Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us

RSS

Latest comments

Previous reports on effect of prenatal treatment on diagnosis in congenital toxoplasmosis (Jorge Gomez- Marin, 01 July 2014)

The interesting report of Rodrigues et al. fail to cite previous reports on this topic. We recently reported the effect of spyramicin on diagnostic assays such as IgM, PCR and avidity in congenitally infected newborns by Toxoplasma [1]. The Colombian multicentric newborn study performed in 2010 take into account this phenomena [2], that should be known by pediatricians when they want to discard congenital toxoplasmosis in newborns whose mothers received prenatal... read full comment

Comment on: Rodrigues et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 14:349

errata corrige (Alessia Stival, 27 June 2014)

In the paragraph titled 'Types of pertussis vaccines currently available in Western countries' (line 15 of the Discussion) the word 'Bartonella' is a mistake. The correct sentence is 'They may include three antigens from purified Bordetella pertussis bacteria: pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) and pertactin (PRN)'.       read full comment

Comment on: Chiappini et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13:151

Post-erratum (Luisa Sorli, 12 June 2014)

Footnote: This publication is part of the PhD Program of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona by Luisa Sorli The correct affiliation of Luisa Sorli is: Infectious Diseases Service, Parc de Salut Mar, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Passeig Marítim 25-29, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain read full comment

Comment on: Sorlí et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13:380

Streptococcus pyogenes is sensitive to penicillin (Magnus Rasmussen, 20 March 2014)

We read with interest this report describing the bacterial isolates and their resistance in a laboratory in Gabon. We were very surprised that six isolates of Streptococcus pyogenes were reported as non-susceptible to penicillin. The universal susceptibility of S. pyogenes to penicillin is a dogma in bacteriology and infection medicine. Development of resistance to penicillin by this bacterium would have substantial negative consequences for the treatment of many types of streptococcal... read full comment

Comment on: Alabi et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13:455

sample size calculation (NSENDA NKONGOLO JONAS, 07 March 2014)

Sir;

I read with interest the article published in your journal with the title "Performance of Paracheck-Pf ™, SD Bioline Malaria Ag-Pf and SD Bioline malaria Ag-Pf/pan for diagnosis of falciparum malaria in the Central African Republic . "

However I make a few comments:

  • which formula is used for the  sample size calculation.
  • the number of samples in each slice of parasitemia for each test is not reported.
  • a table comparing the pairwise tests would be more appropriate to mount a significant difference or not according to the threshold.
From this comments, I thing the conclusion can be reconsidered.

Regards read full comment

Comment on: Djallé et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 14:109

It is a matter of credibility - Reply to the comments by Macinga and Edmonds (Guenter Kampf, 30 January 2014)

We would like to respond to the comments by Macinga and Edmonds [1], whose main conclusion appears to be that our recent study concerning alcohol-based hand rub volumes [2] only contributed... read full comment

Comment on: Kampf et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13:472

Evaluation of congential toxoplasmosis control programs (Jorge Gomez- Marin, 29 January 2014)

The work by Avelino et al. describes the results of evaluation for a control program for congenital toxoplasmosis in Goiania (Brazil). Is difficult to understand some sentences and some of them seem incomplete. Besides language problems, important bias hampers to arrive to conclusions as stated by... read full comment

Comment on: Avelino et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 14:33

Misrepresentation of US FDA testing criteria and misunderstanding of the efficacy requirements (David Macinga, 09 January 2014)

We read with interest the recent publication by Kampf et al. [1] which intends to provide guidance on a critical topic: the influence of application volume on hand coverage and antimicrobial efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR). Kampf et al. compare the in-vivo efficacies of three commercial ABHR products, two of which are tested at an application volume of 1.1 ml, and the third at 2 ml. Although their experimental observations are not unexpected, the authors misrepresent the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) test methodology and efficacy requirements and apply a double standard in their representation of “manufacturer’s recommended” application volumes.  As a result, the authors arrive at unfounded conclusions. We shall, here... read full comment

Comment on: Kampf et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13:472

Error in authors' information (Sebastien Poulin, 13 February 2013)

Anik St-Denis is from Department of Microbiology and Immunology and Centre de recherche du CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,

not from

Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. read full comment

Comment on: Poulin et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 13:24

Response to Susan van den Hof (Assel Terlikbayeva, 24 January 2013)

1) We worked with data supplied to us from the Kazakh National TB Control Program and the National Institute of Geography. We did not generate the data ourselves, and we cannot attest to the accuracy of how it was collected and how accurate it is. As was pointed out in your comment the "actual coverage and reporting of results has not been and still is not complete", and thus, to a certain extent the data are estimates to a greater degree than one might prefer in an ideal circumstance. Thus, any statements about trends in the overall incidence of TB and particularly drug resistant TB have to be taken with a degree of uncertainty. it is possible that the increase in MDR cases reported in the data represents an increase in detection without a true increase in the number of new cases--time... read full comment

Comment on: Terlikbayeva et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 12:262

A word of caution: one should take into account the coverage of drug susceptibility testing when interpreting results (Susan van den Hof, 16 January 2013)

We very much welcome the publication of results on tuberculosis epidemiology from Kazakhstan in BMC Infectious Diseases by researchers from within the country. It is important that insights from Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries are shared with the international, non Russian speaking, community.... read full comment

Comment on: Terlikbayeva et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 12:262

Response to Dr. Marek Smieja, (Lars Öhrmalm, 10 December 2012)

Dr. Marek Smieja,

Thank you for your valuable comments!

I agree that the depth is an important variable ¿ maybe the most important? However, we wanted to evaluate the possibility of using a depth of 1-1.5 cm in order to minimize the risk of discomfort. Although far from the probable site of replication, the sensitivity of real-time PCR could have compensated for that. We found NPA significantly superior to the fNS in collecting epithelial cells and discussed that this could be the reason for the difference (although not statistically significant) in viral detection between the methods. Once again, thank you for your comments and recommendations!

Kind regards,
Lars Öhrmalm, MD PhD
Karolinska Institutet/Karolinska University Hospital read full comment

Comment on: Öhrmalm et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 10:340

Transmission of tuberculosis from patients with drug resistant disease: type of contact, IPT and smear status of source cases matter. (Eduardo Hernandez-Garduno, 10 December 2012)

This study showed higher rates of TST positivity and disease in close contacts exposed to TB cases with multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) as compared to contacts exposed to drug-sensitive cases. Exposure to isoniazid mono-resistance (HMR-TB) cases was associated with TST positivity only. However there are three major limitations to consider in this study: 1) The study included two types of close contacts: household contacts i.e. those sharing the same house with the source case and type 1 i.e. contacts sharing airspace with the source case for >4 hours per week. The exact time of exposure and closeness to the source case were not ascertained in the study because this information is not routinely captured in the BCCDC TB registry. According to these definitions it is likely that the... read full comment

Comment on: Johnston et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 12:266

Typing error in the abstract (Ursula Hoffmann, 22 October 2012)

Abstract, methods section, 3rd sentence: Corrected sentence: "Additionally, supernatants of these adipocytes as well as serum levels of leptin (!) were measured in blood of 104 severe septic patients by ELISA-method." read full comment

Comment on: Behnes et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 12:217

Post-publication Correction (Robert Dourmashkin, 26 September 2012)

In our article on encephalitis lethargica, in Tables 1 and 2, one of the control specimens was incorrectly labelled. The specimen labelled #8854127 should read "885427". read full comment

Comment on: Dourmashkin et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 12:136

Helminth Egg Detection and Immunological Data (Miles Markus, 16 July 2012)

The authors are to be congratulated on their interpretation of the results of this study. Around the time that Dr John Fincham (now retired) co-conceived the investigation, he suggested that where helminthiasis is endemic, egg negative status does not necessarily reflect the immunological situation which is relevant to co-infection. This was largely a theoretical idea. He then reported South African research results that support the hypothesis [1]. They showed that people with no detectable Ascaris eggs in faeces were frequently seropositive for this helminth. In addition, the whole subject was elaborated upon elsewhere [2]. It is good to see that the article by Mkhize-Kwitshana et al. reflects the validity of the concept. The attention of readers of BMC Infectious Diseases is drawn to the... read full comment

Comment on: Mkhize-Kwitshana et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 11:273

Correction: Ref #17 PLoS ONE 2011 (not 2001) (Jiun-Hau Huang, 28 June 2012)

Dear... read full comment

Comment on: Neupane et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 12:76

Correction (Peter Russo, 12 January 2012)

Figure 4B is the correct photograph of the left eye but, as shown, the image is flipped left to right. read full comment

Comment on: Gao et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 11:260

Fosfomycin therapy for difficult-to-treat MRSA infection (Amorn Leelarasamee, 03 November 2011)

Dear Sir,
I would like to congratulate the authors for reporting this useful and stimulating case and the journal for publishing the case report.1 I and some ID physicians in Thailand have been using fosfomycin for quite long time to treat infections due to MRSA.
My comment is that the high impact-factor journal does not mention the use of fosfomycin for MRSA infection even if the infection due to MRSA fails to respond to vancomycin or daptomycin.2,3 So the report of this case provides an useful option to help global physicians in solving the problem of difficult-to-treat MRSA infections.
My questions for this case are the method of intravenous administration of fosfomycin 6 gm every 6 hours for 56 days and its adverse reaction. My experience with this high daily dose... read full comment

Comment on: Chen et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 11:152

Author's Reply (Anne Fiquet, 11 August 2011)

We are grateful to Valter Torri for sharing with us his comments on the conclusive statement of our article and therefore giving us the opportunity to reply.

Before discussing the essence of the comment, we would like to highlight that the results of the study were reported with openness and transparency. This includes for example, making a clear distinction between primary and secondary endpoints and between pre-specified and post-hoc analyses. This is done with the willingness that each reader can fully understand the study results, so did Valter Torri.

The method for controlling type I error rate (Union-Intersection [UI] method) is explained in the protocol which fully complies with the ICH E9 guideline. This is translated in the article by the requirement (repeated... read full comment

Comment on: Van Damme et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 10:134

minor errors in Table 1 (Tsung Chain Chang, 13 June 2011)

1. Table 1, at the line Chaetomium cochlioides, Total no. of strains
should be 3, not 7.



2. Table 1, at the bottom line Total strains, Total no. of strains
should be 73, not 77.

read full comment

Comment on: Hung et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 11:91

Correction to randomization results (Gregory Lucas, 13 June 2011)

In Figure 1 and in the text (page 4) we incorrectly indicated that 56 subjects were randomly assigned to DAART and 51 to SAT. The correct numbers are 55 and 52 randomly assigned to DAART and SAT, respectively. read full comment

Comment on: Mullen et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 11:45

figure 2 (Firdaus Hamid, 23 May 2011)

Dear Editor of BMC Infectious Diseases and Reader.

We found some minor mistakes in figure 2:
1. In the box of participants one part is missing 1058 households, should be 1058 households (HH).
2. In the box of randomization it was stated HH, it should be HH RANDOMIZATION.

Thank you,

Best regards,
Firdaus Hamid read full comment

Comment on: Hamid et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 11:83

Not all Nasal Swabs Are Equivalent: Nasal Anterior Nares Swabs and Nasal Mid-Turbinate Swabs (Marek Smieja, 03 March 2011)

I congratulate Dr. Ohrmalm and colleagues for this study comparing nasal swabs with nasopharyngeal aspirates. I share their enthusiasm for examining pre-analytic aspects of specimen collection to optimize diagnostic yield while maintaining patient comfort and staff biosafety.

As an infectious diseases physician, microbiologist and researcher who has invested considerable time and effort in examining nasal-based diagnostics, I would like to point out potential limitations to the current study:

1. The anatomical site of investigation for the “nasal swab” was the anterior nares, 1.0-1.5 cm into the nose, using a swab designed for sampling this site for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We have designed a nasal “mid-... read full comment

Comment on: Öhrmalm et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 10:340

The 25(OH)D assay used may have overestimated levels for smokers (William B. Grant, 13 January 2011)

Interesting results. However, there may be an error in the findings. As noted in the paper:
"About 78% of men with TB were smokers, and this prevalence was significantly higher than in controls
(61%, P = 0.007)."

A recent paper reported that the serum 25(OH)D assay used, ELICA, found higher values for smokers than nonsmokers:
"In the population-based study, the serum levels of 25(OH)D using the ECLIA method were 51.9, 53.2 and 72.0 nmol/l in never, former and current smokers (P<0.01). In the validation study, the serum concentration of 25(OH)D was 10.3 nmol/l higher in smokers than in non-smokers (P<0.01) using the ECLIA (Roche), while non-significantly lower serum levels of 25(OH)D were found in smokers using the other five methods." [Grimnes et al.... read full comment

Comment on: Ho-Pham et al. BMC Infectious Diseases, 10:306