PONE-D-21-05049

Severe community-acquired pneumonia in Reunion Island:Epidemiological, clinical and microbiological characteristics, 2016-2018

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Allou,

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.

While your paper addresses an interesting question, both reviewers expressed significant concern both about the presentation as well as the readability of the manuscript and did not recommend publication in its present form. In particular, both reviewers voice a number of concerns regarding the used methodology for data collection and analysis, and these comments need to be addressed carefully.  Please see reviewers’ insightful comments below. In addition, the quality of the language needs to be improved, please have a fluent, preferably native, English-language speaker thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar.

Personally, I found the following points need to be clarified:  1. Prevalent pathogens for CAP are influenza, S. penumoniae. How does this compare to nosocomial pneumonia? 2. CAP caused by influenza and S. penumoniae is year round, however, the authors indicated the rainfall play a role in the case of CAP.  From the figure, it appears more case for influenza CAP in dry season. Any studies on influenza CAP related to the same phenomenon? 3. The mortality rate is higher for influenza CAP, is this same from other region?

Specific comments:

1. Line 54, 97 “All consecutive patients…” I am not sure consecutive is the right adj. to use.  Suggest changing to “All patients…”
2. Line 79 – 81, is there any CAP data in nearby area, Madagascar for example?
3. Line 79, 81 &118, change “legionella” to “Legionella” since genus used alone should be capitalized and italicized.
4. Line 82,153, 194, 233 & 301,Streptococcus pneumonia should be “S. pneumoniae”
5. Line 116 – 117, change “Chlamydia pneumonia, Mycoplasma pneumonia, Legionella spp, Haemophilus influenza, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Bordetella (para) pertussis.” to “Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella spp, Haemophilus influenzae, S. pneumoniae, Bordetella pertussis, and B. prarpertussis.”
6. Line 142, please rephrase “…(incidence of 22 per 100,000 person- years)” for clarity.  Did the author mean 22 per 100,000 person per year?
7. Line 154, Staphylococcus should be italicized.
8. Line 155, “Haemophilus influenza” should be “H. influenzae”
9. Line 155 – 156, “Legionella pneumophila” should be “L. pneumophila”
10. Table 3, “Haemophilus influenza” should be “Haemophilus influenzae”
11. Line 193 – 195, it is not clear about the correlation between rainfall and CAP, please expand the explanation.
12. Line 200 – 206, maybe I missed something, I am not clear on the relevance of the risk factors for influenza with CAP?  How about risk factor associated with S. pneumoniae or CAP in general?
13. Line 220 – 222, please clarify the relevance of this statement.
14. Line 248, change “K. pneumoniae” to “Klebsiella pneumonia” since this is the first time Klebsiella was mentioned.
15. Line 274, Actinobacter should be italicized.
16. Line 285, “Staphylococcus aureus” should be “S. aureus”

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Baochuan Lin, Ph.D.

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. We note that you obtained consents from participants to take part in your retrospective study. In the Ethics Statement on the online submission form and the manuscript Methods , please clarify the context in which consent was obtained, and specify whether patients provided:

                a) Consent to use their medical records/samples in research

                b) Consent to undergo the procedure

                c) Consent to take part in the study reported in this manuscript.

If the ethics committee waived the need for additional informed consent, please state this.

Thank you for your attention to these requests.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

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: Yes

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: Dear Editor PLOS ONE,

Thank you for sending me this manuscript for review. The investigators studied clinical and microbiological characteristics of patients with severe pneumonia who were admitted to the ICUs. The manuscript is of interest, however, several points need to be highlighted and revised as follow.

Abstract

Editing error: “causatives”

Conclusions are not based on the results. Also, the recommendation of cephalosporin and oseltamivir needs revision to reflect the study findings and may lead to increased antimicrobial resistance.

Introduction

Some general statements require evidence and to be specific, for example:

Initiate antibiotic therapy against all strains of S pneumonia and Legionella. This is a general statement that needs to be more specific on the empiric use of antimicrobials.

Methods

The study was conducted on ICU admitted patients, and they may not represent the study objectives rather than only severe cases that required ICU admission. So, study objectives need to be changed accordingly.

It’s not clear too, how data were collected, was it a retrospective chart review?

Statistical analysis

Line 5: First time mentioned abbreviation, the full name should be provided.

Also, the statement is not clear: “Risk factors of influenza PAC in bivariate analysis with P<0.1 were entered into a multivariate logistic regression analysis using backward selection with P <0.05”.

The reported incidence in the results section was different from the abstract and discussion, should be revised.

Table (1), abscess was mentioned, what does it refer to what type of abscess and which site?

Table (1), duration between symptoms and ICU admission, was it days?

Table (1), what does it mean of reporting the p-value as zero? (for influenza-like illness)

Table (1), how hazardous alcohol use was assessed, what definition was used, and how data were collected?

Table (1), what does footnote 2 refer to?

Did the investigators collect any vaccination histories on influenza or pneumococcal vaccines among the study participants?

Table (3), footnote … “…. during flu cases” need revision.

What is “flu syndrome” mentioned in line 201?

Higher leukocyte counts mentioned in line 204 is not a risk for severe influenza as per the odds ratio presented.

Line 212 need revision

Discussion

The second highest cause of mortality and years of life lost. Was there a difference between mortality and years of life lost?

in-ICU mortality in this study was lower than previously reported. Any specific reasons or contributing factors to be discussed?

Editing, line 253, “….. we find” should “found”

What about the impact of empirical use of antimicrobials on the detection of organisms that have been reported in other reports.

The investigators included a paragraph in the discussion about climate change and influenza types, although they didn’t provide a specific discussion or explored the relevance to the study.

Conclusions should be revised to reflect the study findings.

Also, the recommendation of probabilistic antimicrobials and oseltamivir to every patient should be revised taking into consideration the potential risk for antimicrobial resistance and definition of severe pneumonia that may not be specific to be applicable in several care settings.

Figure (2), worst survival was observed for cases with S pneumonia, this needs further discussion

Figure (1) (which is also written as figure (2)), about rainfall and influenza, showed three peaks of rainfall but not clear of an association with the occurrence of influenza or pneumococcal infection, more elaboration in this regard is required.

Reviewer #2: Severe community-acquired pneumonia in Reunion Island: Epidemiological, clinical and microbiological characteristics, 2016-2018 (Manuscript No. PONE-D-21-05049)

In their manuscript, de Mangou et al. present valuable data derived from a retrospective cohort of patients admitted and diagnosed with severe CAP at Reunion Island between 2016 and 2018. However, significant scarcities of methodology detailed below could be identified in the manuscript. Also, the main study results might be of more interest to the national readers of Reunion Island. In all, the Methods section needs rewriting by addition of more explicit details from the study protocol before the review process could be continued any further.

Remarks on methodology:

1. A major issue is that CAP was not defined properly (only criteria of severe CAP were stated), and details were not given on how cases of CAP were ascertained. A brief summary of in-hospital algorithms should be added to the manuscript. Also, did all the patients receive the same diagnostic (eg. imaging) and microbiological studies before the final diagnosis of CAP was arrived at?

2. What is a cytobacteriological examination? This needs further explaining.

3. Did the patients have blood cultures taken?

4. Are all patients with severe CAP hospitalized at the ICU ward at Reunion Island?

5. How were eligible patients screened and included in the final cohort?

6. Was any patient follow-up seeked during the study period? If yes, how?

7. How was data collection executed? What was the data source? How were missing data handled?

8. The primary outcome should be defined by a hard clinical end-point, eg. in-hospital all-cause mortality at day-14 or alike. "Clinical and microbiological characteristics" are not endpoints – they are characteristics.

9. There is a contradiction in the description of statistical methods: an univariate pre-screening was done (line 133), but after that, only the "most clinically relevant factors" were entered into multivariate analysis (line 135)? This needs to be elaborated.

10. Adherence to the STROBE Statement is highly encouraged during rewriting.

11. I suggest using the term bronchoalveolar lavage instead of bronchoalveolar sputum.

12. I suggest that the term "adult patients" should be emphasized.

13. The name of the American Thoracic Society should be corrected.

**********

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: No

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-05049 review.docx

PONE-D-21-05049R1Severe community-acquired pneumonia in Reunion Island:

Epidemiological, clinical and microbiological characteristics, 2016-2018PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Allou,

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.

The revised manuscript has addressed most of the reviewers’ comments, however, there are several issues that still need further clarification, please see reviewer’s comments and specific comments below.  In addition, the quality of the language still needs to be improved, We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Specific comments:

1. Line 78 – 80:  This statement needs reference(s).
2. Line 83 & 163 :  Change “S. pneumonia” to “S. pneumoniae”, “H. influenza” to “H. influenzae”.
3. Line 100:  this statement needs further clarification.
4. Line 122 – 124:  Needed to specify the methodology used? Culture or other methods?
5. Line 252:  Change “Acinetobacter” to “Acinetobacter”.
6. Discussion:  Use either oseltamivir or Oseltamivir:  Be consistent.

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 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Baochuan Lin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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 #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Thank you for revising your manuscript. However, there are some points that I think need a revision.

1. Conclusion in the abstract and at end of the manuscript that melioidosis and Acinetobacter app should be considered in patients returning from Madagascar, this conclusion is based on only a few number of cases and shouldn't be generalized especially an adjusted regression analysis was not performed.

2. In the Materials and methods, the investigators mentioned that written information notice about the process of data collection was obtained, but they didn't report about severely ill patients and those on ventilators or not fully conscious, how that process was complete.

3. In the Material and methods, third paragraph: a reference on the CAP clinical definition is required.

4. In the results section: The acute physiology score was first mentioned with no explanation of its definition, components, or reference. The same was in Table1 for CURB-65.

5. Table 2: Biological characteristics should be changed into laboratory findings.

6. Discussion should highlight that severity of influenza-CAP may be associated with patients' underlying conditions not directly related to the influenza infection itself compared to other infections. This can be evidenced if a multivariate regression was performed.

7. Kruskal-Walis test was mentioned in the statistical analysis, although not shown or used in the results.

Reviewer #2: In their revised manuscript, de Mangou et al. addressed all the methodological remarks. A reconsideration of publication could be recommended.

**********

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: Yes: Fayssal Farahat

Reviewer #2: No

[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.

PONE-D-21-05049R2Severe community-acquired pneumonia in Reunion Island:

Epidemiological, clinical and microbiological characteristics, 2016-2018PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Allou,

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.

Reviewer and I agreed that the revised manuscript is scientifically sound, however, the language still needs improvement, there are still quite a few of typos and grammatic error throughout the manuscript (see reviewer's comments and specific comments below as example.  We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling and grammar.  If you do not know who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Specific comments:1. Line 79, change etc to etc.

2. Line 83, change i.e.a to i.e. a

3. Line 96, change N° to No.

4. Line 98, delete "about the process of data collection"

5. Line 265, change S. pneumonia to S. pneumoniae

6. Line 276, change "...diabetes mellitus…" to "...diabetes mellitus, etc."

 Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2022 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 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Baochuan Lin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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: 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: 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)

**********

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

[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.

Severe community-acquired pneumonia in Reunion Island:

Epidemiological, clinical and microbiological characteristics, 2016-2018

PONE-D-21-05049R3

Dear Dr. Allou,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication once you correct the following:  Line 55: delete "consecutive", line 78" suggest changing from "they recommend" to "the recommendations are", and line 273, italicize "S. aureus" to "S. aureus', 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,

Baochuan Lin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: