Title: Prevalence of bacterial uropathogens and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns among
pregnant women in Eastern Ethiopia: Hospital-based cross-sectional study.
Version: 1 Date: 03 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
Authors of the manuscript presented bacterial profile and antimicrobial susceptibility tests
in uro-pathogens among pregnant  woman which is a common problem in Ethiopia. Data
on antimicrobial resistance profile is demanding in Ethiopia .However, the work has several
limitations that will be benefitted by addressing the following points:
1. Validity of the laboratory work. Who performed the laboratory analysis? Medical
microbiologist or Medical laboratory scientists? If these were the analysts, they deserved to
be an author of this manuscript. I think this is the major task of this study. Authors reported
that intensive training were given for medical laboratory professionals. who gave the training
and for whom? Such types of study should be done by experts or professionals in the field
and they should be part of the manuscript. How antibiotics are selected before the start of the
study? Isolates showed relatively highest rate of sensitivity to the commonly used antibiotics
as compared to other previous reports in Ethiopia.? How the susceptibility profiles interpreted?
Standards employed to interpret the antimicrobial susceptibility testing. How did you elaborate
this?
2. The presentation of results should be to the standard and authors should look how results on
bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance profiles presented in a related publications.
3.  Limitations of the study need to be revised and should be related with this study. E.g urine
dip stick is not a preliminary screening protocol for culture and antimicrobial susceptibility
testing rather it is a routine test for the management of patients in areas where culture is not
performed. So, how it could be a limitations. See the other also and revise it. Relevant limitations
must be also presented in a paragraph rather than listing using bullets. It looks fragmentation
of paragraphs
4. Scientific names of the bacterial species need to be written to the standard throughout the
manuscript. Please follow the binomial rules of writing Genus and species names. Such types
of mistakes are not expected at this stage of a researcher.
5. Typographical and punctuation errors need to be controlled throughout the manuscript
6.  What is ATCC? From where you get the control strains? Look how ATCC written in previous
publications
7. Authors should briefly describe the specimen collection and processing steps and the standards
used
8. S. saprophyticus is a common pathogen in sexually active women but authors of this
manuscript did not isolate it but the age groups are young and pregnant women. Justifications
for this
9.  In the abstract, authors should incorporate the methods used to isolate the bacterial species
and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Statistical tests calculated has to be mentioned.
10. Authors must differentiate sensitivity from that of susceptibility and be consistent all over
the manuscript
11. Rephrase line number 52-54.
12. How eligible pregnant women were identified? Indicate the exact inclusiuon and exclusion
criterias.
13. Rephrase the bullets from 117 to 126. It should be stated in a paragraph. Using bullets is
not recommended in a manuscripts.
14.  Gram is the name of a person who discovered the technique. Therefore, the first letter of
Gram must be written in capital letter.
15. What is ATCC?  Write the full form first and then put the abbreviations in bracket.
16. Control the spelling mistakes for the antibiotic gentamicin all over the manuscript.
17.  Check and control the font size and font type from line 110 to 119.
18. Line from 411 to 425 seems like a result section rather than discussion. These paragraphs
are repetitions of the result section. Therefore, authors should critically revise and discuss these.
The same is true for line 424-428.
19. Revise the limitations of the study based on the above comments
20.  Acknowledgments must be specific and should be focused to the contributors.
21. Written of informed consent taken? or Both?