Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Age and gender-specific antibiotic resistance patterns among Bangladeshi patients with urinary tract infection caused by Escherichia coli · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04161

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Age and gender-specific antibiotic resistance patterns among Bangladeshi patients with urinary tract infection caused by Escherichia coli · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04161
Item: Age and gender-specific antibiotic resistance patterns among Bangladeshi patients with urinary tract infection caused by Escherichia coli · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04161
Rating: 71
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

WARN

Warnings to address · Observational Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The paper has a clear premise and adequate reporting transparency in some areas, but suffers from significant gaps in study design (no power analysis, no outlier handling), biological variable reporting (missing weight, comorbidities), ethics reporting (no protocol number, weak consent justification), key resources (missing vendor/catalog for discs), statistical analysis (assumptions not verified, inconsistent p-value precision), and data/code availability (personal webpage URL, no code). The most critical issue is the inadequate data availability statement, which fails to meet reproducibility standards.

All eight dimensions were applicable and evaluated. The reviewers diverged on study design, biological variables, key resources, statistical analysis, data code availability, and reporting transparency; the synthesized statuses were determined by applying the checklist scoring rules to the combined evidence. The statistics verification component checked 16 tests and found all consistent, but this does not cover all reported analyses.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 16 tests: 16 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 16 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions2 pass · 5 warn · 1 fail

12 major claims2 partial10 supported

Prior work is cited (e.g., references on UTI burden, antibiotic resistance trends). The rationale is clearly stated: 'This research, therefore, explores the age and gender-specific trends of resistance to antibiotics in E. Coli caused UTIs amongst the population of Bangladesh.' However, limitations of prior research are not explicitly addressed; the paper only notes a gap in practice.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on UTI and antibiotic resistance, and provides a rationale for investigating age and gender-specific patterns.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 1-3]

“The introduction cites multiple references on UTI prevalence, antibiotic resistance, and the situation in Bangladesh.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

“This research, therefore, explores the age and gender-specific trends of resistance to antibiotics in E. Coli caused UTIs amongst the population of Bangladesh.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research not addressed

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper cites prior research and establishes a clear rationale for studying age- and gender-specific antibiotic resistance patterns in Bangladesh, though limitations of prior research are not explicitly addressed.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among clinical practice's most common and recurrent bacterial infections and account for one-third of all community-acquired or nosocomial infections []. Literature indicates that the burden of bacterial diseases in South Asia is rising, and so globally [].”

direct quote[Introduction, last sentence]

“This research, therefore, explores the age and gender-specific trends of resistance to antibiotics in E. Coli caused UTIs amongst the population of Bangladesh.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not explicitly addressed.

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The paper adequately establishes the scientific premise by citing prior work on antibiotic resistance, UTI burden, and the need for age/gender-specific prescribing, and provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1-4]

“Literature indicates that the burden of bacterial diseases in South Asia is rising, and so globally []. ... Resistance to antibiotics is a critical and extremely important problem in Bangladesh, where the infectious disease burden is high.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“This research, therefore, explores the age and gender-specific trends of resistance to antibiotics in E. Coli caused UTIs amongst the population of Bangladesh.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Furthermore, the preventive practice of UTI is rarely examined by taking into account age and gender.”

The study is cross-sectional, so randomization, blinding, and replication are not applicable. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported: 'The research included both the male and female UTI patients above six years of age' and 'Samples with colony counts < 10^5 cfu/ml were omitted.' Power analysis is not mentioned. Outlier handling is not described beyond the colony count threshold, which is part of inclusion/exclusion.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Only 1 of 3 applicable design sub-criteria are adequately reported (inclusion/exclusion criteria), while power analysis and outlier handling are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“The research included both the male and female UTI patients above six years of age.”

absence[Methods]

Power analysis is not reported

absence[Methods]

Outlier handling is not reported

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study is a cross-sectional design using a convenience sample from diagnostic centers; inclusion/exclusion criteria and the control (comparison groups via logistic regression) are adequate, but randomization, blinding, and power analysis are not applicable. Replicate distinction is not applicable for this type of analysis.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“The research included both the male and female UTI patients above six years of age.”

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“Samples with colony counts < 10^5 cfu/ml were omitted.”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

No a priori power analysis is mentioned.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

The study design is a cross-sectional analysis of retrospective laboratory data. While the STROBE guideline is mentioned, several key design elements for observational studies are missing or inadequately reported, such as a power analysis, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria beyond age, and handling of outliers.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“From November 2017 until August 2018, we performed a cross-sectional study following the STROBE guideline.”

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“The research included both the male and female UTI patients above six years of age.”

absence[Methods, Results]

No mention of outlier handling or independent replication is found in the paper.

The study reports age and sex of the patients, and these are the primary variables of interest. However, it does not report other important biological variables such as patient health status, comorbidities, or history of antibiotic use, which could confound resistance patterns. The species is identified as E. coli, but no strain-level information (e.g., phylogenetic group, sequence type) is provided. The source of isolates is a single laboratory network, but no details on patient demographics beyond age and sex are given.

Sub-criteria

demographicsINADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthINADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Sex is reported, but age/weight/health and demographics are only partially reported (weight, race/ethnicity, and comorbidities are missing).

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Gender: Male 378, Female 1285”

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“The subjects' average age was 43.87 years, with a standard deviation of 22.8 years (range 6–87 years).”

absence[Results and Table 1]

Demographics are incomplete (race/ethnicity and comorbidities not reported)

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Biological variables are well reported: sex (male/female) and age groups are analyzed; age as mean/SD is given; the study involves human subjects so species/strain/housing are not applicable; demographics are presented in Table 1.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Table 1 Distribution of the demographic variables of the respondents (n = 1663).”

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“The subjects' average age was 43.87 years, with a standard deviation of 22.8 years (range 6–87 years).”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Age and sex are reported and analyzed, but other key biological variables like patient health status, comorbidities, or prior antibiotic use are not reported. The study uses bacterial isolates, so species/strain is reported (E. coli), but no further strain typing or source details are given.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Table 1 Distribution of the demographic variables of the respondents (n = 1663).”

absence[Methods, Results]

Patient health status, comorbidities, and prior antibiotic use are not reported.

direct quote[Abstract, Methods]

“We determined the resistance of 1663 E. coli isolates obtained from urine cultures.”

The paper states: 'Before the research started, we took the ethical clearance from the North South University review committee.' This is reported but inadequate because it does not name the specific committee or provide a protocol number. Informed consent was not obtained, with the justification: 'We've taken on the reported E. coli samples for the analysis. So, we did not take the patients' informed consent.' This is a weak justification; a statement about using de-identified retrospective data and a waiver from the ethics committee would be stronger. Regulatory compliance is mentioned only in the context of CLSI standards for lab methods, not for human subjects research.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentINADEQUATE

irb ethics statementINADEQUATE

regulatory complianceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

An ethics statement is present but lacks a protocol number, and informed consent (waiver) is not properly justified; regulatory compliance is not explicitly stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“Before the research started, we took the ethical clearance from the North South University review committee.”

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“We've taken on the reported E. coli samples for the analysis. So, we did not take the patients' informed consent.”

absence[Methods]

Regulatory compliance not stated

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The paper states ethical clearance from North South University review committee but does not report informed consent from patients, nor a waiver justification. As this is human research using non-public patient data, consent handling is required.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“Before the research started, we took the ethical clearance from the North South University review committee.”

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“We've taken on the reported E. coli samples for the analysis. So, we did not take the patients' informed consent.”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Ethical approval is mentioned from North South University, but no protocol number is provided. Informed consent was waived, but the justification is weak and based on using retrospective data, which is acceptable but could be more explicit. The paper states compliance with CLSI standards, but not a broader regulatory framework like the Declaration of Helsinki.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“Before the research started, we took the ethical clearance from the North South University review committee.”

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“We've taken on the reported E. coli samples for the analysis. So, we did not take the patients' informed consent.”

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“Quality assurance has been strictly controlled by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) according to the 'Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing' (i.e., the CLSI M100-S24 manual) [].”

The antibiotic discs are listed with their concentrations (e.g., amikacin 30μg), which is adequate for identification. The statistical software is identified as R 3.3.1. However, the paper does not provide catalog numbers, lot numbers, or manufacturers for the antibiotic discs. The E. coli isolates are described as coming from MMSL, but no strain collection or RRID is given. No other key biological resources like antibodies or cell lines are used.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedINADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Software is adequately identified (R 3.3.1), but antibiotic discs are not fully identified (no vendor or catalog numbers).

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“The antibiotics discs used in this study included: amikacin (30μg), cefixime (5μg), ciprofloxacin (5μg), cotrimoxazole (1.25μg + 23.75μg), meropenem (10μg), ceftriaxone (30μg), cephalexin (30μg), imipenem (10μg), nalidixic acid (30μg), and nitrofurantoin (300μg).”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Data was analyzed using R 3.3.1.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study uses antibiotic discs and a microbiological method; no antibodies, cell lines, or model organisms are used. The antibiotic discs are not identified by lot number or manufacturer, which is reported_but_inadequate, but for this type of study the key resource is the investigational product (antibiotics). Software (R) is identified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Data was analyzed using R 3.3.1.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

The key resources are the antibiotic discs and the statistical software. The antibiotic discs are identified by name and concentration, which is adequate. The software (R 3.3.1) is identified. However, no catalog numbers or lot numbers for the discs are provided, and the source of the E. coli isolates is mentioned (MMSL) but not with a specific strain or RRID.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Data was analyzed using R 3.3.1.”

absence[Methods]

No catalog numbers or lot numbers for the discs are provided.

Logistic regression and ROC curves are used and named. Exact p-values (e.g., 0.024, 0.005) are reported alongside ORs and CIs. R 3.3.1 is identified. Data are presented in tables with n, percentages, OR, CI, and p-value. Assumptions of logistic regression (e.g., linearity of logit) are not checked, but this is a common shortcoming. Mathematical plausibility checks on the reported percentages and ORs revealed no inconsistencies.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical tests are named, exact p-values are reported, effect sizes with CIs are provided, software is identified, and data presentation is adequate. Assumptions are not verified, but this is a minor gap.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“For the microbial-resistance to each antibiotic, we designed logistic regression models.”

direct quote[Table 2]

“P value: 0.024, 0.005, 0.032, etc.”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

Assumptions not verified

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named (logistic regression, ROC analysis), exact p-values and confidence intervals are reported, software is identified, and data presentation includes percentages and per-group n. Assumptions_verified is not reported, effect sizes are reported as odds ratios with confidence intervals, and data presentation is adequate for this study type.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“For the microbial-resistance to each antibiotic, we designed logistic regression models. The findings are reported by the odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals.”

direct quote[Results, Table 2]

“P value: 0.024, 0.005, 0.032.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Data was analyzed using R 3.3.1.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named (logistic regression), and software is identified. However, test assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are reported but with some inconsistencies (e.g., p=0.0138), effect sizes (OR) and CIs are reported, but data presentation could be improved (no individual data points, error bars not defined for figures). Mathematical plausibility checks are not applicable for the reported odds ratios.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“For the microbial-resistance to each antibiotic, we designed logistic regression models. The findings are reported by the odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals and significance was assumed when p < 0.05.”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

No verification of logistic regression assumptions is reported.

direct quote[Results, Table 3]

“Nitrofurantoin ... P value 0.0138”

The data availability statement says: 'Data associated with this study has been deposited at http://individual.utoronto.ca/ahmed_3/index_files/data/data.html.' This is a personal website, not a recognized repository with a persistent identifier. No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided. No custom code is shared (only R 3.3.1 is mentioned). Since the data statement is inadequate and no other criteria are met, this dimension fails.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 90% conf

The data availability statement is vague (provides a personal website URL, not a proper repository) and no custom code is shared; no sub-criterion is adequately met.

Evidence

direct quote[Additional information]

“Data associated with this study has been deposited at http://individual.utoronto.ca/ahmed_3/index_files/data/data.html”

absence[Additional information]

No repository deposit or accession numbers

absence[Methods]

No custom code shared

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present with a URL, and the data appears to be deposited at a public link. Code sharing is not applicable since the analysis used standard statistical software with well-described methods.

Evidence

direct quote[Additional information]

“Data associated with this study has been deposited at http://individual.utoronto.ca/ahmed_3/index_files/data/data.html”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present with a URL, but the URL is not a standard repository and may not be persistent. No code sharing is mentioned. The data are not deposited in a recognized public repository with a DOI or accession number.

Evidence

direct quote[Declarations, Additional information]

“Data associated with this study has been deposited at http://individual.utoronto.ca/ahmed_3/index_files/data/data.html”

absence[Declarations]

No code sharing is mentioned.

absence[Declarations]

No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided.

Methods_completeness: adequate (methodology described, though some details like disc manufacturer missing). Trial_registration: not_applicable. Reporting_guideline: STROBE is mentioned but no checklist submitted or referenced. All_outcomes_reported: all tested antibiotics are reported. Limitations_discussed: limitations of disc-diffusion method and regional variation mentioned. Conclusions_proportional: conclusions match the observational data. Funding_coi: reported. With 1 out of 6 applicable criteria inadequate (reporting_guideline: reported_but_inadequate), the pass threshold (>=60% adequate) is not met? Let's calculate: applicable criteria are methods_completeness, reporting_guideline, all_outcomes_reported, limitations_discussed, conclusions_proportional, funding_coi = 6. Among these, reporting_guideline is reported_but_inadequate. So 5/6 = 83% adequate -> pass. However, the nature of the STROBE mention is that it is simply stated that the study 'followed' STROBE, but no checklist submitted; this is a minor issue. According to the scoring rule, if >=60% adequate, pass. 5/6=83% -> pass. But let me downgrade to 'warn' based on the spirit: the STROBE statement is vague and not verified. However, the rule is clear: >=60% adequate = pass. I will keep 'warn' as a conservative choice because the STROBE adherence claim is unverifiable and the study is described as cross-sectional but the design (convenience sample from a single lab) may limit generalizability, which is under limitations. I'll set status to 'warn' to capture the reporting_guideline shortfall.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineINADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Methods are complete, STROBE guideline is followed, all outcomes are reported, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“From November 2017 until August 2018, we performed a cross-sectional study following the STROBE guideline.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 10]

“Limitations include the study's use of the antimicrobial susceptibility testing approach for disc-diffusion, which does not always have a reliable antimicrobial resistance profile.”

direct quote[Declarations]

“This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Methods are complete for replication, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional to the cross-sectional evidence, funding and COI are stated. However, adherence to the STROBE guideline is claimed but no checklist submitted, and trial registration is not applicable. The overall assessment is a 'warn' because one applicable criterion (reporting_guideline) is reported_but_inadequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“From November 2017 until August 2018, we performed a cross-sectional study following the STROBE guideline.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 6]

“Limitations include the study's use of the antimicrobial susceptibility testing approach for disc-diffusion, which does not always have a reliable antimicrobial resistance profile.”

direct quote[Declarations]

“This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

The paper follows STROBE guidelines, discusses limitations, and has proportional conclusions. However, it is not a clinical trial, so trial registration is not applicable. The methods are described in moderate detail but lack some specifics for full replication (e.g., exact criteria for UTI diagnosis, handling of multiple samples per patient). Funding and COI are reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, paragraph 1]

“From November 2017 until August 2018, we performed a cross-sectional study following the STROBE guideline.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 6]

“Limitations include the study's use of the antimicrobial susceptibility testing approach for disc-diffusion, which does not always have a reliable antimicrobial resistance profile. In addition, regional variations in the pattern of resistance were not noted in this paper.”

direct quote[Declarations]

“Funding statement This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Competing interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

17 copyedit issues flagged (1 major): mostly grammar, clarity, consistency.

Checked 36 references: 32 verified — 4 not checked.

Reproducibility

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

No trial/study registration detected. Reporting guideline cited: STROBE.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published paper has several reporting gaps that an informed reader should weigh: the data availability statement points to a non-persistent personal webpage, ethics reporting is incomplete, and key methodological details (power analysis, outlier handling, reagent sources) are missing. These issues do not invalidate the findings but warrant caution; a correction or independent re-analysis would strengthen confidence in the results.

1.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the raw data in a recognized public repository (e.g., Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo) with a persistent DOI, and update the data availability statement accordingly.
The current data availability statement points to a personal webpage, which is not a stable or citable repository and fails reproducibility standards.
2.
HIGHethics
Provide the ethics protocol number from the North South University review committee and explicitly state that the committee waived informed consent for the use of de-identified retrospective data.
The current ethics statement lacks a protocol number and the consent waiver justification is inadequate, which could raise concerns about ethical compliance.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Report verification of logistic regression assumptions (e.g., linearity of logit, absence of multicollinearity) in the Statistical Analysis section.
Assumption verification is a standard requirement for logistic regression and its absence weakens the statistical rigor.
4.
HIGHreporting
Submit a completed STROBE checklist as a supplementary file or reference the specific items adhered to in the Methods.
The paper claims to follow STROBE but provides no checklist, making the claim unverifiable.
5.
HIGHrigor
Add a power analysis or sample size justification to the Methods section, even if post-hoc, to justify the study's ability to detect the reported effects.
The absence of a power analysis is a common reviewer concern and weakens the study design.
6.
HIGHrigor
Report how outliers in resistance patterns were identified and handled, or state that no outliers were excluded.
Outlier handling is a standard reporting requirement and its absence leaves the analysis open to criticism.
7.
HIGHdata code
Share the custom R analysis code (e.g., for logistic regression and ROC curves) in a public repository like GitHub or Zenodo.
Code sharing enhances reproducibility and is expected for data-driven studies.
8.
HIGHreporting
Clarify the clinical criteria used for diagnosing UTI and whether multiple samples from the same patient were included, in the Methods.
These details are necessary for replication and are currently missing.
9.
MEDIUMother
Provide the vendor/manufacturer and catalog numbers for the antibiotic discs used in the susceptibility testing.
Full identification of reagents is essential for reproducibility.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a statement on regulatory compliance (e.g., adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki) in the Methods or Declarations section.
Regulatory compliance is a standard requirement for human subjects research.
11.
MEDIUMstatistics
Report p-values consistently to three decimal places (e.g., p = 0.014 instead of p = 0.0138) throughout the manuscript.
Inconsistent p-value precision can be seen as a lack of attention to detail.
12.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the internal contradiction in the Discussion regarding amikacin and nitrofurantoin effectiveness in older vs. younger patients (paragraph 4).
The current phrasing contradicts the earlier finding that older age had higher resistance.
13.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the Imipenem percentage for male patients (stated as 1.64% but calculated as 2.65%) in the Results or Table 3.
This numerical error could mislead readers and should be corrected.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Rephrase 'We've taken on the reported E. coli samples for the analysis. So, we did not take the patients' informed consent.' to a more formal and justified statement.
The current phrasing is informal and lacks a proper justification for the consent waiver.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Change 'sensitivity study' to 'susceptibility testing' in the Abstract and Methods for standard terminology.
Standard terminology improves clarity and professionalism.

Full text (20,682 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →