172 / 328
General comments about the method:
ER 1
The method is very well described in the various documents.
ER 2
NA
ER 3
The method is much simpler compared to traditional method and the space savings in the use of Petrifilm
are significant as compared to traditional agar plates.
ER 4
No additional comments
ER 5
The method is really useful due to it significantly reduces test times
ER 6
Well written and easy to follow
ER 7
none
ER 8
1. Page 7, line 17. There should be references directing the analyst to methods for the further
identification of yeast/fungal isolates. They should be ISO, BAM, MLG and others.
Pros/Strengths of the Manuscript:
ER 1
Good description of the sample preparation protocols. Efficient description of the collab study workflow
and organization. Tables are very useful for summarizing the results.
ER 2
Very well written.
ER 3
The Manuscript is well written and the information flow is in an understandable order.
ER 4
Generally well written.
ER 5
It is a simple method for working
ER 6
Very thoroughly written and detailed
ER 7
Well written in general.
ER 8
It is well written.
Cons/Weaknesses of the Manuscript:
ER 1
Very minor edits: page 7, line 25, reports lab 5 as one of the 4 labs with deviations, but in table 1 page 13,
lab 6 is marked as the lab showing deviations for ground beef??? Reading through the report and the
pack insert, it remains unclear if the minimum incubation is 48 hours or 46 hours since it is stipulated that
incubation shall be 48+/-2 hours but reading is required at 48 hours: is minimal time of 48 hours of
incubation is required?
ER 2
NA
ER 3
Table 1 describes which data sets were not used in the statistical analysis; however, there are not
indications as such in tables 2 – 9 where raw data is presented. It may help to identify the labs who’s data
sets were excluded in each table using a superscript letter.
ER 4
Need to elaborate on the issues and possible causes of those issues of laboratories whose data were not
used in the study.
ER 5
no
ER 6
None
ER 7
Page 1, line 24 states "unpaired study design" but page 4 line, line 22 states "paired study design". Please
clarify in the manuscript. Page 3, line 29: Clarify that after lyophilization dilutions were done with sterile
NFDM powder or reconstituted NFDM. Page 4, line 38: Increase font size. Page 4, line47: Justify or omit
reverse transformed mean difference here and in Tables 2014.1 and 2014.2.[Continued] Page 7, line 24:
Insert "valid" before both "data" words. Page 7, line 33: Omit Figs 1-4 which are somewhat redundant.
Add statement about acceptability of Youden plots. Page 7, line 37: Remove "reverse transformed
difference" here and in Tables 2014.1 &.2. Page 8, lines 31-33: State the repeatability SD values
supporting this assertion. Page 8, lines 44-46: State the repeatability SD values supporting this assertion.
ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES
136