Peer review report
Title: Burden of HCoV infection in children hospitalized with lower respiratory infection in Cape
Town, South Africa
version: 1
Referee: Jessica Price
institution: University of Witwatersrand
email: Jessica.Price@wits.ac.za
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4020-6850
General assessment
This manuscript it well written, with a clear description of the methods, results and discussion of findings. I think that with minor corrections it would be ready for publication.
Essential revisions that are required to verify the manuscript
Methods:
Study procedure:
-
Please add a reference to the parent study which details the full methods of the parent study.
-
In the third paragraph of this section the authors refer to children young than 18 months with a positive HIV Elisa as being confirmed to have HIV infection. Please double check this - I think it is supposed to be that these children were categorised as HIV- exposed with a confirmatory HIV PCR preformed to determine HIV infection.
Results:
-
The current phrasing of the results suggests that there were no refusals amongst those eligible to participate. Is that accurate?
-
In table 1: HIV status “exposed by negative” – is that children under 18 months or under 6 months? If only those less than 6 months please explained where children between 6-18 months are categorised.
Discussion:
-
16 patients were found to have different human coronaviruses on the IS and NP samples. Please discuss the implications of this finding. Which would you act on? Does this bring into question the validity of the two methods if they are detecting different viruses in the same patient. I would understand if one method detected additional viruses but to have completely different viruses across the two specimens on the same patient is potentially problematic.
-
The authors note that the study group only incudes hospitalised patients and therefore cannot comment on community transmission/burden. However there have been many community-based surveillance programmes to track respiratory virus burdens and transmission patterns in SA (including work by Sharon Cohen, NICD) – it would be helpful to the readers if the authors could review some of these publications and comment on relevant similarities or differences. (most recent of these publications can be found here: https://crdm.nicd.ac.za/projects/phirst-c/)
-
Please review and redraft this paragraph 5 in the discussion – starting “compared to RSV and other respiratory viruses…”. I could not follow what the authors are trying to say in this paragraph.
-
Please add in a limitations/recommendations section.
Conclusion:
- The final paragraph of the conclusion raises some interesting questions but does not fit as part of the conclusion. I suggest moving this to be included as part of the discussion, and more fully discussing the questions raised regarding the value of testing for disease if they do not cause severe disease, nor change treatment strategies.
Other suggestions to improve the manuscript
• Stylistic preferences in the introduction: avoid using “for example” when describing work referenced. Either just add the reference number, or use phrasing such as “as shown by (author name) who found …” etc.
• Methods - Statistics: Typo in the last paragraph – please confirm if Stata 13 or stata 16, and add in the necessary stata package reference.
Decision
Requires revisions: The manuscript contains objective errors or fundamental flaws that must be addressed and/or major revisions are suggested.
Peer review report
Title: Burden of HCoV infection in children hospitalized with lower respiratory infection in Cape
Town, South Africa
version: 1
Referee: SOCORRO P. LUPISAN, MD MSc
email: socorrolupisan@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8916-4380
General assessment
This study reports interesting results, but the description of the methodology needs to be improved.
Essential revisions that are required to verify the manuscript
I provide below some comments/queries to strengthen the methodology, and to increase the clarity in the interpretation of the results.
-
The parent study was not described in the Methods Section. The parent study was disclosed only in the Conclusion: “While this study which is a sub-study restricted itself to the burden of human coronaviruses in children, the main respiratory pathogen under review in the parent study was Bordetella pertussis which only assessed similar risk factors in the same cohort of children. “
-
This sub study is also prospective in nature.
-
Was the Informed Consent Form prepared for the parent study only? Did the sub
study investigator get a signed Informed Consent Form for the collection and
laboratory analysis of samples for this HCoV study?
-
Study Population: In order for the study to reflect the whole season, recruitment was
limited to a maximum of four qualifying participants per day. Did you do stratified and systematic sampling? Please describe your sampling procedures as you have
done.
-
In the Discussion it was written: Although the study was sufficiently powered, it had
low precision and could not demonstrate statistically significant associations. How did you calculate sample size?
Other suggestions to improve the manuscript
I also have some clarifications which need to be addressed:
-
Would you know the other viruses detected? If yes, include in the results as this will
enrich you results.
-
Was ceftriaxone really given prior to admission? At home, as injection?
-
What were the clinical diagnosis of cases with HCoV and no HCoV?
Decision
Requires revisions: The manuscript contains objective errors or fundamental flaws that must be addressed and/or major revisions are suggested.
