Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Infections in Geriatric Patients

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Excellent

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good

Comments:

The Discussion is well supported by data and tables and illustrates the predominance of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in elderly patients with the exception of bacteremia and ear infections. Most of the infections are found to be polymicrobial, in association with other invasive organisms. The association with serious underlying diseases leads to the Conclusion that only few deaths can be directly attributed to S. maltophilia.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This retrospective study presents antibiotic-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in 317 hospitalized patients in a large health network over a period of 3 years. It is significantly associated with foreign materials such as foley catheters, suprapubic catheters, urinary stents, tracheostomies and endotracheal tubes and prior used carbapenem is found to be insignificant in the patients of this study. The limitations of this study are that the study group only has 1 organ transplant patient, 2 cystic fibrosis patients and no burn wound infections.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team