Community based reference interval of selected clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy Adolescents in Mekelle City, Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Locally established clinical laboratory reference intervals (RIs) are required to interpret laboratory test results for screening, diagnosis and prognosis. The objective of this study was establishing reference interval of clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy adolescents aged between 12 and 17 years in Mekelle, Tigrai, northern part of Ethiopia.
METHODS: Community based cross sectional study was employed from December 2018 to March 2019 in Mekelle city among 172 males and 172 females based on Multi stage sampling technique. Blood samples were tested for Fasting blood sugar (FBS), alanine aminino transferase (ALT), aspartate amino transferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), Creatinine, urea, total protein, albumin (ALB), direct and indirect bilirubin (BIL.D and BIL.T) using 25 Bio system clinical chemistry analyzer. Results were analyzed using SPSS version 23 software and based on the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI)/ International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) C 28-A3 Guideline which defines the reference interval as the 95% central range of 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. Mann Whitney U test, descriptive statistics and box and whisker were statistical tools used for analysis.
RESULTS: This study observed statistically significant differences between males and females in ALP, ALT, AST, Urea and Creatinine Reference intervals. The established reference intervals for males and females, respectively, were: ALP (U/L) 79.48-492.12 versus 63.56-253.34, ALT (U/L) 4.54-23.69 versus 5.1-20.03, AST 15.7-39.1 versus 13.3-28.5, Urea (mg/dL) 9.33-24.99 versus 7.43-23.11, and Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.393-0.957 versus 0.301-0.846. The combined RIs for Total Protein (g/dL) was 6.08-7.85, ALB (g/dL) 4.42-5.46, FBS(mg/dL) 65-110, BIL.D (mg/dL) 0.033-0.532, and BIL.T (mg/dL) 0.106-0.812.
CONCLUSIONS: The result showed marked difference among sex and with the company derived values for selected clinical chemistry parameters. Thus, use of age and sex specific locally established reference intervals for clinical chemistry parameters is recommended.

Introduction

Since the day of Gräsbeck and Fellman who introduced the concept of ‘Normal Values and Statistics’ and the subsequent launching of a new concept of reference values in 1969 by Gräsbeck and Saris, the terminology come in to common practice[1, 2]. From1987 to 1991, the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) published a series of 6 papers, in which it was recommended that each laboratory follow defined procedures to produce its own reference interval[3]. Although there were very important developments and implementations between the 1990s and 2008, the C28A3 guideline, published in 2008 by Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) and IFCC constituted the most significant step in the development of RI and is still in current use [3, 4].

When a test is used for disease screening, diagnosis or prognosis, the test result is normally compared with a normal range that is defined as reference value for a healthy population [5]. The few studies that have focused on reference intervals for adolescents in Africa reported significant differences between adults and adolescents thus indicating the need to have age specific reference intervals when reporting laboratory results for informed decisions to be made[6].

Reference interval (RI) is the interval between, and including, two reference limits used to separates healthy from diseased individuals [7]. International guidelines recommend each clinical laboratory and diagnostic test manufacturers to establish their own RIs belonging to a group of homogenous population. However, the majority of clinical laboratories in the world adopt RIs established by manufacturers [7, 8].

Establishing reference intervals has always been a challenge as significant differences may exist in disease frequencies, biological variation in analytes among ethnic groups, genders and ages as well as specimen collection techniques and test performance [9, 10].

Additional issues and challenges come into play when establishing reference intervals for use in children and adolescents. Differences in physical size, organ maturity, body fluid compartments, (rates of) growth and development, immune and hormone responsiveness, nutrition and metabolism are among the many factors that can influence normal analyte levels in children and adolescents. Also, there are diseases that children are more susceptible, in acquiring than adults. Furthermore, separate reference intervals may be necessary for children of different age groups and/or genders, as well as for neonates, and premature babies [11].

While sexual characteristic changes across puberty are profound, the earlier changes during the growth of a child, from birth to puberty are also significant. The dominant form of partitioning applied in clinical laboratory medicine is by social consensus. Partitioning in adolescence should ideally be linked to the pubertal tanner stages [12].

The results of this study, therefore, will be used as reference values in the future evidence informed practices particularly for adolescents in Mekelle town. Patients will get better service as their result will be interpreted based on the locally established value; physicians will have better tool in their patient management process and medical laboratory professionals will have confidence especially flagging of results generated by automated clinical chemistry analyzers based on RIs established elsewhere are a common challenge.

Materials and methods

Study design and period

A cross sectional community based study was employed from December 2018 to March 2019 in Mekelle city, Tigrai National Regional state, North Ethiopia.

Study area and population

Mekelle is the capital city of Tigrai National Regional state. It is located around 780 kilometers (480 mi) north of the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, with an elevation of 2,254 meters (7,395 ft) above sea level and in a semi-arid area with a mean annual rainfall of 714 millimetres (28.1 in). The total population of Mekelle city is 310,436 according to 2007 census. Administratively, Mekelle is considered a Special Zone, which is divided into seven sub-cities. The seven sub cities of Mekelle are Hawelti, Adi-Haki, Kedamay Weyane, Hadnet, Ayder, Semien and Quiha. Within each local administration, there are Kebeles or Ketenas (smaller administration units). Our study was conducted in three randomly selected sub cities, namely, Hawelti, Semen and Ayder.

Sample size and sampling techniques

For establishing reference interval the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline which was developed through consensus process for the global application was employed. CLSI recommends that the best means to establish a reference interval is to collect samples from a sufficient number of reference individuals to yield a minimum of 120 samples for analysis, by non-parametric means for each partition (e.g. sex, age range) with a power of 90% [4]. In the current study, the maximum partition needed was 12–17 years old female and male. This age partition is based on previous studies conducted in Canada for AST and ALT [6, 13] and a study revealing pubertal change of serum creatinine level [12]. Thus, two partition groups were needed (2 x 120 = 240).

According to previous studies in other African countries, in such studies about 30% of apparently healthy population [14] do not qualify for reference interval determination for various reasons when tested for the common viral infections and syphilis. Considering a 30% exclusion from data analysis, to reach the CLSI recommended total sample size of 240 for the reference interval determination, a total of 344 individuals were enrolled (i.e, 30% x 344 = 104 to be excluded during data analysis.

Thus, 344 participants were recruited from Mekelle city. The study participants were selected using systematic sampling technique by considering sub-cities as a sampling frame and then households the final selection units. One individual in the household fulfilling the eligibility criteria and willing to participate was included in the study.

Inclusion criteria

Young apparently healthy children who lived in Mekelle city at least for 5 years and willing to participate were included in the study.

Individuals with known chronic illnesses like diabetes mellitus, chronic renal insufficiency, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, anemia, thyroid, liver diseases, and cancer of any type.

Individuals who had known infectious disease (HIV, Hepatitis)

Individuals taking pharmacologically active substances and all prescription drugs.

Individuals who had Hemo-parasite and intestinal parasite.

Individuals who received blood transfusion within the previous 1 year.

Pregnant females were excluded from the study.

Operational definitions

Reference interval: is the interval between, and including, two reference limits (2.5 th and 97.5th percentile) for apparently healthy individuals.

Adolescent: young children who are in a markedly pubertal change aged between 12–17 years.

Selected clinical chemistry tests: in this study refer to the following biochemical analytes: FBS, ALP, ALT, AST, BIL. D, BIL. T, Urea, Creatinine, Total protein and Albumin.

Study procedure and data collection

Data collection and laboratory analysis

Data collectors were trained for three days about the objective of the study, study participants’ rights, confidentiality of information, procedure of physical examination, procedure of blood sample collection and measurements, and how to approach and interview participants before the actual data collection. The study participants were invited to come to the nearby health institution. Study participants who agreed to give written consent after being informed about the purpose of the study and associated risks were physically examined and interviewed. Socio-demographic data and biological samples (urine, stool and blood) were collected from those who fulfilled the eligibility criteria set to say apparently healthy. Urinalysis and parasitological examinations (wet mount, Kato Katz and Concentration) were performed at the site of collection. About 5 ml of blood sample was collected from each study participant using plane tube in the morning from 8:00 AM to 11:00 AM. Fasting blood sugar was tested on site and recorded on a result format paper. The collected blood samples were transported by ice bag to Tigray Health Research Institute within 60 minutes for processing. Then sample was centrifuged at 2500 rpm (revolution per minute) for 5 minutes to separate serum. Serological tests for syphilis, hepatitis B and C were performed before clinical chemistry tests were done. Separated sera were stored at -40 0C until analysis in a nunc tube. Biosystem 25 A (Biosystem, spain), fully automated clinical chemistry analyzer, was used for the measurement of biochemical analytes. Clinical chemistry parameters were determined by the methods/techniques described in Table 1. Selected clinical chemistry parameters such as FBS, ALP, ALT, AST, BIL. D, BIL. T, Urea, Creatinine, Total protein and Albumin values were done per the manufacturer's instructions. Stool and Urinalysis were performed onsite as part of screening apparently healthy participants.

Table 1

Methods used for analytes of clinical chemistry to determine the reference interval of apparently healthy Adolescents of Mekelle city, Tigrai, Ethiopia 2019.

Analyte	Method/technique
ALT	kinetic (IFCC without pyridoxal phosphate activation)
AST	kinetic (IFCC without pyridoxal phosphate activation)
ALP	2-amino 2-methyl 1- propanol (AMP)
Cr	Jaffe Componsated
Urea	kinetic urease/GLDH (Glutamate dehydrogenase)
TP	Biuret
ALB	Bromocresol green
BIL. D and BIL. T	Diazotized sulfanilic
FBS	Glucose oxidase

ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; Cr: Creatinine; TP: Total protein; ALB: Albumin; BIL. D: Bilirubin Direct; BIL. T: Bilirubin Total; FBS: Fasting Blood Sugar

Quality assurance

Each activity including blood sample collection, transportation and storage were based on good laboratory practices (GLP) using standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure data quality. The analysis was done in Tigrai Health Research Institute (THRI) clinical chemistry laboratory which is closely supervised by Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI). The equipment has been calibrated monthly by type-Autocal. In addition, two levels (normal and pathological) of internal quality control (IQC) samples were run along with the serum samples.

Data management and analysis

Data was cleared, edited, checked for completeness manually and entered to SPSS version 23(IBM, USA) software for analysis. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check data distribution normality. The first quartile (Q.25), the median (Q.50) and the third quartile (Q.75) were determined. Then interquartile range was calculated (IQR) from the differences of third and first quartiles (Q.75-Q.25). Data that was observed to be lower than 1.5 × IQR of first quartile, or higher than 1.5 × IQR of third quartile was considered as outliers and was manually deleted using the Box and Whisker statistical tool. These exclusions led to some parameter results missing hence differences in sample sizes for different parameters. Since data were not normally distributed, the Mann Whitney U test which is a non–parametric test was used to assess sex differences. The 95% RI was estimated using 2.5 th percentile for the lower reference limit and 97.5th percentile for the upper reference limit.

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted after the study protocol was reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board (IRB) of College of Health Sciences of Addis Ababa University. Furthermore, official permission letter was obtained from Tigrai Regional Health office. Informed written consent and assent were also obtained from each study participant and guardians before the actual data collection began. Study participants were linked to nearby health facility for any finding in urine, stool or blood.

Results

Demographic characteristics

A total of 344 apparently healthy adolescents (172 males and 172 females) were recruited to establish the RI for selected clinical chemistry parameters from Mekelle city, Tigrai, Ethiopia. The median age was 15 years [IQR 14–16 years]. The age distribution of the study participants is shown in Fig 1. A total of 45 male and 38 female study participants who had any finding in urine, stool and positive for serological tests were excluded before clinical chemistry tests analysis was performed. Of them, 25 males and 19 females had intestinal parasites. Whereas 15, 3 and 2 males and 16, 2 and 1 females were excluded based on urinalysis, serological tests and hemolysis of specimen, respectively.

Fig 1

Age distribution of Adolescents in Mekelle city, Tigrai Regional State, Ethiopia, 2019 (N = 344).

Reference intervals of clinical chemistry parameters

Table 2 summarizes the 95% RI for ten selected clinical chemistry parameters. As depicted in the table, the RIs established for adolescents in Mekelle city were FBS 65–110 mg/dl, ALP 66–456 IU/L, ALT 5–23 IU/L, AST 14.20–34.90 IU/L, BIL. D 0.03–0.53 mg/dl, BIL. T 0.10–0.81 mg/dl, Urea 8.14–24.25 mg/dl, Cr 0.37–0.91mg/dl, TP 6.09–7.85 g/dl, and Albumin 4.42–5.46 g/dl. The respective 90% confidence intervals for the lower and upper reference limits were calculated as per the recommendation of CLSI and are shown in Table 3. As shown in the table almost all lower reference limits have narrow 90% CI than the upper reference limits.

Table 2

The RIs of clinical chemistry parameters for Adolescents in Mekelle, Tigray Regional State, Ethiopia, 2019.

Analyte	Sex	n	Mean	Median	95% CI of Mean	Min	Max	25th-75th percentile	2.5th-97.5th percentile, RI	p-value to sex
FBS (mg/dl)	C	257	87.13	87.00	85.72, 88.53	60	118	79–100	65–110	0.762
	M	125	86.85	87.00	84.80, 88.90	62	118	78.50–100.50	64.15–108
	F	132	87.39	87.50	95.44, 99.35	60	117	79.25–100.00	65.33–111.35
ALP (IU/L)	C	259	201	166.00	187.59, 214.33	13	497	109–271	66–456	<0.001*
	M	123	271.83	268.20	252.20, 291.46	64	553	187–346.10	79.- 492
	F	126	128.11	114.25	119.93, 136.28	13	285	98.28–145.23	63.56–253
ALT (IU/L)	C	249	13	13.00	12.54, 13.63	3	24	10–16	5–23	<0.001*
	M	120	14.28	13.70	13.46, 15.11	3	25	11.30–17.33	4.54–23.69
	F	129	11.74	11.60	11.11, 12.37	4	21	9.15–13.85	5.10–20.00
AST (IU/L)	C	250	23	22.80	22.38, 23.67	10	40	19.60–26.30	14.20–34.90	<0.001*
	M	123	25.62	25.00	24.61, 26.63	14	40	21.80–29.30	15.70–39.10
	F	127	20.97	20.80	20.30, 21.64	12	29	18.70–23.40	13.30–28.50
BIL. D (mg/dl)	C	250	0.26	0.24	0.25, 0.28	0.01	0.60	0.18–0.33	0.03–0.53	0.07
	M	121	0.27	0.26	0.25,0.29	0.01	0.54	0.20–0.34	0.03–0.49
	F	129	0.25	0.23	0.23, 0.27	0.01	0.59	0.16–0.32	0.02–0.53
BIL. T (mg/dl)	C	248	0.39	0.37	0.37,0.41	0.02	0.95	0.26–0.49	0.10–0.81	0.059
	M	122	0.42	0.39	0.38,0.45	0.02	0.93	0.27–0.52	0.09–0.83
	F	126	0.36	0.35	0.34, 0.39	0.02	0.81	0.24–0.47	0.10–0.72
Urea (mg/dl)	C	257	15.08	14.65	14.59, 15.57	6	26	12.08–17.73	8.14–24.25	0.006*
	M	125	15.87	15.70	15.14, 16.59	9	26	12.50–18.55	9.33–24.99
	F	132	14.26	14.05	13.62, 14.90	6	24	11.65–16.80	7.40–23.00
Cr (mg/dl)	C	256	0.66	0.67	0.64, 0.67	0.29	0.99	0.58–0.76	0.37–0.91	0.001*
	M	122	0.69	0.69	0.67,0.72	0.37	1.05	0.59–0.79	0.39–0.96
	F	134	0.63	0.64	0.60, 0.64	0.28	0.89	0.54-.72	0.30–0.85
T.P (g/dl)	C	248	6.90	6.84	6.848, 6.96	5.8	8.40	6.60–7.20	6.09–7.85	0.117
	M	122	6.85	6.80	6.77, 6.92	5.8	8.0	6.51–7.14	5.97–7.83
	F	126	6.96	6.85	6.88, 7.04	6.1	8.10	6.67–7.23	6.10–7.90
Alb (g/dl)	C	256	4.88	4.86	4.85, 4.91	4.3	5.60	4.71–5.06	4.42–5.46	0.094
	M	124	4.85	4.83	4.80, 4.89	4.2	5.60	4.67–5.02	4.32–5.49
	F	132	4.90	4.88	4.86, 4.95	4.3	5.60	4.75–5.08	4.42–5.46

ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; CI: confidence interval: L: liter; mg: Milligram; dl: deciliter; RI: Reference interval; IU: International Unit; T.P: Total protein; ALB: Albumin; Cr: Creatinine; BIL. D: Direct Bilirubin; BIL. T: Total Bilirubin; C:combined; M:male;F:female; P-value < 0.05 considered as statistically significant.

Table 3

The 90% CI for the lower and upper reference limits of clinical chemistry parameters for adolescents in Mekelle, Tigrai, North Ethiopia, 2019.

Analyte	unite	n	Sex	Range	2.5th-97.5th percentile, RI	90% CI (lower reference limit)	90% CI (upper reference limit)
Fasting blood sugar	mg/dl	257	C	60–118	65–110	63.10, 67.30	107.00, 116.60
		125	M	62–118	64.15–108	62.10, 66.79	107, 118
		132	F	60–117	65.33–111.35	60.40, 69.00	106.00, 116.50
ALP	IU/L	256	C	13–497	66–456	63.40, 78.30	433, 472
		123	M	64–553	79.48–492.12	64.20, 103.70	457.30, 550.90
		126	F	13–285	63.56–253.34	15.70, 74.30	221.40, 283.30
ALT	IU/L	252	C	3–24	5–23	4.40, 6.10	21.70, 24.20
		120	M	3–25	4.54–23.69	2.70, 7.10	22.50, 25.00
		129	F	4–21	5.10–20	4.4, 6.0	19.00, 21.30
AST	mg/dl	251	C	10–40	14.20–34.90	12.20, 14.90	33.00, 35.90
		123	M	14–40	15.70–39.10	14.20, 16.90	35.90, 40.20
		127	F	12–29	13.30–28.50	12.20, 14.90	27.90, 29.10
BIL. D	mg/dl	252	C	0.01–0.60	0.03–0.53	0.01, 0.09	0.49,0.58
		121	M	0.01–0.54	0.03–0.49	0.01, 0.13	0.46,0.54
		129	F	0.01–0.59	0.02–0.53	0.01, 0.10	0.46, 0.58
BIL. T	mg/dl	248	C	0.02–0.95	0.10–0.81	0.02, 0.13	0.72,0.84
		122	M	0.02–0.93	0.09–0.84	0.02, 0.18	0.74, 0.93
		126	F	0.02–0.81	0.10–0.72	0.02, 0.13	0.66, 0.81
Urea	mg/dl	258	C	6–26	8.14–24.25	7.40, 8.70	22.70, 25.00
		125	M	9–26	9.33–24.99	8.90, 9.90	22.80, 25.50
		132	F	6–24	7.43–23.11	6.20, 8.30	20.60, 24.30
Cr	mg/dl	253	C	0.29–0.99	0.37–0.91	0.32, 0.40	0.89, 0.93
		122	M	0.37–1.05	0.39–0.96	0.38, 0.47	0.91, 1.05
		134	F	0.28–0.89	0.30–0.85	0.28, 0.37	0.81, 0.89
T.P	g/dl	249	C	5.80–8.40	6.09–7.85	5.90, 6.20	7.70, 7.90
		122	M	5.80–8.00	5.97–7.83	5.80, 6.20	7.60, 7.90
		126	F	6.10–8.10	6.10–7.90	6.1, 6.3	7.80, 8.10
ALB	g/dl	255	C	4.30–5.60	4.42–5.46	4.3, 4.5	5.40, 5.50
		124	M	4.20–5.60	4.32–5.49	4.2, 4.5	5.30, 5.50
		132	F	4.30–5.60	4.42–5.46	4.3, 4.5	5.40, 5.50

ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; CI: confidence interval :L: liter; mg: Milligram; RI: Reference interval; IU: International Unit; dl: deciliter; g: gram;T.P: Total protein; ALB: Albumin; Cr: Creatinine; BIL. D: Direct Bilirubin; BIL.: Total bilirubin

Further details of sex specific mean with 95% confidence interval, median with IQR (25th and 75th percentile) and ranges are also shown in Table 2. Comparison between males and females using the non-parametric Mann Whitney U test revealed statistically significant differences (P-value <0.005) for ALP, ALT, AST, Urea and Creatinine RIs. Except for Fasting blood sugar, Bilirubin direct and albumin all tests have higher upper limit in males than females (Table 2).

Table 4 displays comparison of the current study reference intervals with selected studies from other African countries, Western countries and company derived values. As can be seen from the table, sex aggregated reference limits are limiting. As shown in the Table, except for total protein, the other values are inconsistently varied from company derived values as well as those reported from the other countries.

Table 4

Comparison of clinical chemistry parameters RI of current study against manufacturer ranges and other similar studies.

Analyte	Sex	Current Study	Manufacturer	Taiwan[15]	Canada [13]	China[16]	Zimbabwe [6]	West Kenya [17]	Meru Kenya[18]	Taita Kenya[19]	South West Ethiopia [20]
FBS (mg/dl)	C	65–110	70–100	60–99	NA	NA	NA	37.8–118.8	NA	NA	NA
	M	64.15–108	NA	61–98	75–93	NA	65–111.5	NA	NA	NA	66.80–125.80
	F	65.33–111.35	NA	60–99	75–93	NA	57.5–121.5	NA	NA	NA	59.70–117.70
ALP (IU/L)	C	66–456	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	61.63–114.31	74.70–566.60	NA
	M	79.48–492	0–115	NA	113–438	85–407	73.8–572	NA	61.63–114.31	NA	21.20–656.40
	F	63.56–253	0–105	NA	64–354	44–306	66.1–522	NA	58.21–114.23	NA	91.80–440.60
ALT (IU/L)	C	5–23	0–41	8–38	NA	NA	NA	NA	10.75–57.80	3.10–31.10	NA
	M	4.54–23.69	NA	8–41	17–50	7–46	5.8–38.8	4.9–42.4	11.18–57.20	NA	14.40–60.70
	F	5.10–20.0	NA	7–36	14–41	6–40	5.0–34.5	4.2–65.3	10.24–56.84	NA	11.00–70.50
AST (IU/L)	C	14.2–34.9	0–40	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	9.92–54.60	10.00–52.01	NA
	M	15.7–39.1	NA	NA	18–36	13–38	14.4–45.7	17.0–59.2	10.16–54.30	10.00–51.10	12.4–58.00
	F	13.3–28.5	NA	NA	15–34	12–32	12.7–38.8	12.0–43.1	5.65–58.93	11.00–54.50	11.00–72.70
BIL. D (mg/dL)	C	0.03–0.53	0–0.2	NA	NA	0.06–0.43	NA	NA	0.02-.23	0.51–0.969	NA
	M	0.03–0.49	NA	NA	NA	NA	0.00–0.25	NA	0.02–0.21	0.13–0.94	NA
	F	0.02–0.53	NA	NA	NA	NA	0.007–0.2	NA	0.01–0.24	0.18–0.97	NA
BIL. T (mg/dl)	C	0.10–0.81	0–0.2	NA	NA	0.29–1.46	NA	NA	0.74–4.24	0.26–1.58	NA
	M	0.09–0.83	NA	NA	0.1–0.9	NA	0.2–1.09	0.33–3.66	0.75–4.19	0.22–1.54	NA
	F	0.10–0.72	NA	NA	0.1–0.9	NA	0.17–0.89	0.216–2.25	0.71–4.29	0.28–1.62	NA
Urea (mg/dL)	C	8.14–24.25	15–39	18.6–38.5	NA	9.6–39.5	NA	3.36–14.29	NA	NA	NA
	M	9.33–24.99	NA	19.2–38.5	8–20	NA	4.6–17	NA	NA	NA	4.60–27.20
	F	7.43–23.11	NA	17.9–36.6	8–19	NA	5.1–15.6	NA	NA	NA	3.90–48.50
Cr (mg/dl)	C	0.37–0.91	NA	0.4–1.1	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
	M	0.39–0.96	0.7–1.2	0.4–1.2	0.5–0.9	0.37–1.05	0.4–1.19	0.56–1.17	NA	NA	0.30–1.90
	F	0.30–0.85	0.5–0.9	0.4–1.1	0.5–0.8	0.34–0.86	0.39–1.19	0.54–0.99	NA	NA	0.30–1.30
T. P (g/dl)	C	6.09–7.85	6.6–8.3	NA	NA	5.94–8.04	NA	NA	3.04–5.51	5.98–8.57	NA
	M	5.97–7.83	NA	NA	NA	NA	6.8–9	NA	3.08–5.57	5.88–8.4	NA
	F	6.10–7.90	NA	NA	NA	NA	7.1–9.06	NA	2.99–5.45	6.0–8.66	NA
ALB (g/dl)	C	4.42–5.46	3.5–5	NA	NA	3.5–5.22	NA	NA	2.83–4.87	3.56–5.3	NA
	M	4.32–5.49	NA	NA	4.1–5.1	NA	4.3–5.5	NA	2.79–4.89	3.2-8-5.3	NA
	F	4.42–5.46	NA	NA	4.1–5.1	NA	4.37–5.7	NA	2.86–4.85	3.74–5.3	NA

ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; L: liter; mg: Milligram; RI: Reference interval; IU: International Unit. NA: Not available. T.P: Total protein;ALB: Albumin; Cr: Creatinine; D.Bil: Direct Bilirubin; T.Bil: Total bilirubin;C:Combined;M:male;F:female

Discussion

The laboratory reference values currently employed in clinical and research institution in most of African countries including Ethiopia are referred from textbooks or from the manufacturer of the reagent [20]. Ethiopian population depends on western derived RIs for disease diagnosis and management because of lack of locally established RIs while a number of studies showed variations between African and western population derived RIs [17–19, 21–25]. Thus, it is required to establish local RIs for adequate medical care and related health issues as well as for recruiting healthy population for clinical trials.

The upper limit of most clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy individuals in Africa are higher relative to Taiwan [15], Canada [13] and China [16].This difference may be due to genetic makeup, living style and altitude. The manufacturers’ reference interval provided in the leaflets of the reagents used in the current study presented a single RI range for both sexes except for ALP and creatinine. However, the majority of African studies including the current study [17-20] reported separate RIs for males and females. In addition, the reference values among apparently healthy individuals of different ages are inconsistent [12]. These discrepancies may cause negative impact in the diagnosis and management of African population.

The current study’s lower and upper limit results were relatively higher than the manufacture’s reference value for glucose, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, Total and direct bilirubin. This difference may be due to geographical condition, genetic variation, life style and feeding culture of the study participants. On the other hand, the upper limit reference value of this study was lower when compared with the manufacturer’s upper limit values for AST, ALT, Urea, creatinine and Total protein. This inconsistency may be due to feeding style, genetic variation or age differences of the population used to generate the manufacturer’s derived limits.

The lower limit ALT value in the current study for both males and females was in line with the lower limit reference value generated in a study conducted in Western Kenya [17]. However, the upper limit reference value for both sexes in the current study was lower than the upper limit reference values of studies conducted in different countries including a study from Southwest Ethiopia [6, 13, 15–20].This difference may be due to sample size (in china for example 2683 males and 2292 females were participated) or specimen collection time difference (In Taita Kenya, collection was performed at day time).

The Total and Direct Bilirubin reference limits in the current study were consistent with reference limit values conducted in Canada, China, Taita Kenya, Zimbabwe [6, 13, 16, 19] except the upper limit value of direct bilirubin in Zimbabwae [6] which is low. In contrast, the current upper limit provided was lower than those reported from west Kenya, Meru Kenya, and Southwest Ethiopia [17, 18, 20]. This difference may be due geographical conditions and feeding culture.

For Creatinine, both lower and upper limit reference values were comparable to several western and African studies [6, 13, 16–19] except a study from South West Ethiopia [20] where higher upper limit value was reported. In all studies females had less upper limit reference value than males. High creatinine in males compared to females may be due to the greater muscle mass in males than females [12].

Conclusions

This study established sex specific RI for selected clinical chemistry parameters to be used for adolescents in Mekelle city. Of note, the RIs have to be validated for use by other places in the region. A statistically significant difference was noted between sexes in Alkaline Phosphatase, Alanine amino transferase, Aspartate amino transferase and Urea reference values, suggesting the need for sex specific RI for these parameters. In addition, the study observed marked difference in lower and upper limit values among the current study, the values given by the manufacturer and studies done in different countries. It underscores that every health facility set their own reference intervals.

19 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-31034

Community based reference interval of selected clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy Adolescents in Tigrai, Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Belay,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration by two reviewers, we believe that the manuscript has merit but could be improved significantly. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically, as noted by Reviewer 1, more details are needed in terms of the analysis used, the socio-demographics of the participants, and the exclusion criteria used for participants. A clearer discussion section which emphasizes the main conclusions of the study would also be helpful. Please address both sets of reviewer comments and resubmit a revised version of your manuscript by Feb 02 2020 11:59PM.

When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Colin Johnson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence(s) of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201782

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2019.01.001

https://doi.org/10.3109/10408363.2013.786673

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2009.06.025

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekelle

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. We note you have included tables to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 and 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Tables.

5. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Daniel Asmelash (Questions/Comments/Suggestions)

1. The title the authors worked with is interesting and sensible for African region. However, Thorough proof reading needed

2. Justify the research gap of this study, particularly why you focus on this specific age group?

3. Representativeness of the study? Does study done only on Mekelle city will infer for the whole Tigray region? Are you inferring for the general population of Tigray region?

4. What new thing your study added from the study by Molla Abebe et. al (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201782)

5. Socio-demographic Characteristics of the study participants lacks depth, it needs more information

6. On the Data Collection and Laboratory analysis section of the manuscript you didn’t include laboratory methods analysis for each analyte?

7. On the data analysis why, you choose Mann Whitney U test non– parametric analysis?

8. I didn’t see what type of laboratory tests was done for your exclusion criteria and the number of study participants excluded by your exclusion criteria mainly Based on laboratory findings?

9. Abreviations should be clearly mentioned on the tables

10. The Discussion needs more clarification on the possible reasons of the findings.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript titled “Community based reference interval of selected clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy Adolescents in Tigrai, Ethiopia”.

• There are several grammatic errors across the text.

• The authors need to reference several statements throughout the text (unfortunately there are no line numbers), e.g. first sentence in the introduction section, first sentence of paragraph 3 in the introduction section, 4th paragraph etc… several other places throughout the text.

• The authors claim in the last paragraph of the introduction section that “The results of this study, therefore, will be used as reference values in the future evidence informed practices. Patients will get better service as their result will be interpreted based on the locally established value; physicians will have better tool in their patient management process and medical laboratory professionals will have confidence especially flagged result based on RIs established elsewhere are a common challenge. Moreover, this study would serve as baseline information for further studies in the area.” Who will use these “locally established” reference intervals? How do the authors justify that their reference intervals are appropriate for the intended setting? Is a sample size of 344 enough to represent a population of 310,436 people?

• How was certainty determined for the exclusion criteria?

• How did the authors determine that the participants of the study were representative of the local population? The same criticism against the international guidelines can apply to the ‘locally established’ reference intervals.

• The tables are overwhelming. The authors need to provide a narrative description of the key messages captured in each of the tables. Additionally, based on the statistical methods described in the text and the results in the tables, the authors actually only compared local measurements with international guidelines, instead of establishing new reference intervals. There is a mismatch between the aim of the study, the methods described, and the results presented (which mostly in tables). It is unclear what the study intended to do and what was done.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Daniel Asmelash

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Reviewer(Daniel Asmelash) Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Feb 2020

Mr. Getachew Belay

Clinical Chemistry Unit

Department of Medical Laboratory Science

College of Medicine and Health Sciences

Adigrat University

P.O. Box 50

Ethiopia

Telephone +251-914480951

getabelay65@gmail.com

Replay to Editor In-chief

We the authors of the manuscript entitled with “Determination of community based reference interval of selected clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy Adolescents in Mekelle City, Tigrai North Ethiopia “had incorporated all the comments and suggestions forwarded by the editor and reviewers. The point by point response to the concerns is listed below.

Point by point response for reviewers

First we would like to thank and appreciate the reviewers for their critical and constructive comments. We attempted all the questions and concerns point by point as follows:

Response for reviewer 1( Daniel Asmelash)

Comment: The title the authors worked with is interesting and sensible for African region. However, thorough proof reading needed

Response: We have tried to assess all of the reviewer’s comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Comment: Justify the research gap of this study, particularly why you focus on this specific age group?

Response: We were interested in this age group because most studies in Ethiopia mainly focused on adults while physiological developments during adolescence leads to changes in many analytes measured, particularly during puberty. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the introduction section address the justifications.

Comment: Representativeness of the study? Does study done only on Mekelle city will infer for the whole Tigray region? Are you inferring for the general population of Tigray region?

Response: This comment is well taken and title is specified accordingly. Thus, the study represents only to Mekelle city adolescent population. Title is corrected as “Community based reference interval of selected clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy Adolescents in Mekelle City, Tigrai North Ethiopia”

Comment: What new thing your study added from the study by Molla Abebe et. al (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201782)

Response: The current study focuses on adolescents while study participants of Molla Abebe et. al were adults. Apart from this, Clinical laboratory standard institute (CLSI) recommends every laboratory/ institute to derive its own age and sex specific reference interval. Even though there is age difference between the two studies the current upper limit of ALT, AST, Urea, Creatinine and Total bilirubin are low when we compare with the study by Molla Abebe et. al.

Comment: Socio-demographic Characteristics of the study participants lacks depth, it needs more information.

Response: Since our study participants were specific age partition, we corrected the sub-title into “Demographic characteristics” and we added a figure to show the age distribution; equal number of male and females were recruited to meet partition requirement.

Comment: On the Data Collection and Laboratory analysis section of the manuscript you didn’t include laboratory methods analysis for each analyte?

Response: Thanks for the comment; laboratory method for each analyte is included in table form at the end of data collection and laboratory analysis.

Comment: On the data analysis why, you choose Mann Whitney U test non– parametric analysis?

Response: The data were not normally distributed when checked by statistical tool of Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Thus, the Mann Whitney U test was used for analysis.

Comment: I didn’t see what type of laboratory tests was done for your exclusion criteria and the number of study participants excluded by your exclusion criteria mainly Based on laboratory findings?

Response: The study used three types of exclusion criteria in general; these were Physical examination, stringent questionnaire and laboratory methods. In addition to blood specimen, urine and stool specimens were collected based on good laboratory practice. Urinalysis (reagent strip and microscopy), wet mount, kato katz and concentration parasitological techniques were performed. Serological tests to syphilis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus were also done. Total number of samples rejected before clinical chemistry tests by laboratory methods are mentioned in the result part of the manuscript.

Comment: Abbreviations should be clearly mentioned on the tables.

Response: We attempted to mention each abbreviation on each table.

Comment: The Discussion needs more clarification on the possible reasons of the findings.

Response: We tried to give reason again on the discussion part; however, since there are limited researches conducted on this area, there is scarcity of information and we feel our contribution is worth in this regard.

Response for reviewer 2:

First we would like to thank and appreciate the reviewers for their critical and constructive comments. We attempted all the questions and concerns point by point as follows:

Comment: There are several grammatic errors across the text.

Response: English correction has been done with the help of English experts and we have corrected spelling, syntax and formatting errors in the document.

Comment: The authors need to reference several statements throughout the text (unfortunately there are no line numbers), e.g. first sentence in the introduction section, first sentence of paragraph 3 in the introduction section, 4th paragraph etc… several other places throughout the text.

Response: Thanks; we have corrected as per the comment.

Comment: The authors claim in the last paragraph of the introduction section that “The results of this study, therefore, will be used as reference values in the future evidence informed practices. Patients will get better service as their result will be interpreted based on the locally established value; physicians will have better tool in their patient management process and medical laboratory professionals will have confidence especially flagged result based on RIs established elsewhere are a common challenge. Moreover, this study would serve as baseline information for further studies in the area.” Who will use these “locally established” reference intervals? How do the authors justify that their reference intervals are appropriate for the intended setting? Is a sample size of 344 enough to represent a population of 310,436people?

Response: The established reference interval in this study had been communicated with Mekelle city health administration in order to use the locally established values in all health facilities following same methodologies to determine each analyte. Quality was ensured at the pre analytical, analytical and post analytical phases based on standard operating procedures. In addition, the analytical part was done in Tigrai Health Research Institute, whose clinical chemistry laboratory participates in accreditation process and had three stars. This institute is mandated for all medical laboratory related issues in the region. Normal and pathological quality control serum was also run daily as well as LJ chart was interpreted based on westerngard rule. The sample size of the study was calculated based on Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute which requires a minimum of 120 study participants for each partition giving a total of 240 participants. Considering those to be excluded using the exclusion criteria, 344 participants were recruited in randomly selected sub-cities as detailed in the sampling technique section. Therefore, our study is in line with the requirement of the Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute and we believe the result can represent adolescent population of Mekelle city. Moreover, each facility (they are under the supervision of Tigrai Health Research Institute) can further validate the reference intervals on a smaller sample size.

Comment: How was certainty determined for the exclusion criteria?

Response: The study inclusion and exclusion criteria were Stringent.

The study was used three types of exclusion criteria in general; these are Physical examination, stringent questionnaire and laboratory methods. In addition to collection of blood specimen, urine and stool specimens were collected based on good laboratory practice. Urinalysis (reagent strip and microscopy), wet mount, kato katz and concentration parasitological techniques were performed. Serological tests to syphilis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus were also done. Study participant who had any finding was rejected from clinical chemistry test analysis.

Comment: How did the authors determine that the participants of the study were representative of the local population? The same criticism against the international guidelines can apply to the ‘locally established’ reference intervals.

Response: Thanks for this comment; also based on the recommendation of the second reviewer, we specified the title limiting the application of the RI to Mekelle city adolescents. Participants were residents who lived at east for 5 years in the study area. The study selection criteria were in line with the CLSI recommendation and the analytical part is done in Star III accredited laboratory. In addition, the laboratory is under supervision of Ethiopian Public Health Institute and participates in international accreditation process.

Comment: The tables are overwhelming. The authors need to provide a narrative description of the key messages captured in each of the tables. Additionally, based on the statistical methods described in the text and the results in the tables, the authors actually only compared local measurements with international guidelines, instead of establishing new reference intervals. There is a mismatch between the aims of the study, the methods described, and the results presented (which mostly in tables). It is unclear what the study intended to do and what was done.

Response: Thanks for asking to clarify the finding well. Table 2 showed the newly established sex specific 2.5th and 97.5th Reference limits. The 90% confidence interval for the lower and upper limits is shown in Table 3. We, thus, provided a narrative description for clarity. On the other hand, the comparative table was included to clearly show how RIs vary between the various studies. Thank you for critically reviewing and hence enriching our manuscript.

Submitted filename: Point by Point Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Mar 2020

Community based reference interval of selected clinical chemistry parameters among apparently healthy Adolescents in Mekelle City, Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia

PONE-D-19-31034R1

Dear Dr. Belay,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Colin Johnson, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Daniel Asmelash Gebretensae