Monica Cartelle Gestal, Editor PONE-D-20-27426R2 Multidrug resistance pattern of Acinetobacter species isolated from clinical specimens referred to the Ethiopian Public Health Institute: 2014 to 2018 trend anaylsis Dear Dr. Ayenew: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Monica Cartelle Gestal Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250896.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .