Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01619-6 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Parasitic infections in Swiss children – are we overtesting?
Version: 
1 
Date: 
25 Nov 2020
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one
or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a
clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your
concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound
contribution? If not, can further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thanks to the authors who have provided reasonable
responses and made significant edits to this paper. The study seeks to
characterize Swiss children suffering from intestinal parasites, in order to
provide more knowledge for the clinician who should be tested. The manuscript
has been significantly improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Pg 3 line 1, 8-14 and elsewhere in the text, please revisit the grammar and or get
assistance from an English Editor.
The definition 'Chronic abdominal pain was defined as a duration of at least 4
weeks' does not make sense. It seems something is missing from the definition.
Pg6 lines 14-16. It is interesting to note that 90% of children testing positive had
a persistence symptoms. Please clarify in the text whether these gastrointestinal
symptoms and which symptoms persisted for 14 days. 
Pg 6 Line 23, Please review as there seems to be something missing from the
sentence '...Netherlands (8) with a prevalence of 5.6 % respectively 20% of
Blastocystis...'
Pg 7: The text in lines 19-21 is a repetition of what is already discussed in line 8-
10.
Pg 7, line 23: How does 'stool tests performed for viral and/or bacterial
infections,...' contribute to a lower sensitivity? This statement is unclear. Please
expand.
Pg 7, line 23: How does 'stool tests performed for viral and/or bacterial
infections,...' contribute to a lower sensitivity? This statement is unclear. Please
expand.
Pg 8: The sentence starting at line 19 and ends in line 1 on the following page is
too long. This makes it difficult to follow th train of thought here. I suggest
breaking the sentence into three.
Pg 9, lines 1-2: The argument here that only children with a clinical suspicion
for parasitic infection is contradictory to your comments. The information
provided in the text and Table 1 (previously Table 2) 
indicated that more than
45% of those positive and >72% of those negative had 
clinical indications for
testing for parasitic infections. 
There is no Table 2 in this manuscript, please edit the text accordingly.
Pg 11, line 4. The sentence structure needs attention.
Pg 11, line 8-10: The conclusion in this sentence is misleading. The study has
not indicated where the migrants came from. So to conclude that infection in
migrants and less so in Swiss children would require further clarification of these
migrants originated from the places indicated in the preceding sentences that are
described as having higher incidence of parasitic infections.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
As outlined above
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you
will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be
able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help
editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes