758 / 1195
carried out as validated and published.
- the reference method requires a purification step before analysis is carried on the isolate. If not
done, information on what basis the colonies on agar were called negative for Listeria spp. would be
required to determine if False Negatives by the reference method could have resulted from a mixed
colony.
Reviewer #
9.
Pros/Strengths of the Manuscript:
1
Clarity of thought and discussion
2
Clearly presented.
3
4
No comments.
5
Well written
6
The VIDAS results data as well as the statistical analysis data have been presented in detail.
7
Well written.
Reviewer #
10.
Cons/Weaknesses of the Manuscript:
1
None
2
Too many Tables and Figures.
3
4
No comments.
5
6
The manuscript could be written better with better proof reading (example Page 6, line 31- Section C
is repeated on both page 6 and 7); and better organization of the sub sections.
Since this is the VIDAS LMX, care should have been taken to specify that the method targets L.
monocytogenes specifically eather than Listeria spp. (example: Page 5, line 6: applicable to detection
of Listeria in ....; Tables 2013.2 A to D also indicate that the data is for detection of Listeris sp rather
than L. monocytogenes).
7
As outlined in general comments on the method.
Reviewer #
11.
Supporting Data and Information
(General comments and method
optimization/precollaborative/single laboratory validation)
: Does the collaborative study
data support the method as written
1
2
Pre-collaborative study data is supportive and has been approved.
3
4
Yes
5
yes
6
Exclusivity study (Page 9, Table 2): S. aureus (ST 26) and S. epidermidis (ST3) were positive in the
initial run using TSBYE. However they were reanalyzed using LMX broth but the table shows ST 17
and not ST 26 as being reanalyzed. This needs to be clarified.
Were samples prewarmed in the PTM study? Why were they prewarmed in the collab study but not
in the PTM?
7
Previously expressed concerns on extension of a method to additional matrices, using a different
primary enrichment than the original validation study, still stand. However, I understand that this
deviation was approved by the GR.
4
21 June 2013