Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Tick-Borne Rickettsioses, Neglected Emerging Diseases in Rural Senegal · 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000821

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Tick-Borne Rickettsioses, Neglected Emerging Diseases in Rural Senegal · 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000821
Item: Tick-Borne Rickettsioses, Neglected Emerging Diseases in Rural Senegal · 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000821
Rating: 79
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 presents a well-structured observational study on tick-borne rickettsioses in Senegal, with clear rationale and adequate ethical approvals. Methodological strengths include detailed description of molecular methods and provision of a STROBE checklist. Key weaknesses: missing data availability statement, no effect sizes or confidence intervals in statistical analyses, overgeneralized conclusions, incomplete reporting of biological variables and key resources (cell line authentication, antibody catalog numbers), and several copyedit issues including a duplicated phrase and inconsistent p-value formatting.

Three independent reviewers scored all eight dimensions; their ratings diverged on study design, biological variables, ethical approvals, statistical analysis, and reporting transparency. The synthesized statuses weigh the specific, verifiable evidence over summary labels. Several sub-criteria (e.g., randomization, blinding, IACUC) were deemed not applicable for this observational field study. A citation check identified one retracted reference. A statistics re-check found 1 inconsistency among 9 recomputed tests; coverage is limited to tests with reported test statistics and df.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

Recomputed 8 tests: 8 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 8 via agent-written checks. 1 reported summary statistic mathematically impossible for the stated N (GRIM/GRIMMER).

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions3 pass · 5 warn

12 major claims2 overstated3 partial7 supported

The introduction reviews the history of tick-borne rickettsioses in Africa, discusses the limitations of prior serological studies (cross-reactivity, lack of molecular data), and presents the rationale for conducting a comprehensive study in Senegal. The study objectives follow logically from the cited evidence.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper provides a thorough introduction to tick-borne rickettsioses in Africa, citing prior work and establishing a clear rationale for the study of these neglected diseases in rural Senegal.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1-5]

“The introduction cites numerous studies on R. conorii, R. africae, R. sibirica mongolitimonae, and others, noting that 'West Africa, including Senegal, remains incompletely studied in terms of tick-borne rickettsioses.'”

direct quote[Introduction, final sentence]

“'The present work was performed in order to enlarge the scant knowledge about tick-borne rickettsioses in Senegal.'”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“'The precise serological identification of the etiological agent of spotted fever in humans may be difficult because of the strong cross-reactivity in serological studies.'”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise: tick-borne rickettsioses are understudied in West Africa, and prior serological and vector data motivate the investigation.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 7]

“West Africa, including Senegal, remains incompletely studied in terms of tick-borne rickettsioses.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2-6]

“The introduction reviews known rickettsial species and seroprevalence data across Africa, then states the need for molecular studies in Senegal.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“The precise serological identification of the etiological agent of spotted fever in humans may be difficult because of the strong cross-reactivity in serological studies.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes its scientific foundation by citing prior work on rickettsioses in Africa, highlighting the knowledge gap in West Africa, and providing a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 1-10]

“Paraphrase: The introduction reviews the history of tick-borne rickettsioses in Africa, including the discovery of R. africae, and notes that West Africa, including Senegal, remains incompletely studied.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“The present work was performed in order to enlarge the scant knowledge about tick-borne rickettsioses in Senegal.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 10]

“The precise serological identification of the etiological agent of spotted fever in humans may be difficult because of the strong cross-reactivity in serological studies.”

For a study of this type (observational field survey), randomization, blinding, and power analysis are not applicable. However, the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of human febrile patients is described ('patients who came into the dispensary with a recent fever and had negative test results for malaria'), but not pre-specified in a protocol. Outlier handling is not reported. For the tick component, adequate positive and negative controls for PCR are reported ('DNA extracted from uninfected ticks... and sterile cardiac valve biopsies were used as negative controls, and DNA extracted from ... Rickettsia bellii served as a positive control'). The study does not report independent replication of key findings beyond the survey itself. The distinction between biological and technical replicates is not relevant for a survey of individual humans and ticks (each tick is a biological sample).

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisN/A

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionINADEQUATE

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionNOT REPORTED

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is overall sound for an observational descriptive survey, but several applicable methodological details are missing or inadequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment', paragraph 3]

“'In this study, we included patients who came into the dispensary with a recent fever and had negative test results for malaria.'”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Molecular biology', paragraph 4]

“'DNA extracted from uninfected ticks from colonies at the Unité des Rickettsies, Marseille, France and sterile cardiac valve biopsies were used as negative controls, and DNA extracted from the cell culture supernatant of Rickettsia bellii served as a positive control.'”

absence[Materials and Methods]

Outlier handling or criteria for excluding data points are not mentioned.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design is observational with multiple components; several sub-criteria are adequately reported, but key elements like power analysis, outlier handling, and independent replication are missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment']

“In this study, we included patients who came into the dispensary with a recent fever and had negative test results for malaria”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Molecular biology']

“DNA extracted from uninfected ticks from colonies at the Unité des Rickettsies, Marseille, France and sterile cardiac valve biopsies were used as negative controls, and DNA extracted from the cell culture supernatant of Rickettsia bellii served as a positive control.”

absence[Materials and Methods, entire text]

Power analysis and outlier handling are not reported.

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

The study design is appropriate for an observational investigation, with clear inclusion criteria for human participants and adequate controls for molecular assays. Most sub-criteria are either reported adequately or not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Human sample collection and treatment]

“In this study, we included patients who came into the dispensary with a recent fever and had negative test results for malaria.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Molecular biology]

For human participants, sex and age distributions are provided for both the serosurvey and the febrile cohort. For ticks, species are identified and collection sites are given. The study includes both sexes in humans, so sex justification is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 80% conf

The paper reports age and sex for human participants, but fails to report a range of other applicable biological variables for either humans or ticks/hosts.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“'134 (62M and 72F) febrile patients'”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment', paragraph 2]

“'mean age 26±18, range from 3 to 78'”

absence[Materials and Methods, 'Ticks']

No information on housing or husbandry conditions for the domestic animals is provided.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Sex, age, demographics are well-reported for human subjects; tick species are identified and sourced. Housing/tick-host data are provided for animals but animal-specific variables like weight/health status of the domestic animals are not considered, as the animals were primarily tick sources.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment']

“In total, 238 serum samples collected in Dielmo in 2008 (mean age 26±18, range from 3 to 78, 117 men and 121 women) and 241 samples from Ndiop (mean age 25±17, range from 5 to 82, 112 men and 129 women) were tested.”

direct quote[Results, Table 3]

“Animals from which positive ticks were collected: Cows, donkeys, sheep, goats, horses”

absence[Entire paper]

Health status of animal hosts is not reported; not applicable to the tick survey design.

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The paper reports sex, age, and health status for human participants, and species, strain, and source for ticks. All applicable biological variables are adequately reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Human sample collection and treatment]

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Ticks]

“A total of 406 ticks were collected from four villages in the Sine-Saloum region and 2361 ticks from the Niakhar region.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Human sample collection and treatment]

“Medical examinations were performed by a medical attendant for each individual with fever (defined by an axillary temperature >37.5°C).”

The study involving human subjects (serosurvey and febrile patient sampling) was approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal and the Local Ethics Committee (Marseille, France). Written individual informed consent was obtained from all participants and guardians of children. The tick collection from domestic animals does not involve animal experimentation and therefore an IACUC statement is not applicable. Regulatory compliance is implicitly covered via the ethics statement.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Human research ethics are adequately addressed with named ethics committee approval and informed consent. No animal research ethics statement is required as the tick study involved non-vertebrate collection.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment', paragraph 1]

“'The project was approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal and the Local Ethics Committee (Marseille, France).'”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment', paragraph 1]

“'Written individual informed consent was obtained from each participant, including the parents or legal guardians of all children, at the beginning of the current study.'”

absence[Materials and Methods]

No explicit regulatory framework (e.g. Declaration of Helsinki) is cited.

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethics approval by a named committee is stated, informed consent was obtained, and compliance with ethical principles is noted.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment']

“The project was approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal and the Local Ethics Committee (Marseille, France).”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Human sample collection and treatment']

“Written individual informed consent was obtained from each participant, including the parents or legal guardians of all children, at the beginning of the current study.”

absence[Entire paper]

No animal experimentation — IACUC not applicable.

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Ethics approval from named committees and informed consent are reported, but the paper does not explicitly state compliance with a recognized regulatory framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki), which is a minor reporting gap.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Human sample collection and treatment]

“The project was approved by the National Ethics Committee of Senegal and the Local Ethics Committee (Marseille, France).”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Human sample collection and treatment]

“Written individual informed consent was obtained from each participant, including the parents or legal guardians of all children.”

absence[Entire manuscript]

No explicit statement of compliance with a regulatory framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is found.

Organisms (ticks) are well-identified to species with collection details. Software tools are named with versions (e.g., ChromasPro 1.49 beta, BioEdit v. 7.0.9.0, Geneious 4.7.6, Epi Info 3.4.1). Primer sequences for the new qPCR system are given in full. PCR kits and enzymes are identified. Mycoplasma testing and cell line authentication are not applicable as this is a field survey, not a cell-culture experiment. Antibodies are not used in this study (serological antigens are produced in-house, but the specific antibody reagents for the IFA are not explicitly identified with catalog numbers). Reagents for culture (MEM, FBS) are named but not with lot numbers.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedNOT REPORTED

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study identifies many key resources (ticks, PCR reagents, software), but a few sub-criteria are under-described while others are well-documented.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Ticks']

“'The species and sex were identified according to standard taxonomic keys for adult ticks.'”

paraphrase[Materials and Methods, 'Serological studies']

“Antigens were generated in-house from specific strains, but the specific antibody reagents (e.g., anti-human IgG/IgM conjugates) are not listed with catalog numbers or RRIDs.”

paraphrase[Materials and Methods]

“The QIAamp kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) is named, and primer sequences for the RKND03 and sca1 systems are provided, but catalog numbers or lot numbers are not given.”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Tick species are well-identified with taxonomic keys, sequencing accession numbers are provided, and software tools are named; however, key reagents (primers, probes) are identified but without catalog numbers for some, and no RRIDs or vendor catalog numbers for in-house antigens are given.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Ticks']

“The species and sex were identified according to standard taxonomic keys for adult ticks”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Molecular biology']

“forward primer R_aesSca1_F 3′-AAGCGGCACTTTAGGTAAAGAAA-5′ , reverse primer R_aesSca1_R 3′-CATGCTCTGCAAATGAACCA-5′ , probe 6-FAM®-TGGGGAAATATGCCGTATACGCAAGC-TAMRA®”

paraphrase[Materials and Methods, 'Culture']

“L929 cells are used for shell-vial culture, but no STR profiling or mycoplasma test is reported.”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Key resources such as tick species, software, and reagents are identified, but several lack the level of detail (RRIDs, authentication, catalog numbers) expected by current standards, though many were not standard in 2010.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Ticks]

“The species and sex were identified according to standard taxonomic keys for adult ticks,.”

paraphrase[Materials and Methods, Molecular biology]

“Paraphrase: Epi Info software version 3.4.1, ChromasPro 1.49 beta, BioEdit 7.0.9.0, and Geneious 4.7.6 are mentioned.”

absence[Materials and Methods, Culture]

Cell line authentication and mycoplasma testing are not reported for L929 cells.

The chi-square test is named and used to compare seroprevalence between villages. The software (Epi Info) is identified. Data are presented in tables with counts and percentages. However, exact p-values are only reported as '<10^-3' or '0.004', not as exact numbers. No verification of test assumptions or effect sizes are provided. The mathematical plausibility check passes (e.g., 51/238=21.4% is correct).

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named, software is identified, and exact p-values are reported in tables, though effect sizes with confidence intervals are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Statistical analysis']

“'Non-parametric values were compared using a χ2 test.'”

direct quote[Results, Table 2]

“'P value' column includes '<10 −3' and '0.004'.”

absence[Results, Table 2 and text]

No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The statistical tests are named (chi-square for seroprevalence comparison), software is identified, and exact p-values are sometimes reported, but effect sizes/confidence intervals are absent, assumptions are not verified, and data presentation in tables does not show individual data points.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Statistical analysis']

“Non-parametric values were compared using a χ2 test. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05.”

absence[Results and Tables]

No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Statistical analysis']

“Data were analyzed using Epi Info software, version 3.4.1 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA).”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

The statistical methods are appropriate for the data, but the reporting lacks several details: exact p-values are not given (only thresholds), test assumptions are not verified, and effect sizes or confidence intervals are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Non-parametric values were compared using a χ2 test. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05.”

direct quote[Results, Table 2]

“P value <10 −3”

absence[Results, Table 2]

Effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported.

GenBank accession numbers for the sequences from ticks and strains are provided (e.g., HM050271). This constitutes repository deposit for the sequence data. However, a general data availability statement is missing from the paper. The code for the custom qPCR analysis is not shared. For an observational study of this era (2010), the absence of a full data statement is not unusual but is a reporting gap.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersADEQUATE

repository depositINADEQUATE

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

A data availability statement is absent. While sequence data are deposited in GenBank with accession numbers, the overall data from the study (e.g., serology results, tick counts) are not deposited in a repository.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, 'Rickettsial strains']

“'Sequences of the rrs, gltA, ompA, ompB, and sca4 genes of R. sibirica mongolitimonae, strain RH05, were deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers HM050271, HM050296, HM050272, HM050273, and HM050295, respectively.'”

absence[Entire paper]

No general data availability statement is present.

absence[Paper]

Custom code for the qPCR is not shared.

WARNReviewer 2· 75% conf

A data availability statement is not explicitly provided; sequence data were deposited in GenBank with accession numbers, but raw data for serology/human samples are not available.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, 'Rickettsial strains' and Discussion]

“Sequences of the rrs, gltA, ompA, ompB, and sca4 genes of R. sibirica mongolitimonae, strain RH05, were deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers HM050271, HM050296, HM050272, HM050273, and HM050295, respectively.”

absence[Entire paper]

No global data availability statement for human serology/clinical data.

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Sequences are deposited in GenBank with accession numbers, but the paper lacks an explicit data availability statement and does not provide any code or workflows.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement is present.

direct quote[Results, Rickettsial strains]

absence[Entire manuscript]

No custom code or workflows are shared.

Methods are comprehensive: sample collection, DNA extraction, PCR protocols, serology, statistics are all described. A STROBE checklist is provided as Supporting Information (Checklist S1), which is adequate for reporting guidelines. Limitations are discussed (e.g., cross-reactivity, absence of direct pathogen isolation from human blood for most cases, need for longitudinal studies). Conclusions are generally proportional, though the final statement that 'tick-borne rickettsioses together with Q fever... are major public health problems' may be somewhat broader than the direct evidence from this study alone. All pre-specified outcomes are reported (seroprevalence, tick rickettsial prevalence, acute fever cases). Funding and COI: the paper states 'The authors have no support or funding to report' and 'The authors have declared that no competing interests exist' — this is adequate but unusual (no funding is reported). Trial registration is not applicable (observational). Thus 5 of 6 applicable criteria (methods, reporting_guideline, all_outcomes, limitations, funding_coi) are adequate; conclusions_proportional is reported_but_inadequate due to slight overgeneralization; this gives 83% adequate, but the missing explicit pre-specification of outcomes in a protocol is a minor gap; however, with STROBE checklist present, overall transparency is good, hence 'warn' given the broadness of conclusion.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

The paper is well-structured and methods are detailed, but it lacks a trial registration (not applicable), a formal reporting guideline checklist (though a STROBE checklist is in Supporting Information), and a clear funding/COI statement.

Evidence

direct quote[Supporting Information, 'Checklist S1']

“'Checklist S1 STROBE checklist'”

direct quote[End of text, 'Footnotes']

“'The authors have no support or funding to report.'”

paraphrase[Materials and Methods]

“The methods for tick collection, DNA extraction, PCR, sequencing, serology, and culture are all described in step-by-step detail.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Methods are detailed enough for replication, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are stated. However, no trial registration is applicable, no explicit reporting guideline was referenced (though a STROBE checklist is in Supporting Information), and not all pre-specified outcomes are explicitly listed.

Evidence

direct quote[Supporting Information]

“Checklist S1 STROBE checklist (0.10 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 7]

“because of cross-reactivity among rickettsiae of spotted-fever group and R. felis, based on performed serological studies we may not say exactly which species of rickettsia play the most important role”

direct quote[Acknowledgments/Footnotes]

“The authors have no support or funding to report.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The manuscript is well-structured, methods are detailed, a STROBE checklist is provided, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding and conflicts of interest are declared.

Evidence

direct quote[Supporting Information]

“Checklist S1 STROBE checklist (0.10 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 9]

“The results of the serological screening confirmed our assumption. They showed a very high prevalence... However, because of cross-reactivity among rickettsiae of spotted-fever group and R. felis, based on performed serological studies we may not say exactly which species of rickettsia play the most important role in elevated seroprevalence in West Africa.”

direct quote[Footnotes]

“The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The authors have no support or funding to report.”

18 copyedit issues flagged: mostly clarity, typo, consistency.

Checked 76 references: 45 verified — 1 retracted, 30 not checked.

Reproducibility

29 data/code links checked; 15 live.

Registration stated in text, but no registry ID was detected. Reporting guideline cited: STROBE.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This paper is already published. The post-publication audit indicates that while the core findings are likely reliable, several reporting gaps and one overgeneralized conclusion would warrant an erratum or editorial note: (1) add a data availability statement, (2) correct the retracted citation, (3) temper the conclusion that tick-borne rickettsioses are 'major public health problems' to match the evidence presented. Informed readers should weigh the absence of effect sizes and confidence intervals, the unverified χ² test assumptions, and the missing cell line authentication.

1.
HIGHrigor
In the Discussion/Conclusion, temper the claim that 'tick-borne rickettsioses together with Q fever, flea-borne rickettsiosis, T. whipplei infection, and tick-borne relapsing fever are major public health problems in West Africa' to state that the data show high seroprevalence and tick infection, not direct evidence of disease burden.
This claim is unsupported by the study's own data (seroprevalence and tick infection, not incidence or health burden) and was flagged as overstated in the claim audit.
2.
HIGHdata code
Add a formal data availability statement that describes how to access raw serology, clinical, and tick count data (e.g., available upon request from the corresponding author or deposited in a repository), alongside the existing GenBank accession numbers.
The absence of a data availability statement makes it unclear how readers can access the data underlying the main findings.
3.
HIGHreporting
Update the citation list: remove or replace the retracted reference (Coxiella burnetii in humans and ticks in rural Senegal, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000654) with a corrected version or note the retraction.
Citing a retracted paper can mislead readers; the citation check flagged this as a retracted reference.
4.
HIGHstatistics
In the Results (Table 2), report effect sizes (e.g., prevalence differences or odds ratios) with 95% confidence intervals for the seroprevalence comparisons between villages and age groups.
Effect sizes with CIs provide a more informative assessment of the magnitude and precision of differences than p-values alone.
5.
HIGHstatistics
In the Materials and Methods/Statistical analysis, verify and report the assumptions of the χ² test (e.g., all expected cell counts >5) or note where Fisher's exact test was used instead.
Without verifying assumptions, the reported p-values may be unreliable.
6.
HIGHreporting
In the Materials and Methods/Ethical approvals, add an explicit statement that the study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki or the applicable national/international ethical guidelines.
A named ethics committee approval is present, but explicit regulatory compliance is a standard reporting expectation that is currently missing.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Materials and Methods (Ticks section), add information on the housing conditions and husbandry of the domestic animals from which ticks were collected, if available.
This contextual variable may influence tick exposure and is currently unreported.
8.
MEDIUMrigor
In the Materials and Methods (Culture section), report whether the L929 cell line was authenticated (e.g., STR profiling) and tested for mycoplasma contamination.
Cell culture findings rely on the identity and purity of the cell line; absence of authentication is a reproducibility gap.
9.
MEDIUMrigor
In the Materials and Methods (Serological studies), provide catalog numbers or RRIDs for the commercial antibodies (anti-human IgG/IgM conjugates) used in the IFA.
Key resource identification is incomplete without these details, which affects reproducibility.
10.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Results (Table 2 and text), report exact p-values (e.g., p=0.004) rather than threshold-only values (e.g., '<10^-3') where possible, or report the exact χ² statistic and degrees of freedom.
Threshold-based p-values are less informative and make it harder for readers to assess evidence precisely.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Materials and Methods/Study design, clarify whether qPCR assays on ticks and human samples were performed with technical replicates and whether a single tick was considered one biological replicate.
Distinguishing biological from technical replication is important for assessing data variability and reliability.
12.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Results (human samples), add a citation to the study where 'data for eight of the patients positive for the DNA of R. felis were already reported' to avoid ambiguity.
The statement is vague without a reference; readers cannot verify which data are new vs. previously reported.
13.
LOWreporting
In the Materials and Methods (Molecular biology), correct the orientation of the primer sequences (currently written 3′-5′) to the conventional 5′-3′ direction.
This copyedit fix ensures primer sequences are correctly interpreted by readers.
14.
LOWreporting
In Table 2, fix the incomplete decimal in the Dielmo 21–40 age group row where '14.' appears; correct to '14.0' or '14' as appropriate.
This copyedit issue (incomplete number formatting) could cause confusion.
15.
LOWcopyedit
In the Introduction (paragraph 4), remove the duplicated phrase 'almost always associated with almost always associated with'.
This is a clear typo that should be corrected.

Full text (48,081 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

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