Microbiology Methods for ERP Review 3-2020

188

2/5/2020

OFFICIAL METHODS of ANALYSIS COLLABORATIVE STUDY PROTOCOL REVIEW FORM

Yes No Is the table presented in AOAC format? *

Yes No Does the repeatibility, reproducibility, sensititivity and HORRAT values appear reasonable given the matrix, analyte and levels? *

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE METHOD * The validated method seems to be equivalent to the reference method based on the data presented. But the manuscript needs significant revision to correct/confirm calculations in a number of places.

Are there any concerns regarding the safety of the method (if necessary, refer to the review from the Safety Advisor)? * No.

Are there any concerns regarding the data manipulation, data tables or statistical analyses (if necessary, refer to the review from the Statistics Advisor)? * Yes. Manuscript was not well prepared/reviewed with care. 1. The inoculum levels presented in Abstract are different from what presented in the text (Page 13). 2. Page 4, Line 1: Not enough information on how the MPN was conducted. Does the test portion mean medium only or medium containing the food matrix? It reads like the reference method test portions from the collaborating laboratories are 50 g. Is there a reference for it? 3. Table 2020.01A: There are two identical "Candidate Confirmed Positive/...". The second one should be "Candidata Positive/..." if I am correct. Seemed better to revise "Positive Reference Samples/..." to "Reference Positive/..."? The calculation of dLPOD's needs to be reviewed. Based on my calculation the dLPOC(c.-r.) for Low is 0.07 (-0.02, 0.15) if Appendix J. Annex F was followed. The presented dLPOD's in this table should be re- calculated and reviewed by another statistician. Again, revise abstract using the correct results. Table 2020.01B: Please list "MPH/Test Portion" under a individual column. Put it under "Matrix" is quite confusion. The Candidate result (C) for X of Collaborator 11 should be "6", instead of "7" I believe. Please re- calculate this table according to the correct data. Figure 1A/B: The error bars (95% CI) at 0.45 and 5.44 MPN/test portion presented are inconsistent to the results presented in Table 2020.01A/B. Again, two "Candidate Confirmed" curves showed up in A. Please correct. Please re-do the calculation following Annex F and prepare figures using the results from the table, and update the results in both the text and abstract!

EDITORIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA Comments: * No.

The data correspond to the approved study protocol or guidelines and the statistical analysis is acceptable in the manuscript. Clarification(s) needed on data tables, data manipulation and/or statistical analysis would ensure that the manuscript corresponds to the approved study protocol and/or guidelines with the indicated revisions. Manuscript needs the indicated revisions to be statistically acceptable and correspond with the study protocol and/or guidelines. The data collected, data manipulation, data tables and statistical analyses in the manuscript do not correspond to the approved study protocol or guidelines making the manuscript statistically unacceptable. RECOMMENDATION: *

Reviewer Name (First and Last Name) * Anli Gao

E-mail * agao@uoguelph.ca

https://form.jotform.com/AOACINT/RIStatsReview

2/3