Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Nov 30;18(11):e0295170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295170

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study

Debasu Damtie 1,2,*, Aschalew Gelaw 3, Yitayih Wondimeneh 3, Yetemwork Aleka 1, Zewdu Siyoum Tarekegn 4, Ulrich Sack 5, Anastasia N Vlasova 6,7,#, Belay Tessema 3,5,#
Editor: Enoch Aninagyei8
PMCID: PMC10688889  PMID: 38033097

Abstract

Rotavirus is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality due to acute gastroenteritis among children under five years globally. Early diagnosis of rotavirus infection minimizes its spread and helps to determine the appropriate management of diarrhea. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit for the diagnosis of rotavirus infection among diarrheic children under five years in Ethiopian healthcare settings. A total of 537 children with diarrhea were enrolled from three referral hospitals in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. The samples were tested using one-step RT-PCR and EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (KTR-917, Epitope Diagnostics, San Diego USA) in parallel. Diagnostic performance of the rapid test kit was evaluated using the one-step RT-PCR as a gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the rapid test kit were determined. Moreover, the agreement of the rapid test kit with one step RT-PCR was determined by kappa statistics and receiver operators’ curve (ROC) analysis was done to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy of the rapid test kit. Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit has shown a sensitivity of 75.5% and specificity of 98.2%. The kit was also found to have 89.9% and 95.0% positive and negative predictive values, respectively. The Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit has shown a substantial agreement (78.7%, p = 0.0001) with one-step RT-PCR. The overall accuracy of the Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit was excellent with the area under the ROC curve of 86.9% (95% CI = 81.6, 92.1%) (p = .0001). Thus, Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test is a sensitive, specific, user-friendly, rapid, and equipment-free option to be used at points of care in Ethiopian health care settings where resource is limited precluding the use of one step RT-PCR. Furthermore, the kit could be used in the evaluation and monitoring of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness in the aforementioned settings.

Introduction

Rotavirus is the leading cause of severe gastroenteritis among infants and under-five children worldwide. Globally, rotavirus infection was the leading cause of diarrheal deaths, accounting for 19.11% of deaths from diarrhea in 2019 [1]. It is estimated that more than 80% of all rotavirus-related deaths occur in resource-limited countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa [2]. In Ethiopia, rotavirus results in over 28,000 deaths of among under-five children each year accounting for 6% of all rotavirus (RV) deaths globally [3, 4]. Early diagnosis of rotavirus infection minimizes its spread, prevents the unnecessary use of antibiotics, and helps to determine the appropriate treatment [5]. The etiological diagnosis of rotavirus diarrhea requires laboratory confirmation. However, in settings where laboratory tests for rotavirus are not easily accessible, healthcare workers often depend on the analysis of clinical signs and more time-consuming laboratory tests to rule out bacterial causes of diarrhea [6]. The mainstay of management of rotavirus-associated diarrhea is rapid intravenous or oral rehydration therapy [7, 8]. Empirical use of antibiotics for diarrhea treatment without proper identification of the etiological agent is common in resource limited healthcare settings [9].

Clinically, rotavirus gastroenteritis is presented with profuse diarrhea, mild fever, and vomiting, leading to mild-to-severe dehydration [10, 11]. The clinical manifestations of rotavirus diarrhea alone are not sufficiently distinctive to establish diagnosis because of the nonspecific nature of the clinical presentation. Considering the severity of rotavirus diarrhea in children, it is desirable to evaluate and introduce rapid, easy, and cost-effective methods for the detection of rotavirus infection in children. Various laboratory techniques such as electron microscopy, antigen detection immunoassays, molecular assays, and virus isolation can be used to diagnose rotavirus acute gastroenteritis. Electron microscopy (EM) [12] has been used for the diagnosis of rotavirus gastroenteritis since its discovery. However, EM is labor intensive, expensive, requires extensive training and has low sensitivity [13]. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has been widely used and its performance is considered satisfactory compared to electron microscopic results but requires specific reagents and equipment. Later, molecular techniques such as reverse transcription—polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) replaced other diagnostic tests with the advantage of higher sensitivity and specificity [14]. Although RT-PCR is highly sensitive and specific result, it is labor intensive, costly, requires expertise and hence is not suited for routine laboratory diagnosis particularly in resource-limited settings like Ethiopia. Hence, the use of RT-PCR is limited to research laboratories to detect the viral genome [15, 16].

Currently, several simple and rapid immunochromatographic test kits are commercially available for detection of rotaviruses in stool samples [17, 18]. Most of these tests have high sensitivity and specificity ranging from 90% to 95% [19]. Despite the availability of different platforms for the diagnosis of acute rotavirus gastroenteritis, no single diagnostic tool has been evaluated and approved for use in Ethiopian health care settings. Hence, the current study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit for rotavirus A infection in Ethiopia using one-step RT-PCR as a gold standard.

Materials and methods

Study design and settings

A multi-center cross-sectional study design was employed involving three referral hospitals (University of Gondar, l, Felege Hiwot and Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospitals) in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. The minimum sample size required for the study was determined using single population proportion formula [20].

n=(Zα/2)2P(1P)d2

Where n = sample size required; Zα/2 = is the critical value of the normal distribution at α/2 for a 95% confidence level, α is 0.05 and the critical value is 1.96, P = proportion of rotavirus among under five children with acute gastroenteritis (25%) [21], and d = margin of error (4%). Considering 15% non-response rate, a total of 537 under-five children with diarrhea were enrolled into the study and stool samples were collected from each study participant between February 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022. Socio-demographic and clinical data of the study participants were collected by trained nurses using semi-structured questionnaires.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All under-five children with acute gastroenteritis visiting the pediatrics departments of the three referral hospitals during the study period were included in the study. Under-five children with acute gastroenteritis who were not able to produce stool during sample collection or/and those who have received rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix) within two weeks of sample collection were excluded from the study.

Sample collection, transport, and storage

For solid or formed stool 2g of stool was collected while in diarrheic or watery stool, 2ml of stool sample was collected from each under-five diarrheic children in a stool cup and immediately stored in a 2ml cryovial at -20°C onsite until transported by a cold box to Immunology and Molecular Biology Laboratory at the School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, University of Gondar for laboratory analyses. The samples were then stored at -80°C at the Immunology and Molecular Biology Laboratory until the laboratory assays were done.

Rapid fecal rotavirus antigen test

All samples stored at -80°C were tested for the presence of Rotavirus A antigen using EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (KTR-917, Epitope Diagnostics, San Diego USA) that targets viral protein 6 (VP6) antigen of rotavirus A according to the manufacturer’s instruction [22]. In brief, the stool samples were thawed at room temperature and briefly vortexed to uniformly suspend the sample before testing. A small amount of the sample was added to the sampling tube using a sampling lid (the amount that stuck to the sampling lid when inserted 2 times in the sample container) or pipet (3 drops) for solid and liquid samples, respectively. The tube content was then mixed to obtain liquid suspension of the stool sample. After that, the tube was left for ~1 minute to let the debris sediment, the bottom of the test strip was placed into the suspension in a vertical position, and results were read and interpreted within 10 minutes. The presence of red line in both test and control areas is interpreted as positive; the presence of red line only in the control area is interpreted as negative; and the absence of red line in the control area regardless of the test area is considered as invalid test result (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Rotavirus antigen testing procedure using EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit [23].

Fig 1

One-step RT-PCR test for rotavirus detection

Total RNA was extracted using QIAamp Mini spin viral RNA extraction kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany, Cat# 52906). RT-PCR was conducted using iTaq Universal SYBR Green One-Step Kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, California, United States‎, Cat # 1725151) and HRV NSP3F-5’-ACCATCTACACATGACCCTC-3’ and HRV NSP3R-5’-GGTCACATAACGCCCC-3’ primers targeting non-structural protein 3 (NSP3) gene of rotavirus A. A total of 18 μl of one-step RT-PCR master mix containing nuclease free water (4.75 μl), (2x) iTaq Universal SYBR Green reaction mix (10 μl), iScriptRT enzyme (0.25 μl), HRV NSP3F primer 10 μM (1.5 μl), and HRV NSP3R primer 10 μM (1.5 μl) was added to each well in a PCR plate. Then, 2 μl of RNA extracted from stool samples was added to each sample-well bringing the total volume to 20 μl. Additionally, 2 μl of positive control, negative extraction control and nuclease free water was added to the respective control wells, containing 18 μl of RT-PCR master mix. RT-PCR settings included a hold step at 50°C for 30 minutes for reverse transcription followed by another hold at 95°C for 10 minutes for initial denaturation and 40 cycles of denaturation at 94°C, annealing at 56°C and extension at 72°C for 30 seconds each. Melting curve analysis was conducted at the end of the RT-PCR program (denaturation at 95°C, annealing 56°C and denaturation at 95°C for 15 seconds each) to ensure the absence of non-specific amplification products including primer-dimers. A specific amplification with cycle threshold (CT) value of less than 40 was considered positive for rotavirus A infection [24, 25].

Data entry and analysis

The sociodemographic, clinical and laboratory data were entered into SPSS version 29 statistical software for data analysis. The diagnostic performance of the EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit was evaluated against the one-step RT-PCR. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall test accuracy of the rapid test kit with a 95% confidence interval was calculated. Moreover, the kappa agreement of the two methods was determined. According to Cohen’s classification, the kappa value ≤ 0 indicates no agreement, 0.01–0.20 as none to slight agreement, 0.21–0.40 as fair agreement, 0.41–0.60 as moderate agreement, 0.61–0.80 as substantial agreement, and 0.81–1.00 as almost perfect agreement [26]. The receiver operators’ curve (ROC) analysis was done and area under the ROC curve (AUC) was determined to assess the overall performance of the test in terms of discriminating rotavirus-infected and noninfected children accurately. The AUC of 0.5 suggests as no discrimination, 0.7–0.8 is considered as acceptable, 0.8–0.9 is considered as excellent and above 0.9 is considered as outstanding [27].

Ethical considerations

The protocol was approved by the University of Gondar Institutional Review Board (IRB) (R. No. V/P/RCS/05/538/2020). Moreover, hospitals involved in this study were communicated through written letters obtained from the University of Gondar research and publication office (RPO). Written informed consent was obtained from the parents/guardians of children before enrolment to the study. Each study subject/parent/guardian was informed about the objectives of the study and their rights to withdraw from the study at any time. Data taken from study subjects were numerically coded, and the test results were used only for the study purpose and kept securely stored throughout the study period and thereafter. Authors had no access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection.

Results

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics

A total of 537 children with diarrhea were enrolled in the study. The mean age of the study participants was 25.5±15.2 months. The majority (97.6%) of the study participants were immunized against rotavirus (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of study participants, Ethiopia, 2022.

Variables Number of samples (%) Rotavirus RT-PCR Positive (%) Rapid antigen test positive (%)
N = 537 N = 94 N = 79
Age in months (mean ± SD) 25.5±15.2
Sex
    Male 308 (57.4) 50 (53.2) 38 (48.1)
    Female 229 (42.6) 44 (46.8) 41 (51.9)
Residence
    Urban 494 (92) 89 (91.8) 74 (93.7)
    Rural 43 (8) 5 (8.2) 5 (6.3)
Immunization
    Yes 524 (97.6) 93 (98.9) 79 (100)
    No 13 (2.4) 1 (1.1) -
Admission status
    Yes 41 (7.6) 10 (10.6) 10 (12.7)
    No 496 (92.4) 84 (89.4) 69 (87.3)
Dehydration status
    No dehydration 496 (92.4) 84 (89.4) 69 (87.3)
    Some dehydration 40 (7.4) 10 (10.6) 10 (12.7)
    Severe dehydration 1 (0.2) - -
Intestinal Parasitosis
Positive 93 (17.3) 12 (12.8) 10 (12.7)
    Negative 444 (82.7) 82 (87.2) 69 (87.3)

SD = Standard deviation; RT-PCR = Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction; N = Number

Overall test positivity rate and diagnostic performance characteristics

Among the study participants, 79 (14.71%) and 94 (17.5%) were positive for rotavirus with the rapid antigen test and One-step RT-PCR, respectively. The rapid fecal rotavirus antigen test kit is 75.53% (95% CI = 71.9–79.2) sensitive, 98.19% (95% CI = 97.1–99.3) specific with a positive and negative predictive value of 89.9% (95% CI = 87.3–92.4) and 95% (95% CI = 93.1–96.3), respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. The diagnostic performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit, Ethiopia, 2022.

Test performance parameter Performance (%) 95% CI
Sensitivity 75.5 71.9–79.2
Specificity 98.2 97.1–99.3
Positive predictive value 89.9 87.3–92.4
Negative predictive value 95.0 93.1–96.8
Prevalence 17.5 14.3–20.7

CI = confidence interval

Five percent (23/458) and 10.12% (8/79) of the results generated by the kit were false-negative and false-positive, respectively (Table 3). The kapa agreement of the rapid fecal rotavirus antigen test kit with one-step RT-PCR was 78.7% (p = 0.0001).

Table 3. Cross-tabulation for EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit and one step RT-PCR test results, Ethiopia, 2022.

Rapid fecal rotavirus A Ag-Test One-step RT-PCR
Positive Negative Total
Positive 71 8 79
Negative 23 435 458
Total 94 443 537

RT-PCR = Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, Ag = Antigen

Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) curve analysis

The overall accuracy of the rapid rotavirus antigen test kit is excellent with the area under the ROC curve of 86.9% (95% CI = 81.6, 92.1%) (p = 0.0001) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit.

Fig 2

The x-axis represents false positive rate (1 –specificity) and y-axis represents true positive rate (sensitivity). The diagonal blue line represents random classification or reference line. Thus, ROC curve is a plot of a test’s sensitivity vs. (1-specificity) as well. The closer the point on the ROC curve to the ideal coordinate, the more accurate the test is. The closer the points on the ROC curve to the diagonal, the less accurate the test is. The AUC measures the entire two-dimensional area underneath the entire ROC curve from (0,0) to (1,1). AUC = 0.5 represents a random classifier while AUC = 1.0 represents a perfect classifier.

Discussion

Early diagnosis and appropriate management of rotavirus infection in health care facilities and during outbreaks in communities are especially important in sub-Saharan African countries where rotavirus is still the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis and high mortality among under-five children [28]. Additionally, early diagnosis of rotavirus infection with an effective point of care test (POCT) may reduce improper antibiotic use and prevent further development of antibiotic-resistant organisms [5, 29].

In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit against one-step RT-PCR. In our study, the rapid fecal antigen test kit was found to have a sensitivity of 75.5% and a specificity of 98.2% with 23/458 (5%) false-negative and 8/79(10.12%) false-positive results. These are considered as acceptable performance characteristics in terms of identifying children with the disease as positive and children without the disease as negative, respectively [30]. As there are no previous studies evaluating the performance of the rapid test kit used in the current study, we compared our findings with the test performance data of other rapid rotavirus test kits. A study done in Lebanon reported wide variability in sensitivity and specificity among different rapid rotavirus diagnostic kits. According to the Lebanon study, the best performing kit was SD Bioline® with a sensitivity of 95.08% and a specificity of 86.62% and the poorly performing kit was Acon® with a sensitivity of 52.3% and specificity of 10.9% [18].

On the other hand, our study findings are consistent with a study conducted to compare the performance of 3 commercially available enzyme immunoassay kits: Premier™ Rotaclone®, ProSpecT™, and RIDASCREEN® for rotavirus diagnostics. The sensitivity of the kits ranged from 75% to 82.1% while the specificity was 100% for all the evaluated kits [31]. Another study reported that VIKIA® Rota-Adeno rapid test kit had high specificity (91.6%) but low sensitivity (44.8%) of rotavirus detection in clinical settings [32]. A study conducted in refugee camps on the border between Kenya and Somalia reported comparable findings of sensitivity (83.1%) and specificity (99.3%) for ImmunoCard STAT!® Rapid Diagnostic Test kit [33].

In our study, the kit has also shown 89.87% positive predictive value (PPV) and 94.98% negative predictive value (NPV) which makes this kit a great option to be used as a point of care test kit to quickly diagnose rotavirus infections. A similar finding was reported form the Lebanese study for SD Bioline® with PPV of 95.08% and NPV of 86.62%. However, this same Lebanese study reported 40.96% PPV and 16.21% NPV for Acon® RDT [18]. High positive (98.3%) and negative (92.1%) predictive values were reported from a study conducted at a refugee camp for ImmunoCard STAT!® Rapid Diagnostic Test kit [33]. The variability in the diagnostic performance of the rapid test kits may result from the inherent variation associated with the use of different target antigens by manufacturing companies of the different test kits. Moreover, some studies use one-step RT-PCR as a gold standard as we did while others such as the study in Kenya and Somalia (evaluating ImmunoCard STAT! ® Rapid Diagnostic Test kit) have used ELISA as a reference test unlike our study.

The kapa agreement of the rapid fecal rotavirus antigen test kit with one step RT-PCR was 78.7% representing a substantial agreement between the two methods [26, 34]. The area under the ROC curve (AUR) of the evaluated kit was 86.9% (95% CI = 81.6, 92.1%), which is interpreted as excellent overall accuracy of the test kit [27].

Results were generated and interpreted within 10 minutes, which would provide a rapid point of care test result highly desired for children with acute gastroenteritis. The kit does not require proprietary equipment to perform the test which makes it easily applicable in the resource limited settings like in Ethiopia. The test kit requires a cold box for transportation and a refrigerator for storage at a temperature of 2–8°C. This is achievable in the primary health care settings of Ethiopia where refrigerators are dedicated to store vaccines and other biologicals that require refrigeration for their storage. Thus, the EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit is a promising approach to overcoming practical challenges such as the need to batch samples, the long turnaround time, and the high costs associated with rotavirus testing using one step RT-PCR methods. This kit fulfils most of the WHO criteria for POCT summarized in its acronym ASSURED (Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-Friendly, Rapid, Equipment-Free, Delivered) [35, 36]. Hence, it can be used as point-of-care rotavirus diagnostic tool with good utility in Ethiopian health care settings and similar resource-limited or remote settings.

Limitations of the study

The study used only one kit for evaluation. However, it would have been good to include multiple rapid rotavirus test kits for evaluation so that the best performing kit can be considered for use in resource limited settings.

Conclusions and recommendation

The EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (KTR-917, Epitope Diagnostics, San Diego USA) is a sensitive, specific, user-friendly, rapid, and equipment-free option to be used as a POCT in Ethiopian healthcare settings where resource is limited to do one-step RT-PCR. Furthermore, the kit could be used in the evaluation and monitoring of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness in such settings. Therefore, we recommend the Ministry of Health of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Public Health Institute to consider the kit for the diagnosis of rotavirus infection among under-five children in Ethiopian healthcare system. We would also like to recommend further diagnostic performance evaluation study comparing several commercially available rapid rotavirus test kits to broaden options in terms of cost and availability.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the University of Gondar, the Ohio State University and NIH-Fogarty international center for their support. We are also grateful to the data and sample collectors, and study participants.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the University of Gondar internal competitive grant awarded in 2020 (R.No. R/T/T/C/E/C/D/03/2013). Debasu Damtie was supported by Sustainable One Health Research Training Capacity (OHEART): Molecular epidemiology of zoonotic foodborne and waterborne pathogens in Eastern Africa, funded by the NIH Fogarty International Center (D43TW008650), through the Global One Health initiative (GOHi). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Du Y, Chen C, Zhang X, Yan D, Jiang D, Liu X, et al. Global burden and trends of rotavirus infection-associated deaths from 1990 to 2019: An observational trend study. Virology Journal. 2022;19(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12985-022-01898-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Parashar UD, Burton A, Lanata C, Boschi-Pinto C, Shibuya K, Steele D, et al. Global mortality associated with rotavirus disease among children in 2004. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2009;200(Supplement_1):S9–S15. doi: 10.1086/605025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tate JE, Burton AH, Boschi-Pinto C, Steele AD, Duque J, Parashar UD. 2008 estimate of worldwide rotavirus-associated mortality in children younger than 5 years before the introduction of universal rotavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2012;12(2):136–41. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70253-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Steele AD, Armah GE, Mwenda JM, Kirkwood CD. The Full Impact of Rotavirus Vaccines in Africa Has Yet to Be Realized. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2023;76(Supplement_1):S1–S4. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.van Houten CB, de Groot JA, Klein A, Srugo I, Chistyakov I, de Waal W, et al. A host-protein based assay to differentiate between bacterial and viral infections in preschool children (OPPORTUNITY): a double-blind, multicentre, validation study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2017;17(4):431–40. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30519-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.WHO. Rotavirus vaccines: WHO position paper–July 2021–Vaccins antirotavirus: note de synthèse de l’OMS–Juillet 2021. Weekly Epidemiological Record = Relevé épidémiologique hebdomadaire. 2021;96(28):301–219. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dawson T, Ratcliffe A, Onyon C. Gastroenteritis. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.WHO. The treatment of diarrhoea: a manual for physicians and other senior health workers. World Health Organization; 2005. Report No.: 9241593180. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Risk R, Naismith H, Burnett A, Moore SE, Cham M, Unger S. Rational prescribing in paediatrics in a resource-limited setting. Archives of disease in childhood. 2013;98(7):503–9. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2012-302987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mesa F, Lajo A, Alonso F, Borque C, Segurado E, Ladrón de Guevara C. Rotavirus infection: clinical characteristics and time of elimination of the rotavirus antigen in the feces. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia Clinica. 1996;14(2):106–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bernstein DI. Rotavirus overview. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2009;28(3):S50–S3. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181967bee [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Flewett T, Bryden A, Davies H. Virus particles in gastroenteritis. Virus particles in gastroenteritis. 1973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Soltan MA, Tsai Y-L, Lee P-YA, Tsai C-F, Chang H-FG, Wang H-TT, et al. Comparison of electron microscopy, ELISA, real time RT-PCR and insulated isothermal RT-PCR for the detection of Rotavirus group A (RVA) in feces of different animal species. Journal of virological methods. 2016;235:99–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2016.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Slovis N, Elam J, Estrada M, Leutenegger C. Infectious agents associated with diarrhoea in neonatal foals in central K entucky: A comprehensive molecular study. Equine Veterinary Journal. 2014;46(3):311–6. doi: 10.1111/evj.12119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Iturriza-Gómara M, Kang G, Gray J. Rotavirus genotyping: keeping up with an evolving population of human rotaviruses. Journal of clinical virology. 2004;31(4):259–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2004.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Malik YS, Sharma K, Kumar N, Shivachandra SB, Rawat V, Rakholia R, et al. Rapid detection of human rotavirus using NSP4 gene specific reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay. Indian Journal of Virology. 2013;24:265–71. doi: 10.1007/s13337-013-0147-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pereira LA, Raboni SM, Nogueira MB, Vidal LR, Almeida SMd, Debur MC et al. Rotavirus infection in a tertiary hospital: laboratory diagnosis and impact of immunization on pediatric hospitalization. Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2011;15:215–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shaker R, Abdalrahman E, Ali Z, Reslan L, Harastani H, Haidar A, et al. Wide Variability in the Sensitivity and Specificity of Rotavirus Immunoassay Diagnostic Kits in Practice. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2021;15(11):1701–7. doi: 10.3855/jidc.11922 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Thomas E, Puterman M, Kawano E, Curran M. Evaluation of seven immunoassays for detection of rotavirus in pediatric stool samples. Journal of clinical microbiology. 1988;26(6):1189–93. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.6.1189-1193.1988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian journal of psychological medicine. 2013;35(2):121–6. doi: 10.4103/0253-7176.116232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gelaw A, Pietsch C, Liebert UG. Molecular epidemiology of rotaviruses in Northwest Ethiopia after national vaccine introduction. Infection, genetics and evolution: journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases. 2018;65:300–7. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit Datasheet for ABIN1305184 [Available from: https://www.antibodies-online.com/kit/1305184/Fecal+Rotavirus+Antigen+Rapid+Test+Kit/.
  • 23.EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit—Instructions for Test Procedures Qualitative detection of Rotavirus antigen in human feces. [Available from: https://www.epitopediagnostics.com/uploaded_files/kt-917-rotavirus-rapid-test-kit-insert-v10-merged-website.pdf?v20230322215008.
  • 24.Wolters P, Holtman G, Weghorst AH, Knoester M, Berger M. Rotavirus and illness severity in children presenting with acute gastroenteritis at the primary care out-of-hours service. European Journal of General Practice. 2021;27(1):346–53. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2021.2011205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mousavi-Nasab SD, Sabahi F, Kaghazian H, Paryan M, Samiee SM, Ghaderi M, et al. A Real-Time RT-PCR assay for genotyping of Rotavirus. Iranian Biomedical Journal. 2020;24(6):399. doi: 10.29252/ibj.24.6.394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica. 2012;22(3):276–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2012.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2010;5(9):1315–6. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ec173d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee SY, Hong JH, Lee SW, Lee M. Comparisons of latex agglutination, immunochromatography and enzyme immunoassay methods for the detection of rotavirus antigen. The Korean journal of laboratory medicine. 2007;27(6):437–41. doi: 10.3343/kjlm.2007.27.6.437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tsao Y-T, Tsai Y-H, Liao W-T, Shen C-J, Shen C-F, Cheng C-M. Differential markers of bacterial and viral infections in children for point-of-care testing. Trends in molecular medicine. 2020;26(12):1118–32. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2020.09.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Power M, Fell G, Wright M. Principles for high-quality, high-value testing. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2013;18(1):5–10. doi: 10.1136/eb-2012-100645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gautam R, Lyde F, Esona MD, Quaye O, Bowen MD. Comparison of Premier™ Rotaclone®, ProSpecT™, and RIDASCREEN® rotavirus enzyme immunoassay kits for detection of rotavirus antigen in stool specimens. Journal of Clinical Virology. 2013;58(1):292–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Thangjui S, Sripirom N, Titichoatrattana S, Mekmullica J. Accuracy and Cross-Reactivity of Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Norovirus and Rotavirus in a Real Clinical Setting. Infection & Chemotherapy. 2020;52(3):360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ope M, Nyoka R, Unshur A, Oyier FO, Mowlid SA, Owino B, et al. Evaluation of the field performance of ImmunoCard STAT!® rapid diagnostic test for rotavirus in Dadaab refugee camp and at the Kenya–Somalia border. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2017;96(6):1302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dhamnetiya D, Jha RP, Shalini S, Bhattacharyya K. How to Analyze the Diagnostic Performance of a New Test? Explained with Illustrations. Journal of Laboratory Physicians. 2022;14(01):090–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Land KJ, Boeras DI, Chen X-S, Ramsay AR, Peeling RW. REASSURED diagnostics to inform disease control strategies, strengthen health systems and improve patient outcomes. Nature Microbiology. 2019;4(1):46–54. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0295-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Otoo JA, Schlappi TS. REASSURED Multiplex Diagnostics: A Critical Review and Forecast. Biosensors (Basel). 2022;12(2). doi: 10.3390/bios12020124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Enoch Aninagyei

10 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-19314Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Damtie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 24 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Enoch Aninagyei, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors explore “Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study”. However, the study was needed to some modifications as following to be ready for publications. Before it could be accepted, please address the following comments in your consideration:

1-The comparison between the Rotavirus A antigen using EpiTuub® 107 Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (KTR-917, Epitope Diagnostics, Sandiago USA) and One-step RT-PCR is good, as the sensitivity rate reaches 98%, But in order to get a real comparison, this study must be compared with other available kits. In addition to, Some language mistakes and grammar mistakes I advise the revising for English Language by a native English speaker.

2-Why the authors did not mentioned the catalogue number of QIAamp Mini spin viral RNA extraction kit and One step RT-PCR kit?

3-What the type of virus which used as positive control in the different method?

The manuscript should be revise d based on the comments raised above

With my best wishes

Fatma Abdallah

Reviewer #2: Concerning Question 1

a. Causes of diarrheal diseases can be polymicrobial and the diagnosis of rotavirus does not exclude other viral or bacterial causes. The focus of the study was on rotavirus diagnosis using EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit . I suggest the authors play down on statements that implies that rotavirus diagnosis excludes bacterial causes of diarrhea.

b. Table 1 mentioned the immunization status of the participants with regards to the Rotavirus RT-PCR results. The status of the participants as regards the rotavirus antigen test kit findings was not mentioned in the results or subsequent discussion. Hence, there is no basis from this study to conclude that the kit could be used in the evaluation and monitoring of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness

Concerning Question 2

The authors should elaborate on how their sample size of 537 was derived

Ethical consideration: What was the nature of the written communication from the University of Gondar research and publication office to the three referral hospitals

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 30;18(11):e0295170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295170.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Oct 2023

Response to the editor and the reviewers

First of all, we would like to thank the editor and the reviewers of our manuscript for the invaluable and highly relevant comments which helped us to improve our manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the editor’s and the reviewer’s comments:

Response to the editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

• RESPONSE: Thank you dear editor. We have considered the comment and edited the file naming styles other journal styles as per the template provided in the link.

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

• RESPONSE: Thank you dear editor. We have made a language edition by Dr. Anastasia N. Vlasova (Associate Professor at The Ohio State University), one of the most senior members of the authors as per your recommendation.

Response to the reviewers:

Reviewer #1

1. The comparison between the Rotavirus A antigen using EpiTuub® 107 Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (KTR-917, Epitope Diagnostics, Sandiago USA) and One-step RT-PCR is good, as the sensitivity rate reaches 98%, But in order to get a real comparison, this study must be compared with other available kits. In addition to, Some language mistakes and grammar mistakes I advise the revising for English Language by a native English speaker.

• RESPONSE: Thank you dear reviewer, as you mentioned it would have been better if we had evaluated as many kits as possible to identify the best performing kit among many. However, the scope of our study was to evaluate the EpiTuub® 107 Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit (KTR-917, Epitope Diagnostics, Sandiago USA) against one-step RT-PCR due to limited resources we have. Hence, we have indicated it as a limitation of this study and recommended further study involving as many kits as possible. As for the language edition, we have made language edition by one of the most senior members of the research team in the revised version of the MS.

2. Why the authors did not mentioned the catalogue number of QIAamp Mini spin viral RNA extraction kit and One step RT-PCR kit?

• RESPONSE: Dear reviewer, thank you for the comment. The Catalogue number of the QIAmp mini spin viral RNA extraction kit was (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany, Cat # 61904) and One step RT-PCR kit ((Bio-Rad, Hercules, California, United States‎, Cat # 1725151). We have indicated the catalogue number of the kits in the methods section of the revised version of the manuscript.

3. What the type of virus which used as positive control in the different method?

• RESPONSE: We have used rotavirus RNA extracted from known rotavirus A positive stool sample which was deposited at -80 oc in Immunology and Molecular Biology Laboratory of the University of Gondar as a positive control for the one-step RT-PCR.

Reviewer #2

a. Causes of diarrheal diseases can be polymicrobial and the diagnosis of rotavirus does not exclude other viral or bacterial causes. The focus of the study was on rotavirus diagnosis using EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit. I suggest the authors play down on statements that implies that rotavirus diagnosis excludes bacterial causes of diarrhea.

• RESPONSE: Dear reviewer, thank you for the comment. It is true that the cause of diarrhea is polymicrobial. Hence, investigation should involve all possible causes of diarrhea including viral causes. The current practice in Ethiopia is however focused only on investigation of parasitic and bacterial causes of diarrhea ignoring the viral causes of diarrhea. Of the viral causes, rotavirus is the leading cause of diarrhea and diagnosing rotavirus in addition to routine parasitic and bacterial investigations could help reduce empirical treatment of diarrhea in the study settings. Which in turn reduces the risk of antimicrobial resistance. Otherwise, we did not conclude that rotavirus diagnosis by itself rule out bacterial causes of diarrhea.

b. Table 1 mentioned the immunization status of the participants with regards to the Rotavirus RT-PCR results. The status of the participants as regards the rotavirus antigen test kit findings was not mentioned in the results or subsequent discussion. Hence, there is no basis from this study to conclude that the kit could be used in the evaluation and monitoring of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness

• RESPONSE፡ Thank you dear reviewer for the comment. We have considered your comment and included the results for the rapid fecal rotavirus antigen test kit on Table 1. Of course, our focus was to evaluate the performance of the rapid rotavirus antigen test kit using one step RT-PCR as a gold standard. Accordingly, we have presented the test performance characteristics of the rapid test kit in the results section and discussed the findings. The test performance characteristics of the rapid antigen test kit in comparison to the gold standard was found to be acceptable. Hence, the test kit can be used to diagnose rotavirus infection among children. The WHO recommends use of a “case test-negative control” epidemiological study design for vaccine effectiveness studies in resource limited settings. Hence, our conclusion on the use of the kit for vaccine effectiveness studies is based on the aforementioned WHO’s recommendation in which the kit can be used to screen rotavirus positive cases and rotavirus negative controls (test negative controls) and trace back their immunization status retrospectively to determine rotavirus vaccine effectiveness in resource limited settings.

c. Concerning Question 2, The authors should elaborate on how their sample size of 537 was derived

• RESPONSE: Considering the single population proportion formula,

n = (Zα/2)2 P(1-P)

d2

Where n = sample size required; Zα/2 = standard normal variate for level of confidence (95%, 1.96), P = proportion of rotavirus among under five children with acute gastroenteritis (25%) (according to a previous study from reference 34); and d = margin of error (4%). We have also considered 10% non-response rate to get the final minimum sample size required for the study. Based on this formula, the minimum sample size calculated was 495. However, the hospitals involved in the study extended a little bit and collected 537 samples for our study. Hence, we considered all the 537 study participants to maximize the precision of the estimate.

d. Ethical consideration: What was the nature of the written communication from the University of Gondar research and publication office to the three referral hospitals

• RESPONSE: The letter written from the University of Gondar research and publication office explains the objectives and the relevance of the study and requests the hospitals for permission and cooperation in the study. We have indicated the nature of the letter in the revised version of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Enoch Aninagyei

7 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-19314R1Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Damtie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Line 25: antibiotics are not used to treat viral infections

Lines 87-89: Revise it to read University of Gondar, Felege Hiwot and Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospitals

Lines 89-90: indicate in detail how the sample size was arrived at

Line 94-100: Any inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Line 95: indicate that for solid or formed stool 2g of stool was collected while in diarrheic or watery stool, 2ml of stool sample was collected

Line 96: was the cryovial not overfilled? How did you placed a 2ml watery stool in a 2ml vial?

Line 98: change ‘analysis’ to ‘analyses’

Line 99: change ‘assay’ to ‘assays’

Line 105/109: how did you homogenized the samples? Or you mean the samples were uniformly suspended?

Lines 105-111: The EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit looks novel in your settings. Therefore, it is important to use schematic diagrams to describe how the test was performed. Visit this site to see example Strep A Rapid Test Cassette (Control Line in Blue) JusChek Infectious Disease Rapid Test Kuala Lumpur (KL), Malaysia, Selangor Supplier, Suppliers, Supply, Supplies | Setia Scientific Solution

Lines 131-133: A specific amplification with cycle threshold (CT) value of less than 40 was considered positive for rotavirus A infection. Provide reference for this statement.

Line 144: Bring ‘Data entry and analysis’ before ‘Ethical considerations’

Tables 1-3: Headings look too long. Summarize

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Enoch Aninagyei, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 30;18(11):e0295170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295170.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Nov 2023

Response letter to the editor and reviewers

PONE-D-23-19314R1

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers of our manuscript for the invaluable and highly relevant comments which helped us to improve our manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the editor’s and the reviewer’s comments:

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Line 25: antibiotics are not used to treat viral infections

Response: Thank you, dear Editor, we rewrite the sentence as per your comment.

Lines 87-89: Revise it to read University of Gondar, Felege Hiwot and Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized Referral Hospitals

Response: thank you dear Editor, we have considered your comment and modified the manuscript accordingly.

Lines 89-90: indicate in detail how the sample size was arrived at

Response: Thank you, dear Editor, we have included how we determined the sample size in the revised manuscript.

Line 94-100: Any inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Response: Thank you, dear Editor, we have included the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the revised manuscript.

Line 95: indicate that for solid or formed stool 2g of stool was collected while in diarrheic or watery stool, 2ml of stool sample was collected

Response: Thank you, dear Editor, we have considered your suggestions in the revised manuscript.

Line 96: was the cryovial not overfilled? How did you placed a 2ml watery stool in a 2ml vial?

Response: We have collected approximately 2ml watery stool in a stool cup and transferred it into a 2 ml cryovial for storage. However, when we transfer the samples for storage, we added slightly lower volume than two ml to avoid overfilling of the cryovials.

Line 98: change ‘analysis’ to ‘analyses’

Response: We have accepted the change and considered it in the revised manuscript.

Line 99: change ‘assay’ to ‘assays’

Response: We have accepted the change and considered it in the revised manuscript.

Line 105/109: how did you homogenized the samples? Or you mean the samples were uniformly suspended?

Response: Dear Editor, it is just to mean samples were uniformly suspended. We have modified the statement to avoid any confusion.

Lines 105-111: The EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit looks novel in your settings. Therefore, it is important to use schematic diagrams to describe how the test was performed. Visit this site to see example Strep A Rapid Test Cassette (Control Line in Blue) JusChek Infectious Disease Rapid Test Kuala Lumpur (KL), Malaysia, Selangor Supplier, Suppliers, Supply, Supplies | Setia Scientific Solution

Response: Dear Editor, we have adapted the testing procedure from the kit insert leaflet and included schematic diagram to show the testing procedure of the kit.

Lines 131-133: A specific amplification with cycle threshold (CT) value of less than 40 was considered positive for rotavirus A infection. Provide reference for this statement.

Response: Thank you, dear Editor, we have cited references.

Line 144: Bring ‘Data entry and analysis’ before ‘Ethical considerations’

Response: Dear Editor, we have moved data entry and analysis section before ethical considerations section as per your considerations.

Tables 1-3: Headings look too long. Summarize

Response: We have modified and shortened the headings of the tables

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Enoch Aninagyei

17 Nov 2023

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of EpiTuub®Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study

PONE-D-23-19314R2

Dear Dr. Debasu Damtie,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Enoch Aninagyei, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Enoch Aninagyei

22 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-19314R2

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of EpiTuub® Fecal Rotavirus Antigen Rapid Test Kit in Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Damtie:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Enoch Aninagyei

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES