Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02288-9 (2022)

Title: Prevalence and genotypes distribution of group A rotavirus among outpatient children
under five years with acute diarrhea in Shanghai, China, 2012-2018
Version: 3 Date: 09 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study “Prevalence and genotypes distribution of group A rotavirus among outpatient
children under five years with acute diarrhea in Shanghai, China, 2012-2018” describes the
distribution of rotavirus infection and genotypes among outpatients’ children attended with
diarrhea in Children’s Hospital of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, 2012-2018. The number
of eligible children in this study resulted in 1814 children, the overall frequency of Rotavirus A
(RVA) infection was 13.6%, with high incidence in children under 24 months of age, the most
common genotypes identified were G9P[8], GxP[8] and G3P[8], dual infection with RVA and
Human calicivirus was observed in 60%. The findings reported in this manuscript fit the aims
and scope of the journal; however, it does not present novel relevant findings regarding many
aspects, regarding genotypes circulation incidence and most affected age group. In addition,
the manuscript demands a revision of the scientific writing in the discussion section namely
specifically the chronologic presentation of the findings according to the results. Below are the
major revisions that need to be addressed.
Abstract
L32-33: do you want to say “were detected and characterized the P and G genotypes…..?”
L35: add frequency/prevalence after RVA
L44: correct to “Our study presented the prevalence and diversity of circulating RVA
genotypes..”
Keywords: Write the keyword according to MeSH and alphabetic order.
Introduction and methods
L69-70: update or combine the numbers using this article from GBD https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30105384/
L72: “……of age, especially…..”
L76: What is the rotavirus vaccination coverage in Shanghai?
L77: group A rotavirus is the most prevalent so I recommend to use “RVA”.
L85-95 until reference 15: Move this paragraph to line 74.
L103: remove “as we all know that”.
L114: replace is by was.
L117: How long the samples take before analysis?
L118: correct to “…..from medical history by trained nurses/or the professional involved”.
Please clarify if the ethical approval used for this study had the aim to collect fecal samples for
RVA diagnosis.
L133: Your primers were specific for which genotypes? Please provide G and P target genotypes.
L155: provide more information about the statistic tests that were performed and the data
management (program in which the data were stored, if before analysis a double-check database
were performed to remove inconsistencies).
Results:
L165: replace classified by distributed
L166-167: Please check if it is correct to use “~” to represent the gap between the ages, I
commonly see “-“.
L172: Replace In the study period by Overall
L174: In the discussion section provide information of why the prevalence increased in 2014.
Figure 1:  I suggest the authors to use lines instead of bars and to considered each line as the
detection rate by age and the axis will be represented by years so that we can follow the detection
rate by age and year
L180: The statistical test was not described in the Methods section
L181: I think that you need more evidence to propose a strong seasonal pattern
L185: replace this by the
L185 add “characterized as” after were and remove “identified as the definite
L187: remove “failed to be genotyped” to replace by were non-typeable…….
L189: for non-typeable G use Gx, where x represents non-typeable
L195: correct this line
L198: please use P[x], for P non-typeable
L203: replace In children aged by In this group
L208: replace predominant popular by most common or most prevalent
L214: Enter is needed in this line
L225: add distribution after genotypes
L230-235: Are you taking into account the vaccine period? If yes make a fair comparison, E.g
your data is regarding the vaccine period so you suppose to compare data from this period.
L236: Standardize the number of decimals for one e.g 40.78% to 40.8%, the same
recommendation for L238
L241-244: This needs attributable analysis of how did you reach this conclusion, which bases
you used? If you are not sure use may/possible please
L259: Replace not obvious by unclear
L291: Replace evolution by epidemiology
L296: please check the supplementary material 2 and 3, of the following article “Rotavirus A
infection in pre- and post-vaccine period: Risk factors, genotypes distribution by vaccination
status and age of children in Nampula Province, Northern Mozambique (2015-2019)” to support
your findings.
L298: consider less than 1 year. Because have more interesting data