Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 25, 2024
Decision Letter - Vishwanatha R. A. P. Reddy, Editor

PONE-D-24-25703The added diagnostic value of RT-PCR on faeces for the diagnosis of COVID-19PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Van der Moeren,

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 Feb 06 2025 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: 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,

Vishwanatha R. A. P. Reddy

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. 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. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: 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: This study showed that combining SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing on fecal samples (FS) with upper respiratory tract samples (URTS) increased COVID-19 diagnoses by 31.8%. Hence, the authors claim that adding FS testing may enhance detection in patients with negative URTS results but high clinical suspicion of COVID-19.

The paper is well-written and deserves consideration. However minor revision is required:

-Table 1, detailing patients' characteristics, is missing.

-Have the authors used a validated assay to perform RT-PCR testing on fecal samples?

-The authors should expand the discussion regarding: the capacity of standard laboratories to perform RT-PCR on fecal samples and the potential delayed positivity of RT-PCR on fecal samples compared to upper respiratory tract testing.

Reviewer #2: The authors presented results that confirmed that use of RT_PCR on fecal samples improves overall diagnostic accuracy. However, this manuscript should qualify as a short communication going by the small dataset used to arrive at this conclusion. Also, the statement provided under the objective appears ambiguous. Authors should make it clearer.

**********

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:  Ayodele Oluwaseun Ajayi

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Dear Sir, Madam,

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript “The added diagnostic value of RT-PCR on faeces for the diagnosis of COVID-19”.

We greatly appreciate the careful review and adapted the manuscript according to the comments. We believe the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested edits.

We hope that these revisions are sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in ‘Plos One’.

Yours sincerely,

Nathalie Van der Moeren

In name of the co-authors

Reviewer 1

This study showed that combining SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing on fecal samples (FS) with upper respiratory tract samples (URTS) increased COVID-19 diagnoses by 31.8%. Hence, the authors claim that adding FS testing may enhance detection in patients with negative URTS results but high clinical suspicion of COVID-19.

The paper is well-written and deserves consideration. However minor revision is required:

- Table 1, detailing patients' characteristics, is missing.

Thank you for this valuable remark. Table 1 is the crosstabulation of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on upper respiratory samples and fecal samples - to which we refer in the text in front of the reference to table 1. As we only had access to age and sex of the included patients, we chose to briefly describe the main patient characteristics (age and sex) in the text (line 144).

- Have the authors used a validated assay to perform RT-PCR testing on fecal samples?

Thank you for this relevant question. The PCR procedure was validated according to the ISO guidelines. We moved the sentence in which we describe this further down in the text to clarify this. (line 117-119)

- The authors should expand the discussion regarding: the capacity of standard laboratories to perform RT-PCR on fecal samples and the potential delayed positivity of RT-PCR on fecal samples compared to upper respiratory tract testing.

Thank you for this justly remark. We added the sentence ‘Finally, although the pre-analytic steps to prepare feces for RT-PCR take little extra time and are simple to perform, they would have to be newly implemented in laboratories not already routinely performing RT-PCR on feces (Clostridioides difficile, gastro-intestinal viruses a.o.).’ to the discussion. (Line 208-211)

Reviewer 2

The authors presented results that confirmed that use of RT_PCR on fecal samples improves overall diagnostic accuracy.

- However, this manuscript should qualify as a short communication going by the small dataset used to arrive at this conclusion. Also, the statement provided under the objective appears ambiguous. Authors should make it clearer.

Thank you for these valuable comment. We recognise the relatively limited number of patients included and added this as a limitation to the discussion section. (line 200)

- Also, the statement provided under the objective appears ambiguous. Authors should make it clearer.

Thank you for this justified remark, we specified the objective. (line 67-69)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-25703_Responsetothereviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Vishwanatha R. A. P. Reddy, Editor

The added diagnostic value of RT-PCR on faeces for the diagnosis of COVID-19

PONE-D-24-25703R1

Dear Dr. Van der Moeren,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Vishwanatha R. A. P. Reddy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vishwanatha R. A. P. Reddy, Editor

PONE-D-24-25703R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Van der Moeren,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Vishwanatha R. A. P. Reddy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .