Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0252375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252375

Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert in a city in south-eastern Brazil

Thaís Zamboni Berra 1,*,#, Dulce Gomes 2,#, Antônio Carlos Vieira Ramos 1,, Yan Mathias Alves 1,, Alexandre Tadashi Inomata Bruce 1,, Luiz Henrique Arroyo 1,, Felipe Lima dos Santos 1,, Ludmilla Leideanne Limirio Souza 1,, Juliane de Almeida Crispim 1,, Ricardo Alexandre Arcêncio 1,#
Editor: Frederick Quinn3
PMCID: PMC8162696  PMID: 34048490

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid molecular test for the detection of tuberculosis (TB) and to predict the rates of disease in a municipality of Brazil where TB is endemic.

Methods

An ecological study was carried out in Ribeirão Preto-SP on a population of TB cases notified between 2006 and 2017. Monthly TB incidence rates and the average monthly percentage change (AMPC) were calculated. In order to identify changes in the series, the breakpoint technique was performed; the rates were modelled and predictions of the incidence of TB until 2025 were made.

Results

AMPC showed a fall of 0.69% per month in TB and human immunodeficiency virus (TB-HIV) co-infection, a fall of 0.01% per month in general and lung TB and a fall of 0.33% per month in extrapulmonary TB. With the breakpoint technique, general and pulmonary TB changed in structure in late 2007, and extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection changed in structure after 2014, which is considered the cut-off point. The IMA(3) models were adjusted for general and pulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection, and the AR(5) models for extrapulmonary TB, and predictions were performed.

Conclusions

The rapid molecular test for TB is the method currently recommended by the WHO for the diagnosis of the disease and its main advantage is to provide faster, more accurate results and to already check for drug resistance. It is necessary that professionals encourage the use of this technology in order to optimize the diagnosis so that the treatment begins as quickly as possible and in an effective way. Only by uniting professionals from all areas with health policies aimed at early case identification and rapid treatment initiation it is possible to break the chain of TB transmission so that its rates decrease and the goals proposed by the WHO are achieved.

Background

Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease that affects millions of people annually. It is classified as one of the most lethal infectious diseases in the world and it is the main cause of death among people diagnosed with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), with the number of deaths from TB greater than those caused by AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) today [1].

In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there were ten million new cases of TB in the world, with 56% of these cases being in men, 32% in women and 12% in children under 15 years of age; among those, 8.2% were people living with HIV. It is also estimated that there were 1.4 million deaths from TB and 208,000 deaths due to co-infection by TB and human immunodeficiency virus (TB-HIV). In Brazil, approximately 74,000 new cases were diagnosed in 2019, with more than 13,000 cases of relapse of the disease, and about 500 cases of drug addiction [1].

Regarding the diagnostic technologies available in the Brazilian scenario, it is important to highlight that smear microscopy is the routine test in the Brazilian health system (called Sistema Único de Saúde–SUS), and that a culture test is considered as the gold standard for identifying the disease [2]; however, because of the delay in obtaining results due to the prolonged turnaround time of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (on average four to eight weeks) and the high complexity, a culture is rarely used for making decisions related to the treatment of a person affected by the disease [3,4]. In addition, it is worth noting that for the diagnosis of TB, imaging examination, clinical evaluation and histology or cytology can also be considered for cases of extrapulmonary TB.

After almost a century of stagnation regarding TB diagnostic techniques, the WHO, in 2010, approved the use of the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system to perform rapid molecular testing for TB, which is a molecular method based on the real-time PCR (polymerase chain reaction). This is an amplification test for nucleic acids which is used to detect the DNA of M. tuberculosis and to screen strains that are resistant to rifampicin, one of the main antibiotics used in the treatment of TB [5].

In a survey of the scientific literature conducted in the main databases, no studies were found that assessed the impact of the rapid molecular test for TB for the detection of cases of disease in the routine activities of health teams. However, studies show that the test performed by the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system is highly sensitive to pulmonary TB (transmissible form of the disease) [6] and is also the most cost-effective [79], as it provides faster results without requiring sample treatment or specialized human resources, thus allowing treatment to begin immediately [10]. However, despite this good cost-benefit, it is worth noting that, in general, it is not a technology considered to be low cost, which can be considered a major disadvantage for developing countries.

For this reason, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of GeneXpert® MTB/RIF for the detection of pulmonary TB, extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection and to predict the rates of the disease in the coming years if the routine activities of the health teams in a municipality of south-eastern Brazil are maintained.

Methods

Research design and scenario

This was an ecological study [11] carried out in Ribeirão Preto, a municipality in the interior of São Paulo. With regard to the care of people in the municipality with TB, the Basic Health Units (BHSs) are responsible for carrying out active searches for respiratory symptoms, with the collection of sputum smear microscopy and/or X-ray requests. However, the treatment and follow-up of TB cases is performed in specialized outpatient clinics for infectious patients [12].

It is noteworthy that the rapid molecular test for TB in Ribeirão Preto, which involves using the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system, was implemented and started to be used as a diagnostic technology for TB in November 2014; this was the cut-off point considered in the study.

Population

The study population consisted of TB cases notified to the Tuberculosis Patient Control System (TBWeb) from 2006 to 2017, which were made available through the Epidemiological Surveillance Division of the Ribeirão Preto Municipal Secretariat.

In the state of São Paulo, a decision has been made to use a single system for the notification and monitoring of people with TB. In TBWeb, which started to be used effectively from 2006, notifications are made online; the main advantage of this system is the uniqueness of each patient’s records, and the automatic communication in cases of transfer and hospitalization [13].

Confirmed cases of TB among individuals residing in Ribeirão Preto were considered. Only one record per person was adopted as the selection criterion, with the most current record being selected if there was more than one entry in the system.

The notified TB cases were separated in order to show the differences in the time series for different groups in the municipality: general TB, pulmonary TB, extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection.

Analysis plan

Calculation of incidence rates

The monthly incidence rates of TB in the municipality were calculated as the number of cases per month (corrected by the number of days in that month) divided by the corresponding estimated population for the investigation period (2006 to 2017), thus resulting in 144 monthly time observations [14]. Subsequently, the Average Monthly Percentage Change (AMPC) of incidence rates was calculated, identifying, in average percentage terms, any increase or decrease in rates during the study period.

Detection of structural changes

In an analysis of time series, in addition to the usual variability observed over time, the data can also be influenced by various types of event that can cause structural changes. Thus, in order to identify possible changes in the series, the R CRAN package strucchange was used [15].

Basically, a yi series is considered and it is assumed that there are m breakpoints in the series, in which the coefficients change from one stable regression relationship to another. There are, therefore, m + 1 segments in which the regression coefficients are constant and the model can be rewritten as:

yt=xtτβj+ut(t=tj+1,,tj,j=1,,m+1)

with xt being the vector of the co-variables, βj (where j denotes the segment index) the corresponding regression coefficients, and ut white noise (that is, an uncorrelated series, with zero mean and constant variance) [16].

Modelling and forecasting future values

To model the TB rates, and to predict their future values, incidence rates smoothed by first-order moving averages were considered, as proposed by Becketti [17], using the model for linear time series called the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model. The analysis steps proposed by Box and Jenkins [18] were adapted for the chosen model, based on the data structure itself: Identification, Estimation, Verification and Forecasting.

An ARIMA model (p, d, q) allows the variability of a time-related, linear, stationary (d = D = 0) or non-stationary (otherwise) process to be described.

The letters p and q represent, respectively, the number of parameters of the autoregressive parts and the moving averages within the period, and the letter d represents the degrees of simple differentiation necessary to transform a non-stationary series into a stationary one [19].

An ARIMA model can be written as follows:

Δ(Βs)Φ(Β)(1Β)d(1Βs)DT(Xt)=Ψ(Βs)Θ(Β)Zt

where:

Φ(Β)=1ϕ1Βϕ2Β2ϕpΒp,Θ(Β)=1θ1Βθ2Β2θqΒq

are, respectively, the autoregressive and the moving average polynomials. T is the transformation to stabilize the variance, if this is necessary, and Zt represents the white noise process (a non-correlated process, with zero mean and constant variance).

The KPSS unit root test was performed to determine whether the series was stationary or not, using a significance level of 5%. For a non-stationary series, it is necessary to resort to the usual transformation techniques (Box–Cox and simple differentiations) in order to transform the series into a stationary one and then to determine, through the empirical autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions, the p and orders of the ARIMA model.

To estimate the model parameters, the maximum likelihood method was used. For the validation of the model, namely in the analysis of residues, the usual tests of absence of autocorrelation (Portmanteau tests: Ljung–Box and Box–Pierce), randomness (Rank and Turning Point tests), normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and the t test of average nullity were performed.

It is worth mentioning that the choice of the best model was made taking into account the lowest values of the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Subsequently, data and trend forecasts were made for an eight-year period (2018 to 2025).

A set of tests using the last two years (2016 to 2017) was used to assess the predictive performance of the models. The following measures were considered in order to evaluate this predictive performance: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), which indicates the difference between the values predicted by a model and the observed values, Mean Absolute Error (MAE), which is a measure of the accuracy of a forecast in the estimation of trends, and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), which is the percentage of the predicted values that are incorrect. Forecasts were then made based on the adjusted models for the eight-year period (2018 to 2025).

We have chosen to present possible trajectories for the forecasts, instead of the usual average forecasts (since when the series are stationary or show trends and/or seasonality, the forecasts do not usually tend towards the process average), through a simulation of the adjusted model. Both for the simulation of future trajectories and for the calculation of the respective confidence intervals of the predictions, errors were considered as random variables, normally distributed, with a mean and standard deviation equal to their estimated values.

All of the analyses were performed using the statistical software R Studio® version 3.5.2 (https://rstudio.com).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

In compliance with Resolution 499/2012 of the National Health Council, the study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Nursing College of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo under the Certificate of Ethical Appraisal number 87696318.3.0000.5393 issued on April 30, 2019. Consent to participate was not applicable, because the work was performed using secondary data from cases diagnosed with TB and reported on TBWeb.

Results

Between 2006 and 2017, 2259 TB cases were reported in Ribeirão Preto, the majority of which were pulmonary (77.9%). Fig 1 shows the time series of incidence rates per 100,000 inhabitants.

Fig 1. Tuberculosis incidence rates in Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil (2006–2017).

Fig 1

Table 1 shows the frequency of distribution of TB cases grouped by type, the annual rate and the AMPC.

Table 1. Profile of tuberculosis cases according to classification and average monthly percentage variation of rates, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil (2006–2017).

Tuberculosis Absolute frequency (%) Annual rate (100,000 inhab.) Average Monthly Percentage Change (%)
General 2259 (100%) 31.7 -0.01
Pulmonary 1760 (77.9%) 23.2 -0.01
Extrapulmonary 497 (22.0%) 6.4 -0.33
TB-HIV co-infection 510 (22.6%) 6.7 -0.69

Fig 1 shows a decrease in the incidence rate of TB-HIV co-infection, which can be proved through the AMPC, showing a decrease of 0.69% per month, as seen in Table 1. It is also possible to verify that general and pulmonary TB decreased by 0.01% per month, and that extrapulmonary TB decreased by 0.33% per month, although these reductions are less noticeable when analyzed in Fig 1.

With the breakpoint technique, it is possible to identify the time series structure changes. For general and pulmonary TB, the series structure changed in late 2007, whereas the series for the incidence rates of extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection show a break after 2014, which is the cut-off point considered in this study because it marks the beginning of TB diagnosis using the rapid molecular test for TB. Fig 2 shows the breakpoint technique and the various confidence intervals.

Fig 2. Changes in the structure of the time series regarding the incidence rates of tuberculosis in Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil (2006–2017).

Fig 2

With the KPSS unit root test, a value of 0.65 was obtained for general TB (the series is non-stationary), 0.65 for pulmonary TB (non-stationary series), 0.37 for extrapulmonary TB (stationary series) and 1.03 for TB-HIV co-infection (non-stationary series). Thus, it was necessary to use the transformations for the series identified as non-stationary.

For general TB, pulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection, the best adjusted models were of ARIMA type (0,1,3), or simply IMA(3). For general TB, only the constant and the coefficient of order three were significant; for pulmonary TB, only the coefficient of order three was significant; and for TB-HIV co-infection, the coefficients of orders two and three were significant. For extrapulmonary TB, the best model found was an ARIMA(5,0,0), or simply the AR(5) model, with all the coefficients being significant, except for the coefficient of order two.

After choosing the best models, we proceeded to analyze the residues. It is possible to observe (Fig 3 and Table 2) that the residues are statistically unrelated and that the remaining assumptions of the models are validated (independent and identically distributed residues, with a normal distribution of zero mean and constant variance), considering a significance level of 5%.

Fig 3. Residue analysis (schedule, ACF and histogram) of the models estimated for the tuberculosis rates, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil, 2006–2017.

Fig 3

Table 2. Analysis of residues from the temporal modeling of tuberculosis rates, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil (2006–2017).

Test Statistics (p-value)
Test General TB Pulmonary TB Extrapulmonary TB TB-HIV co-infection
Ljung-Box 0.04 (0.83) 0.24 (0.61) 0.14 (0.70) 1.54 (0.21)
Box-Pierce 0.044 (0.83) 0.24 (0.62) 0.13 (0.70) 1.51 (0.21)
Rank test 0.82 (0.40) 0.82 (0.40) -2.16 (0.30) 0.97 (0.33)
Turning Point -0.33 (0.74) -0.92 (.035) 1.06(0.28) 0.66 (0.50)
Difference Sign Test 0.14 (0.88) -0.71 (0.47) -1.00 (0.31) -0.71 (0.47)
Bartlett B test 0.45 (0.98) 0.57 (0.90) 0.95 (0.31) 0.76 (0.59)
Kolmogorov–Smirnov 0.04 (0.92) 0.04 (0.96) 0.04 (0.88) 0.06 (0.60)
T test of means -0.63 (0.52) -1.32 (0.18) 0.07 (0.94) -1.10 (0.27)

The quality of the forecasts was analyzed by comparison with the subset of tests (years 2016 and 2017) as seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Predictive analysis of the TB incidence according the clinical condition of the cases, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil (2006–2017).

TB RMSE MAE MAPE
General TB 0.27 0.21 8.5
Pulmonary TB 0.23 0.18 9.81
Extrapulmonary TB 0.11 0.09 19.41
TB-HIV co-infection 0.09 0.07 15.31

Fig 4 shows the final models for the series; it is possible to observe that all of the adjustments are able to capture the variability of all of the series under analysis in a very satisfactory way.

Fig 4. Models adjusted for tuberculosis rates (2006–2017), forecast and respective 95% confidence intervals (2018–2025), Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.

Fig 4

Discussion

The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of GeneXpert® MTB/RIF for the detection of pulmonary TB, extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection and to predict the rates of disease in the coming years if the routine activities of health teams in this municipality of south-eastern Brazil are maintained. Among the limitations of the study includes the use of secondary data sources, which can lead to incomplete data or typos.

With the analysis of AMPC (Table 1), it is possible to note that, among the groups analyzed in the present study, TB-HIV co-infection showed the greatest decrease (0.69% per month). This can be explained by the greater sensitivity of the rapid molecular test for TB.

Studies show that for a sputum sample in which sputum smear and culture showed positive results, the sensitivity of the rapid molecular test for TB can vary between 98 and 100%. For cases in which the sputum sample has a negative result and a positive culture, the sensitivity of the rapid molecular test for TB decreases to 57 to 78%. For people with negative clinical examination and who had sputum samples with a positive culture result, the specificity of the rapid molecular test for TB can vary between 91% and 100% [2].

For cases in which the culture result is negative, but the person with suspected TB has a positive clinical examination, the specificity of the rapid molecular test for TB is also about 91% but goes to 100% when the sputum sample it has negative sputum smear and culture and is between 94 and 100% when the sputum sample shows only negative culture [2].

Thus, in view of the findings of the study, in addition to the greater sensitivity of the rapid molecular test for TB, the hypothesis is that this decrease in TB-HIV co-infection rate may be related to the greater adherence of people living with HIV to the antiretroviral therapy or positive changes in drug regimens to decrease viral load; this would result in an increase in the immunity of people living with HIV and, therefore, in preventing M. tuberculosis infection [2022].

With the breakpoint analysis, it was possible to identify that the incidence rates for extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection showed a change in the structure of its time series after 2014, which is the cut-off point considered in this study as it marks the beginning of TB diagnosis through the rapid molecular test for TB. This change in the time series may indicate that, among other factors, the diagnosis using the rapid molecular test for TB might have been responsible for causing this change in TB rates in the municipality due to its greater sensitivity and specificity.

Regarding extrapulmonary TB, a study showed that the positivity rates for histology or cytology, GeneXpert® MTB/RIF and culture were 12.88%, 20.59% and 15.82%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the rapid molecular test for TB were almost the same in the pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples (78.2% and 90.4%) and (79.3% and 90.3%), respectively [23], however it is worth noting that when the culture was used as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of GeneXpert® MTB/RIF were determined for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB.

According to the literature [5], most of the articles which analyzed the effectiveness of the rapid molecular test for TB used sputum samples; the studies that evaluated extrapulmonary samples showed good test performance, but it is worth noting that the test was more sensitive for sputum samples in most studies.

According to a literature review [5], most of the studies that analyzed the effectiveness of the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF assay used sputum samples and although the studies that evaluated extrapulmonary samples have shown satisfactory results [2428], but it is important that further studies are carried out with this type of material, as this result may vary according to the number of samples tested, the nature of the different extrapulmonary TB samples and also the specific differences that can be found in the different epidemiological contexts, but despite these biases, it is noteworthy that in most studies carried out the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system pointed out that it was the most sensitive test for pulmonary TB, the transmissible form of the disease; however, with the current data found in the literature, there is now support for the use of this method in extrapulmonary samples.

Therefore, in view of the above, health professionals have a good scientific basis for recommendig the performance of the rapid molecular test for TB in the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system for suspected cases of extrapulmonary TB, although other diagnostic tests must also be used to confirm diagnosis accurately.

Another study showed that, in samples of urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue, the rapid molecular test was sensitive (more than 80%), meaning that it has a low chance of resulting in a false positive. In cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid and peritoneal fluid, the rapid molecular test was highly specific (98% or more), with a low chance of resulting in a false negative [29]; however, it is worth noting that studies have not shown good efficacy with the GeneXpert® assay in samples of pleural fluid [5,3032].

Therefore, although there are other techniques for detecting extrapulmonary TB, such as histopathology, the use of the rapid molecular test performed using the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system is safe and has high sensitivity and specificity when compared to the usual tests.

Across the world, the most commonly used tests for the diagnosis of TB are the sputum smear and sputum culture tests (only for pulmonary TB, in cases of extrapulmonary TB, diagnostic tests are performed with other materials). As it is simpler, faster and less costly, smear microscopy ends up being more commonly used as a routine test by health systems, but it is worth mentioning that it has low sensitivity, especially in cases with low bacillary load [33,34].

The sensitivity of the culture varied between 70% and 90% when the sample of the material was correctly collected, stored and all procedures for carrying out the test were correctly followed by the responsible professional, using a work-intensive method that requires qualified professionals for the examination to be carried out accurately and reliably. It takes about 14 to 60 days to get a result with this technique and due to the long period required to reach a diagnosis, culture is rarely used to make decisions regarding the treatment of a person with TB [33,34]. It is worth mentioning that the most used culture media are solids, but liquid culture performed in an automated system has advantages.

According to the Brazilian report of the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies in SUS (CONITEC), for the automated liquid culture, the average proportion of mycobacterial detection obtained was 82% (95% CI, 71% to 90%), and 65% (95% CI 51% to 77%) for culture in solid medium. The average time for detection by the automated liquid culture system was 14 days and for solid culture it was 28 days. Regarding the sensitivity test performed in the automated liquid culture system, in general, a high level of agreement with the method of proportions in solid culture (>90%) was identified. Thus, the use of automated systems could increase the coverage of testing across the country, constituting an important strategy for the diagnosis and control of TB [35].

Still regarding liquid culture, a review study found that the highest sensitivities and negative predictive values were shown by the MGIT-960 System when used alone or in combination with the Lowenstein-Jensen method, with the combined media showing better sensitivity as well as obtaining satisfactory results in the detection of non-tuberculous mycobacteria. The greater specificity and positive predictive values were shown by the Lowenstein-Jensen method alone, which did not produce false positives [36].

In another study carried out in a laboratory in South Africa [37], results point to the high cost of MGIT-960 and its cost-benefit must be carefully evaluated taking into account its sensitivity and high probability of cross contamination, as was also reported in another study [38] that compared solid and liquid media for culture.

It is possible to conclude that the MGIT-960 has a better performance regarding sensitivity, while the Lowenstein-Jensen method has greater specificity; the MGIT-960 system can provide a better isolation rate of mycobacteria from sputum samples from people suspected of having pulmonary TB when compared to culture in a solid medium (Lowenstein-Jensen) [3941]. Therefore, in accordance with current international guidelines, a combination of solid and liquid media is recommended, so that the number of positive findings can be significantly increased.

Returning to the rapid molecular test for TB performed using the GeneXpert® system, its main advantages are that the result can be released within two hours and will already indicate whether the patient is resistant or sensitive to rifampicin [42]. Thus, it is possible that the incorporation of the GeneXpert® system into the Brazilian health system may be related to changes in disease rates since more people may be diagnosed due to the high sensitivity, specificity and rapid time of diagnosis of the GeneXpert® system when compared to the usual tests and, therefore, it could also be responsible for a consequent change in the structure of the analyzed time series, since any change in the indexes (be it rate or number of cases) alters its history series over time.

Using the Box–Jenkins [18] methodology, a well-estimated model that provides adequate forecasts, can be a very useful tool to assist with decision-making by both public managers and society [43]. From the adjustment of the models, it was possible to verify and make forecasts for the TB rates in Ribeirão Preto; although the estimates indicate a slight decrease, TB will continue to be a serious public health problem.

Considered a priority by the Brazilian government since 2003, TB has been the subject of several national agreements and has been made a priority of the National Tuberculosis Control Program (NTCP). There has been an increase in the detection of cases through the strengthening of the primary health care services system [44,45].

According to the TB diagnosis algorithm recommended by the Ministry of Health, all new suspected cases of pulmonary TB must be tested using a rapid molecular test. If both MTB and resistance to rifampicin are detected, another confirmatory rapid molecular test should be performed, combined with a culture test and drug susceptibility test, and the patient should be referred for specialist attention. If rifampicin-sensitive MTB is detected, treatment with the basic TB regimen is started, but in addition, culture and sensitivity testing must be performed to check resistance to other drugs used in the treatment [4].

The rapid molecular test for TB performed by the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system has several positive points when compared to classic methods for TB diagnosis; however, further studies will improve the understanding of this test and contribute to the diagnosis of TB.

In the scenario under investigation, the tests are being carried out with the new systems called GeneXpert® Ultra and GeneXpert® Omni, which are evolutions of the GeneXpert® system used in Brazil and which have been shown to be more sensitive and specific; these may have relevant implications for the health services system and an impact on disease rates, as identified in the present study. However, it is important to understand the changes or impacts that occurred in the epidemiological indicators and health services with the diagnosis of TB being made through the rapid molecular test and its progression [4648].

The study provides advances in knowledge as it presents the impact of rapid molecular testing for TB on routine health services, and it is important to note that studies of this design are able to support decisions about the maintenance and/or sustainability of technologies in a real, uncontrolled context.

Conclusions

The rapid molecular test for TB performed by the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF system is the method currently recommended by the Ministry of Health for the diagnosis of TB. Its main advantage is that it gives a faster and more accurate diagnosis when compared to other classic diagnostic methods, such as smear microscopy and culture tests.

It is necessary for managers responsible for the Tuberculosis Control Programs to encourage professionals who deal with people suspected or diagnosed with TB to comply with the algorithm recommended by the WHO in order to optimize the diagnosis so that the technologies are used correctly, meaning that a more accurate diagnosis is carried out so that the treatment can start as quickly as possible and correctly, taking into account whether the identified strain is resistant to the drugs used or not. Only by uniting professionals from all areas with health policies aimed at early case identification and rapid treatment initiation is it possible to break the chain of TB transmission so that its rates decrease and the goals proposed by the WHO are achieved.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(CSV)

Acknowledgments

Municipal Health Secretariat of Ribeirão Preto.

Municipal Tuberculosis Control Program of Ribeirão Preto.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

TZB received funding from the São Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP) [Process FAPESP n° 2018 / 03700-7] and RAA received funding from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) - Scholarship research productivity [Process No. 04483 / 2018-4].

References

Decision Letter 0

Frederick Quinn

8 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-34732

Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berra,

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. 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frederick Quinn

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 note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figures  S1-S4  and Tables S1-S3 which you refer to in your text on page 20-21.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

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: No

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: Comments:

1. English needs to be improved throughout the manuscript. There are few instances, where the meaning is not clear. Ist line of Introduction, ‘is the main cause of death among people living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) (PLHIV), overcoming AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) as the most lethal infectious disease of today[1]’ needs to be changed.

2. Please change the ‘behavior of disease’ to better phrase..

3. We already have WHO TB report of 2020, please quote that instead of WHO (2019).

4.What do you understand by bacilloscopy? Do you mean smear microscopy? Smear microscopy is the most commonly used term. Pl use that.

5. Introduction, line 60, ‘slow reproduction of the bacillus’ is wrong. It is the turnaround time of M. tuberculosis, which is 4-8 weeks, though the generation time is ~ 18-20 hrs. Pl correct this.

6. Introduction, line 66, there is no need to define DNA. It is such a common term.

7. To the best I know, TRM-TB is not very common term in many parts of the world. I will avoid using this term. Please write this in full form.

8. Tuberculosis (TB) shall be abbreviated at the first time and then it shall be written as ‘TB’.

9. In Discussion, lines 257-259, ‘Studies show that for samples with negative smear microscopy, the sensitivity of the TRM-TB for a sputum sample is 72.5% and for three samples it reaches almost 91%[2]’

Please rewrite this sentence.

10. What is SUS? In line 268 same page. I believe,it is city. Then write accordingly.

11. Across the world, sputum smear microscopy and culture are commonly used methods for the detection of pulmonary TB. For the detection of extrapulmonary TB, these methods are not good. In fact, TB diagnosis also relies on other diagnostic modalities, like hisopathology, imaging, IGRAs including molecular tests, like LAMP test, PCR, multiplex PCR, real-time PCR, etc.

12. In Discussion, lines 274, ‘A culture test can detect between 70% and 90% of cases; however, it requires at least 14 to 60 days to obtain a diagnosis’ is not written accurate. In fact, the sensitivity of culture in extrapulonary paucibacillary TB specimens varies from 0-80%.

13. In Discussion, line 297, what do you mean by sensitivity test (ST)? Is it drug susceptibility test (DST)?

14. You need to compare Xpert assay at the Lab level with other routine tests for TB diagnosis like imaging, histopathology, cytology, PCR, real-time PCR, etc.Pl mention these tests in the Introduction as well as Discussion.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript titled as "Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert in a city in south-estern Brazil" is an interesting topic, and supplied the diagnosis for the care of a person with tuerculosis. The manuscript has reached the publication level of PLoS One, I recommend to accept it. I have no comments to the authors.

**********

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments-29-11-20.docx

PLoS One. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0252375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252375.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Jan 2021

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for your reply and your reviewers' comments about our manuscript “PONE-D-20-34732 Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil”.

The comments were appropriate to qualify/ improve the manuscript. We have forwarded a letter with the changes made in the manuscript, presenting our response for each comment from reviewers, as requested. Many thanks for the comments.

In the current version presented to the journal, we modified the question regarding data availability. Initially, they were collected at the request and approval of an ethics committee, but for the analyzes performed and presented in the present manuscript, we did not use any variable that could identify the cases included in the study. In this way, as the data is unrestricted, we upload the minimum set of anonymous data to replicate the results of the study, as requested.

Regarding the figures and tables of supporting information, there was a mistake on our part and we apologize, this has already been corrected. The figures and tables that we had placed in the supporting information section are actually the figures and tables present in the manuscript itself. There is only one supplementary document that is the minimum dataset, we have already corrected this error in the manuscript and in the system.

Below, we respond point by point to the comments of Reviewer #1 comments and would like to thank Reviewer #2 for spending time reading and reviewing our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Berra et al.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. English needs to be improved throughout the manuscript. There are few instances, where the meaning is not clear. Ist line of Introduction, ‘is the main cause of death among people living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) (PLHIV), overcoming AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) as the most lethal infectious disease of today[1]’ needs to be changed.

Thank you for your comment. English was extensively revised throughout the manuscript and the first paragraph of the manuscript was reformulated to facilitate understanding.

2. Please change the ‘behavior of disease’ to better frase.

Thank you for your comment. This term has been changed throughout the manuscript.

3. We already have WHO TB report of 2020, please quote that instead of WHO (2019).

Thank you for your comment. The reference and information have been updated.

4. What do you understand by bacilloscopy? Do you mean smear microscopy? Smear microscopy is the most commonly used term. Pl use that.

Thank you for your comment. Bacilloscopy is the same as smear microscopy. The term "bacilloscopy" was changed throughout the manuscript and replaced with smear microscopy, as suggested.

5. Introduction, line 60, ‘slow reproduction of the bacillus’ is wrong. It is the turnaround time of M. tuberculosis, which is 4-8 weeks, though the generation time is ~ 18-20 hrs. Pl correct this.

Thank you for your comment. This has been fixed.

6. Introduction, line 66, there is no need to define DNA. It is such a common term.

Thank you for your comment. The definition of DNA has been removed as suggested.

7. To the best I know, TRM-TB is not very common term in many parts of the world. I will avoid using this term. Please write this in full form.

Thank you for your comment. Throughout the manuscript, the acronym TRM-TB was changed to rapid molecular test for TB.

8. Tuberculosis (TB) shall be abbreviated at the first time and then it shall be written as ‘TB’.

Thank you for your comment. This has been fixed.

9. In Discussion, lines 257-259, ‘Studies show that for samples with negative smear microscopy, the sensitivity of the TRM-TB for a sputum sample is 72.5% and for three samples it reaches almost 91%[2]’

Please rewrite this sentence.

Thank you for your comment. This sentence has been removed from the discussion and a paragraph has been inserted that further details this information to facilitate understanding.

10. What is SUS? In line 268 same page. I believe,it is city. Then write accordingly.

Thank you for your comment. The acronym SUS stands for Sistema Único de Saúde and refers to the brazilian health system, which had been explained briefly in the introduction. Understanding that it can cause confusion among readers, the acronym SUS was replaced in the entire manuscript by the brazilian health system.

11. Across the world, sputum smear microscopy and culture are commonly used methods for the detection of pulmonary TB. For the detection of extrapulmonary TB, these methods are not good. In fact, TB diagnosis also relies on other diagnostic modalities, like hisopathology, imaging, IGRAs including molecular tests, like LAMP test, PCR, multiplex PCR, real-time PCR, etc.

Thank you for your comment. Three paragraphs were inserted in the discussion of studies proving the effectiveness of the rapid molecular test for tuberculosis in extrapulmonary samples. Although there are other diagnostic techniques as you mentioned, GeneXpert® MTB / RIF is a reliable option for this type of sample.

12. In Discussion, lines 274, ‘A culture test can detect between 70% and 90% of cases; however, it requires at least 14 to 60 days to obtain a diagnosis’ is not written accurate. In fact, the sensitivity of culture in extrapulonary paucibacillary TB specimens varies from 0-80%.

Thank you for your comment. This information regarding the sensitivity of the culture was based on the references cited in this paragraph. In addition, I did a search and in addition to those mentioned, other articles and government documents (from Brazil and the world) reinforce this information that the sensitivity of the culture can vary between 70 and 90% when the sample was correctly collected, stored and the technique the exam was correctly performed. I think this may have caused some confusion. The sentence has been reformulated to improve understanding.

13. In Discussion, line 297, what do you mean by sensitivity test (ST)? Is it drug susceptibility test (DST)?

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the sensitivity test is the drug susceptibility test. The term was changed in the manuscript to facilitate understanding.

14. You need to compare Xpert assay at the Lab level with other routine tests for TB diagnosis like imaging, histopathology, cytology, PCR, real-time PCR, etc.Pl mention these tests in the Introduction as well as Discussion.

Thank you for your comment, this information was included in the introduction and discussion

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript titled as "Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert in a city in south-estern Brazil" is an interesting topic, and supplied the diagnosis for the care of a person with tuerculosis. The manuscript has reached the publication level of PLoS One, I recommend to accept it. I have no comments to the authors.

I would like to thank you for having read and evaluated the manuscript and it was very gratifying for us to know that, in your opinion, it is at the level of publication in such a prestigious journal.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Frederick Quinn

22 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-34732R1

Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berra,

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. If you will need significantly more time 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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: No

**********

5. 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: No

**********

6. 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: Comments: Though the manuscript has been improved significantly but English is still of sub-standard, which needs to be improved. I have pin-pointed few instances, which are as follows:

1. The word ‘rates of disease’ in Abstract and otherwise need to be changed, e.g. ‘outcome of disease’. At few instances, rate of disease is OK but at few instances, it reads really odd.

2. Tuberculosis need to be abbreviated as TB first time and later, TB can be written in Abstract as these two terms are written haphazardly.

3. Lines, 261-68 of Discussion need to be rewritten. Similarly, line 269 needs attention.

4. ‘incidence rates (lines 273-274 of Discussion) for extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection changed in structure after 2014’,the word ‘structure’ needs to be replaced. Similarly, sentence in lines 275-276 should be rewritten. It should be ‘might’ instead of ‘may’ in line 278.

5. Line 280, in Discussion, appropriate reference shall be given. While interpreting pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB samples by molecular test (GeneXpert), sensitivity and specificity may be almost similar in the given reference, but mostly pulmonary TB exhibited a much higher sensitivity than exptrapulmonary TB. Pl quote those references and give valid reasons for that, e.g. due to paucibacillary nature of specimens, etc.

6. Lines, 284-90, shall be rewritten. What do you mean positive in people who actually have TB? I must point out that GeneXpert mostly does not perform well with Pleural TB cases as it reveals poor sensitivity (Pl see Review of i) Denkinger CM, Schumacher SG, Boehme CC, Dendukuri N, Pai M, Steingart KR. Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Respir. J. 44, 435–446 (2014). ii) Sehgal IS, Dhooria S, Aggarwal AN, Behera D, Agarwal R. Diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF in tuberculous pleural effusion: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 54(4), 1133–1136 (2016).

7. Lines 297-301, also, write that culture is labor-intensive method and requires skillful technicians. You are probably mentioning culture on LJ medium. What about culture on MGIT-960 system? Write plus and negative points for that.

8. Line 306 of Discussion, what do you mean by ‘consequent change in structure in the time series’? Please write clearly. Similarly, lines 322-323 need attention.

9. Line 326, further studies in which direction will improve the understanding of this test? There is probably no need to further understand the test. Yes, we can probably improve the sensitivity by using Xpert Ultra. Also, may be the technology could be improved as in case of Xpert Omni. You need to mention these points.

10. Line 328, ‘studies of this nature’ need to be replaced. Similarly, lines 335-338 need to be rewritten.

**********

7. 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: Yes: Promod Mehta

[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. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0252375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252375.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Mar 2021

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for your reply and your reviewers' comments about our manuscript “PONE-D-20-34732 Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil”.

The comments were appropriate to qualify/improve the manuscript. We have forwarded a letter with the changes made in the manuscript, presenting our response for each comment from reviewers, as requested. Many thanks for the comments.

Kind regards,

Berra et al.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. The word ‘rates of disease’ in Abstract and otherwise need to be changed, e.g. ‘outcome of disease’. At few instances, rate of disease is OK but at few instances, it reads really odd.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this case of the objective of the study, what we did from the temporal modeling was to make a prediction of the incidence rates of tuberculosis, therefore, we believe that substituting for "outcome of disease" will not keep the same meaning of the phrase, since in the present study we do not assess the outcome of tuberculosis, but work with the rates.

2. Tuberculosis need to be abbreviated as TB first time and later, TB can be written in Abstract as these two terms are written haphazardly.

Response: Thank you for your comment. As suggested, we introduced the word tuberculosis in full the first time it appears and replaced it with its acronym (TB) throughout the Abstract.

3. Lines, 261-68 of Discussion need to be rewritten. Similarly, line 269 needs attention.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Paragraphs have been modified to better understand their content.

4. ‘incidence rates (lines 273-274 of Discussion) for extrapulmonary TB and TB-HIV co-infection changed in structure after 2014’,the word ‘structure’ needs to be replaced. Similarly, sentence in lines 275-276 should be rewritten. It should be ‘might’ instead of ‘may’ in line 278.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The paragraph was rewritten but we chose not to remove the word "structure" since it is related to the method used and, in this way, we consider that it facilitates the reader to relate the result presented with the method used.

5. Line 280, in Discussion, appropriate reference shall be given. While interpreting pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB samples by molecular test (GeneXpert), sensitivity and specificity may be almost similar in the given reference, but mostly pulmonary TB exhibited a much higher sensitivity than exptrapulmonary TB. Pl quote those references and give valid reasons for that, e.g. due to paucibacillary nature of specimens, etc.

Response: Thank you for your comment. I apologize but I am not sure if I understood correctly what was suggested, but we have added two paragraphs to the discussion on this issue of extrapulmonary samples.

6. Lines, 284-90, shall be rewritten. What do you mean positive in people who actually have TB? I must point out that GeneXpert mostly does not perform well with Pleural TB cases as it reveals poor sensitivity (Pl see Review of i) Denkinger CM, Schumacher SG, Boehme CC, Dendukuri N, Pai M, Steingart KR. Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Respir. J. 44, 435–446 (2014). ii) Sehgal IS, Dhooria S, Aggarwal AN, Behera D, Agarwal R. Diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF in tuberculous pleural effusion: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 54(4), 1133–1136 (2016).

Response: Thank you for your comment. We rewrote the sentence in order to make it clear that we are talking about false positive and negative results and added a note about the lower effectiveness of the test for pleural samples. Thanks for sending the references, they were added and cited in the text.

7. Lines 297-301, also, write that culture is labor-intensive method and requires skillful technicians. You are probably mentioning culture on LJ medium. What about culture on MGIT-960 system? Write plus and negative points for that.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We inserted a paragraph in the discussion comparing the results of the culture carried out in solid medium and automated liquid medium.

8. Line 306 of Discussion, what do you mean by ‘consequent change in structure in the time series’? Please write clearly. Similarly, lines 322-323 need attention.

Response: Thanks for your comment, the phrases have been revised and rewritten to make your content clearer.

9. Line 326, further studies in which direction will improve the understanding of this test? There is probably no need to further understand the test. Yes, we can probably improve the sensitivity by using Xpert Ultra. Also, may be the technology could be improved as in case of Xpert Omni. You need to mention these points.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We added a paragraph about GeneXpert Ultra and Omni.

10. Line 328, ‘studies of this nature’ need to be replaced. Similarly, lines 335-338 need to be rewritten.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We changed the word "nature" to "design" and the last paragraph of the conclusion has been rewritten, as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Frederick Quinn

26 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-34732R2

Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berra,

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. If you will need significantly 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: http://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,

Frederick Quinn

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.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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: No

**********

5. 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: No

**********

6. 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: Manuscript is improved but still there are pitfalls. English needs to be improved tremendously so that it reads well.

1. Conclusions section of Abstract need to be rewritten.

2. HIV on lines 51 and 53. First time you wrote HIV, second time you write human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Not correct. In fact, writing HIV itself is fine at both the places as this term so common. Similarly, when you write first time, Mycobacterium tuberculosis is fine, but later when you write M. tuberculosis is fine.

3. Line 60, it should be ‘prolonged turnaround time’.

4. Line 74, it is highly sensitive for pulmonary TB, but not for extrapulmonary TB.

5. Lines 282-86, need to write clearly that when culture was employed as the gold standard, then the sensitivity and specificity for GeneXpert were determined for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB. Please read this Ref 23 carefully and then write.

6. Lines 288-89, need to specifically mention here GeneXpert assay and not molecular tests because there are many other molecular tests. Moreover, at times with many extrapulmonary TB samples, GeneXpert shows poor sensitivity so ‘good test performance’ shall be replaced.

7. Lines 294-95 shall be rewritten.

8. Line 300, it shall be written as ‘not good sensitivity with Xpert assay’ instead of efficacy with molecular test. This is because there are many other molecular tests.

9. Line 311 ‘performing the exam’ is not appropriate. Pl re-write. In fact lines 311-13 need to be rewritten.

10. Line please elaborate about liquid culture e.g. MGIT-960 and its advantages over sold media.

11. Lines 330-331 still not clear, please rewrite.

12. Line 374, what are those certain ways?

13. Lines 374-76, need to be rewritten.

**********

7. 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

[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. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0252375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252375.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


5 Apr 2021

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for your reply and your reviewers' comments about our manuscript “PONE-D-20-34732 Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil”.

The comments were appropriate to qualify/improve the manuscript. We have forwarded a letter with the changes made in the manuscript, presenting our response for each comment from reviewers, as requested. Many thanks for the comments.

Kind regards,

Berra et al.

Editors’ comments:

1. 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.

Response: Thank you for your comment. All references have been revised.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

Manuscript is improved but still there are pitfalls. English needs to be improved tremendously so that it reads well.

Response: Thank you for reevaluating the manuscript once again. We inform that the manuscript had been revised in English by a specialized company (https://www.proof-reading-service.com) by natives. Again we send the manuscript to have its writing corrected, we hope it has improved.

1. Conclusions section of Abstract need to be rewritten.

Response: The conclusion of Abstract has been modified.

2. HIV on lines 51 and 53. First time you wrote HIV, second time you write human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Not correct. In fact, writing HIV itself is fine at both the places as this term so common. Similarly, when you write first time, Mycobacterium tuberculosis is fine, but later when you write M. tuberculosis is fine.

Response: In fact, the first time that the acronym HIV appears is in the first paragraph of the introduction, along with the acronym AIDS, in which both acronyms were written in full.

In the lines in which you cited, the second appearance was spelled out in full because it is a new acronym, TB-HIV co-infection, therefore, just being the union of two acronyms that have already appeared in the text, we write its meaning in full in order to follow the journal's norms.

Regarding Mycobacterium tuberculosis, we leave it in full the first time it appears in the text and at other times we change it to M. tuberculosis, as recommended.

3. Line 60, it should be ‘prolonged turnaround time’.

Response: Thanks, this has been fixed.

4. Line 74, it is highly sensitive for pulmonary TB, but not for extrapulmonary TB.

Response: Thanks, this has been fixed.

5. Lines 282-86, need to write clearly that when culture was employed as the gold standard, then the sensitivity and specificity for GeneXpert were determined for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB. Please read this Ref 23 carefully and then write.

Response: Thank you. that information was inserted in the same paragraph.

6. Lines 288-89, need to specifically mention here GeneXpert assay and not molecular tests because there are many other molecular tests. Moreover, at times with many extrapulmonary TB samples, GeneXpert shows poor sensitivity so ‘good test performance’ shall be replaced.

Response: Thank you, the paragraph has been rewritten.

7. Lines 294-95 shall be rewritten.

Response: Thank you, the paragraph has been rewritten.

8. Line 300, it shall be written as ‘not good sensitivity with Xpert assay’ instead of efficacy with molecular test. This is because there are many other molecular tests.

Response: Thanks, this has been fixed.

9. Line 311 ‘performing the exam’ is not appropriate. Pl re-write. In fact lines 311-13 need to be rewritten.

Response: Thank you, the paragraph has been rewritten.

10. Line please elaborate about liquid culture e.g. MGIT-960 and its advantages over sold media.

Response: Three paragraphs were added to the discussion session, better addressing the culture in liquid medium and also comparing it with solid medium L-J.

11. Lines 330-331 still not clear, please rewrite.

Response: The sentence was rewritten again.

12. Line 374, what are those certain ways?

Response: Thanks, this has been fixed.

13. Lines 374-76, need to be rewritten.

Response: Thank you, the paragraph has been rewritten.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Frederick Quinn

23 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-34732R3

Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berra,

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. If you will need significantly more time 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: http://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,

Frederick Quinn

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.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: No

**********

6. 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: Comments

1. Conclusion of Abstract, line 45, it shall be ‘it is possible’, instead of ‘is it possible’.

2. In Intro, line 53, overcoming AIDS today, you need to reframe this sentence.

3. Line 63, shall be ‘considered as the gold standard’.

4. Line 72, it shall be based on the real-time PCR, instead of ‘polymerase chain reaction (PCR), also known as real-time PCR’. This is because it is incorrect to write that PCR is also known as real-time PCR, two techniques are different.

5. Line 80, GeneXpert, in general, is not considered to be a cost-effective test especially in developing countries. Rather, it is considered as a major drawback of this technique as it is not cost-effective.

6. Lines, 77 and 84, as well as 259, it shall be ‘for the detection of’ (and not ‘in the detection of ’).

7. Line 270, it shall be ‘decreases to 57 - 78.2%’ instead of drops to 57 to 78.2%.

8. Lines, 270-274 shall be split into two sentences and written with clarity.

9. Lines 296 and 298 as well as line 300, it shall be sputum samples and not lung samples.

10. Lines 301-303 are incorrect. ‘it is important that further studies are carried out with this type of material as this result may change according to the number of samples tested’, need to be re-written. It is not only the sample size, but different nature of extrapulmonary TB specimens and their collection across diverse geographical locations of entire world.

11. Lines 305 and 311 are repeated (‘Thus, the performance of the GeneXpert® system in extrapulmonary samples is still not entirely clear’).

12. Line 311, ‘again we should stress’, it shall be rewritten.

13. Line 316, ‘to confirm your diagnosis’, is wrong. Please omit the word ‘your’ here.

14. Lines 327, sputum smear and culture examinations are for pulmonary TB, only. You need to mention. That. For extrapulmonary TB, sputum is not taken; rather other bodily fluids undergo smear / culture examination.

15. Lines 354 and 355, two times high cost. Please rewrite.

**********

7. 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

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments-18-4-21.docx

PLoS One. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0252375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252375.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


29 Apr 2021

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for your reply and your reviewers' comments about our manuscript “PONE-D-20-34732 Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil”.

The comments were appropriate to qualify/improve the manuscript. We have forwarded a letter with the changes made in the manuscript, presenting our response for each comment from reviewers, as requested. Many thanks for the comments.

Kind regards,

Berra et al.

Editors’ comments:

1. 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.

Response: Thank you for your comment. All references have been revised.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. Conclusion of Abstract, line 45, it shall be ‘it is possible’, instead of ‘is it possible’.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

2. In Intro, line 53, overcoming AIDS today, you need to reframe this sentence.

Response: Thanks for your comment, this sentence has been modified to improve your understanding.

3. Line 63, shall be ‘considered as the gold standard’.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

4. Line 72, it shall be based on the real-time PCR, instead of ‘polymerase chain reaction (PCR), also known as real-time PCR’. This is because it is incorrect to write that PCR is also known as real-time PCR, two techniques are different.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

5. Line 80, GeneXpert, in general, is not considered to be a cost-effective test especially in developing countries. Rather, it is considered as a major drawback of this technique as it is not cost-effective.

Response: Thank you for your comment, we put this observation at the end of that same indicated paragraph.

6. Lines, 77 and 84, as well as 259, it shall be ‘for the detection of’ (and not ‘in the detection of ’).

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

7. Line 270, it shall be ‘decreases to 57 - 78.2%’ instead of drops to 57 to 78.2%.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

8. Lines, 270-274 shall be split into two sentences and written with clarity.

Response: Thanks for your comment, the paragraph has been rewritten.

9. Lines 296 and 298 as well as line 300, it shall be sputum samples and not lung samples.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

10. Lines 301-303 are incorrect. ‘it is important that further studies are carried out with this type of material as this result may change according to the number of samples tested’, need to be re-written. It is not only the sample size, but different nature of extrapulmonary TB specimens and their collection across diverse geographical locations of entire world.

Response: Thank you for your comment. These observations have been inserted in the paragraph.

11. Lines 305 and 311 are repeated (‘Thus, the performance of the GeneXpert® system in extrapulmonary samples is still not entirely clear’).

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

12. Line 311, ‘again we should stress’, it shall be rewritten.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

13. Line 316, ‘to confirm your diagnosis’, is wrong. Please omit the word ‘your’ here.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

14. Lines 327, sputum smear and culture examinations are for pulmonary TB, only. You need to mention. That. For extrapulmonary TB, sputum is not taken; rather other bodily fluids undergo smear / culture examination.

Response: Thank you for your comment. This observation was inserted in the paragraph in question.

15. Lines 354 and 355, two times high cost. Please rewrite.

Response: Thank you, this has been fixed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 4

Frederick Quinn

17 May 2021

Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert® in a city in south-eastern Brazil

PONE-D-20-34732R4

Dear Dr. Berra,

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,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: No

**********

6. 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: Comments

1. Lines 299-302 and lines 303-312 are repetition; therefore lines 299-302 shall be omitted in discussion.

Moreover, lines 303-312 need to be rewritten, as English is of substandard.

2. Line 351: the term MGIT-960 System shall be written above along with automated liquid culture system in lines 344-345.

**********

7. 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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments-5-5-21.docx

Acceptance letter

Frederick Quinn

19 May 2021

PONE-D-20-34732R4

Effectiveness and trend forecasting of tuberculosis diagnosis after the introduction of GeneXpert in a city in south-eastern Brazil

Dear Dr. Berra:

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 plosone@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. Frederick Quinn

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 Dataset

    (CSV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments-29-11-20.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments-18-4-21.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments-5-5-21.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES