Seroprevalence of Herpes simplex virus Type-1 IgG antibodies among pregnant women with recurrent abortions

  1. Dalal Abdelhamid Mohamed
  2. Fatima Ahmed
  3. Hiba Hashim
  4. Mohammed Ibrahim Saeed
  5. Hiba Siddig Ibrahim

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Herpes Simplex Virus Type - 1 (HSV-1) is a large, enveloped DNA virus that has a relationship with socioeconomic background. The virus can transmitted through direct contact with infected skin lesions or body fluids. Children may show asymptomatic or mucocutaneous vesicular eruptions, herpetic gingivostomatitis, acute herpetic pharyngotonsillitis, herpes labialis, herpes encephalitis, eczema herpeticum, and herpetic whitlow may occur. In the last few years the prevalence of HSV-1 infection increases progressively, so, the main aim of this study is to study the seroprevalence of herpes simplex virus type-1 IgG antibodies among pregnant women with recurrent abortions. The study confirmed a 29 (58%) were positive HSV-1-IgG and 21 (42%) were negative among cases (pregnant women) while 25 (100%) in control subject were negatives, and the possible risk factors i.e. age, Abortion, Blood transfusion, Contraceptive, Rash, have been examined in this study and showed no effect except previous history of TORCH test examination., The study settled that more than half of the pregnant women were found to be infected, and we recommended using both ELISA (IgM and IgG) and molecular techniques for detection, diagnosis and monitoring of viral infection.

Article activity feed

  1. Access Microbiology

    Thank you for your patience during this review process. Unfortunately based on reviewer comments and my own assessment of the work presented, this manuscript is no longer under consideration for publication. There are several issues with the study set up which preclude taking this manuscript any further. They include; Hypothesis is not clearly defined- is this study about the role of HSV-1 in spontaneous abortion? Is it about seroprevalence among pregnant vs non-pregnant women? Is it about risk factors for being HSV-1 seropositive? Control group- depending on the hypothesis, the control group is not an appropriate. If the hypothesis is about HSV-1 in spontaneous abortion, the control group needs to be age matched pregnant women with no history of miscarriage. If the hypothesis is about seroprevalence in pregnant vs non-pregnant women the control group needs to be age matches to the cases group. No statistical analysis has been performed. The reviewers have given some helpful suggestions should you wish to improve this manuscript.

  2. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Dear authors, Thanks for your efforts in this paper. i recommend to recheck the grammars and few mistakes. i prefer to reorganize the tables into one table (the top columns includes the IgG result and the horizontal raws other factors (rash .....) find more references and put them I'm sure that there were many articles about your work. regards

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Very good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Satisfactory

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Strongly support

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  3. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Reviewer Comments The manuscript details the seroprevalence of herpes simplex virus type-1 IgG antibodies among pregnant women with recurrent abortions. Major Issues Methodology is unclear, mainly because the authors are not mentioning the statistical analyses. Maybe a bivariate analysis could be good for this kind of data. However, regarding the small sample size, it is not possible to be performed. I am not an epidemiologist, but the sample size cannot provide a robust analysis when dividing the samples in such small groups. Maybe the authors can just perform an epidemiological description of their sample and do not try to study risk factors. I suggest focusing the manuscript showing the prevalence of HSV-1 and describing the population characteristics. The authors can discuss the population characteristics, but they cannot make strong suggestions based on statical analysis. Moreover, the authors should enhance the presentation of the results to ensure greater cohesion and coherence. Results are unsure. Discussion: The authors are just mentioning the results without discuss the data. Need to reorganize the results to write a better discussion. Minor Issues I strong suggest the authors review the language (punctuation, grammar, coherence) and the following minor issues: Summary: Line 19-22: The authors need to improve the results in the abstract, as well as the grammar (an app can help). The data presented is not clear. The authors should consider displaying the results of seroprevalence and risk factors in separate phrases for clarity. Line 20: Please, provide a clearer explanation of the characteristics of the control group. Keywords: Line 27: Keywords must be different from the title. This increases the potential of the article to be found in search platforms. IgG can be replaced for Immunoglobulin G. Methods: Please provide the country of study. The authors need to inform the statistical analyses that were performed. Please explain what 'rash' means. Is it about genital 'rash'? Results: Line 54: Please write just pregnant women. Line 58: I suggest withdrawing 'only 42% (21) were anti-HSV-1- IgG negative'. Line 60: I suggest do not mention residence in the results.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Poor

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Poor

    To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?

    Not at all

    Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?

    No

    Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?

    No

    If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?

    Yes

  4. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000823.v2 on Access Microbiology
  5. Access Microbiology

    Initial assessments of this submission show a high degree of similarity with other published articles. There are large sections of text in the abstract, introduction and discussion which are highlighted as problematic. The sections in the discussion appear to be taken directly from the manuscripts which you are referencing. Please use the Similarity Check Report and rephrase the sections in question into your own words to avoid plagiarism.

  6. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000823.v1 on Access Microbiology